Breitbart.tv

[...] Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ Posted on 10 May 2009by admin (0) // Quick Take: Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ → Read full article… [...]

[...] Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ Posted on 10 May 2009by admin (0) // Quick Take: Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ → Read full article… [...]

[...] the original here:  Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ Filed Under: Latest News [...]

I know Jesus Christ will return to earth someday and all those that doubt it will one day see it with their own eyes. Mark my words.

@Tubby

I do take up your challenge! Let’s give you the whole month of May!!! That way ‘your god’ has plenty of time for plane tickets, passports and all that…

But did you need the time frame of ‘infinity’ for your foolish belief to ‘come true’…

A very old warn and very warn out dumb statement from you that has been proven very wrong “NOT” to come true in the past…

burp…

Dumb… Very dumb…

Hey! Don’t let your science get in the way of my right to be ignorant!

Why should Christian students be uncomfortable unless they are afraid of the truth?

2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 (NIV) – “God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”

Wow, times of changed. I think they taught us evolution, I wasn’t paying attention, but I can’t imagine a teacher bashing a religion like this, even the one they’re suposed to bash. Pretty soon there will be cross-dressing dances and mohammed tolerance days, but those awful churchies will be yelled at.

This is beyond ridiculous. Xians know no limits in their delusions.

I encountered something different, when I went to school. Teachers would try to push sectarian values on me. I am a Christian, but do not believe in a Pope or some other proxy for God.

I don’t like it when other Christian sectarians try to assert that my Christian beliefs are flawed. If I want their opinions, I will ask.

This case is a little different. I will allow Athiests a greater amount of slack than others. My job is done when I discretely advise them that I don’t understand their view. To inflict harm upon them for their faith, or lack thereof, is not my way of doing things.

Poor old Obama and his “Team” depend on drooling yahoos like Corbett for ultimate support.

I’d rather have the young student, Farnan, in my corner any day of the week.

The Evolutionists base their arguments on “Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin. Right?

Well allow me to provide you with the last sentence in Darwin’s book.

“ There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

So even Darwin believed there was a Creator. But then Darwin wasn’t near as bright as Corbett and L’Arse was he?

Pencey,

Stop lying, it’s a sin. “by the Creator” is not in Darwin’s conclusion.

Typical Xian. Always changing and/or adding words in books to suit their means.

This Teacher was out of line should be fired Never allowed to teach again , He was putting out his opinion , he was not teaching, HE was indoctrinateing , of course today educational system run by liberal fascists in the nea , this is what they want to do is indoctrinate ,NOT educate .

Hey doubters,

O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

Jesus Christ will return one day.

You all have a lot to learn.

@Don

Well it’s in my copy you filthy stinking lame-brain jackass. Don’t call me a liar.

The last sentence of the last paragraph of Darwin’s conclusion. (New American Library 1958, Introduction by Julien Huxley)

Probably edited out of your baby edition by some propagandist, the likes of Herr Corbett.

You’re a pathetic indoctrinated moron with the brain of a gnat.

Why did he focus on one religion? Maybe he wouldn’t have gotten in trouble if he had talked about religion in general. I realize it was European History, and there has always been a large Christian following there, but he would have been expressing his opinion rather than denigrating one particular religion. Faith is a choice. You either choose faith or not. If you say “In my opinion……” most will not find fault with you on that. He shot himself in the foot!

What do you suppose would have happened had the teacher made similiar remarks about the Muslim faith? I’ll bet he wouldn’t have made it to his car that afternoon. But hey, it’s OK to bash Christians.

It still baffles me how ignorant of the facts some people are. Have the majority of the people who claim to be “Christians” even read the bible?

The bible is a book supporting the subjugation of women for one, supports incest, and advocates for the unprovoked invasions of peaceful nations.

Por exemplo: Read the story of lot and Sodom and Gamorrah. In it he offers up his daghters to be gang raped by the Sodomites instead of the 2 guests that visit his house.

And later on while lot and his daughters are in the mountains, they get their father drunk and “lay with him”.

This is the moral code you adhere so dearly to?

Do some research, get informed. Don’t just listen to all the crap your parents and ministers spoon feed you.

To borrow a quote, the majority of people are atheists when it comes to the majority of Gods. True atheists just take it one god further.

[...] Why Education Matters ######## digg Wisconsin court upholds GPS tracking by police  Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism Nonsense XKCD – Brakes Ireland: to Surf Where Others Fear to Go [+video] Chinese Drywall – It [...]

LOL

@Tubby – If I became convinced that your god was real, I’m not sure I would be able to sincerely confide in him and ask Jesus to be my savior. I have a problem with authority, you see, and anyone who threatens to punish me forever and ever for one lifetime of breaking arbitrary rules has already lost my respect and admiration. Jesus was a cool guy. His dad, however, appears to be somewhat of a dick, to say the least.

wowzers,

Well, imo the teacher WAS out of line, even if I do agree with some of his viewpoints. The classroom is not the place for a teacher to express such opinions. Simply teach the students to think for themselves, and they are better off and more likely to abandon the foolish parts of religion.

americans are crazy and entertaining

Well … It *IS* superstitious nonsense, though.

And the Republican party’s continued attacks on evolution are a part of the reason why we’ve been losing elections lately.

We’ve stopped doing anything about the issues that matter — in particular, the FISCAL conservatism we’ve abandoned since Reagan — in favor of attacking science.

We used to be the party of progress, liberty, and defense of the Republic; now we’re the party that focuses exclusively on issues that don’t matter.

That student is a puss.y, Religion is not fact so i don’t see the argument of discrimination.

the only real god is the sun

whoa…
Only in america will some ignorant child win a law suit because it caused him to think, or at least consider… problem is the answer he got didn’t fit the the jigsaw version of life he was given.

another walking zombie that now ‘knows’ he is right.

diaf looser.

Is in these moments that I feel happy to be European with a education based on science and not a stupid american with medieval education and beliefs. For some reason only in the US people believe in creationism (and the rest of the world look at you with a smile)…
The fact is “YOUR THE CLOWNS OF THE WORLD” :D

It is common, while discussing European history, to teach about how the Catholic Church helped keep the common people under control by making up things that would serve the King well. Perhaps you guys don’t realize that the bible says “Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the fifth commandment, so no misgovernment on the part of a King can release his subjects from their allegiance.” If you have a holy book that says that, and you are the King… don’t you think you could get on board that gravy train??!?!?!

Calling certain parts of Catholicism “Superstitious None-sense” in that context makes perfect sense.

Do we still believe that a King is just as infallible as god because of the divine right of kings? They believed that back then because the church told them to believe it. I don’t believe we still believe it to this day because its a bunch of superstitious none-sense.

I don’t understand what this professor was sued for and how it wasn’t protected under his rights to free speech. Is it now illegal to teach the truth? And I absolutely love how good ol’ Fox news, true to form, only sensationalizes the quotes, without putting them in context or telling us how the court made their decision. Way to tell half the story there Fox, thanks for that!

The reason why the 1st amendment is invoked is because the gov’t can’t endorse religion over non religion or vise versa. the constitution doesn’t regulate private religious discrimination (although things like federal employment non-discrimination laws do, inapplicable here). So, this was only a problem because the teacher was doing it in a public school, which is considered the gov’t. If he said those things in a private school there would be no problem (just as a private christian school can constitutially teach the bible instead of science).

Too bad he wanted to teach public school students something he could have only taught to private school students.

I want this teacher!

I find it amazing that so many of you hide behind the facade of your computer screens. You throw horrible remarks and tout how Christians are so ignorant. How about publishing your real name and we’ll have an intelligent conversation?

Unfortunately, in my encounters with those opposed to Christianity or Creationism, those who disagree with it cannot have an intelligent conversation. They call names and say how nonsense it is and blah blah blah, but they can’t sit down and listen to both side of the story.

Can’t we all grow up a little bit. The internet has made so many of you so childish. If you were to talk about this in real life, many of you would be singing a different tune.

Ok for one thing Evolutionists don’t just base their entire argument off of one book so that argument is a lame duck.

Two; quoting the Bible as proof that God said so is along the same line of stupidity as saying Evolutionists base their entire argument off of one book.

Three; OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, guess this kid will grow up to flip burgers because god knows if he doesn’t like the truth it must not be true.

I don’t think he should have expressed his opinion in the classroom like this, it’s unfortunate, but fair that he was called out on it. However, it is sad that equally across the country school teachers can teach creationism. The idea of teaching impressionable young children that the theory of evolution is just as probable, or less probable than ‘god created the world’ seems inherently wrong to me. They can believe whatever they want personally, but they should not be teaching or pushing that in schools. It is completely anti-science and anti-common sense, and worryingly prevalent in todays anti-intellectual America.

Creationism IS Superstitious Nonsense

Sue me now!

I agree with this teacher’s views, but the timing and venue where all wrong.

@ArtyTru:
Most people in this country don’t want to think for themselves. They would rather be told what to think and believe because it’s easier than the alternative. Unfortunately, these people are also easily controlled.

@Tubby:
Dude, put the bible down and step back. I think you’ve beat it to death. The problem with your religion is that there is little substance to it. I grew up in a Christian home, and forced to go to church every Sunday for 18 years. It was ALWAYS a painful experience. I think what you, and other proselytizing Christians need to do is come to a realization: what is good for or to you isn’t always good for someone else.

I chose become a free thinker of my own free will. If you don’t like it go away and bother someone else. No one can tell me anything about Christianity I haven’t already heard a thousand times.

First off, this title is wrong. He was spouting off politically sensitive, and obviously biased opinions, which shouldn’t be brought into the classroom in the first place. Niether that nor religious material such as creationism.

Welcome to America. Not everyone believes in your god. And if you’re so sensitive about it, send your children to christian schools to learn about creationism. The public school system is driven to provide an education to a broad audience with many religious views, and if you just CAN’T handle the fact that proven science is being taught in schools, then you might as well throw yourself off a cliff.

Thanks.

Mr. Stamos,

Do you read your Bible? The moral code Christians are to adhere to are the 10 Commandments given by Moses and fulfilled by Christ. See Matthew5:17-28. The accounts in the Bible are LESSONS.

This particular passage you speak of Genesis 19:1-11 gives us a picture of the wickedness that was abounding in Sodom. Hence God’s destruction of the city. It was customary of the day to protect guests at any cost. Do you know of a woman that has been gang raped by homosexuals?

The daughters were desperate and showing their acceptance for the morals of Sodom commited incest. The sons Moab and Ben-Ammi would father the two greatest enemies of Isreal, the Moabites and Ammonites. There lies God’s judgement for the daughters sin.

Yes by all means do the research. It is not easy but your diligence and perseverance will be rewarded.

Huh? Where is creationism being taught in US schools? Ali are you sure you have the right country in mind? As for Don, that retard is anti-Christian all the way through. He is a useless troll on these boards and gets angry at the thought of a Christian retaining the rights of free speech and standing up for their rights. And when he pretends to understand Christian scripture, he gets every point scholarly arse backwards.

“Man, who looked for a superhuman being in the fantastic reality of heaven and found nothing there but the reflection of himself, will no longer be disposed to find but the semblance of himself, only an inhuman being, where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

The basis of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being encamped outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritualistic point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal source of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence because the human essence has no true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly a fight against the world of which religion is the spiritual aroma.”

if we could sue Karl Marx today….

this is ridiculous, just because this teacher has an alternative view doesn’t mean hes wrong. he might have gone about it in the wrong way, but hey kid, college will be a wake up call… they don’t care what you believe in, college professors are going to say what they will.. and the way you learn is by taking away what you get from it because no one is going to MAKE you believe anything either.

Obviously they stumbled upon some Reagan appointee who could sorta-kinda-maybe find something wrong with ONE statement in “hours and hours” of tape.

Reversed on appeal. Stay tuned.

READ CORBETT’S RESPONSE @ OPEN SALON, IT’S VERY THOUGHT PROVOKING!! I’d love to take have a class with this guy, he is my kind of educator!

http://open.salon.com/blog/corribean/2009/05/09/dr_james_jesus_glasses_corbett

This case as well as the student and lawyer are what is wrong with the world today. Rather than deal with someone else’s beliefs, they sue because they’re looking to get rich quick.

Shame on all of us for allowing this to happen.

This is fox news? Typical inflammatory nonsense. Sell media to the rubes LOL..

@European Dude

The fact is we Americans wake up every day, face east, and thank whatever god is available that we don’t live in Europe.

I can’t imagine anything worse than waking to learn that I was a cowering Frenchman or some brand of latent Nazi Squarehead.

@LANCE

Thanks Lance,well phrased.

Am not sure though that any of these droolers would change their tune.

What is for sure, is that on the subjects of Creationsim and Evolution, Darwin himself believed in a Creator and asserted that belief in both “The Origin of Species” and “The Descent of Man.”

People’s religions are much like an animal’s territory: Any encroachment will be met with hostility and possibly death.

@james corbett

Well buddy, I read the corbett tract and then listened once more to the video.

He called Hannity a liar, he claims to have better logic than Aristotle and he refers to Creationism as “superstitious nonsense” in the face of the fact that Darwin himself believed in a Creator.

The man is first class, gold plated, dumb.

He should take the three voter forms that he used to get Obama elected and go home to the 1948 Volkswagon Bus he lives in.

