Mother Jones magazine (yes, I'm a subscriber) featured an article called "Michele Bachmannn: Crazy Like a Fox?" in its August 2011 issue. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/michele-bachmann-iowa-frontrunner?page=2
I thought it was a well-done piece with a decided bias. In part of it the author, Tim Murphy, examined Mrs. Bachmann's views on creationism and her effort to include it in charter school curriculum.
I want to quote a piece of the article that exposes the inconsistency of the progressive or liberal mindset. It comes from a then-opponent of Mrs. Bachmann's efforts named Bob Beltrame. He told Mrs. Bachmann, as he recalls it, "Everybody can have their own beliefs, but it doesn't belong in the classroom."
So, subscribing to the Theory of Evolution, or the Big Bang Theory does not constitute having a "belief", but subscribing to the idea of Creationism does? So far as I know, none of us was around to see the "Grand Beginning", and so by definition, we all simply "believe" what we will about it.
The liberal assertion here seems to be that the liberal line is fact and the non-liberal line is superstition. Mrs. Bachmann's belief is not welcome in Mr. Beltrame's classroom; yet Mr. Beltrame's belief must be accepted in Mrs. Bachmann's?
You see, we MUST talk about the substance of the issues. Here, the substance is not whether God created the Universe, or whether it came about by happenstance. The substance is whether it is the place of a public institution to promote one philosophy or theory over another.
I argue that if we are going to talk about the beginning of the world, we ought to expose children to as many of the ideas about it as possible. We do it to some extent in examining Native American, Greek and Roman mythology in elementary school. We do it extensively when discussing Darwin's ideas in middle and high school biology . Why do we ignore the idea that an intelligent force or a god may have had a hand in the work, as well?
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
If one "belief" is welcome, should not all be? This seems more in keeping with the First Amendment than the current practice of promoting one over the other.
I thought it was a well-done piece with a decided bias. In part of it the author, Tim Murphy, examined Mrs. Bachmann's views on creationism and her effort to include it in charter school curriculum.
I want to quote a piece of the article that exposes the inconsistency of the progressive or liberal mindset. It comes from a then-opponent of Mrs. Bachmann's efforts named Bob Beltrame. He told Mrs. Bachmann, as he recalls it, "Everybody can have their own beliefs, but it doesn't belong in the classroom."
So, subscribing to the Theory of Evolution, or the Big Bang Theory does not constitute having a "belief", but subscribing to the idea of Creationism does? So far as I know, none of us was around to see the "Grand Beginning", and so by definition, we all simply "believe" what we will about it.
The liberal assertion here seems to be that the liberal line is fact and the non-liberal line is superstition. Mrs. Bachmann's belief is not welcome in Mr. Beltrame's classroom; yet Mr. Beltrame's belief must be accepted in Mrs. Bachmann's?
You see, we MUST talk about the substance of the issues. Here, the substance is not whether God created the Universe, or whether it came about by happenstance. The substance is whether it is the place of a public institution to promote one philosophy or theory over another.
I argue that if we are going to talk about the beginning of the world, we ought to expose children to as many of the ideas about it as possible. We do it to some extent in examining Native American, Greek and Roman mythology in elementary school. We do it extensively when discussing Darwin's ideas in middle and high school biology . Why do we ignore the idea that an intelligent force or a god may have had a hand in the work, as well?
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
If one "belief" is welcome, should not all be? This seems more in keeping with the First Amendment than the current practice of promoting one over the other.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment