97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 05:27 am
I had to look at the La govt web site. It appears that, whenever a bill is sent up to the governor (she) must sign it or veto it. HOWEVER,Should (she) [sic]fail to take action the bill is deemed approved under a highly entertaining "10 day rule"

It appears tha La has this convenient legislative rule that allows a bills adoption as law without the governor signature.Within 10 days its deemed approved after it reaches the governors desk and the clock begins().

Thats a cowardly constitutional rule that was, no doubt passed, under the LA legislative code that "Appearance of activity is superior to actual activity, cuz its damn hot down here"

The government of the great state of Louisiana has always afforded us with many years of great entertainment.
Jindal can , allow the bill to pass by NOT acting on it and the 10 day rule takes affect. Meanwhile, assuring his constituency of his hyper gubernatorial alertness, hes signed several less controversial bills (in fact, according to his own web site, hes signed 59 bills).
Perhaps he had misplaced the education bill and its lying under a pile of biology literature. This is kind of a convenient way for him to avoid actually approving the bill and its unique to Louisiana's "bon temp roullaixe" environment.

Louisiana has always been described as "corrupt and contented"
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 07:31 am
Quite right too.

Without corruption everything would grind to a halt.

But I approve of you raising the difference of climate as an explanation of certain things. It's about time you got real.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 07:34 am
Jindal received the bill on June 18. If he does nothing before the end of this saturday, does the bill become law, farmerman?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 07:44 am
well, according to the La constitution, technically , yes. Unless, of course , the legislature is off session, then the bill is deemed approved under a "20 day rule".

We have alert reader, spendius for directing us to this codidl in L's book of tricks.

Having lived in Louisiana , Im never surprised at the maxchinations and logic twists that they insert into their laws. I suppose the 10 day rule as of fairly recent vintage since it referes to the governor as a "she". I dont know whether , since Jindal is actually a masculine man, he can be included in the technical basis by which this rule is played.

I recall , and cherish,the uncomplicated days of the Likes Of Moon LAndrue, when every machine gun "accident" was discussed within the nature of societal problems, as the cops quietly stole into the perps houses and had them commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back several times.
We always had the worst cases of suicide down in New Awlins back in em days,
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 07:45 am
Spendi - What's the point in attacking Darwin? His work is not the authority on evolution just the jump off point.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 08:51 am
Quote:
"Not a sham": Oppose creationist legislation in Louisiana
(by Josh Rosenau, ScienceBlogs.com, June 25, 2008)

An important principle in first amendment jurisprudence is that government actions must not be undertaken solely for the benefit of religion. In 1987, the Supreme Court considered a law passed by Louisiana that required teachers who presented "evolution-science" to "balance" it with "creation-science." Legislators insisted that the bill had valid secular purposes, but the Supreme Court's majority opinion insisted that "While the Court is normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham."

This brings us to modern Louisiana, where Governor Bobby Jindal is considering whether to veto or sign SB 733, the mis-named Louisiana Science Education Act. While the bill purports to encourage critical thinking and open discussion of various scientific topics, it singles out evolution (along with global warming and cloning) as topics deserving special attention.

This, in and of itself, undermines the claim to secular purpose. Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than gravity, and Governor Jindal surely knows that. His own college biology professor reminded him recently that "Without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn't make sense. In order for today's students in Louisiana to succeed in college and beyond, in order for them to take the fullest advantages of all that the 21st century will offer, they need a solid grounding in genetics and evolution." Brown's professor Arthur Landy, a distinguished member of the medical school faculty, added "Governor Jindal was a good student in my class when he was thinking about becoming a doctor, and I hope he doesn't do anything that would hold back the next generation of Louisiana's doctors."

Landy's statement helps us root out one particular sham on display in Louisiana. In an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network, a local college professor told Jindal to ignore what he learned. Wade Warren, a biology professor at Louisiana College, told CBN that "Not all DNA and fossil evidence support a Darwinian view of life." If comments in support of evolution like Professor Landy's (or the many statements collected in Voices for Evolution) don't show this to be a sham, consider the source of the statement.

Louisiana College has a strict requirement that faculty and staff "exemplify a deep personal faith in Jesus Christ." Not only are they strongly encouraged to attend weekly chapel services, but they are "expected to abstain from … the use of alcoholic beverages in public." They are also obliged to affirm that "Genesis 1-11 is factual," who "deny that … scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation."

