Talk Elections

Acceptance of Science Bill

Section 1: Abstinence
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any sex education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as true or scientifically legitimate:
1.) the process of terminating a pregnancy is sinful, wrong, or murderous.
2.) the trait of homosexuality or bisexuality is an entirely conscious choice and/or is strange, unnatural, or sinful.
3.) the participation in homosexual sex acts is sinful, wrong, or unnatural.
4.) the proper use of contraceptive devices including but not limited to condoms is grossly ineffective in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections.
5.) engaging in sexual activity before marriage with proper precautions is immoral, dangerous, or sinful.
6.) males and females should limit themselves to careers which have historically been associated with masculine and feminine roles, respectively.

Section 2: Biology
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any scientific education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as true or scientifically legitimate:
1.) the status of biological evolution as a scientific theory is somehow different or set apart from that of other scientific theories such as gravity or relativity.
2.) fossil evidence for biological macroevolution is largely inaccurate or misinterpreted by mainstream scientists, or presents a picture that contradicts with biological evolutionary theory.
3.) radioactive carbon dating is always inaccurate or scientifically unreliable.
4.) the age of the earth is less than ten thousand years.
5.) the origins of the universe and of life on earth are scientifically explained by religious texts or creeds.
6.) the complexity of certain types of life on earth are of such a magnitude that they present valid evidence for that of a higher power or "intelligent designer."
7.) the trait of homosexual behavior does not exist within the animal kingdom outside of humans.
8.) creation theories are valid within the scientific method.
9.) the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the Big Bang.

---

Sponsor: The President pro tempore

I propose that sections 1 and 2 be amended to replace "true or scientifically legitimate" with "based on scientific evidence".  A number of these topics are touched upon in some religious beliefs and I want to avoid any implication that the government of Atlasia is determining the correctness of any religious belief.

I offer an amendment that Section 1 be removed from this bill.

That seems fair enough.


Why?

I propose an amendment to strike the whole bill and replace it with:

Section 1:
Evolution and Creationism should be taught side by side

I guess I should have just offered an amendment to replace the bill with something completely different (Hint (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=55947.0)), or maybe saying organization will only be included rather than excluded based on the above circumstances.

For the Senators that are actually interested, while abstinence only education does have it short comings, this bill would stop any program from letting young people know that there possible consequences of their actions.

Or given the budget deficit we are in, maybe replace the entire bill with "No education curriculum will receive any federal funding." However, I still with the original amendment.
---

I would include Intelligent Design in there as well.

We are voting on the proposal that '...that sections 1 and 2 be amended to replace "true or scientifically legitimate" with "based on scientific evidence"

---

Aye

Nay

Aye.  It's a minor but important distinction.

Aye.

Aye

Aye

Aye

I think you might want to change this - technically biological evolution is different from theories such as gravity or relativity since it's a different theory. I get your meaning though. I suggest "biological evolution is not a valid scientific theory." or something like that, just to make the meaning clear.


Which creationism? There's lots of different creation stories, so which ones should we teach?

Nobody's saying that it's not a valid theory.  The main assertion is that its being a theory implies a lesser likelihood of it being false.  I'd make it something like "the idea that biological evolution's status as a scientific theory implies that it is any less likely to be true than other scientific ideas".

I don't expect it to pass I was just throwing it out there after what Proce did to Brandon on the other bill.

The amendment passes.

This bill clearly is intended as a shot against religion.  Evolutionists are afraid if people get all the knowledge about all theories, that there crap shoot will go out the window.  Why do you oppose letting children get all the facts?

Because there are no facts backing up creationism.

We're voting on an amendment to remove Section 1 from the bill.

---

Nay, abstinence-only education is dangerous.

Aye, I don't support more children out of wedlock

Aye, this bill would teach that one need not worry about the possible consequences when engaging in sexual activity.

Nay

Abstinence only education does nothing more than lead to more unwanted pregnancies and more transmission of STDs. You can't stop kids from having sex but you can show them a way to do it safely. I have nothing wrong with teaching abstinence alongside safe sex measures but not abstinence-only.

This bill seems like it would place some limits on teaching abstinence at all, whether it be alone or with safe sex info.

