Gingrich, Carter hurt push for balance in evolution education
A news article about Gingrich's commencement address at Liberty University said,
.
"A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation can not profess the truths on which it was founded," Gingrich said. "We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights.
"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms," he said.
Gingrich also rebuked what he said was an American judiciary that had gone too far separating church and state.
"Too often, the courts have been biased against religious believers. This anti-religious bias must end," he said.
And Jimmy Carter said,
Carter . . . offered a harsh assessment for the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which helped religious charities receive $2.15 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2005 alone.
"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."
And in this context, Pres. Bush's statement of support for balance in evolution education was about as welcome as Typhoid Mary.
.
Labels: Establishment clause
1 Comments:
> To the extent that the push for balance in evolution education is perceived by some as part of a fundy plot to hijack the government <
It is a fundy plot to hijack science education.
> recent remarks by former House Speaker Newt Gringrich <
A fundy who sounds like a fundy.
> former Pres. Jimmy Carter <
A failure as a president, he has spent his time criticising successful leaders. Only today he was criticising Blair. Of course he knows nothing about he subjects he choses to speak about.
So what is the point of your post?
Post a Comment
<< Home