Actually Bush's comment was ambiguous. He merely said that the subject should be taught "appropriately". Everybody agrees with the literal sense of that statement, even those who believe the "appropriate" level of teaching is none, or that it is "appropriately" dealt with outside of science classes.
Nor did Bush suggest that politics or popular pressure should determine the content of science or science curricula.
You are the one gleefully applauding the determination of science content by those means. As you were apparently unable to decipher my post it is that tendency which is comparable to the record of Nazism and Stalinism.
Real conservatives believe in the free market; both in the economy and in the life of the mind. Real conservatives insist that ID or creationism earn its place, if any, in science and in curricula on its demonstrable merit, just as any other theory is expected to do. It is a leftist (and ultimately totalitarian) tendency to submit the issue to political fiat or the power of a populist movement.
Wow. A faith statement, and pithy too. And, to boot, I'm too slooooow or idiotic to decipher your masterfully worded statements. Be that as it may, we're here together, in Freeperland. I have a gift for you:
Our Forgotten Goddess: Isabel Paterson and the Origins of Libertarianism.
See, I have this theory. Leftists, as a rule, are feminists. However, three women took on a subject that is claimed by the right, economic liberty. But funny, none of them had good marriages, and in fact fully fit the bill of 'feminist'. And, of course, none of them had kids (Rand even hated dogs she claimed, bless her heart). I have this theory. "Real leftists" who label themselves as such have a problem w/ Fathers.
ALthough this article was wonderful in its evidence it provided to validate my theory, that a bunch of angry women who were betrayed by their Dads are going to come up w/ profound libertarian nonsense..., I am still missing a key piece of the pie. Ayn Rand's Dad.
I would love to know the facts about her Dad, her relationship with him. Let's face it. Her relationship w/ Frank was simply sick, utterly sick. This guy, Frank, wimp distilled, had to be an echo of her actual Dad. Women in general marry men like their Dads. Ayn's Dad must have been a real disappointment. He certainly didn't bring her to America.
"real conservatives" stultis? Do you see your confidence within your words? Where does that come from? I of course don't know you, nothing about your family. But, allow me to say this about what I have discovered about leftists.
Your average leftist, especially the ones w/ a rep that is well known ... they had pretty bad relationships with their Dads. Some of them are quite open about it (Bill Burr makes Dad hating part of his comedy act even). The highest paid leftist TV actor in Hollywood, Raymond, .... he once said that if his Dad had hugged him just once, he likely wouldn't have made that disgusting TV show 'Everybody Loves Raymond". Why would Ray do that ... except for the confidence he has created which has as a sole purpose to fill in the blanks where his Dad should have bestowed such confidence. Your average leftist hates "Dad" - and when they detect some man or woman who was fortunate enough to have a real Father, their envy just kills them; they are provoked by force into leftism as a way to overcome their discomfort of witnessing that experience that they have craved but were denied. Thus, they get mad, and seek revenge - some by making stupid TV shows; others by engaging in filth.
Because, personally, their own Dad screwed them terribly. Often times, he was physically present, but a drinker. As often, he just up and left and never came back. He was .... a GUY in his impact - he had a chance to make the name given to the kid stand for something, but instead, he bestows a legacy that nothing is trustworthy.
Now, what is interesting is that leftists KNOW what a REAL leftist is supposed to look like. They have great confidence. But, here you are, claiming to have a confident grasp of what 'real' conservatives look like.
I think I can tell you one thing for certain about a 'real' conservative: he knows how to love his wife, such that when she walks into a room, his love bestowed upon her creates a loveliness within her that is smashingly attractive - the kind of attractiveness where questions are raised about just what is he doing that is so.... right.
Real conservatives understand that leftism, libertarianism, atheism, zealous adherence to empiricism, homosexuality, abortion, and above all feminism, are mere symptoms of widespread abdication and effeminancy by MEN. Women are absolutely not to blame for all these ills.
Men, guys actually, wet-pasta-spined boys posing inside the bodies of men are the problem. And this epidemic disease we are witnessing of girliness in men has a source (among others): leftist ideas (including evolution) that are permeating public school via the past successes of populist movements, such that science itself is yammering for what unionists always yammer for: protection. Don't you wonder why it is evolution is so weak that it allows room for so many 'dissenters'?
Business democrats everywhere do indeed cry out for the protection of 'science', the distilled purity of science ... that which protects their moral license frameworks, and captures their rapt attention to NPR as they drive home every night.
Look stultis ... you are obviously a bright guy. But let's agree on something: you are not going to be able to tell me how adhereing to pure rationalism is going to help me solve my personal issues associated w/ my wife and kids ... and I am certainly not going to provide any help to you about how you should make your wife feel loved. Right? (And of course, at this point you would argue, T.O.E has nothing to do with how a marriages are conducted. You are mistaken.)