No it doesn't not at all it makes sure that religious dogma and fundamentalist beliefs are kept out of federally funded abstinence education programs.

I'd like some clarification of what this bill would actually do. Would it require public schools that receive direct federal funding to change their curricula?

Agreed

Nay

Nay

If those schools wanted to continue receiving any funding in those specific departments, yes.

How would this affect the Southeast's voucher program?

If the Southeast has any schools with biology and/or sex ed courses which are funded by the federal government, they will be required to modify the courses or forgo funding.

If not, the program would be unaffected.

Nay.

Nay, but expect some amendments to declutter Section 1's attempt to define sin.

Amendment 1:
To rename section 1 "Section 1: Human sexuality".

Amendment 2:
To strike clause 1 of section 1.

Amendment 3:
To strike clause 2 of section 1.

Amendment 4
To strike "sinful, wrong, or unnatural" in clause 3 of section 1 and replace with "an unnatural act observed only in humans" and to strike clause 7 of section 2.

Amendment 5
To strike clause 5 of section 1.

Amendment 6
To rename section 2 "Section 2: Origins".

Amendment 6
To strike "valid within" in clause 8 of section 2 and replace with "testable by".

Amendment 7
To strike "disproves" in clause 9 of section 2 and replace with "contradicts".

If amendments 2, 3 or 5 above fail, expect some additional amendments to edit those clauses to remove the word "sinful".  Clause 3 of section 1 and clause 7 of section 2 are somewhat redundant so striking the latter to leave mention of homosexuality solely in the human sexuality section makes sense.

Vote on the amendment still open? Nay.

The amendment fails.

I was finished with amendments, but a constituent of mine has asked that I offer a couple of amendments.

Everything in Section 1 after "No funds from the federal government shall go towards any sex education curriculum" shall be removed from this bill.

Everything in Section 2 after "No funds from the federal government shall go towards any scientific education curriculum" shall be removed from this bill.

We are voting to strike the text of the bill and replace it with "Evolution and Creationism should be taught side by side"

---

Nay

Nay

Abstain

The sponsor of this amendment said that it was in response to the amendment to my UN withdrawal bill. This bill probably deserves to have this amendment pass, but one wrong amendment doesn't justify another.

Nay.

Nay

Nay.

Nay

The amendment failed.

Voting is now open on each of Ernest's amendments:

Aye to all

As the proposer, an obvious Aye to all.

Amendment 1:
To rename section 1 "Section 1: Human sexuality".: Nay

Amendment 2:
To strike clause 1 of section 1.: Nay

Amendment 3:
To strike clause 2 of section 1.: Nay

Amendment 4
To strike "sinful, wrong, or unnatural" in clause 3 of section 1 and replace with "an unnatural act observed only in humans" and to strike clause 7 of section 2.: Nay

Amendment 5
To strike clause 5 of section 1.: Nay

Amendment 6
To rename section 2 "Section 2: Origins".: Nay

Amendment 6
To strike "valid within" in clause 8 of section 2 and replace with "testable by".: Aye

Amendment 7
To strike "disproves" in clause 9 of section 2 and replace with "contradicts".: Aye

Aye to all

Nay to all but the last two, Aye on the last two

Nay
Nay
Nay
Nay
Nay
Nay
Aye
Aye

Abstain

Aye

Not happy with the wording here. I understand the point behind the clause, and am sympathetic towards it, but I think it's too broad.

It's entirely possible that a reasonable educative process could lead one to believe that abortion is 'wrong'. persons should be presented with facts and allowed make up their own mind on questions of morality such as this. I don't think the state should take an objective stance and declare abortion to be either 'wrong', or by implication, 'right'.

Nay

Abstain

Nay

Aye

Aye

Aye

I vote aye to all, but the last two amendments.

Nay
Nay
Nay
Nay
Nay
Nay
Aye
Aye

The last two amendments have passed.  Voting still open on the others.

Voting has expired.