I agree that the teacher should not have been giving his opinions unless he was asked to do so, and even then he should have chosen his words carefully. On the other hand, for him to be sued over his words is absurd.
Science cannot answer all of our questions but at least it is a sane place to start. Throughout history, the church has made a living by keeping the masses ignorant by suppressing and persecuting those who follow the light of science.
It makes me sad that there are people of power in this country who hold a similar view. Namely, republican members of congress who want creationism taught alongside evolution.
It is time for the world to let go of these antiquated belief systems, and move on. As long as we continue organize religions that include some but exclude most others, the boundary lines will continue to be drawn and we will never know peace.

A school should be a place for disagreement and discussion. Otherwise it’s a mill, and not a terribly efficient one. If your teacher calls your beliefs “nonsense” challenge him with something solid, not your hurt feelings. And whatever the outcome, you can’t sue the teacher. Oh, wait; you can. And you win. Because mythology trumps knowledge in this country. Never mind…

http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessingtool/questionsforevolutionists.shtml

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html#changed

God and science go together. There is no need to discredit one in favor of the other.

really really really really pathetic times we live in. honestly, the earth is not flat. wow. the sheep are mindless. wake up. evolution can be proved in 5 minutes in high school class room. jesus ruled. you neocons are f’n ridiculous.

@michael mckean

Mr. McKean, I suggest you run that video just once more. Listen to that clown and the voice inflection he uses to make his so-called points.

That’s not education chum, that’s attempted indoctrination, and the minds he’s dealing with don’t yet have the knowledge to challenge a teacher and the Corbett’s of the world know that. And they exploit it. It’s been going on since the pot smokers, the failures of the sixties decided to become teachers.

For probably the first time in 40 years someone has taken one of these bozo’s to task and the more that come into the dock the better I’ll like it.

The beauty of this post is that we get a chance to watch the left wing nuts squeal like stuck pigs at finally being attacked legally on their arrogance.

So, sooey sooey sooey you Bolshevik basta*ds.

A short lesson history that is sure to surprise most leftists.

1) There is no separation of church and state clause in the US Constitution.
2) Leftists do not support free speech, especially if it is free religious speech.
3) US Constitution prohibits federal congress from passing “LAWS” regarding the establishment of religion.
4) Hanging a copy of the 10 commandments in a public place does not constitute a federal congressional law being passed.
5) A nativity scene in a public school does not constitute a federal congressional law having been passed.
6) The separation of church and state concept was slipped into US law by a KKK member turned US supreme court judge
7) The KKK required a Separation of Church and State oath of all of it’s members. They did this because they feared that the Catholic church was gaining too much political power.
8) The KKK at its peak of popularity consisted of 90% white Protestant Democrats.
9) Leftists support the government to shut down conservative talk radio thereby removing their freedom of speech
10) Leftists support shutting down freedom of speech of church leaders, wanting them not to talk about politics, even though it is their American right to discuss politics as much as they so choose.
11) Leftists oppose freedom of speech in any dissenting views in science. As Gore states, the debate is over. Meaning that leftist Gore wants to shut down freedom of speech of those real scientists that think Global Warming science is nothing more than junk science at best and politics of control and manipulation at worst.
12) Leftists have no leg to stand on on these discussions.

For all those hypocritical leftists that figure this is an issue of free speech, I would normally agree, however, the current status of events in the USA is that leftists have forbidden free speech in the public school system and have forced the lame and unfounded idea that free speech does not include religious speech. So, using your own perverse and idiotic interpretation of US law, we must push it back into your own immature faces. If you feel that religious speech is prohibited by law (which in reality it is not founded in the US Constitution) then you should get a taste of your own evil medicine. Most conservatives are very rational and free minded people. We believe in equal justice for all. However the leftist believes that free speech is only for them and leftists have no issues with using lame court created laws to oppress conservatives with. The golden rule says do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Well, your own hatred and your own fear of free speech is most justly applied to you. I have hopes that your free speech will be shut down as much as you have hoped it upon others.

wow, so i guess people can be sued over their opinions now? whats next.

@Pency,

in regards to the Darwin quote, you are correct in citing your edition, but Darwin regretted bowing to the clerics to include it:

http://www.csuchico.edu/~curbanowicz/DarwinDayCollectionOneChapter.html

Leftist claim: “Evolution can be proved in 5 minutes in any high school class.”

Truth: Evolution has not been proven after decades upon decades of attempts. Intelligent design is just as likely to be true as the various forms of evolutionary theory.

We have proven intelligent design of life here on our own earth, with earthly scientists creating new forms of life, just with the limited science that they are familiar with.

Anny, I would give you 99 to 1 odds that you support the shutting down of religious free speech and that you support the suing of religious individuals that exercise religious speech on public property.

For the 123hulk, again, I will give you 99 to 1 odds that you are a hypocrite on the subject of free speech and that you feel obligated yourself to try to shut down free religious speech in public areas. And if Fox News is pretend, why do they win all the top slots on their news programs. Fox news has more viewers than all the leftist news programs put together. So hulk, you can set aside you own pretend comments since you are unable to fool anyone.

Yes, I am sure this would not have been news if the teacher was a fundamentalist Christian and belittling Evolution. Would Fox News have given the same air time to an Atheist student? Of course not, instead as usual on that pretend-news-show, they take a completely and utterly one-sided sensationalist tone and thank Chad for standing up the “way all students should”.

TH.

I cant speak for everyone but my Christian religion teaches that earth was created in seven time periods, with each time period most likely being as long as one billion years. Most Catholics that I know also conclude that the creation days were periods of time, that could easily have been billion year periods. Intelligent design is a very logical concept worth pursuing. The idea of higher levels of intelligence than that of earth is scientifically more plausible than not. Leftists fear free speech because they tend to close their minds based on what public school teachers told them in elementary school. Adults find that most public school teachers, although they offer great service to kids, are not all that well trained in the field of science and they tend to take little thought in what they repeat to our kids. Surely leftists don’t believe that they hold all truths within their small minds. If they do, they have much to learn and are likely not to learn quickly since they keep their minds tightly shut.

Re: “Leftists fear free speech because they tend to close their minds based on what public school teachers told them in elementary school.”

Ironically enough kmichaels, that is precisely the complaint most “leftists” have about religious people. No religious person chooses their own religion (unless they convert, which is exceptionally rare). Instead, they are born into their religion and baptized before they can talk (or form any sort of opinion). They spend their lives never doubting what they were born into, and naturally come to its defense whenever they feel it is being criticized.

For the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate, religious people’s side is chosen for them at birth. At the very least, “leftists” can look at both sides equally and make up their own minds (whether they actually look at the other side equally is certainly a debatable point). Fox News certainly do not, they support the religious-right without argument, making them an incredibly biased source for news.

R.

The difference, 123 hulk, is that leftists have inserted unjustly into law a prohibition of free religious speech. Do you see your free speech being stopped in any manner? Yet you, hulk, support the prohibition of free religious speech and the ability of churches to be involved in politics.

Conversions, btw, are extremely popular in many religions so you cant even post true comments.

Hulk says: “For the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate, religious people’s side is chosen for them at birth.”

Sounds like quite a stupid and unfounded claim. I was born in a certain religion and was not active until I chose to get active after I had been in the military. Are you sure that you have a clue about what you are saying hulk? You sound like you are very bigoted in your comments.

So far you, hulk, have simply chosen to post lies instead of intellectual discussion. Were you born a liar or did you evil mommy force you to be a liar?

@Dude

Thank you sir, am much obliged for the reference. A couple of things trouble me about it:

a) In the Day collection, the reference to Darwins regret at bending to public opinion is dated 1863. But he seems to fall back once again on a Creator in “The Descent of Man” published later in 1871. The Descent if you don’t know it, is an expansion of “Origin” where he goes on to discuss human evolution.

b)My 1958 edition is introduced by Prof Julien Huxley and he makes no objection in his introducion to the inclusion of a “Creator” in the last paragraph.

At any rate, I’m most thankful for the reference and if you’re interested in an interesting discussion of the subject I suggest a book titled “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel and published by Zondervan. Any bookstore for about 20 bucks.

Strobel’s book brings in academics and science people to discuss the issue under the topics, cosmology, physics, astronomy, biology, biochemistry and consciousness.

Well worth an afternoon study.

Thanks again

If freedom of speech is a true right then the teacher was within his rights to teach the truth. I suggest that Obama set up a minor’s bill or rights. This would include but not be limited to a law that punishes anybody whom teaches a student a false statement must be fired. The religious must get their information from their parents. This law would prevent even imprison parents for teaching lies or religion to their children. Each child should be taught only the truth and be allowed to get religion on their own after reaching the age of consent at 16 or 18 or 21. We all know the children will believe anything that an adult tells them so why not limit the confusion in their head by just telling them the truth. God is a delusion made from people that were taught about this invention of the last century called the soul. It doesn’t exist in animals and we are animals. Prove it exists. Prove god exists. I would happily donate money to support a higher court ruling on this case and here is my first $1000 to put my money where my mouth is. The teacher was right on the money. How can we sit here and do all of these mental gymnastics to explain what is written in a book that explains the earth as just 6000 years old. This should be a quick give away that something is wrong with the book. Faith. I know.
Just remember that reason is the death of faith.

Airwick, I have seen your game of semantics about theory before. It means nothing. The bottom line is that evolution has not been proven to be true. Period. If your conclusion is correct, nothing can ever be proven. Fine. You are an idiot and you cant prove otherwise.

And that idiotic bit of yours that you dont need to prove theories you just need to disprove them is just idiotic double talk.

The same goes with your moronic conclusion that intelligent design cannot be approached on a scientific basis. Pure simplistic juvenile hogwash.

Let’s use this as an example. An intelligent being goes down to planet A and seeds it with life, leaving some basic written instructions for later.

Using your conclusion, we can never prove that the intelligent being ever went down to planet A. That is hogwash and dumb, to be blunt.

What if the intelligent being had a holographic video in a lock box that was left on that planet that proved it positively? A little research into that lock box at the appropriate time would reveal the truth of the event.

Yet you, Airwick, in your simplistic air head, conclude that it is unknowable and should not be researched. Yawn, you are a dumb bore with a shallow mind.

Ok, a simple ethics test.

1) Do you support free speech?
2) Why do you not allow free religious speech?

Test over, leftist fail.

kmichaels,
You have gotten your logic backwards, as has “godismoney”. Evolution is a scientific theory and, as such, cannot ever be “proven”. The essence of a theory is that it is the best explanation of the observable known facts. One can then formulate a hypothesis and challenge that theory through experimentation. I have heard (and read) some religious Conservatives who claimed that Evolution was a “quaint 19th century concept” that no longer applies since approximately 150 years has past since it was formulated.

You do not PROVE theories; you attempt to DISPROVE them. The reality is that the strength of the Theory of Evolution is that is HAS been challenged continuously since it was published and STILL remains fundamentally sound.

The problem with Creationism is basic. You cannot construct experiments to challenge the concept. Hence it is NOT science but must be relegated to the realm of philosophy.

Lance, is this response intelligent enough?

Children are not born with religion. There are no born religious people. These children are born a clean slate with no religious belief at all. During the first few years of live religion is shoveled down their throats by threat of violence if they refuse. I was beaten to go to church by my parents until I was 8 to get me to go to church. This practice is prevalent in religious circles and I have heard may other first hand stories that refer to the violence inflicted upon children to coerce them into believing. This is just a type of permitted abuse to these youths. I am so glad that my dad beat the religion out of me. Had he not I may have ended up just like the rest of those stuck in a rut call religion that blocks the view of the truth. A must read for all of you whom think that your religion is real is The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It will open your eyes to the truth and how we as religious people of the world have been duped by unscrupulous people since the invention of the soul. The bicameral mind is what is talking to you you big dummies not god’s voice. It is your own voice in your head that is talking to you. Now go an teach it something useful to say back to you other than what is written in a single book. Try opening a book that is not just another bible.

Ah, thanks kmichaels. Here I was hoping to have found good grounds for a theological discussion with a level-headed person with an opposing viewpoint, and not some religious crackpot who will fling insults at the first opportunity. I am saddened to have you make my hopes unfounded.

Over and out.

TH.

Keith, your comments are full of stupid straw men arguments. Most religious people don’t believe that the earth was created in 6000 years. The most popular belief is 6 periods of time, if you count the seventh as a day of rest, which is up for debate. It is not important to Christians as to how long a day is. I know that non-Christians let this issue get their prejudiced panties in a bind but Christians allow for all sorts of variables in the scientific process of creation. The important issue of the bible is proper social interaction. That means that if you live by a Christian code of conduct everyone benefits and science thrives, general welfare thrives, society thrives and happiness is the norm and not the exception. As the saying go, leftists strain at gnats and swallow camels and ignore the weightier matters of the law.

I see nothing but fear in leftists about the idea of intelligent design being pursued via proper scientific method. I see fear in leftists that reject freedom of speech in others based on lame reasoning on their part. Free speech is free speech and you don’t get to decide which form of speech if more valid than another.

One more thing, I find funny as heck, that I made a guy that calls himself the hulk run away because I disagreed with him. Too funny. Sticks and stones cant hurt him but words seemed to have scared him away. I laugh in your general direction, hulk-wannabe.

A little note on Richard Dawkins. This guy has hated religion and religious people for decades. If you trace his earlier past you see a fairly imbalanced hateful person that spewed all sort of nonsense over the years all aimed at dissing religious people.

