[lern_too_spel]

The difference is that these things are written into Republic party platforms and are not merely the views of individual Democrats, and the average Republican voter absolutely picks up on this. Thus, even if bureaucrats considers themselves Republican, they appear to be Democrats to these voters.

[fuzz4lyfe]

What party platform document are you referencing? I've never seen that.

[hdctambien]

I believe he is refering to this[1]. Each party publishes one each election year.

[1] https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FIN...

[fuzz4lyfe]

Care to quote the passage? Its 60 some odd pages long.

[lern_too_spel]

"religious individuals and institutions can educate young people, receive government benefits, and participate in public debates without having to check their religious beliefs at the door."

"The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy."

The scientists like Spencer and Legates who "dissent from its orthodoxy" that the GOP trots out for its voters actually dissent due to their religious beliefs. https://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-ev...

[rayiner]

> "religious individuals and institutions can educate young people, receive government benefits, and participate in public debates without having to check their religious beliefs at the door."

That's not directed to science. It's directed to the separate issue of public education being a vehicle for eliminating religion from childrens' education, and replacing religious social values with government values developed by education boards. It's a legitimate concern when the government is deciding how you socialize your kids, and leaves you few avenues for opting out. (Also, it's a model that's by and large uncontroversial in most of Europe.)

As to your second quote, it appears 10 pages later. Is there some sort of connection you're trying to draw between the two?

[lern_too_spel]

> As to your second quote, it appears 10 pages later. Is there some sort of connection you're trying to draw between the two?

Both are examples of pushing faith above science, which is the whole point of my argument.

> public education being a vehicle for eliminating religion

Public education does not do anything to eliminate religion except where they disagree, as in evolution vs. Biblical creationism.

[fuzz4lyfe]

That seems a little post hoc and doesn't mention teaching creationism in public schools. I get there are things in there that people disagree with but I was looking for the point made previously. Simply citing a large document and not having read it isn't arguing in good faith.

[lern_too_spel]

I didn't cite that large document. Claiming that I did is not arguing in good faith.

The particular example of creationism comes from the Texas GOP's platform. https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/06/28/the-texas-repu...

You can certainly see echoes of it in the national platform. That is no mistake.