Amendment 1 ties with 4 ayes, 4 nays, and 1 abstention.
Amendment 2 passes with 5 ayes and 4 nays
Amendment 3 fails with 4 ayes and 5 nays
Amendment 4 ties with 4 ayes, 4 nays, and 1 abstention
Amendment 5 fails with 4 ayes and 5 nays
Amendment 6 passes with 5 ayes and 4 nays
(As stated earlier):
Amendment 7 passes with 8 ayes
Amendment 8 passes with 8 ayes

On Amendment 1, the Aye's are four, the Nay's are four and there is one abstention.

As President of the Senate, I vote Aye on this amendment.



On Amendment 4, the Aye's are four, the Nay's are four and there is one abstention.

As President of the Senate, I vote Aye on this amendment.

I motion to add the following clause to Section 1.

"The willful surgical or medical termination of a pregnancy causes, or is in any way linked to, the development of breast cancer."

Regardless of one's opinions on abortion, the proposed link between it and breast cancer has been thoroughly debunked by scientists with no political agenda and thus it should not be mentioned in human sexuality courses.

We are voting on the following amendments:

---

Nay to both.  If we are going to gut education funding, why would we do it by targeting specific types of education, especially science?

Nay to both

Nay, to both.

Aye to both.

Nay to both

You've really become a socialist. No to the second I can understand, but to the first?

I vote aye to both.

Haha, people are voting to defund all sex education cirriculums.  Would you prefer that sex is never mentioned in schools?

What's socialist about supporting sex education classes?

I see no point to talk about it. I mean we learn enough about it on TV these days, and kids are going to do what they want anyway. Why waste time in school in it?

So they know the risks and how to protect themselves.  What you learn about sex on TV isn't as useful as you seem to think it is.

Any attempt to legislate to terminate funding for sex education programmes in schools would be swiftly vetoed.

Why does everything you like have to be federally funded?

People don't support sex education because they "like" it.  Comprehensive sex education is about saving lives, not pushing sex as a fun idea on a reluctant population or whatever you're implying.

Exactly. Bono, if I could trust all parents to give their children sex education and grant them the opportunity to get varying opinions then there would be no need for comprehensive sex education in schools. However many parents are unwilling, unable or give down right false information to their children, often for religous purposes or due to prudity.

The classroom is a private, sensible and open arena of discussion about very sensitive issues. I will not, under any circumstances support the defunding of sex education in schools period.

I still don't see how that jumps to federla funding. Why can't the regions decide?

Nay to both

If he supported this at the regional level, you'd say it should be up to the local school board.

The federal government provides funds for education cirriculums.  This bill is simply placing some new restrictions on what federal dollars can be used to teach.

---

The amendments fail (with one senator inactive).

Nay to both of Senator Brandon H's amendments.

Two more amendments, since the two of my amendments striking clauses failed, two different amendments to modify them to get government out of the sin business.

1. Section 1 Clause 2 is amended by striking "strange, unnatural, or sinful." and replacing with "strange or unnatural."

2. Section 1 Clause 5 is amended by striking "immoral, dangerous, or sinful." and replacing with "dangerous."

We are voting on the following amendments:



Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis Amendment: Aye
Removing references to sin #1 Amendment: Nay
Removing references to sin #2 Amendment: Nay

Nay
Aye
Aye

Nay
Aye
Aye

While the available evidence does indicate that there is not a statistically significant link between first trimester abortions and breast cancer, there may be a link between later term abortions and breast cancer.  Some studies indicate that the link may exist and there does not appear to a be a good human study to settle issue (due to problems arising from later term abortions being both much rarer and much more controversial).  Animal studies indicate a definite link in the case of rats.  I'd be comfortable with a funding restriction on indicating that there is a link between breast cancer and first trimester abortions, but not with one denying the possibility of a link with later term abortions.  The science just isn't sound enough yet.

Aye
Nay
Nay

Nay
Aye
Aye

Nay (Based on Ernest's argument)
Nay
Nay

Nay
Aye
Aye

Aye
Nay
Nay

Voting has expired.

With 3 ayes and 5 nays, the first amendment fails.
With 4 ayes and 4 nays, the second and third amendments are tied.

On Amendment 2, the Aye's are four and the Nay's are four.

As President of the Senate, I vote Aye on this amendment.



On Amendment 3, the Aye's are four and the Nay's are four.

As President of the Senate, I vote Aye on this amendment.

