Anyone Else See That Governor Christie
 

of New Jersey refused to answer a question from reporters about his position on evolution. Another courageous Republican. Obviously afraid of to offend the wingnuts in the party.

Why would a reporter ask the governor of NJ this question? I would have kicked the reporter to the curb myself.

Christie
 

I live in NJ and he has been asked numerous times be residents and he will not answer the question.

He's A leading Republican
 

who could possibly be nominated for president if he enters the race. Are you sure you don't understand why he was asked this question. BTW, check out the latest presidential preference poll in a race between Obama and Christie among voters in New Jersey.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...idential-race/

What issue(s) are they discussing when he is asked this question numerous times? I mean, what is the point of the question? I don't understand why the governor of any state would be asked their views on evolution unless there was some reason. I mean is he pushing to have it taught in schools?

Anyone Else See That governor Christe
 

Let me see..the perfect science of evolution fits into a manner of whom Christie would choose to play a role on his team. No No he would use it to determine why so many people are on the dole. No No He would use it to determine the future need for health care. No No ............................
What difference does it make what he believes about evolution as it will not enter into the equation, unless the reporter meant the evolution of economics or money markets, etc P-l-e-a-s-elet's stick to the issues that matter

No he's Afraid To Tell The
 

voters of his party that he believes in evolution for fear of offending evangelicals in the party. Of course it's a legitimate question to ask any politician, especially one who is considered presidential material.

JSR22 said he'd been asked numerous times by New Jersey "residents." I'm just wondering why.

My understanding is that Christie says issues like teaching creationism and evolution in public schools are to be decided on the local level. Good decision.

The religious right are more concerned with the moral character of candidates and that would trump the evolution issue.

So if local school administrators are evangelicals
 

they have the right to deny students an education that teaches them theories that have been scientifically validated? Interesting.

Then Why Is Newt Gingrich
 

so popular among the right?

is that the same Newt that owes Tiffanys $500,000? He likes bling I guess.

Most public schools have elected school boards who make decisions like that.

Correct me if my memory is not too good on this, but didn't candidate Obama when asked the same question refuse to answer saying it was above his pay grade?

Your Memory Is Not
 

too good.

This may be what you are thinking about.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOTfnz11kBk[/ame]

Figures that came from a
 

right to life group. Scholars, legal experts, theologians, medical professionals etc, can't answer that question, however, evolution is a theory that has been scientifically validated, and since the Scopes trial , accepted as fact by most clear thinking people. However, Governor Christie, aka Governor Lard, didn't have the guts to state his opinion.

He did answer. He said to the "reporter," and I use that word generously,"Its none of your business." He answered. What does any of that have to do with being governor or POTUS?

Governor Lard?? Piece of work, you are.

Oh, I just saw your remark about Gov. Christie. Wow.

No Wonder
 

And we wonder why there seems to be such a dearth of candidates for high political office? Yeah, when the wingnuts of the country use issues such as a person's position on evolution or abortion as the seminal issue determining whether or not to vote for one candidate or another, it's no wonder we have situations such as what seems to be happening to the GOP right now--now apparent strong leaders on the horizon ready to run for the Presidency. Why would anyone bother to place themselves "in harm's way" in dealing with such people?

Explain this to me...

How can we, on the one hand, complain that we (Americans) are falling behind other countries in math and science. Then, on the other hand, complain that students should be taught myth as fact in a science class? How?

"Creationism", "Intelligent Design", etc, is something for theology classes. *Science* involves the search for truths. Truths that, sometimes very inconveniently, CHANGE when new research sheds new light on topics.

For what it's worth, SOME scientists are now looking for what they call "The God Particle". And the idea that The Big Bang *might* have been engineered (because the ratio of matter to anti-matter had to be SO perfect in order to form the universe as we see it) is gaining some traction.

This allows for there to be a Creator - you know "Let There Be Light" - that sort of thing. It also permanently nixes the 5-6,000 year-old Earth idea.

Science and religion CAN co-exist but they belong in separate classes.

Why does it matter what he thinks on this subject? Because it could affect future legislation as it has here in Florida with the recent attack on a woman's right to choose. When religious beliefs spill over into legislation for all, I got a huge problem with that. It seems to me that the religious right in this country want to legislate their beliefs for all. If my child attended a school that taught creationism, I would pull him out. I want my child learning facts and truths in school and leave the religious beliefs in church where they belong.

Well well well,

Sounds like Gov Christie is the new whipping boy for the libs. Must be some fear that he will run for President. Their problem, he isn't fearful of telling some idiotic lib to go pound sand, when they try their "Rules for Radicals" baloney.

But when all else fails.......just call him fatty or lard.

If the belt doesn't fit....oops wrong scenario. :doh:

Anyone Else See That Governor Christie
 

:1rotfl::1rotfl:I did read that account concerning the "God Particle" sometime ago that some believe lends credibility to the "Theory" of Intelligent Design" vis avis "Theory" of Evolution. Gosh both are referred as Theory wonder why? Maybe its because no one has ever been recorded as seeing achimp turn into a man or discovred the God Particle. I find it absolutely amusing that some people behave as if they have the right and only answer..and I believe that is why a politician like christie wouldn't not answer it. Personally for me I believe in the alien theory wherein little people with big buggy eyes artificially inseminated Neantherals, thus explaining their disapperance...Now that's a theory I can live with:1rotfl:

Wasn't It?
 

And I might even go farther to say that anyone who disagrees with that concept ought not to be running for national public office.

Wasn't the separation of church and state a pretty important factor in the formation of the U.S.?

The simple answer would be ............... no.

Our founders voiced their faith in God constantly, and referred to God constantly in this country's formation.

But I know you will have many words of disagreement.

they may have professed their faith in God but they were wise enough to recognize that all don't and that to impose that on others (as the right is so wont to do) is not something that belongs in a free society.

The founders promised freedom of religion, not freedom from religion in the founding documents. The freedom to practice your religion, not to be protected from the practice of religion.

Huh????

Meaning; the founders rejected any establishment of a state religion. You were free to worship in your own way. This was applied liberally (a word you should like). The Legislature was opened every day with a prayer which is a clear indication that they weren't promoting separation. Being as the vast majority of the people here were Christian you couldn't be expected to be protected from their public displays of their faith. You were not to be compelled to participate, but that's as far as it went.

Of course, as is well known, later activist courts hanging their decisions on a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and not in the founding documents, hold onto a phrase in this letter that mentioned a "separation of church and state".

How this letter of Mr. Jefferson was elevated to the status of the founding documents confounds to this day.

The expected intelligence.