Dawkins was in so much pain to hate religion that he concluded that it was ok for aliens to seed earth but not an intelligent being from somewhere in the universe to seed earth. Right, I know, it sounds the same to me. But he was so afraid of referring to a potential God existing that he replaced the idea of God with an Alien being doing the same thing then he was ok with it.

Bottom line is that Dawkins thinking process is rather juvenile at best and his logic against religion is simply a sign of his own hate.

He also tends to set up lots of straw man arguments and almost always misrepresents the opposing view.

So yea, if you want to read a really stupid book or article full of hate and half truths, do pick up Dawkins. It will be sure to be a waste of your time.

Shouldn’t all of you right wingers be bitching about frivolous lawsuits and an activist judge in this case? If the situation were reversed and he was touting creationism and Christianity you’d be cheering him on and bashing the student for suing him. I guess what you’re saying is that frivolous lawsuits and activist judges are OK as long as they agree with your point of view? How is it that you are oblivious to this obvious double standard?

Even my ten year old could pick out this obvious inconsistency in your coverage.

School is not the place to be teaching that the world is 5,000 years old, if you want to learn all that hogwash then go to church… (backs against the wall boys)

There is no excuse for teaching religion as fact in a school, it is nothing but a farce and in this day and age should not be allowed.

Airwick has said it best, just try and DISPROVE evolution, then I will try and disprove creationism, let’s see who wins…

Also it is not about winning for me as my beliefs are all over the place, I believe in a higher state of being, I also believe that the body and mind are as seperate as butter and bread in the way that the body is a vessel for our consciousness… What I don’t believe however, is that there is one almighty and all-powerful being that has the power to create everythin that we see
and is reserving judgement on us all for one day in particular (when btw becaues I would love to kick his *** if he does exist)

Also, just think about the things that go on in the world:
Genocide
Torture
Rape
Murder
And a hell of a lot more, all of which include children… What the hell kind of GOD would allow thing like that to happen to absolutley and completely innocent children.
And if your argument is that Man has done all these things, then why doesn’t GOD put us on the right path instead of letting it continue???

kmichaels:

I cannot begin to tell you how Dawkins is better trained than you in both science and formal logic, has a high rank at one of the most prestigious universities in the world, published close to a dozen of books, debated some of the best thinkers in the world, and has higher status than you. The fact that you presume you can label Dawkins work as ‘juvenile’ just gives us insight into how limited your cognitive processes really are.

Englezul, I agree with everything you said except that Dawkins has a higher status than anyone else, religious or not we are all equal…
Excpet for rapists an paedo’s an that who are not even people in my book, they should be put on an island for sport like in the film “Battle Royale” for people to bet on.
That includes a huge amount of priests btw, deal wid dat christians

Ok, kmichaels, let’s look at how you “disagreed with me” :

“The difference, 123 hulk, is that leftists have inserted unjustly into law a prohibition of free religious speech. Do you see your free speech being stopped in any manner? Yet you, hulk, support the prohibition of free religious speech and the ability of churches to be involved in politics.”

– HAHAHAHA! You just made this up, I said nothing of the sort.

“Conversions, btw, are extremely popular in many religions so you cant even post true comments.”

- BS! Again, you just made this up. Extremely popular????? You mean for instance, like in Islam where it is a capital offense punishable by the death penalty? If you are interested (and obviously you are not) the conversion rate for major religions is 1 in 1000. And that is from a religious source (bible.ca). That makes conversion rare.

“Hulk says: “For the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate, religious people’s side is chosen for them at birth.”
Sounds like quite a stupid and unfounded claim. I was born in a certain religion and was not active until I chose to get active after I had been in the military. Are you sure that you have a clue about what you are saying hulk? You sound like you are very bigoted in your comments.”

- Who is the bigot now ? Let me see, someone who states a fact (Christians are baptized at birth) or someone who renders an unsupported opinion (you only became interested in religion as an adult) and then insults the other party ?

“So far you, hulk, have simply chosen to post lies instead of intellectual discussion. Were you born a liar or did you evil mommy force you to be a liar?”

- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for posting this, oh wait, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I guess it was my evil mommy who forced me to post facts when taking a side in an argument, and leave it to the religious nutjobs to post insults. One more, HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! Ah, that’s better. By the way, in order to have an intellectual discussion, you need to have an intellect (oops sorry, descended to your level there for a second, shame on me).

TH.

Dawkins may be better trained but it doesn’t change the fact that he is heavily biased; this severely weakens his position but he does bring up interesting points.

Whoever brought up Strobel…Strobel is a hack. “The Case for a Creator” is a poorly written and poorly argued book that makes too many assumptions. Same goes for his even worse book, Case for Christ.

Question about the time periods versus days: Why did it take God time periods to make the Earth? Isn’t he all powerful? Can’t He just make it instantly? Or perhaps he made it instantly and makes it appear like time periods or days or what have you?
But, these are weak questions and arguments.

kmichaels managed to raise an interesting idea: the Bible is meant to be more of a guide on social behaviour and interaction: on what is good and bad, morality etc… The problem is that it happens to be full of wonderfully “evil” things and it’s view of reality and morality happens to take a number of things for granted. (Misogyny anybody? as an example)
Of course, the best way to win an argument is to gesture towards the transcendental, towards that which cannot be explained. Why does the Bible promote women as second class citizens? Because God wills it so. Nice. Can’t explain what we don’t understand? Except for the fact that it’s clearly written by males in patriarchal societies that used slaves, encouraged war against those who sought to destroy the nation of the writers etc… (not the only holy or religious book to do so; see Islam’s texts, Judaism’s texts (similar to Christian), Hindu texts etc…)
Furthermore, by raising this point about the Bible’s purpose as a moral guide, we come to the question: if that is the purpose of the Bible, then why do so many follow it literally, missing the messages and metaphors, interpreting it as fact when there is not much evidence to support its facts?

The “theory of evolution” is not much of a theory anymore but closer to fact. No, we don’t have a full explanation for humans but evolution is clearly observed in nearly every other species on the face of the planet. Natural selection, fitness etc… it’s all there and it all makes sense. Humans happen to be more difficult because we have morals and ethics (obstacles to how much you can experiment :) ) and tend to live for long periods of time. Evolution happens to take a very long period of time. Of course, creationists and religious will cling to the word “theory”.

Darwin believed in a Creator and was raised religious. Ultimately though, he tended to disagree with religion and had his own personal views. He is more concerned with what he observes in the natural world than he is with proving the existence of a Creator. He is more concerned with what can actually be proven than what cannot due to no observable basis in the phenomena of the world around him.

The teacher in this video? If you listen to his tone and his way of arguing, he is way out of line. As a teacher he is in a position of trust, he should teach students respect, understanding and open-mindedness towards others and their beliefs rather than preaching ignorance and biggotry. In doing so, he is no better than most religious people he seems to so passionately dislike who in their own turn preach that all others are wrong and that their religious belief is the only right path of life.
The kid seems to be on this train of thought rather than just being insulted on religious grounds. That is, I hope he sued the teacher for his lack of respect and understanding towards others and not for being personally insulted that someone doesn’t share his religious views.

Open your minds, be respectful towards others and their views, DO NOT FORCE YOUR VIEW UPON OTHERS, it is a lack of respect and shows ignorance. When arguing, do not insult or belittle, it weakens your position and exposes your prejudices (I realize I have done this a few times above). The Bible is intended more as a moral guide with metaphors, find the good in it but understand that like all other texts, and Christianity, like all other religions, are man-made constructs, meant to find answers and offer comfort and often used for corrupt purposes to control. Seek an education and try to be as unbiased as possible when understanding another’s point of view. You’ve all exposed numerous reasons why religion and its extremes, as well as the irreligious and atheist extremists are all in the same boat: lack of respect, abundance of hate and a great exhibition of ignorance.

I realize that I’ve not properly elucidated a number of points.

Thank you for your time. Fascinating argument and video. Have a great day! Don’t hate those who don’t agree with you too much.

Pencey,

The original edition does not contain Creator. It is only in later editions that contain it to appease the Xians. They still weren’t happy.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F373&pageseq=507

Look, it’s over. The Right has lost. The fundies in turn have lost their only hope for power. Let them flail about. It’s over. They lost. It’s done. The days of pushing creationism as science is coming to an end.

Fox News is now just the less funny comedy network.

But do go on, if you feel you must, wingers. You are nothing if not amusing.

Why do you go to school? You might learn some actual facts there instead of the religious supersttious nonsense you want.

Kmichaels,
It is unfortunate that you cannot enter into a conversation regarding a topic without resorting to name calling and insults. I thought that that was a “Libtard” tactic.

Your observation that “nothing can ever be proven” is, in fact, fundamentally sound. Unfortunately, it is the only logical part of your response. What we CAN say is that with a very high degree of confidence certain situations are thought to exist. Subsequent observations and discoveries may cause us to modify and, in rare cases, completely rethink our conclusions. For example, Newtonian physics accurately predicted the motion of bodies to a high degree of accuracy until the advent of modern atomic theory and nuclear physics where it was found to be wanting. Einstein, and others, including Prof. Hawking, has attempted to bridge that gap. This does not mean that there is no gravity; it means that we may have to use other means of computation if we want to accurately describe motion and the relationships between particles accurately. You clearly do not understand scientific logic or concepts.

As far as Creationism and my “moronic conclusion that intelligent design cannot be approached on a scientific basis” are concerned, the fact is that Creationism cannot be examined scientifically. You may think that this is “hogwash” but your challenge is to show otherwise.

To illustrate my point I will set up an example. If we discover a human gene that codes for a particular protein and we find a similar gene in a number of different species what will their relationship be based on sequence and function? Those who believe in “evolution” will hypothesize that the differences found in the sequences of the genes will reflect the phylogenic drift of the species (an ape gene will have greater homology than a cat gene which will have greater homology than a fruit fly gene). We can now perform experiments to challenge that hypothesis. Can you do something similar using Intelligent Design or Creationism? How would you test whether or not God “did it”? Would you have any ideas on what the relationships these substances would have based upon intelligent design? Why would a Creator make a monkey gene more similar to a human gene than a fly gene? Or would He? You simply have no foundation on which to base your experiment.

Using your example of an intelligent being who “goes down to planet A and seeds it with life, leaving some basic written instructions for later”, you are once again correct; you cannot “prove that the intelligent being ever did so. It is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence supporting your “theory”. Darwin at least had anatomical studies to support his. We have yet to see any evidence of your “holographic video in a lock box”.

Finally, as far as “shallow minds” go, it seems that you have already made up yours. I have no problem with the concept of Creationism being researched. You have to suggest a venue by which that is possible without quoting from your “basic written instructions” as the final arbitrator.

Mindtaker makes some good points but also seems to be full of quite a few unfounded assumptions.

“Furthermore, by raising this point about the Bible’s purpose as a moral guide, we come to the question: if that is the purpose of the Bible, then why do so many follow it literally, missing the messages and metaphors, interpreting it as fact when there is not much evidence to support its facts?”

Good question, but this same question may be applied to any subject. Consider politics. Two opposite sides on one subject, politics, results in billions of people having opposing opinions. So, if we assume that because there are opposing opinions means that neither side is right then nobody is right on any issue.

However, the best way to judge truth is on one issue at a time. So that is the way I was taught as a Christian to judge issues. One step at a time. Grace by grace, line upon line, until you come to a full knowledge of the truth. Works for me, works for religion, works for economics, works for science of all sorts.

Funny thing about science too, is that most past scientists are eventually refuted and replaced with future scientists. Einstein is considered wrong on key issues, as was Newton and every other scientist. It seems that science is based line upon line as well but we have not come to a full knowledge of truth there by any means.

The idiot logic of a leftist …

Englezul says that a person that is trained
and goes to a given school and writes books must be classified as superior to others.

I guess that means that Stalin, Hitler and that drooling Obama clown must be considered god, because they went to school and wrote books.

Good god, englezul, grow some brains you nitwitted juvenile.

kmichaels,
I wrote a response to you but BB has it awaiting moderation for some reason. I did not use any profanity but maybe their little minds exploded. We’ll see if it gets posted. If not I will try to do so in pieces to try to find where the offending passages are.

LOL,

“Good god, englezul, grow some brains you nitwitted juvenile.”

That from someone who believes in something equivalent to the tooth fairy or father christmas.

I love a good hearty laugh :D

“…goes to a given school and writes books must be classified as superior to others”

He is superior in the sense that he is better educated – therefore more intelligent regarding matters of theology.

“…Stalin, Hitler and that drooling Obama clown must be considered god.”

Thats just taking it too far, only people without proper arguments say things like that.

All in all, the argument should be you trying to persuade us that God can exist, not whether he does or not.
And especially not just taking pot shots at what someone else said in an obviously different context.

kmichaels is a TROLL. Quit feeding him. No real person is that incapable of speaking to others without that much name calling. He is an obvious TROLL and should be ignored as such.

What this teacher did was…man…hmmm…yah…this is so tricky. I mean, on the one hand, he is right. His historical points are dead-on. When people start rising up, you get a witch doctor to whip them back into shape. Nothing wrong with that. And, Creationism (the newish political/religious movement, NOT the simple belief in a “creator”…I am still on the fence whether there was something/someone to lay the original seed, not bashing those who believe in a “creator”, the movement however…) is utter religious nonsense.