I motion to add the following.

Section 3: Cannabis
No federal funds shall be directed toward any drug prevention program that disseminates any of the following beliefs, and/or presents them as being established on scientific evidence.
1. Marijuana use fails to alleviate symptoms associated with terminal illness (e.g. cancer).
2. Recreational use of marijuana invariably leads to use of "hard" drugs (the so-called "gateway effect").
3. Smoking marijuana significantly increases the risk of lung cancer.

That's true though. You might add the hoary legend of marijuana use leading to schizophrenia, though. The picture here is quite clear: schizophrenics self-medicate with marijuana as it helps them, though only for a time.

Is it?  I thought people assumed that only because pot smokers tend to also smoke tobacco, whereas controlled studies had found marijuana was not at fault.

IIRC the risk from marijuana (and maybe there's a difference between weed and hashish? Would have to check, obviously...) is lower than from tobacco, but still extant. It's probably safe to say that the process of inhaling fumes is carcinogenic no matter what these fumes are... it's just the amount of risk that's going to differ.

I did say "significant." :) See this Johns Hopkins study (http://www.webmd.com/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer), for example:

According to Ford, he thought he would find an association between marijuana use and cancer, but "that the association would fall away when we corrected for tobacco use. That was not the case. The association was never there." And that surprised him because of the way marijuana is smoked: deep inhalations, with the smoke held in for effect. "It seemed natural that there would be some connection," he tells WebMD.

Based on these findings, Ford says that cancer prevention efforts should "remain focused on tobacco and alcohol, two known carcinogens."

Any carcinogeous effect from marijuana seems to be negligible at best.

We are voting on whether to add the following section.

---

Aye

Aye.

Aye

Aye

Abstain, though I'm troubled by the use of the undefined weasel word "significantly" in clause 3.


Assuming that the current amendment passes, I offer an amendment to strike section 3 clause 3 from the bill.

I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by Senator Ernest and will support his amendment.

Aye, the more people who are stupid enough to smoke drugs the better

The amendment passes.

We are voting on the amendment to strike Section 3, Clause 3.

---

Abstain

Aye

Aye

---

I offer the following amendment:

Any school system in a region making use of a voucher system shall be exempt from this Act.

Aye

Abstain

Ay on the amendment to strike section 3 clause 3

The amendment passes.

Not a Senator, but could someone please post the bill in its present form?

Here you go:

Acceptance of Science Bill

Section 1: Human Sexuality
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any sex education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence:
1.) the trait of homosexuality or bisexuality is an entirely conscious choice and/or is strange or unnatural.
2.) the participation in homosexual sex acts is an unnatural act observed only in humans.
3.) the proper use of contraceptive devices including but not limited to condoms is grossly ineffective in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections.
4.) engaging in sexual activity before marriage with proper precautions is dangerous.
5.) males and females should limit themselves to careers which have historically been associated with masculine and feminine roles, respectively.

Section 2: Origins
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any scientific education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence:
1.) the status of biological evolution as a scientific theory is somehow different or set apart from that of other scientific theories such as gravity or relativity.
2.) fossil evidence for biological macroevolution is largely inaccurate or misinterpreted by mainstream scientists, or presents a picture that contradicts with biological evolutionary theory.
3.) radioactive carbon dating is always inaccurate or scientifically unreliable.
4.) the age of the earth is less than ten thousand years.
5.) the origins of the universe and of life on earth are scientifically explained by religious texts or creeds.
6.) the complexity of certain types of life on earth are of such a magnitude that they present valid evidence for that of a higher power or "intelligent designer."
7.) creation theories are testable by the scientific method.
8.) the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts the Big Bang.

Section 3: Cannabis
No federal funds shall be directed toward any drug prevention program that disseminates any of the following beliefs, and/or presents them as being established on scientific evidence.
1. Marijuana use fails to alleviate symptoms associated with terminal illness (e.g. cancer).
2. Recreational use of marijuana invariably leads to use of "hard" drugs (the so-called "gateway effect").

We are voting on the following amendment

---

Nay

Nay.

Aye

Aye

Nay

Can someone explain why these schools should be exempted?

