[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.

[fuzz4lyfe]

That article is from 2012 and is about the Texas GOP. It seems like this claim was not true.

[lern_too_spel]

I never claimed it was in the national platform. You are once again arguing in bad faith.

[fuzz4lyfe]

I don't live in Texas in 2012, so that isn't part of my parties platform. I suppose you agree with every element of every state democrat platform ever published. Well post Jim Crow of course.

[lern_too_spel]

Texas is the largest GOP state, and as the other poster showed, that faith based stuff is mirrored at the national level.