"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."
> "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?
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.
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.