Presumably the reasoning is that since the parents have made a conscious choice to have their kids learn scientific fallacies that choice should trump the concerns of the general public that would be paying for such miseducation.  I disagree with that reasoning as this bill does not require the teaching of any particular information nor require private schools to accept public money if they wish to teach scientific fallacies.

Nay

ty, Porce.

Obviously your support for federalism is inversely proportional to your distance from the Southeast.

I wish to introduce an amendment to strike Section 3, Clause 2 from this legislation.

How so?  This bill only pertains to funds spent by the Federal government.  If the Southeast government wishes to spend its own money to send children to schools that could not receive federal money as a result of this bill, that is up to the Southeast to decide. I believe in Federalism not Regionalism.

The problem is the amount of money the Southeast can collect is limited by oppressive federal taxes.

Aye on the present Amendment being voted on, btw.

I propose an amendment to strike the whole text of the bill despite Section 3 and make

Section 1:
Marriage is between a man and a woman

Section 2:
Every man is endowed by his creator with unalienable rights

The vote on the voucher exemption amendment is 3-4.

I am blocking this amendment as frivolous (section 1 violates standing marriage law, as we don't have marriages in Atlasia)

Ok, then Section 1 reads homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, better?

Because "homosexuality is immoral" is what any scientist would tell you.

Still frivolous (section 2 violates Article VI, Clause 1) & thus blocked.

Nay

The amendment fails.

My Sec. 2 amendment stands and I propose to add a section 3 saying:

This law is only applicable to schools in Washington D.C. and other federal territories

No.  It is still blocked.

I motion for cloture following Sam Spade's amendment.

---

We are voting on the amendment to strike Section 3, Clause 2.

---

Nay.  What is the rationale for this?

Aye.

Aye

When this amendment is done being vote on, could someone post an updated  version of the bill?

It's there, a couple of pages back as I recall.

At present the bill is in the same shape as was the last time an update (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=56333.msg1220135#msg1220135) was posted.

--

Nay on the amendment to strike Section 3 clause 2

Nay

Aye on the amendment

Aye

Nay. Recreational use of marijuana only leads to the use of hard drugs if marijuana is illegal, since this increases the likelihood of a marijuana user meeting a hard drugs dealer.

Do you have any particular reason for targeting that clause?

There is no definitive scientific proof on the "gateway effect's" validity or invalidity for the federal government to be regulating through spending appropriations (if I feel it should be doing it within this area of legislation anyways)

Nay.

The amendment fails.

Oh well.

If this upcoming cloture vote doesn't pass, I would like to present another amendment as follows.  If not, please ignore:

---

I propose an amendment to add a Section 4 to this legislation with the following wording:

This law shall only apply to the federal territory of Guam.

---

My amendment has been "amended".  For DWTL, only...  :P

Har de har har.

The original version includes bisexuality.  Confusion is never a conscious choice, certainly...

Well, I think that gays choose to be homosexual as much as retards choose to be autistic.

Then maybe that amendment should just strike the whole clause.  Still, this is my new general philosophy - "minimalism at all costs", so I'm sticking with the original.

Fine with me; I really don't think the school should be teaching about homsezuality in the first place. BTW, what I meant by that comment with that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

We are voting on an amendment to add the following section

---

Nay

Autism isn't mental retardation.

Aye on the amendment

Aye

Aye.

Nay

Aye

Abstain

sorry, I had writers block. I meant to say "down's syndrome"

Nay.

Nay

The vote appears to be 4-4-1, that is a tie that goes the VP correct?

Not yet.

Another reason you should no longer be PPT no offense, we are working with a quorum of nine senators, therefore this is it.  You are purposely stalling so that Jas is the VP tomorrow and not Phil.

You're right, sorry.  I forgot that Colin was absent.

Someone help me with the legality of this matter, the voting was finished when Phil was still the VP, however, now Jas is the acting president and there is no VP.  So do we wait until Jas returns to being VP to do anything or is it still Phil's vote?

Also, if the amendment fails I propose to strike all my previous amendments and replace it:

A new appropriatley numbered section reading as follows:
This law shall only be applicable in federal territories

There is no prohibition from being acting president & VP at the same time.