But, the teacher made two huge mistakes in my opinion. First, he singled out a specific religion. All religions are, in general, pretty heinous and abusive and corrosive. He very obviously and again and again, went after a specific mythology. On that ground, I can see where the student has a point. Second, he is obviously a pompous (you-know-what). As I opened with, I completely agree with most of his points, but the way he says it, makes me want to punch him in the jaw. You don’t…no, you SHOULDN’T be condescending like that, especially in the class room.

But, should someone be sued for being a jack(you-know-what)? No, I don’t think so. But, he really did go after a specific target, singled out a particular mythology. I am no lawyer, so I will leave that to the appellate court, but it certainly does not seem right.

Well that worked. Let’s try for part two.

Einstein, and others, including Prof. Hawking, has attempted to bridge that gap. This does not mean that there is no gravity; it means that we may have to use other means of analysis if we want to accurately describe motion and the relationships between particles accurately. You clearly do not understand scientific logic or concepts.

Airwick, BB and moderation is strange indeed. I get moderated when I say nothing wrong and it lets me be less than kind on other issues. It is automatically moderated by certain words. You cant even say s-ex without being moderated. You can say gay but not h-omo-s-exual (you get my drift. If I spelled it correctly it wont let it through. So, I just try to avoid certain words but still get moderated by who knows what key word. Keep on trucking.

So, somebody asks “Can a God exist” instead of does he or does he not.

The simple answer is yes. The reasoning is that to assume that earth has produced the highest level of intelligence by pure chance, beyond anything that an endless universe can produce is just well, dumb.

The harder issue is if God can exist, what will he be like? Well, if we adopt the survival of the fittest concept, then my God would have a code of conduct that allows for societal progress and the progress of science, technology and truth in general. That would end up with a loving God that respects his neighbors rights as well.

If there is a natural tendancy to die by the sword if you live by the sword then there will be a natural tendency that if you live by peace that peace will be afforded you.

So, given infinite time, God is the most likely end result of an evolutionary process and this end would have been achieved an infinite amount of time ago, in the past.

So here we are, repeating the same questions and issues discussed a gazillion infinities ago.

Kmichaels,
Since the BB censors don’t like my response for some reason I will break it down and try to send it in parts. Here is part one:

It is unfortunate that you cannot enter into a conversation regarding a topic without resorting to name-calling and insults. I thought that that was a “Libtard” tactic.

Your observation that “nothing can ever be proven” is, in fact, fundamentally sound. Unfortunately, it is the only logical part of your response. What we CAN say is that with a very high degree of confidence certain situations are thought to exist. Subsequent observations and discoveries may cause us to modify and, in rare cases, completely rethink our conclusions. For example, Newtonian physics accurately predicted the motion of bodies to a high degree of accuracy until the advent of modern atomic theory and nuclear physics where it was found to be wanting. Einstein, and others, including Prof. Hawking, has attempted to bridge that gap. This does not mean that there is no gravity; it means that we may have to use other means of computation if we want to accurately describe motion and the relationships between particles accurately. You clearly do not understand scientific logic or concepts.

I think that I have found the dirty word. It is an@lysis. For some reason you can’t say that on BB. Go figure…

Let’s try this:

Einstein, and others, including Prof. Hawking, has attempted to bridge that gap. This does not mean that there is no gravity; it means that we may have to use other means of an@lysis if we want to accurately describe motion and the relationships between particles accurately. You clearly do not understand scientific logic or concepts.

J figures I am a troll because I disagree with what he says. Hmmm, I guess J is a troll since he disagrees with me. We are all trolls.

In any case, here is how it works. Leftists want to stop freedom of speech based on religious issues and this teacher had his freedom of speech stopped based on religious issues.

If you allow freedom of speech to be sued then you get what you ask for.

Nothing should rightly prohibit freedom of religious speech but we are stuck where we are because of hateful leftists trying to cram down the throats of our nation their secular beliefs.

Religion should never be forced but should be able to be freely discussed.

Evolution should never be forced, should be discussed freely, as well as intelligent design has just as much right to be discussed and pursued on a logical basis.

Now, why should men believe in a God? Obviously most people on earth do. So why? Is it logical or is it purely genetic?

I, having studied much science and much religion too conclude that an intelligent being superior to us on earth is much more likely to exist than not exist.

Human scientists have performed intelligent design in human labs on earth. Why cant higher intelligence outside of our own be capable of doing the same? There is no good argument against it.

As to intellectual levels, most atheists seem shallow minded, based on my own experience. Why it is hard to find smart atheists is beyond me, but they seem pretty rare.

Airwick, my point was that using semantics there is no truth ever. I agree that truth is somewhat relative, but only because of our lack of understanding. In reality, truth is absolute.

As to evolution, it has serious flaws and as many people that put faith in it put faith in intelligent design. So we cant conclude logically that one is more true than the other.

Personally, I believe that God exists now and that he came about through an evolutionary form of adaptation over an infinite amount of time. But since infinity is what it is, God has always existed, as far as we are concerned. It sounds mythical but to me it is a logical extension of infinity.

At some point, if God (or a society of God) did progress to an infinite level of intelligence then at that point (if he concludes to make the learning process more intelligent) he can easily create mankind in his own image and give them the necessary guidance to achieve the proper code of conduct in life similar to the one that he has long since adopted.

There is great logic in this conclusion.

Kmichaels,
Well, that didn’t work. Let’s try again. Since the BB censors don’t like my response for some reason, I will break it down and try to send it in parts. Here is part one:

Your observation that “nothing can ever be proven” is, in fact, fundamentally sound. What we CAN say is that with a very high degree of confidence certain situations are thought to exist. Subsequent observations and discoveries may cause us to modify and, in rare cases, completely rethink our conclusions. For example, Newtonian physics accurately predicted the motion of bodies to a high degree of accuracy until the advent of modern atomic theory and nuclear physics where it was found to be wanting.

Oh yes, Airwick, you are right on that one word. You cant say a-nal in any form. It is offensive to gays, supposedly. I had mine do the same thing with the same word you used. That is why I insert the – into some words.

Analysis

This is ridiculous 100%. Allowing a student to sue a teacher over his opinions of a theory ( … yes … ) is just insane. That’s all this is. It’s not like there is a special line you can jump over anytime someone hurts your feelings because they like red more green. I am more than a little disappointed that so many people took the time to defend their religious beliefs here, instead of just saying how DUMB it is that someone got sued and LOST over an OPINION of someone’s THEORY.

To illustrate my point I will set up an example. If we discover a human gene that codes for a particular protein and we find a similar gene in a number of different species what will their relationship be based on sequence and function? Those who believe in “evolution” will hypothesize that the differences found in the sequences of the genes will reflect the phylogenic drift of the species (an ape gene will have greater similarity than a cat gene which will have greater similarity than a fruit fly gene). We can now perform experiments to challenge that hypothesis. Can you do something similar using Intelligent Design or Creationism? How would you test whether or not God “did it”? Would you have any ideas on what the relationships these substances would have based upon intelligent design? Why would a Creator make a monkey gene more similar to a human gene than a fly gene? Or would He? You simply have no foundation on which to base your experiment.

Sigh, America?
Do you want to know what I learned when I first started studying at a University?

It’s not the facts you learn.
It’s not how many functions you can integrate, or for how many variables you can differentiate.
It’s to learn critical thinking and hear /different/ and /dissenting/ opinions. It’s to realize that many people don’t hold your views and it’s to shape your own views.

Sure that teacher went too far, but that kid can just do what I do every time I hear religious nuts speaking- ignore them. What happened to the freedom of speech?

America is never going to be the magnificent country it was if pussies like that student are going to sue everyone that dissents with their world view.

homology

Well now they are posting my responses…but out of sequence. What a great site!

Here is the rest. Hopefully it will pass and we can continue our discussion.

As far as Creationism and my “moronic conclusion that intelligent design cannot be approached on a scientific basis” are concerned, the fact is that Creationism cannot be examined scientifically. You may think that this is “hogwash” but your challenge is to show otherwise.

To illustrate my point I will set up an example. If we discover a human gene that codes for a particular protein and we find a similar gene in a number of different species what will their relationship be based on sequence and function? Those who believe in “evolution” will hypothesize that the differences found in the sequences of the genes will reflect the phylogenic drift of the species (an ape gene will have greater homology than a cat gene which will have greater homology than a fruit fly gene). We can now perform experiments to challenge that hypothesis. Can you do something similar using Intelligent Design or Creationism? How would you test whether or not God “did it”? Would you have any ideas on what the relationships these substances would have based upon intelligent design? Why would a Creator make a monkey gene more similar to a human gene than a fly gene? Or would He? You simply have no foundation on which to base your experiment.

Using your example of an intelligent being who “goes down to planet A and seeds it with life, leaving some basic written instructions for later”, you are once again correct; you cannot “prove that the intelligent being ever did so. It is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence supporting your “theory”. Darwin at least had anatomical studies to support his. We have yet to see any evidence of your “holographic video in a lock box”.

have no problem with the concept of Creationism being researched. You have to suggest a venue by which that is possible without quoting from your “basic written instructions” as the final arbitrator.

To illustrate my point I will set up an example. If we discover a human gene that codes for a particular protein and we find a similar gene in a number of different species what will their relationship be based on sequence and function?

Intelligent Design = Creationism

Intelligent design is the assertion that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”[1][2] It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God that avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3] The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.

Baldur, would you be ok with religious speech in public school not be sued at the drop of a hat too or just secular speech should be protected?

MORE moderation…AND they are posting the responses they accept out of sequence.

Here is another attempt. Hopefully it will pass and we can continue our discussion.

As far as Creationism and my “moronic conclusion that intelligent design cannot be approached on a scientific basis” are concerned, the fact is that Creationism cannot be examined scientifically. You may think that this is “hogwash” but your challenge is to show otherwise.

Religion is about faith not about logic.

I consider those who hold religious beliefs to be mentally ill.
The greater the faith – the more serious their condition and the more dangerous they are to others.

Creationism is only a symptom.

I bear no man malice – but believers scare me.

Yes, my posts get put in out of order all the time. It has something to do with their logic of how they time stamp things. And it seems to be something to time-stamping at the source instead of on their servers.

And first off, I believe in Intelligent Design, not Creationism as it is defined most frequently.

And yes, ID can be examined scientifically.

Otherwise you are saying that an intelligent being cannot seed a planet and leave any evidence to having done so. That is a fairly shallow thought process to take that route.

So assume that it happened, that an intelligent being seeded a planet and left a tricky lock box that eventually proves his existence in full holographic three dimensional glory. You are saying we should not research that possibility because it cannot be researched. I say that is a dumb answer. It can be researched.

I don’t see why it’s such a big deal that the teacher was giving his opinion on something like this. Believe what you want to believe, I have no problem with it, but don’t start saying I’m trying to convert you when I share my beliefs.

I read an interesting book that seemed to make sense, that eventually shows that gravity may not exist, as a separate power source. The idea first sounded silly but then grew on me. The idea is that if all matter is expanding uniformly then it would give the impression of gravity when it was nothing more than a mechanical process of expanding matter pushing things outwards.

So even gravity is not a sure thing. Go figure.

One key problem with gravity is that it is supposed to lose its strength the farther away different matter gets from each other. Yet, since orbits are elliptical and not round, the matter at the furthest point out should not be able to come back around but it does. Our current laws of gravity does not explain why a planet should come back just at the point that it is at its weakest distance away from the object.

The answer some scientists proposed was that it held potential energy. It was a convenient cop out at best. There was never even a mechanism explained or even guessed at that would allow for it to hold potential energy.

Cmyers misses the boat on this one. Did you cry when people were sued in public schools on religious grounds before? I bet you did not. So, yes, the issue is freedom of speech, but leftists dont want some people to have freedom of speech. Therefore, this discussion. The problem stems from not letting locals make up their own mind. When they are forced into the Federal secular religion then things get messy.

Stop commenting for 5 minutes and just think. Why is it that more than one hundred people felt they needed to defend their religious beliefs here? Religion attached to anything seems to smear what the real issue is. We have freedom of thought, speech, and religion. The real issue here is how someone can abuse our system and sue you over your thoughts, spoken words, and religious beliefs. All you people, scurrying around looking for facts to defend your personal beliefs, better be careful that someone here doesn’t disagree with you.

Hey maybe we can sue all those people with ” The End is Near ” signs… it’s an opinion of a theory … right?

@ kmichaels
I wouldn’t be happy about it, but I wouldn’t be against it either- as long as the teacher would make it abundantly clear that it’s his opinion.

Why do you think I just want to sue religious speech and not secular? I have no problem with people telling grown-ups their opinions (the kid that sued should be old enough to listen to other people’s opinion)

Now if someone would start preaching unverified claims to the small children in school as truth (be they secular claims or religious) or forcing them to pray to Zeus or Jesus, then I would get pissed- but under no circumstances would I sue the school before talking to the teacher on a friendly note and telling him about my concerns.

Leftists claim religion is about faith and not about logic.

Christ was very logical. He claimed that there was a natural tendency that if you live by the sword you end up dying by the sword. Society proves this time and again. So this has little to do with faith and lots to do with a logical code of living that benefits mankind.

The idea that religion is nothing but faith based is, for the most part, a sectarian idea.

That is not to say that faith is not a part of religion. But faith is also a part of getting up out of bed in the morning. You believe that you are better off to get out of bed, so you do. That is faith. Faith drives every effort.

I walk because I have faith in walking. I believe that if I keep putting my feet one in front of the other I can get to my destination. And it works. My faith worked. I can prove that I got from point A to B by walking. I can repeat the experiment and so can you.