The sham of claiming this bill isn't about creationism was put to the lie early on, when supporter David Tate, a member of the Livingston Parish school board, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune "I believe that both sides -- the creationism side and the evolution side -- should be presented and let students decide what they believe." He added that the bill was necessary because "teachers are scared to talk about" creationism. Bill sponsor Senator Ben Nevers (D-Bogalusa) acknowledge that he merely submitted it on behalf of the Louisiana Family Forum, an affiliate of Focus on the Family. Nevers told the Hammond Daily Star "They [LFF] believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory."

The time has come to tell Governor Jindal to veto this bill.

*************************

Appeal to his own understanding of the science. Tell him about the importance of our first amendment rights. Tell him about the million dollar judgment that followed the failure of creationism in Dover, PA.

Tell him that conservatives and liberals agree this bill is bad. John Derbyshire recently called on Jindal to "Veto This Bill!," emphasizing that "The entire effect of this law … will be that one cartload of Louisiana taxpayers' money will go to the Discovery Institute for their mendacious 'textbooks,' then another cartload will go into the pockets of lawyers to defend the inevitable challenge to the law in federal courts, which will inevitably be successful, as they always are, and should be."

There are other reasons conservatives are concerned about this bill. A provision added in the state's House of Representatives allows the state to veto the use of certain supplementary textbooks, but gives no guidance about which should be vetoed and which permitted. This is a massive shift of power away from locally elected school boards, and the Governor himself has opposed attempts to insert the state government into these issues. Two weeks ago, he told Face the Nation, "I don't think this is something the federal or state government should be imposing its views on local school districts. You know, as a conservative I think government that's closest to the people governs best. I think local school boards should be in a position of deciding the curricula and also deciding what students should be learning."

If the state is given the power to review these textbooks, that will take time and money away from other state education issues, adding to this bill's costs. The size of state government will grow, lawsuits will sprout like wildflowers, and Louisianan kids will be held back from the education they deserve and will need in the 21st century.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 09:23 am
Once you get to "mis-named" you ought to get wary.

When you get to " Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than gravity" you may as well stop reading.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 09:31 am
Has the bible explained gravity? How about the age of this planet? Did Adam and Eve come from Africa, or did they appear through poofism?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 10:07 am
spendius wrote:
Once you get to "mis-named" you ought to get wary.

When you get to " Evolution is no more scientifically controversial than gravity" you may as well stop reading.


And why is that Pub Jester?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 10:48 am
Uhm . . . you have gone over the edge there, Farmerman. That provision of the Louisiana constitution to which you refer is not some kind of anomaly, and, in fact, is based on the United States Constitution.

The final sentence of the second paragraph of Article One, Section Seven of our constitution reads:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

So, Jindal may have a coward's escape hatch here, but it is nothing unusual in American legislative practice.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 10:55 am
Set - Hey buddy. I like your dog, but I'm starting to think that it's expression is a little creepy... Got any less creepy dog avatars? I feel like it's plotting against me...

Nice doggy... Shocked

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 10:59 am
She never liked you, Boss . . . don't ask me why . . .
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:09 am
You AIDsers are always rabbiting on about religion, specifically the Catholic Church, holding back science.

Your difficulty stems from viewing the events with hindsight rather than humbly putting yourselves in the places of those you charge with the thing.

Now-- what possible objection can a scientific, atheist, materialist evolutionist have to performance enhancing drugs in sport which doesn't equally apply to pot-holing, mountaineering or any other activity in which risk to life and limb is voluntarily undertaken? D.I.Y. for example.

I've heard that three people a year are killed in the UK putting on their trousers. No doubt many more are injured.

And without P.E. drugs in sport there would be no world records broken for decades, if then, because all the records were set using them. It would be a disaster for athletics.

There is a theology of the management of the "spectacle" in play.

One cannot imagine gladiators and chariot racers, or the spectators at such events having any time for the slightest restriction on any aid to enhanced performance. They would have rolled on the floor laughing their cuirasses off and if that didn't shut up the fevered health and safety
fanatics they would have put them in next with the lions.

Same with fouls, hitting below the belt, stabbing in the back, bushwhacking and any other perfectly natural procedures in the service of the survival of the fittest.