Keystone Phil is not entitled to cast a tiebreaking vote after his term ends, although if he does so in the next two hours, it would be valid.

True, but there is a restriction on his powers as President of the Senate.  Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3 says...

In the event that the President of the Senate should be exercising responsibility as Acting President of the Republic of Atlasia under the Constitution, then the powers given by this Resolution to the President of the Senate shall instead be exercised by the Dean of the Senate.

His power to break ties wasn't given the President of the Senate by the OPSR though.  Another half hour and it will be the new Vice President who breaks the tie.

True.

Too bad the rules don't address the problem we will have here, which is a Senator/Vice President voting twice on the amendment considered.

Yet another reason why we have to get rid of the new clause eliminating expired legislation or create some avenue where the vote of the outgoing Senator is not valid.

Having sought and received legal advice from two very respected sources, which came to divergent conclusions, I have decided to take the cautious option and will not cast a vote on this matter until the President returns and I am no longer Acting President.

I suppose the timeframe for me to change Jas' vote (not that I'd intend to) would be expired by now?

Yes, I think so. The time for changing of votes (I think) has expired.

I should point out, as I did in the other post:


Here, the amendment is tied.  An argument could be made for the possible reading here (if someone cares to).

I am pretty sure that I was allowed to cast the tie breaker on this amendment. Whenever there is a tie, the PPT alerts me that I have to vote. He didn't do that this time and ignored my PM about whether or not I could vote on this. I'd like an explanation.

Considering you're no long VP, I doubt you would have the ability to cast the VP vote.  This does shed a little more light on Porce protocol, however.

If you were sworn in as Senator, you might exercise the possibility I mentioned about changing Ernest's vote b/c of poor wording in the OSPR.  :P

Or Jas casts the tie-breaking vote.  I'm personally not beholden one way or another, although I would like to see a conclusion to this whole process, so that I can go about voting against cloture on the legislation.

I was going to hold off on swearing myself in as Senator but I figured that since Jas already took over, my time as Vice President is finished. My main purpose in posting what I did was to point out that the PPT was trying to, yet again, manipulate the process.

As I say, I won't be casting such a vote (if it indeed needs to be cast at all) until I'm no longer Acting President. I don't imagine my vote will cause any shocks either.

To my knowledge, Colin should be back on Sunday.

I wasn't online when you sent that PM until I posted in here saying you had 2 hours to vote.  I figured since you were reading the thread there was no need to reply saying the same thing in a PM.

Seriously, people, stop trying to look for some genius criminal plan behind everything.

I guess we can wait until Colin returns and Jas becomes the actual VP.

What I wish we could do that I don't think we can would be to hold a second vote on the amendment with the new Senators and VP. Does anyone see things differently and think that we could do that?

BrandonH, you should my new amendment which alters the wording a little bit so we can do that.

Oh, hell.  I'm going to go out on my own precedent and change my vote to Nay and see what happens, so that I can vote Nay on cloture...

I change my vote to Nay.

Being now Vice President proper, I cast my vote against the amendment.
Under either interpretation of the law, the amendment thus fails.

Voting is now open on a motion for cloture.

Aye on cloture.

Aye

Aye.

Aye

Aye

Nay

EDIT:  I change my vote to Aye.

By a vote of 6-0, the motion of cloture receieving two-thirds of the votes available given 9 Senators, the motion is carried.

---

Given that, we immediately move to a final vote.
Please vote aye, nay or abstain on the below bill:

Acceptance of Science Bill

Section 1: Human Sexuality
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any sex education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence:
1.) the trait of homosexuality or bisexuality is an entirely conscious choice and/or is strange or unnatural.
2.) the participation in homosexual sex acts is an unnatural act observed only in humans.
3.) the proper use of contraceptive devices including but not limited to condoms is grossly ineffective in preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections.
4.) engaging in sexual activity before marriage with proper precautions is dangerous.
5.) males and females should limit themselves to careers which have historically been associated with masculine and feminine roles, respectively.

