Replies

Are you saying that irrationality and emotionalism are the hallmarks of religion?

LOL, you took the words right off the tip of my fingers!

Being voted out is good, but not always realistic. EG, Marion Barry was first elected to the DC School Board, and was easily reelected to higher office after serving time on cocaine charges. [For all his faults, I'm not accusing him of anything here, just using him as an example of an undefeatable officeholder.]

Let's say he fraudulently pushed for the teachnig of Afrocentric history, or Ebonics-as-English, or creationism. If the people won't vote him out for coke, why would they do so for something a lot of them probably agree with? But IMO it's criminal to allow such goings-on in schools; it really is fraud and (nonsexual) child abuse.

IMO, it fits the classic definition of "high crimes": offenses against the state that can, by their nature, only be committed by officers or employees of the state.

I am being a (bit) over-the-top in this series of posts, but there is a serious question of misfeasance and malfeasance when a political body attempts to redefine science, or to mandate the teaching of non-science as though it were science.

Possibly. But what is "science" and what is "non-science" could be a slippery slope. If I was on a jury, I would consider global warming science to be "non-science" but I would not be willing to convict anyone of a crime for promoting it or believing it.

IMO, it fits the classic definition of "high crimes": offenses against the state that can, by their nature, only be committed by officers or employees of the state.

You are getting over the top again. Do you really think this sticker mounts to a hill of beans in the big scheme of things anyway? This is more of the tit for tat between evos and creationists. But now you want to the color of law to enforce your point of view. I really think this is a bad idea.