Atheists really don’t have a superior code of living. They usually tend to be obnoxious haters of all things good.

“J figures I am a troll because I disagree with what he says”

No…read slowly…J. figures you are a troll because you belittle and call names. Now, J. believes you are a troll because you read your own interpretations of utter fantasy into things in order to ‘pick a fight’ or whatever it is you are doing.

Anyway, since I have pointed it out, you have apparently learned “big people talk”, which is nice.

To the Europeans, not every American is ignorant. You appear so by assuming so. Some of us realize that “French defeatist” is utterly ignorant of history, completely moronic and is just assinine (for example, there would be no USA had it not been for those dirty frogs, but who really wants to think about that while chuggin’ brewskies and screamin’ USA! USA!). In addition, there are some of us who are freethinkers. Yes, the majority of us are somewhat backwards and silly. But, to be honest, that is what makes this land so great and the envy of the world, all are welcome. Even the less informed.

But not Mexicans. They somehow became excluded. I digress. But, you constant looking down your noses at us does very little to change the presumptions of my beloved redneck neighbors. Perhaps, instead of acting like superior turds, you displayed some greater insight and came to the table to talk instead of degrade, you may do far more. Probably not, but it as at least more civil. And, cut us some slack. We’ve been doing this just a bit this side of 200 years. I think taking your history and civics into account and putting us in our historical context, we aren’t really thaaaat bad, are we?

I will point out again, I do not believe it was this teacher’s opinion that was the offense. It was his singling out of a specific mythos. We here, in this ’stupid backwater’ part of the world believe no one should be singled out and picked on for their beliefs. Whether this was the case or not, again I will leave to the courts, but please stop with the “stupid Amereecans and the releeegons” it is as ignorant as some of the USA! comments on here.

When religious people are sued for exercising their beliefs and freedom of speech in public leftists cheer. But then leftists mourn when freedom of speech is taken away from them. Then they come up with the same rational reasoning as to why belief systems should not be sued. Yet they were for it before they were against it. Most religious people have always been for freedom of speech on both sides. But leftists have been only in it for themselves. That is the key difference in this discussion. That is why I have to laugh at the idiot leftists now.

@ kmichaels
“Christ was very logical. He claimed that there was a natural tendency that if you live by the sword you end up dying by the sword.”
Jesus saying something logical doesn’t make religion or Christianity logical.

Maybe I’ve been mistaken but isn’t Christianity built on so called ‘blind faith’ where the true believers are those that can believe something without proof? (please explain to me if I’m mistaken)

“You believe that you are better off to get out of bed, so you do. That is faith.”
Isn’t that empirical evidence? You know you’ve been better off getting out of bed in the past so you do it today. Or maybe it’s the knowledge that you’ll get fired if you don’t. That’s not really faith.

“I believe that if I keep putting my feet one in front of the other I can get to my destination.”
Again, if this is something you’ve experienced before it’s not faith but empirical evidence.

“Atheists really don’t have a superior code of living.”
No, they don’t have any code of living. The definition of an atheist is simply someone that doesn’t believe in a God. It says nothing about any codes.

“They usually tend to be obnoxious haters of all things good.”
Sigh, I wish you wouldn’t generalize so much and judge people by their own merit.

America rejects science. Oh, that will go well for them. Go on, destroy yourself, I don’t give a crap.

America is LOL that you can sue someone for this. You’re not evolving, you’re devolving.

“When religious people are sued for exercising their beliefs and freedom of speech in public leftists cheer. But then leftists mourn when freedom of speech is taken away from them.”

No? I mourn for everyone that is not allowed to speak their mind.

Baldur asks a key question “Maybe I’ve been mistaken but isn’t Christianity built on so called ‘blind faith’ where the true believers are those that can believe something without proof?”

Yes, Baldur, you have been mistaken. But you are not alone. Atheists have been misrepresenting the truth about Christians for hundreds of years.

I have been an active Christian since I was in the US military. Christianity is not about blind faith. Otherwise Christian scripture would not state that it is foolish for “the blind to follow the blind because they both end up in the pit.”

Christianity is not about serving an unknown God, but a knowable God. We are encouraged to study out of the best books on earth and study and follow people that prove themselves worthy.

All of this involves testing what works and what does not work.

Christ stated that pure religion and undefiled before God involves doing things for the sick, the weak, the poor, the homeless, the widows, the fatherless.

I know for a fact that doing good to all of mankind is good for all of society.

We are also taught to respect both science and education. So again, Balfur, not only are you wrong but you cant possibly be more wrong.

Now, having said that, do some people follow blindly? Of course. In all walks of life. Hey, look at all the blind love for Obama. Now there is a spectacle worth laughing at. They disagree with his policies when asked directly but still like his leadership. Shows how stupid some people can be.

But no, faith is really the idea of having a good principal presented to you and hoping that it is true and putting your trust not in blind principals but in worthy principals.

If I read a scripture that says hate your neighbor, then I say, that concept is just wrong. But if I see a scripture that says love your neighbor, then that is something I can have faith in. I have faith in it and hope in it because I, through my own experience, understand that loving ones neighbor is a better code of conduct.

Jesus Christ kmichaels, relax.

You accuse me of lying based on nothing?

“I answer that I bet that he is not totally truthful. I bet that he thinks that if you speak of religious subjects on public ground that you have a right to be sued and you get what you deserve.”
Why should I care if someone talks about religion in the street? How old are you boy?

You Americans are way too gung-ho about “leftists” and “rightists”. You say leftists don’t care about freedom of expression, well I agree with some points rightists hold and some that leftists hold, what am I?

Baldur claims, “no I mourn for everyone that is not allowed to speak their mind.”

I answer that I bet that he is not totally truthful. I bet that he thinks that if you speak of religious subjects on public ground that you have a right to be sued and you get what you deserve.

That is the practice of leftists. They conclude that it is ok to hate religious speech because they believe it is against the law, so they seem to only believe in Legal freedom of speech, and what is deemed legal is based on secular ideas only.

The proof is in the pudding. Leftists hate free religious speech. That has been proven.

kmichaels, I don’t think you’re being fair here

I know you disagree with me and that’s alright but please don’t say that I’m lying. I don’t even fully know what a liberal is and I don’t care really.

“I bet that he thinks that if you speak of religious subjects on public ground that you have a right to be sued and you get what you deserve.”
Well I bet that you’re 190 cm tall, have blue eyes and a tan. That doesn’t really make it true?

If you want to read from the Bible in the street then power to ya? Why on Earth would anyone object to that?

Baldur, you are not being attacked by me any more than you are attacking me.

And I am not saying that faith is not involved. But you stated blind faith. I can give you good odds that your preacher did not say you are supposed to have “blind faith” but that is your claim.

That just confirms what I said about atheists. They misrepresent the truth.

Balfur continues: “Obama and some of the things he’s done are actually redeeming America to foreigners.”

Good joke, Balfur. America is redeemed by weakening us in the eyes of the French and others. Like I said, when the blind follow the blind they fall into the pit. You seem pit bound for certain.

And no, Balfur, I was talking about how Christians think. They dont believe every thing they read. You need to learn to think.

I am a Christian. If I read a scripture that said I should murder I dont cherry pick. I just dont believe it to be true. It could be a poor translation. It could be in scriptures because some evil person inserted them a thousand years ago. I just use my brain and decide what works and does not work. I dont follow blindly. Your claim was just wrong.

So, Balfur, list the times that you supported free religious speech in a public school. Or does freedom of speech not work in that case?

kmichaels, please stop attacking me or atheism- I was told that story from a priest in my church when I asked him why I should believe in God when I can’t see him. He said that that’s what defines a true believer, someone that believes in a God from his heart and doesn’t demand evidence.

God isn’t really falsifiable.

“We are also taught to respect both science and education. So again, Balfur, not only are you wrong but you cant possibly be more wrong.”
Huh? That’s a pretty big statement to say to a 19 year old kid, where did I say you shouldn’t respect those things?

“They disagree with his policies when asked directly but still like his leadership.”
Leadership and respectability are great things, Obama and some of the things he’s done are actually redeeming America to foreigners. The only people that didn’t think Bush was a joke is Fox news it seems :3 not that I watch a lot of American TV

“But no, faith is really the idea of having a good principal presented to you and hoping that it is true and putting your trust not in blind principals but in worthy principals.”
No not really, faith is “belief that is not based on proof”. So if you believe something in faith you don’t have any proof for it.

“If I read a scripture that says hate your neighbor, then I say, that concept is just wrong. But if I see a scripture that says love your neighbor, then that is something I can have faith in.”
That’s cherry-picking isn’t it (SCUZI, MIA ENGLISH- SHE NOT TOO GUUD)? It sounds like you’re just picking verses from the Bible based on your own moral code?

Ok, I can’t seem to be able to comment..

I don’t want my children learning what the “locals” think is correct. I want them to learn what information science has accumulated over the ages.

You seem to have some giant issue with secularism, to the point of judging people and calling them liars. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone I say.

And no I have nothing against religious people shouting verses from the Bible on the street, they don’t bother me.

Baldur says: “Well so if you agree with a verse you obey it and if you don’t agree with it you don’t.”

So, Baldur, you are saying that I should follow blindly? Hmmm. So If I did follow everything blindly you would damn me for being a blind follower but if I dont then you call me a cherry picker.

You little children are so precious in your shallow thoughts.

Now, here is what an adult does with a scripture he does not agree with. He researches it. He makes sure he understands it correctly. If he finds too many bad things, he concludes that work is wrong and not true in general.

See, adult thought process wins again.

How school boards used to work.

1) The board was elected by the locals
2) The board decided what was proper and what was not

How school boards work now.

1) Federal secular atheists tell you what to teach.
2) If you dont like it, tough, because we dont need to allow freedom of speech, we are the government.

Just as I thought, Baldur is against free speech and you only get to speak about religion in private because secular religion of the federal government is a must for all Americans. This is the problem. Baldur says he supports free speech but in practice he does not. That makes Baldur your typical liar.

And no, I am not saying that locals end up teaching non science. But they should be allowed to have a nativity scene if the community so chooses. That is called freedom.

That is why we have some state rights and some federal rights and that states are allowed to make most decisions on their own.

Bat Baldur and other idiot atheists think they know best. And excuse their hate for free speech as a necessity to teach science. Yet we did fine having a proper balance on science in public schools well before God was banned from the premises.

Well so if you agree with a verse you obey it and if you don’t agree with it you don’t.

If nothing else it rather sounds like a censorship of His work and as a Christian I find that offensive to the Lord.

Hm, no you should believe that God knows best instead of calling people children on the Internet.

The God told Abraham to kill his son, he didn’t research it, he didn’t like it, he didn’t question it. Because he loves god he obeyed Him.

And on what grounds could you dismiss the word of God, He transcends human logic.

Baldur, I have a sincere and honest request…if you are just having fun, carry on. But please, for the love of god or whomever, do not take kmichaels for anything other than an Internet wazoo. Truth be told, this land is full of decent people who are well thinking. No, we are not up to par with you guys on cutting edge things like, oh, I don’t know evolution (hangs head). But we really aren’t *all* sitting on stockpiles of guns, peeking out drawn blinds just positive The Man is peering back and ranting on and on about ‘leftists’, ’secularists’ and liberals.

Give us some time. I know from your perspective we look pretty insane. Trust me, I have to take a deep breath now and then and remind myself that we aren’t all completely insane and unpack my bags for Canada or Mexico.

Fox news does not represent us, the majority of us. They will tell you that they do. But, if you believe .01% of what comes out of Fox, you have issues. And a lot of people watch it, can’t deny that. But, and I am ashamed to be among this group, we Americans will watch pretty much any stupid nonsense as long as it is stupid and nonsense enough. I mean, the Bachelor was popular and I can assure you, this does not represent the majority of us anymore than Fox does.

We are a very tortured people. We are a juvenile nation. So sure we are right in everything. So much wanting to be relevant, so terrified that we have already passed relevance by. We had our glory years and are utterly terrified those are already gone. Well…some of us are. Others of us realize the sillyness in this. The other guys will eventually mature or die off.
Give us some time, let us mature. And then maybe our adults will be able to have meaningful conversations with the 19 year olds of the world.

We try to be as fair as possible, in all honesty. (this is probably called somethingist by someone) but we really do try to have a rule of law. Some times that gets screwed up. I am still not sure how I feel about this kid and his lawsuit, but there *is* the point that his mythology was singled out and ridiculed in a forum that is supposed to be free of such things. We don’t take kindly to that in these parts. I am not sure if it warrants a lawsuit, but at the end of the day it was not Yahoo Americans screamin’ god and country, but just a bunch of folks trying to figure out what is fair for the majority and how to rule properly by law. (dirty somethingists, I know)

Wtf dude? How old are you

I’ve pointed out countless times that I would never prohibit anyone shouting secular statements or theistic statements on the street.

You keep using ad hominem attacks, this might be how you were taught to debate but you just sound silly. I don’t even know why you react with such hostility- if you have anything against my ideas I would love to discuss that, but you attack me with words like “liar” and a “child”.

It seems obvious who the real child is in here, someone who was in the military and can’t debate a 19 year old. Sad.

Thank you J., all that time spent on the Internet and I still feed the trolls..

You honestly just revived my faith in America. God bless, regardless of whether we’re theist or atheists.