Section 2: Origins
No funds from the federal government shall go towards any scientific education curriculum that promotes any of the following beliefs as based on scientific evidence:
1.) the status of biological evolution as a scientific theory is somehow different or set apart from that of other scientific theories such as gravity or relativity.
2.) fossil evidence for biological macroevolution is largely inaccurate or misinterpreted by mainstream scientists, or presents a picture that contradicts with biological evolutionary theory.
3.) radioactive carbon dating is always inaccurate or scientifically unreliable.
4.) the age of the earth is less than ten thousand years.
5.) the origins of the universe and of life on earth are scientifically explained by religious texts or creeds.
6.) the complexity of certain types of life on earth are of such a magnitude that they present valid evidence for that of a higher power or "intelligent designer."
7.) creation theories are testable by the scientific method.
8.) the Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts the Big Bang.

Section 3: Cannabis
No federal funds shall be directed toward any drug prevention program that disseminates any of the following beliefs, and/or presents them as being established on scientific evidence.
1. Marijuana use fails to alleviate symptoms associated with terminal illness (e.g. cancer).
2. Recreational use of marijuana invariably leads to use of "hard" drugs (the so-called "gateway effect").

Nay.

Nay

Nay

This bill is a boondoggle of secular progressive hogwash. The very idea that we should stop certain things from being taught in schools is simply anti-freedom. It rings of the Tennessee laws against evolution in the 1920s.

I vote NAY because I respect the individual human mind, and hearing all sides of debate. I urge all to oppose this act which is anti-free speech, anti-thought, and nothing but an attempt by our honorable President Pro Tempore to indoctrinate children. It is sick, and I vote nay!

Aye.

Let me respond to the concerns of Sen. PBrunsel and also invite the other three Senators to give some sound reasoning for voting against this bill.


This is absolutely not true.  If the government is to spend money funding education, it has
a.) the right to make determinations about what is or is not appropriate to teach, and more importantly
b.) the responsibility to stop teachers from indoctrinating children into certain belief systems or urban myths.

I could apply all of the things you just said to a bill which would stop children from being taught that two plus two equals five.  This is just an effort to bring some accountability into the school systems.  Also note that in fact, no 'ban' on any of these things being taught has taken place.  Schools wishing to incorporate these things into their cirriculums will simply be required to forgo their federal funding.

I am against the bill for two main reasons:

First, the negative effect it will have upon the Southeast's voucher program.

Second, a number of the clauses are simply not factually proven in a definitive way to make government discouraging of their teachings through withdrawal of tax moneys ok in my view.  A couple of the clauses I do not personally agree with.

Actually, there are other reasons I can give, but I will stop here.

Aye.

Current Tally on Final Vote

Aye: 2 (Ebowed; Rob)
Nay: 4 (Sam; BrandonH; DWTL; PBrunsel)
Yet to Vote: 3 (Al; Lewis; Phil)

Aye.

I am against this bill because not only does it unfairly discriminate against the South, the bill has no merits other than the sponsor likes to take shots at religion.  None of things actually help children broaden their horizons, just instead of brainwashing them with Christian theories, with brainwash them with non-Christian theories.  There has to be a balance.

Aye

I wouldn't have voted for the orginal bill and I have a few issues with the bill in it's current form, but they are relatively trivial.

Nay

It doesn't specifically target any one region.  If schools which teach these sorts of things are predominantly in the South, that is an unintentional side effect, not an expected result.  The bill itself is totally neutral, at least until you had to find a better excuse to vote against it.

Current Tally on Final Vote
Aye: 4 (Ebowed; Rob; Lewis; Al)
Nay: 5 (Sam; BrandonH; DWTL; PBrunsel; Phil)
Yet to Vote: 0

The bill having garnered enough votes to fail, Senators have 24 hours from now within which they may change their votes.

Final Vote
Aye: 4 (Ebowed; Rob; Lewis; Al)
Nay: 5 (Sam; BrandonH; DWTL; PBrunsel; Phil)
Yet to Vote: 0

The Acceptance of Science Bill fails the final vote 4-5-0 and is removed from the Senate floor.

AAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIBA!!!!!

()

()

()

NO!

I am very glad we were able to fail this bill for the good of the Southeast and the whole country to promote intellectual freedom.  This is a victory for free speech!

This bill had nothing to do with free speech.

It does, your bill was trying to limit what a school could talk about and teach.

:(