The NJDC, a Jewish Democrats group has put out a fact sheet for Jews about Sarah Palin.
It has several accurate charges, such as her dissembling on the Bridge to Nowhere, but they seem to distort what she’s said about teaching creationism in the schools.
“CREATIONISM BEING TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It’s been a healthy foundation for me. But don’t be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.”
That’s accurate but what they didn’t mention is that, according to FactCheck.org,
“A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:
Palin, Oct. 2006: I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.
After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: “Palin’s children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. … It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.” The article was headlined, “Palin has not pushed creation science as governor.”
What can we learn about Palin from this? She’s more like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan than James Dobson. She’s a pragmatist. The courts frown on teaching creationism as if its science, a point that may have been made to her in between in first quote and her second.
Secondly, Alaska isn’t all that religious a state. As governor, her constituency was broader than it was as mayor, and she recognized that.
Stated more cynically, she’d likely be like George W. Bush in another important way: connecting profoundly with religious conservatives on a personal level but then actually doing very little substantively for them, other than perhaps appointing some conservative judges.
posted September 15, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I don’t think she ispragmatic. I think this is more plausable — populist. That would make her more like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush(Jr. isn’t pragmatic Sr was pragmatic).
She gave an answer I think its what she wanted. Then when it was unpopular she made it less strong. Thats a populist. I think being a populist is disturbing, more so than being a creationist.
What disturbs me the most is that she seemed to assume there were only 2 views. I know of at least 7 on Christianity Creationism alone. I doubt she was talking about theistic evolution vs. evolution for instance. I also feel like she thinks there is no debate in evolution therory. I know that what makes a species a species is debated. Some are obvious, some like the 27 spiders 3 named after celbs(1 was Steven Colbert) are so similar where do you draw the line?