Saturday, November 19, 2011

All science so far (part two)
November 19, 2011 at 4:39 pm

We cover this stuff because it could play a role in influencing voters or shaping policy. For example, in 2004 (?) Rick Santorum added a teach-both-sides amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. Someone else may do something similar in either direction in 2012. If Paul runs as an independent, he won’t win but – as you say – he could influence the breakout. Some people may owe him. We just keep an eye on it – when something specific happens.

From here:


Notice the parts about "shaping policy", "influencing voters", and "teach-both-sides", yet the lying IDIOTS claim that ID is a scientific inference/hypothesis/theory that has nothing to do with religion, politics, or an agenda to shove their religious beliefs into public schools. Their 'side' is a completely dishonest agenda that tries to illegally cram religion into every aspect of everyone's life, and of course the religious zombies really want to get to children so that they can program them while they're young and easy to manipulate.

The reason UD covers stuff like that (and other selected political stuff) is because the IDiots desperately want someone who hates Darwin, the entire concept of evolution, science, and the ToE, in the White House and every other political office.

Religious wackos think that electing an evolution denying godbot will somehow get the entire country to go along with changing or ignoring the Constitution and a lot of case law, and will instantly make their religious beliefs admissible into public education, government, and everything else. What they NEVER consider is that once any religion is admissible, they ALL are.

Who would decide exactly which religion and which interpretation of that religion would become the 'official' religion? Not even religious zombies would agree on who should make those decisions. And that's just one of the reasons why religion, and education/government/etc., MUST be separate.