I read your post twice and I’m almost weeping, I agree with it verbatim and respect your opinion.

No you’re awesome kmichaelsisawesome!

kmichael is lame

Kmichaels,
I have given up on my previous comment. There are too many land mines in my response and I keep getting “moderated”. Briefly I pointed out the difficulty in designing and carrying out an experiment with ID (or Creationism) as its premise. I have no problem with trying to go about finding that “tricky lock box that eventually proves His existence in full holographic three dimensional glory”. The only problem that I have with that thought process is simple. HOW can you do it? Baldur is correct when he states that a concept has to be falsifiable to make scientific sense. There has to be some logical methodology with the process. If you can think of a way to “research that possibility” of ID, I am certainly interested in looking at it.

While we are on the subject…has it occurred to you that perhaps Evolution IS the tricky lock box that you reference? If an “intelligent being goes down to planet A and seeds it with life”, what better way for it to develop into a higher form than through an evolutionary process? Perhaps THAT is God’s “design”.

Finally, I will leave you with the thoughts of Dr. Francis Collins, a physician/geneticist who led the Human Genome Project at the NIH. Collins is also a Christian. Kathleen Parker wrote an op-ed piece this weekend in which she noted that, “To Collins, Darwin is a threat only if one thinks that God is an underachiever. Collins doesn’t happen to believe that. His study of genes has led him to conclude that God is both outside of nature and outside of time. He’s big, in other words. The idea that God would create the mechanism of evolution makes sense”. He has created a web site, BioLogos.org. Perhaps you should check it out.

Personally I have problems with a lot of his conclusions. However, I find his approach to be fascinating.

Imagine for a second that this teacher talked about the reasons why the Jews were kicked out of country after country? What if the term “gentile” was fully explained by a Jewish teacher?

We would be OUTRAGED — and rightly so! Religion should not be taught in a public school — but it should not be ATTACKED! Shame on you libs! You know better!

Also for you soo educated and thoughtful libs — ask any scientist about the major flaws in the evolution theory. Like how the “tweens” of animal specieses have never been found. Show me the fossils of all the elephant specieses that are between the ameba and the African elephant. hmmmm

Not to mention . . . the origin of species can be explored BUT the origin of INTELLIGENCE leaves scientists BAFFLED!!!

You do not have ALL the answers libs!

If you want to discredit all religions because of all the suffering they have caused humanity — great! But by using that logic let us throw out all forms of government!

And to the EUROTRASH on here — you have among you the most racist judgmental people on Earth! — you are in no position to judge us!

kmichaels, i agree with the part where you talk about believing in god and jesus and stuff. everyone else here is dumb.

how is babby formed, kmichaels?

Freedom of Speech is derived from the first amendment which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the first amendment, freedom of religion is the exact same as the freedom from religion. Therefor there is no place for religion in education. The teacher overstepped his bounds by degrading a religious practice. This does mean however that the schools should teach what is widely accepted by the scholarly communities for which they represent. Biology should teach Evolution because that is the most widely accepted scientific explanation, when a biology professor creates an empirical study that would leave God as the most logical and repeatable explanation for something like the changing in species over time, then that is what should be taught. Creationism does not have any supported evidence, there is no scientific peer read journals supporting the theory. So yes creationism is superstitious nonsense, and until there is a way for the supporters to find support for it in someway than one literary reference I will be in a constant support of the theory. Right now it isn’t in students best interest to be taught the scientific method and the rules of logic and argument and then be able to sue a teacher to create a legal precedent for belief over logic and science.

Kmicheals: I have a small problem with your argument suggesting that you are not a cherry picker when it comes to scripture when you use “adult thought process” to reason out disagreeable scripture. Should the Bible be the word of God, as it is stated multiple times in the New Testament, then there is really no way for you to out reason God right? So unless you are willing to accept every piece of the bible as truth then there is no way for you use the Bible as any part of your arguments. So if you are willing to say that you don’t wear mixed fibers in your clothing, you do believe the earth to be six thousand years old, you do think homosexuals, prostitutes, and those that practice usury( aka loaning with interest) should be stoned to death, I have to say you are a cherry picker, and for that reason you either believe you can out adult reason God, or that The Bible is not the word of God, and therefore you have no leg to stand on. Schools are an extension of academia, and for this purpose we are to educate our students for life in academia, if you believe that schools need to present both sides of an “argument” like evolution then there needs to be both sides of the argument in academia, no peer read journal no argument in academia, no reason to present it in school.

Airwick, apparently you missed my post on how God can come about through an evolutionary process. I don’t dislike evolution. But I dont discount God either. Both can work very well together. From an efficiency point however, if God had a beginning, it easily happened a gazillion infinities ago. And why repeat the same old evolutionary approach on everything that you do on a new earth that you seed? What makes most sense is to build in the ability to adapt but also be involved in bringing about the ultimate goal of raising children in his own image. But the bottom line is that evolution is true, the end result would be God and the likelihood of that having already happened far far distant in the past, an infinity of infinities makes the most sense.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

Watch this video,
I don’t judge beleifs, I envy those of Faith for the bliss that they Live with, Refusing to accept facts is a wonderful way to acertain personal happiness.

There have been comments in this thread that insist that evolution has not been proven, although “proven” is the wrong word to use, I beleive what you mean to say is the single Ape to Man theory has not been substanciated. This is due to a lack of continuity between the evolution of modern man. Evolution does exist, the formation of human beings or living things as a result of combination of other living things is influenced by the two parts that create it. Although Humans rarely evolve in extreme ways, this argument is settled with a simple example. If two caucasian parent have a child that child is caucasian, if evolution didn’t exist that child could be African, Asian, Latino, it’s a mixed bag. So do you really beleive that a “God” is sitting in a chair making sure that this Random even give all caucasian parents caucasian babies? If you do, Congrats, Ignorance is bliss. But then when you accept soemthign like that you can’t reject the beleifs of others. Because your beleifs are unsubstaciated and you see other’s beleifs the same way.

Take my example and try and explain it away with religious rhetoric, I honestly would like that, in a bible or Tora, where is the part about god making different races and ensuring parents have babies that look like them.

In the end, Science is based on the existence of some finality. Science simply doesn’t humanize a God like religion. And as such is more true to religious rhetoric than major organized religions are.
The fundamental of religion are the respect and acceptance that “God” is greater than all things and thus by humanizing “god” with words associated with the human experience like love and forgiveness “god” is no longer above human existence but instead is more comparable to a king or leader.

To end my statement i’ll simply touch on the idea that for a man so be sued for making statement such as he did, is hypocritical, because if the situation were reversed, a teacher making statements about Ape to man evolution there would be no such story.

@ J.

Well spoken, although now you’ll have to apologize to Rushbo and dittoheads. But NOT in MY name!

There is a place for you through my pearly gates. Peace be with you my Son…..

kmicheals- I think your having a bit of trouble when it comes to creation, we all know that mixing a daddy and a daddy together rarely forms anything, especially anything that will upset you so easily on a comments page. Now if you have some study about two daddies forming something by mixing then I would be highly interested especially by your statement suggest that the thing formed will have only left leaning political views

Ahem, Baldur, still avoiding the real question. The question was would you support religious discussions in a public school. If not, then you are against freedom of speech, because you choose to limit it to just allowed speech. So, yes, you mentioned what you would allow on a street. But that was never the issue. So either you are mentally incapable of reading or avoiding the harder question.

Mixing two leftist daddies results in producing a little s-hit. Gosh, this is not that hard to understand.

Leftists killing innocent babies and letting terrorists walk free have issues. I have a good sense of humor and you are a false god. Little g.

A babby is formed by mixing a mommy and a daddy. A leftist is formed by mixing a daddy and a daddy and wait and see what little s-hit pops out.

I think I get the attempt at humor, but I’m still finding issues with the logic, and the science. I would love to see how a “little s-hit” equates to the left, as far as I could tell, fecal material would be conservative as it would much rather be were it was, rather than where its going

“A babby is formed by mixing a mommy and a daddy. A leftist is formed by mixing a daddy and a daddy and wait and see what little s-hit pops out.”

You’ve got issues my son, I recommend a qualified physician.

“The question was would you support religious discussions in a public school.”
Sure, of course I would support that.

Anything that would teach children how to debate and avoiding logical fallacies would be great. It would both make them more sceptical and teach them to think about what they’re told.

I can’t see why anyone would disagree with an honest discussion of religion, evolution, mathematics or crocodiles in school- anything that encourages children to learn.

Baldur says: “Anything that would teach children how to debate and avoiding logical fallacies would be great. It would both make them more sceptical and teach them to think about what they’re told.

I can’t see why anyone would disagree with an honest discussion of religion, evolution, mathematics or crocodiles in school- anything that encourages children to learn.”

That I can agree with, however, leftists do not generally agree with it. They prohibit any discussion of religion and call it illegal or invalid free speech. Your ACLU is all over all sorts of local schools screaming about what they can and cant teach or even say.

There is no separation of church and state as is defined by leftists and it was never part of our US constitution, yet leftists generally use it as a means to shut down free religious speech or expression in public.

That is why this suit is so fun. It is forcing the same medicine upon a leftist as they want forced upon everyone else.

i dono man. American Christian conservative practices offend most of the world most of the time. this story concerns me greatly

Most Christians I know personally have never blindly accepted Christianity. Leftists seem to think that they accept things rationally and everyone else must be doing so blindly. Yet they have no proof. Leftists demand proof. Then prove that Christians don’t think about those things they accept. Most Christians do lots of reading of lots of views and consider those things best that are best for society. Leftists seem to have blind faith that Christians have blind faith. Again, leftists, prove your claims because so far you just look hateful, bigoted and have no evidence to back you up.

“They prohibit any discussion of religion and call it illegal or invalid free speech.”
Well maybe you should stop labeling people and attacking them for things they haven’t said..

“Your ACLU is all over all sorts of local schools screaming about what they can and cant teach or even say.”
My ACLU? _MY_ ACLU? I don’t even know what on Earth ACLU is, and I don’t really care. Of course schools should teach religion since religion is a big part oh Western history. The only thing I’m against is indoctrination.

“There is no separation of church and state as is defined by leftists and it was never part of our US constitution, yet leftists generally use it as a means to shut down free religious speech or expression in public.”
Secular government isn’t the same as banning religious speech. I think you need to chill a little on the “man I so f***ing hate liberals, they shit babies, they have man-on-man intercourse.. etc.”

I really don’t care what a liberal is, I judge a person by what he says and not by how I could label them. You how ever seem to enter “attack mode” every time someone disagrees with you.

I hope you’ll find Jesus and accept him into your heart since you sound full of hate, peace out.

This is another case where, “if the law says that, then the law is a ass.” (Dickens, Oliver Twist.)

The issue of a creator aside, organized religion is a human invention, and clearly fits the definition of “superstition,” viz., “. . . irrational belief, . . . blindly accepted belief . . .”
Some folks choose to “believe” the Bible (N.B.: What constitutes, i.e., the contents of–what gets in, what doesn’t, “the Bible” has varied over time and has been determined by–you guessed it, the religious orthodoxy of the time, the people running the church.) Some people choose to “believe” the Koran. Some “believe” the Bhagaved Gita. And then there are other folks who make a living telling us what the Bible, Koran, etc. mean: what to “believe.” Think about that: “God’s word” is subject to (varying) interpretation. And I won’t even touch on the supposed intellectual or educational qualifications (”He went to bible college.”) of the various interpreters!

Bottom line: I don’t know; they don’t know; you don’t know. The various beliefs we as humans have invented to try to explain the inexplicable have become more sophisticated over time, but they remain “superstition.” And creationism, as an outgrowth of that superstition, has been scientifically discredited so many times in so many fora (Yes, I do have citations.) that only closed minds continue to support it.

As I stated and I recap here, leftists hate freedom of speech and have a list of what you can and cannot say at a public school. This is there modus operandi. And now, one of their own was shut down using the same rationale and they are screaming to high heaven over it. I love it. Leftists are such hypocrites and their team is the only team in this issue that wants laws passed to stop some forms of free speech. Only one side is wanting the law to shut down the opposition. That is the side of the leftists. All the more pity on their tiny mindless heads.

Is anyone else offended with the way Fox presented this item? Congratulating this ignorant child for suing his teacher rather than attempting to talk to him and explain that Mr Corbett’s views in some way offended his own?
But what else should one expect from Fox, I guess?

God, Christians are such whiners. My European history teacher had a Christian agenda that he slipped into every lecture, you don’t see me filing lawsuits about it.

Mr. Corbett obviously was educated enough to know that the European elite, throughout history, used religion as a tool to oppress the masses. Heck, if I were an emperor and I wanted to invade the empire next to me, I would just say it was for our God and the other people were blasphemers that hated our God. The lowly ignorant peasants would line up at my feet to go and die for a figment of their imagination. Too easy.

I am glad there is at least one judge out there protecting the religious rights of our students. Whether a student is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Taoist, Shintoist, Buddhist, agnostic, or atheist is inconsequential. The statements that this teacher made were disrespectful, inappropriate, and violated this student’s constitutional rights. Allowing this type of behavior to go ignored and unpunished is a disservice to our children and our nation. We must protect the rights of our children in our schools. I would have filed suit too!