When I say that Ben Johnson should be given his gold medal back and reinstated in the record books and I'm disagreed with I know I am not talking to any serious scientific evolutionists. I'm talking to a trimmer who is just using science to push his boat out like that lot in the Coalition for Science. For sure.

Tart's knickers curtain science I call it. aka lower-middle-class twittery.

I'm talking to someone who would have supported the Church against Galileo had he been there at the time and understood the issues which were considerably more complex than performance boosters.

Can you not see how ridiculous a SAMEer actually is when he supports a ban on PE drugs.

And I dare bet that every "news" outlet that wande quotes does just that and invariably accompanied with a pile of self-righteous indignation which serves to easily make up the quota of words necessary to fill up the space on the reverse side of adverts for such things as foundation garments.

Half-baked doesn't do them justice. Phonies is the word. Armchair science.

The Curia which dealt with Galileo were in the same position the vast bureaucracy for drug testing in sport and their lickspittals and lackeys are in.

And the Galileo story has been much exaggerated for propaganda purposes and I have exaggerated nothing.

Evolution has seen nothing like it in its long history.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:18 am
Quote:
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.


What's the scientific explanation of the "Sundays excepted" phrase? I thought religious ideas were banned from governmental actions and here we are, in the actual constitution, making a special provision for the Lord's Day.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 11:47 am
Sunday is named after Sunna, the Germanic goddess of the sun.

Monday is from Germanic moon god.

Tuesday derives from the god of combat and heroism.

Wednesday comes from Wodan (Odin) the highest god in Nordic mythology.

Thursday is Thor's day. The thunder god.

Friday from Frige or Frigg, the goddess of beauty. (Hence frigging).

Saturday comes from the Roman god Saturn, the father of Zeus.

You'll all have to stop using these religious words I suppose.

The idea of separating Church and State is a bit like saying that Mr Spitzer "slept" with the lass. Tweeting in other words.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 12:10 pm
Setanta wrote:
She never liked you, Boss . . . don't ask me why . . .
Yeah, little dogs never seem to like me.

:-(

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 12:18 pm
spendius wrote:
Sunday is named after Sunna, the Germanic goddess of the sun.

Monday is from Germanic moon god.

Tuesday derives from the god of combat and heroism.

Wednesday comes from Wodan (Odin) the highest god in Nordic mythology.

Thursday is Thor's day. The thunder god.

Friday from Frige or Frigg, the goddess of beauty. (Hence frigging).

Saturday comes from the Roman god Saturn, the father of Zeus.

You'll all have to stop using these religious words I suppose.

The idea of separating Church and State is a bit like saying that Mr Spitzer "slept" with the lass. Tweeting in other words.

Being that the eytomology of these words has a religious origin is irrelavant. There is no separation issue.

52 Thursdays in a year, 0 days when we are mandated by our government to pay worship (or even the slightest admiration or acknowledgement) to Thor.

A separation issue is more likely the way Sunday is treated nationally. the issue there would not be the name though but how it effects the operations and laws of the state. None of this means we need a new name for Sunday though, just a rational mind that recognizes our responcibilities are not different on any given solar day.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 05:03 pm
Look, my dear.

That was a bit of playfullness.

It was the previous post that had the bite. The one where the constitution recognises Sunday as a special day. Not a working day I mean.

What sort of non-working days do you AIDsers have in mind? A parade I would guess where we all have to have our buttons polished and you are taking the salutes.

Are you a lingerie person?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 05:16 pm
Set ,Fascinating. I was aware of the "end of session" rule which allowed a president to kill a bill by refusing to take any action. I was NOT aware that there was a similar10 day rule in the US Constitution. AMazing. I wonder what president had used this "Cowards End" method to let a bill pass. DO you have that information?

It does look like the 20 day rule is different than the US Constitution .

Everythings quiet on Bobby's watch.I wonder if hes gonna do this? If he does, that makes his VEep staus questionable. He could be labeled as someone with no leadership abilities.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 25 Jun, 2008 05:25 pm
That's all a load of flannel to avoid facing up to the fact that spendi knows more about the Consitution than you pedantic, semi-educated twerps who only assert that you do whilst hrrummphing, straightening your dickie-bows, having the good lady dust your dandruff off and admiring yourselves in the mirror.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 05/18/2025 at 10:49:44