It is very obvious that you are defending a BS religion when you have to use the court system to help explain yourself and your religion intelligently. America is full of Ignorant teenagers ( and more so Adults)like this kid who believe in Jesus and Christian values yet, do not have the brain power to deduct how to live their lives. Therefore they go for the religion that says they can always get a fresh start, just as long as they admit that all other points of view based in religion are wrong. Oh yeah one more thing, Christians are amongst the most violent, racist, and narrow minded communities on the planet. Christians are half-hearted old world and old word fawning illiterates. Yeah and some of them are cool, about a handful of them that do not let their religious beliefs drive there lives. And that is what ultimately makes the cool few human. You can have a religion but religion does not have me.

kmichaels, there’s a difference between religious free speech and indoctrination. A religious person can say anything they want to me about their God. They can claim that he has noodle arms and will bring you to heaven if you follow his set of rules. Just the same, an Atheist can say that God is a farce used to control a ridiculous amount of people. These all fall under the guidelines of free speech. It is when a religious person tries to bring you into their religion, whether through force or tact, (indoctrination) that it has gone beyond free speech and into the realm of manipulation and mental harm. Forcing a child to go to church and believe in God is wrong. Brainwashing an impressionable child to blind themselves to the truth and believe in faith is wrong, even if they are willingly taking part in religious activities. You are training the child to believe in something without first seeking evidence. When I was a child, the only reason I went to church and believe in god is because I was told that if I did not, I was going to hell. I didn’t know any better then, I believed anything my parents told me, just like every other very young child. It wasn’t until I was seven or eight that I was mentally able to deduce that hell and god may not exist, and after going to school and doing research I was able to prove to myself that there is no man in the clouds controlling the universe. Parents should be teaching children to seek empirical evidence and not believe in unfounded superstitions. Teaching them to close their minds and refute evidence placed before them is child abuse.

This case is not about the correctness or truth of Christianity or any other religion (or lack thereof). It is about whether a student’s constitutional rights were violated. I would defend this teacher’s right to say the things he said outside of the classroom, but not inside the classroom. His comments were inappropriate and violated his students’ rights. This court case could easily have been the other way around (i.e.-a teacher with strong religious views bashing an atheist student for his atheism). Based on the judge’s full ruling, the student’s freedom of religion and teacher’s freedom of speech were both protected here.

OUR FIRST CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, FOR WHAT GOD THERE IS PLEASE SAVE US ALL,

by stating that you are of one religion you are forfeiting the believe in all those other faiths around the globe, past and present. I for one am not going to say one is more right than the other… In fact I will say we are all wrong believing we know GOD, or what GOD wants from us… . Truly arrogant
What if we find alien life? Or more likely they find us. How will you explain Jesus to them? WITH A SWORD MORE LIKELY. Your a fool to believe your so very right,

GET OFF THE TOWER YOU’VE BUILT AND LEARN ABOUT WHAT EXISTS AROUND YOU.

I remember a very good episode of Little House On the Prairie. It was about a woman who called Mary a whore because she wanted to teach children to read and write. This woman never read the bible but spoke greatly of it to her fellows.(cause they themselves never read it) Sadly no one could tell she was making it all up. In the end of the episode Charles and Mary show her how she has made a big fish story out of what she claims is religion. In fact, however, she is simply turning it into something other than what it was intended for.

Please stop abusing my faith

Can any student of Kansas sue their school for enforcing the Creationism theory on their students and disregarding the Evolutionary theory entirely?

Can I sue any person of Christian faith for telling me how morally bankrupt I am for not being Christian?

Let’s calm down with the lawsuits over semantics. It’s not like he’s changed your mind about your beliefs, right? Who cares.

Also just cause…

Think of the passing of time as a ladder. We are not even close to the top of ladder. Stop looking at the rung your hung up on and start looking towards the top of ladder. Its the only way to see when it ends, if it ever ends. Also it will allow you to see that there are generations of people that will come after us who will certainly pass blame to us for not trying to understand our very own existence.

oh oh oh… an if you don’t already realize you so called athiests. Name calling doesn’t do a bit of good. All it does is insight more name calling. I could have said that vice versa aimed at religious fundamentalists but sadly they don’t listen. Its more likely that I can convince the athiests of this point. (religious wars are started due to momma jokes, sad but true)

Respect humanity, and we can stop war. but hey don’t believe me. Its your god given right

@Dan C

Mr. C I should have read your post sooner. Sadly we are at the bottom.

So if my parents were to send me to church for religious education. Where a teacher there tells me something I don’t want to hear, do I have a right to sue that teacher? Like lets say “Clinton is a liberal pot smoking commie”(I should have taped my religious education)
Which I’m now going to suggest to all children.

I’d say in both school, and church we have choices. And somethings are brought up in both environments which the subjects should probably never be brought up.

Sadly the stay at home mom probably would get the case thrown out of court.

Oh do I wish we could just get along peacefully without such conflict

Although it might have been inconsiderate of the teacher to say those kind of things in a classroom with fundamentalist christians present, I totaly agree to his opinion!
Lets hope that the world will soon be free of religion, thus war.

[...] Source:http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=336583 [...]

[...] Source:http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=336583 [...]

God damn it guys take of your Jesus glasses!

oh people are such barbarians … these christians are the same as muslim fundamentalists

Since atheists seem to be hateful, angry, misinformed, tend to misrepresent the facts and never seem to be happy, I choose the other team. Atheists have nothing better to offer.

I have to wonder why this kid had to bring the courts into this instead of actually voicing his opinion that his teacher is treating his religion unfairly. That was the whole point of the discussion portion of the class, after all.

For those that followed the link to Corbett’s response, he sent out a letter at the beginning of the year to all parents so that they are aware of the content of the class. This is part of it:

“Most days we will spend a few minutes (sometimes more) at the beginning of class discussing current events from either The Orange County Register or the L.A. Times. I may also use material from a variety of news Web sites. Discussion will be quite provocative, and focus on the ‘lessons’ of history. My goal is to have you go home with something that will provoke discussion with your parents. Students may offer any perspective without concern that anything they say will impact either my attitude toward them or their grades. I encourage a full range of views.”

The parents were perfectly aware that he was going to put forth ‘provocative’ discussions. Instead of the student actually participating in the discussion and voicing his opinion, he decided to sidestep the issue entirely and get the law and news reporters involved. I realize that this is not a solid legal argument as far as freedom of speech of the teacher is concerned, but it is very telling of the mindset of the student and his parents. Here’s another pertinent excerpt from Corbett’s response to think about:

“A true believer does not fear that a few questions can undo years of parental teaching. Those who would “protect” students from self-examination have little faith and great fear.”

Why is it OK to attack Christianity?

What if this was an attack on Judaism?

You libs are so full of cr ap!

I just want to say that anyone who says God doesn’t exist is a bumbling idiot!!! People just say & do anything these days & it makes me sick. People have no respect for themselves or anyone else. This is why the world is full of homosexuals & atheists. Jesus Christ will return one day & I have no pity for the non-believing trash that are condemned to Hell.

Yes, Rachel, God forbid someone has a different point of view from you. I must have missed the memo telling us that we all live in an exclusively Christian nation. This teacher was in the wrong for saying what he said in the classroom, but that was the legal case. Simply because he broke a law while voicing his opinions about a religion does not mean that his opinion is wrong. You would do well to separate the legal and the personal arguments in this case, and treat them separately. This was solely a legal victory on the part of the student.

I’d like to note that the student could have actually participated in the class discussion time instead of just sitting there offended. I guess he was unwilling or uncomfortable to back up his views in an in-class (or out of class) discussion so instead he opted to silence the voice that he did not like. Part of growing up and being in a public environment is that you will meet people with views different from your own. Don’t shelter yourself from ideas different from your own; that’s just living in willful ignorance.

I don’t have anything against this kid because he’s a christian; I have something against him because he refused to question his own view of the world (which is what the teacher was trying to promote). Being religious is one thing; being closed minded is another.

“People have no respect for themselves or anyone else. This is why the world is full of homosexuals & atheists.”

Tell me, what does respect have to do with either of those things?

Atheist May 11th, 2009 – 10:12 pm

kmichaels, there’s a difference between religious free speech and indoctrination.

Yes, indoctrination is what leftists do in our schools.

Local states are not prone to want to force religion on anyone. They did just fine for hundreds of years before idiot leftists forced religious speech out of schools.

@kmichaels

Quote: “Yes, indoctrination is what leftists do in our schools.

Local states are not prone to want to force religion on anyone. They did just fine for hundreds of years before idiot leftists forced religious speech out of schools.”

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here. What are the laws indoctrinating people in? They’re simply limiting Christian indoctrination by doing things like taking mandatory prayer out of school, etc. They aren’t promoting a religion.

Oh wait, there’s the problem for you; they’re limiting Christian indoctrination. Alright, got it…

As for “leftist idiots forcing religious free speech out of school”, it is clear as day to see that they also aren’t allowing anti-religious free speech in schools, at least on part of the teachers. That’s what the whole case was about. It isn’t acceptable for a teacher either to actively promote or to bash religion in an educational environment, and this is a point the laws are clearly holding their ground on.

Look at the other side a little bit. The laws are only attempting to create a level playing field where religion or the lack thereof are not forced into our required education. Separation of church and state in practice.

Kevin asks:

“What are the laws indoctrinating people in?”

Perhaps you misread. I said that leftists were free to indoctrinate our students. Not the law.

“Oh wait, there’s the problem for you; they’re limiting Christian indoctrination. Alright, got it…”

They are limiting free speech and giving speech a special litmus test, ruling it out only if it is religious in nature.

So, yes, my problem is limiting freedom of speech. But thanks for guessing, it makes you look, well, not smart. What is it? You decide.

Kevin: “it is clear as day to see that they also aren’t allowing anti-religious free speech in schools, at least on part of the teachers”

What is clear as day that this suit was not done by leftists, but by an individual Christian. It is also clear as day that you dont know what the h-ell you are talking about.

And again, where is this mythical separation of church and state that you keep repeating?

Simple reading test.

Rule: Congress shall pass no laws regarding the establishment of religion.

1) Joe Brown in Arkansas posts a picture with the 10 commandments in it in a public court house. Does this break the rule above?

2) Joe Brown, president, signs into law a law requiring the 10 commandments to be posted in public places.

3) Joe Brown, president, encourages all Americans to read the 10 commandments and follow them.

Answers.
1) does not break the rule
2) does break the rule
3) does not break the rule

Again, time for a history lesson.

1) There is no separation of church and state clause in the US Constitution.
2) KKK was founded by five DEMOCRATS
3) KKK required a Separation of Church and State Oath because they feared growing Catholic political power.
4) KKK member turned US Supreme Court Judge inserts Separation of Church and State concept into US law.
5) Leftists have been using this faulty interpretation in order to force all religious expression or speech to be suppressed in public places.

You were close, but so far. I think you’re the one who failed the reading test here… the actual statement reads:

“Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

The difference is a big one. Taking the real wording of our First Amendment and reevaluating your 3 cases, we see that 2 still clearly breaks the rule and 1 and 3 aren’t really covered, as they’re not laws. Not much has changed.

The establishment clause, however, gives us a grounding to interpret these actions as well. In a number of cases the confirmed interpretation regarding the establishment clause has been that the government should not promote a religion. This makes 1 and 3 against the rule.

“Perhaps you misread. I said that leftists were free to indoctrinate our students. Not the law.”

Okay, the leftists then. What are the leftists indoctrinating people in? The constitution? The establishment clause? I’m having a hard time seeing what the problem is with removing Christian and anti-Christian indoctrination alike from our schools. Remember, they’re working to remove BOTH. This case shows that. You’re not a victim here, and it seems to me like you’re adopting the victim mentality.

And mind you, separation of church and state is not a law, but it is a very commonly recognized principle of American government. The issue has been widely discussed and dealt with since around the 50’s. It’s just the logical extension of the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause. Churches get to be tax-exempt (so long as they do not have a political agenda) and people are free to go to such institutions to seek religious teaching. As such, the religion stays out of the schools.

It is a commonly held belief that public schools are for secular education, because if you recognize one religion in particular, one can make the case that you should recognize all other religions as well (because curriculum is determined in part by law, and there can be no law respecting the establishment of a particular religion). That would not go over well in this country…

So Kevin, you figure that in English if the rule was that Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion that we should just toss out the key words MAKE NO LAW and replace it with make no reference, make not intimation, make no influence.

The rule was MAKE NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion.

And here what you did was to split it up as though it is two separate sentences.

That, Kevin, is just stupid and twisted and playing games with words.

One of the gifts to our nation from the KKK was the now famous “Separation of Church and State” ruling. The KKK required an oath taken by all of its members stating support of “Separation of Church and State.”

The KKK, 90% white protestant democrats, feared the growing political power of the Catholic church. So fearing that the Catholic church would officially endorse non KKK supporting politicians, they wanted this clause to become part of US law.

The actual constitution was very clear on this subject, and only prohibited Laws being Made respecting the establishment of religion.

Note, again, in English, it prohibited LAWS being made. Not plaques of the 10 commandments being displayed. The law WAS clear back then. It prohibited LAWS BEING MADE.

Apparently leftists, having been poorly educated in public schools, dont understand the difference between making a law, and hanging a framed copy of the 10 commandments.

The real reason for this is they have no regard for freedom of expression or freedom of religion.

“So Kevin, you figure that in English if the rule was that Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion that we should just toss out the key words MAKE NO LAW and replace it with make no reference, make not intimation, make no influence.”

Yeah, I used the Establishment Clause wrongly there. Mentally replace it with “interpretation of the Establishment Clause”.

I admitted that only action 2 was covered by the wording. I also said, however, that the common interpretation as shown by law is that there should be a separation between the two. This is clear.

That’s what I get for typing things out in a rush…

Kevin asks:

“Okay, the leftists then. What are the leftists indoctrinating people in?”

Apparently anything they choose. Gay marriage. Global Warming. Whatever. Since in the leftist mind the only thing they cant discuss is religion.

However, there is no legitimate prohibition of religion. But the leftist has managed to get the upper ground by a gross twisting of the law (such as what you did) and then use it to justify shutting down freedom of religious speech in public settings.

If the issue came to a vote locally, I would be one of the first to vote against religious indoctrination. However, it should be a local issue. The idea that the federal government gets to pick and choose what children are indoctrinated to is faulty and very dangerous, and just not fair to the voters.

And, as I stated earlier, the only reason that separation of church and state is part of current law is because and ex KKK member turned US supreme court judge forced it into the discussion.

It is proven historically that the KKK required an oath of Separation of Church and State for political purposes. And the KKK member turned judge just continued that same retarded thought process for the entire nation.

So here we are now, with secular religion free to be pushed and any religious discussion somehow relegated to banishment. This is not my idea of freedom of speech.

The fact that so many leftists enjoy denying freedom of speech when it is religious is just an example of how they really dont believe in freedom of speech.

“1) There is no separation of church and state clause in the US Constitution.”

You are correct. There are many statements discouraging the entanglement of church and state however, and many legal decisions have been made that follow the separation of church and state ideology

“2) KKK was founded by five DEMOCRATS”

The democratic party of the 1800’s was nothing like the democratic party of today. I think you should take a US history class. Up until fairly recently, the south was pretty prominently democratic. Only around the 1980’s did it turn into a largely republican portion, mostly due to political maneuvering.

“3) KKK required a Separation of Church and State Oath because they feared growing Catholic political power.”

Yeah, they’re anti-catholic…

“4) KKK member turned US Supreme Court Judge inserts Separation of Church and State concept into US law.”

Which judge was this? I thought you said that it was never part of the law?

“5) Leftists have been using this faulty interpretation in order to force all religious expression or speech to be suppressed in public places.”

I’d have to see the law you’re talking about to respond to this.

I don’t see religion being suppressed in public places. Street preachers are free to practice and it is not illegal to place flyers advertising things of religious nature. I think you’re confusing ‘public places’ with ‘government buildings’, which are actually a subset of public places. To recap: you’re perfectly free to promote your religion out in the public. Just don’t do it in a school or government building and you’re fine.

1) There is no separation of church and state clause in the US Constitution.”

Kevin says: “You are correct. There are many statements discouraging the entanglement of church and state however, and many legal decisions have been made that follow the separation of church and state ideology”

Many statements outside of the law does not mean anything. Many statements never made it into the law. The KKK activist judge forced the concept into law. That was not only wrong on a rights aspect but contrary to what the US constitution actually said.

Kevin: The democratic party of the 1800’s was nothing like the democratic party of today.

Funny, but I am talking about the Democrats of the 1900’s. The KKK peak was not that long ago. And 90% of them were DEMOCRATS.

How different they are is hard to know. LBJ, Democrat, was against giving real rights to blacks but he did state in his biography that blacks were getting uppity but they were gaining a political power. So LBJ only gave into blacks as he stated to “keep them quite”. He actually said that Dems should toss them a bone, not enough to make a real difference but enough to keep them quiet.

Dems also were mostly against civil rights acts (mid 1900’s) and republicans were mostly in favor of civil rights acts.

So, Kevin, dont even assume that you know more about US history than I do. And dont think for a moment that you can sugar coat the evils of the Democrat party, either then or now.

Kevin says: “I don’t see religion being suppressed in public places.”

You apparently dont see very well then. Check all the ACLU suits against public displays of religious articles, nativity scenes, In God We Trust, the pledge in school, 10 commandments, choice of religious songs in High School, etc etc.

BTW, courts, schools, etc are known as PUBLIC SCHOOLS and PUBLIC COURTS. I guess you missed that little issue.

Like I said, leftists hate religious speech because they think they can abuse the law and prohibit religious speech by using some very lame legal cases and some very stupid forms of logic to justify shutting down freedom of religious speech. But the bottom line, you still want to suppress it.

If anything the newer law passed by ex kkk member turned judge, of separation of church and state was a law that did indeed prohibit religious speech in certain public places in the USA. This is exactly what the US constitution prohibited.

I am not denying that some activist judges used the interpretation of separation of church and state to do what law was not supposed to do, but I am saying that for them to do so was not founded in the US Constitution.

It was not founded because it went against the spirit and wording of the law. It required religious speech to have to pass some special litmus test, and allowed leftist speech full reign to do say whatever they want.

The right to freedom of speech, according to leftists, like Kevin, is to not have freedom of speech in public schools or public courts, but it is ok with them (arrogant SOBS) to do it elsewhere. Just curious why the leftists are the people that decide what speech is allowed and what speech is not allowed. Oh yeah, leftists say that they have a law that allows them to suppress freedom of religion, so that makes everything fine. Leftists are indeed mentally disturbed.

Kevin: “I admitted that only action 2 was covered by the wording. I also said, however, that the common interpretation as shown by law is that there should be a separation between the two. This is clear.”

The key points are these.

The founding fathers did not fear religion. They feared the government. They did not worry about using religious freedom to influence law. They did however fear the government determining what religion should be followed. Therefore the federal congress was not allowed to make laws respecting the establishment of religion. Not one way promoting, nor the other way prohibiting. And the wording was limited in scope to making law, not using influence, not hanging copies of the 10 commandments. Not saying In God We Trust. None of these things were prohibited, unless they involved congressional LAWS being made (passed).

If anything the newer law passed by ex KKK member turned judge, of separation of church and state was a law that did indeed prohibit religious speech in certain public places in the USA. This is exactly what the US constitution prohibited.

I am not denying that some activist judges used the retarded interpretation of separation of church and state to do what law was not supposed to do, but I am saying that for them to do so was not founded in the US Constitution.

It was not founded because it went against the spirit and wording of the law. It required religious speech to have to pass some special litmus test, and allowed leftist speech full reign to do say whatever they want.

If anything the newer law passed by ex KKK member turned judge, of separation of church and state was a law that did indeed prohibit religious speech in certain public places in the USA. This is exactly what the US constitution prohibited.

I am not denying that some activist judges used the retarded interpretation of separation of church and state to do what law was not supposed to do, but I am saying that for them to do so was not founded in the US Constitution.

It was not founded because it went against the spirit and wording of the law. It required religious speech to have to pass some special litmus test, and allowed leftist speech full reign to do say whatever they want.

Hugo Black was the KKK judge that promoted Separation of Church and State. And it was no coincidence that the KKK as a group required the false understanding of this concept to be a required supported concept. KKK used it to shut freedom of speech down and give their team a bigger political advantage. LBJ made sure that the new tax code made sure that Churches could not support certain politicians (or be against them, as in the case of a church against LBJ) for the same reason. Political power. Leftists are blind useful idiots for the most part. So it is no surprise that they argue to keep religious suppressed but are ok with any other form of perversion being pushed in public schools.

“Like I said, leftists hate religious speech because they think they can abuse the law and prohibit religious speech by using some very lame legal cases and some very stupid forms of logic to justify shutting down freedom of religious speech. But the bottom line, you still want to suppress it.”

Woah, woah, hold the phone. Are equating me to a leftist here? I support free speech as much as the next guy, but I do not believe that our institutions of compulsory education should force our children to be indoctrinated into either religion or lack of it. The easiest solution is to simply silence both sides in the schools and let it play out in the public. I mean the non-government public here; outside of the schools, the courthouses, etc.

I do not believe that religious displays belong on government property, because the government is the consent of the people, not the consent of the Christian God. It is offensive for me to see a particular religion being touted in front of a government building. Our government represents out entire country, a people that are not solely Christian. If a fair share of other religious symbolism was being placed in front of government property then I would be absolutely fine with it, as there would be no favoritism and all would get their time.

If you can put a manger in front of a courthouse, you should be able to put a totem in front of it, or a pentagram, or any other religious/spiritual symbol that you prefer. That’s all I’m saying.

This teacher was wrong to say the things he did in a classroom. Teachers who preach creationism in class are equally wrong. This isn’t suppressing speech; rather, it’s relocating speech, so that education can happen instead of bickering over a subject that will likely never be resolved (the creation/science debate).

I’m probably not going to respond for awhile, as I’m in the middle of finals week here and have studying to do. I’ll catch up with your comments eventually. Have a good one.

One last comment…

“If anything the newer law passed by ex kkk member turned judge, of separation of church and state was a law that did indeed prohibit religious speech in certain public places in the USA. This is exactly what the US constitution prohibited.”

Could you name this judge? I want to look up what you’re talking about here.

Kevin “I do not believe that religious displays belong on government property, because the government is the consent of the people, not the consent of the Christian God.”

That is your opinion. What about other dislays? Naked females? Naked gays kissing? What is allowed or not allowed? You figure that it is ok for a religious test of what gets displayed but other perversions are ok because you cant name a law that prevents them?

As I said, you seem to be against certain forms of freedom of speech, which means you are against freedom of speech.

[...] over religion” and made Christian students feel uncomfortable.Wait till you hear this!Source:http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=336583 Publicado por Aaron en [...]

So, Kevin, setting aside history, is it morally right for a government to allow a Church leader to promote one politician over another? Why or why not?

“So, Kevin, setting aside history, is it morally right for a government to allow a Church leader to promote one politician over another? Why or why not?”

If you strip the issue of historical context, the answer becomes meaningless. If you were to simply ask the general question “Does x institution have the right to promote its political beliefs”, of course I’d say yes.

As far as your specific question goes, I’d say “yes, as long as they’re fine with paying taxes”. See, the thing is, churches aren’t entitled to tax exempt status by law. It’s a privilege. I don’t think a lot of small churches could survive comfortably if they had to pay taxes on their land and income. Mega churches may not be in as much need of tax exemption, but I think they generally abide by the conditions to keep the status. The really rich ones can completely forgo that option in the interest of their political free speech and just live with paying taxes.

If our government wanted to boost revenue significantly, one of the simpler (but probably not recommended) ways to do it would be simply to start taxing the churches. There is a LOT of church owned land going untaxed right now. For all of these things that go untaxed, the public picks up the tab. This means that many non-churchgoers are essentially paying for religious congregations to keep their money untaxed and allow them to function more freely (and, indeed, more charitably). To be the subject of such public gratitude and to abuse it by using retained revenue for the purpose of promoting a political agenda is just plain reprehensible in my eyes. Churches that do not agree with the conditions of tax exemption should be counting their blessings.

So, to restate, I have absolutely no problem with a church leader promoting a specific politician over another, as long as they come to terms with the fact that they will not be a tax exempt institution.

Also, would you find any problem with a pentagram, totem, or a tablet containing the Four Noble Truths being displayed at, say, a public library?

@Pencey May 11th, 2009 – 11:03 am

He should take the three voter forms that he used to get Obama elected and go home to the 1948 Volkswagon Bus he lives in.

Uh, the Bus wasn’t on the market until 1949, close but no cigar.
————————————————-

This teacher is an a$$ his logic is faulty and should be retrained or fired…

[...] The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made b&#121&#32&#74ames Corbett during one day of class, all of which&#32&#119&#101re recorded by Farnan, to support allegations of a&#32&#98&#114oader teaching method that “favors irreligion over religion” and made Christia&#110&#32&#115tudents feel uncomfortable.Wait till you hear this&#33&#10&#83ource:http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=336583 [...]

None of you know what you’re talking about, especially Kevin. Homosexuality is a sick & twisted lifestyle. It is a sin no matter what people think. I can’t imagine how anyone could view themselves with respect when they are so pathetic that they have sex with the same gender. I am not closed-minded. I just know right from wrong.

What is wrong with you people…..

@ John Stamos
The account in Genesis of Sodom and Gamorrah is an example of people being disobedient to God’s will. Giving your daughters to be raped and seducing your father are NOT considered right by Yahweh. In one sense, the Bible is the history of the events. Not everyone in the Bible was perfect. Infact, there was only one perfect person in the Bible, Jesus Christ. Every other person mentioned in the Bible (Adam, David, Abraham, Paul, etc) were sinful. They made mistakes they did things that God counted as wrong, wicked, evil. So much so that all of them deserved the death that Jesus got.
I encourage you to read the Bible in the context of its original purpose. (Have you ever tried to read Moby Dick as if it were a true story about a black man and his love for a white woman? Humorous but not the intended context). If you need some help with why it was written, look at the Book of John. It was written so that “you may believe that Jesus was the Son of God.” That’s a pretty good start for the rest of the Bible.
John, I am sorry but you, in your arrogance and self-delusioned mind have little regard for the truth, I doubt you have ever read through books about the evidence that Christians have for Creation, for the ignorance (check the definition of this John) of atheists, and other things. While I’ll agree that many people (including Christians) are guilty of only looking at one side, they are not the ones I am speaking to. I am speaking to you John. And you John, by your very breathe insult the God who gave it to you. If you want to talk or hear the counters to your arguements, I welcome your thoughts. Ben . hornback at gmail

[...] Breitbart.tv » Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism ‘Superstitious Nonsense’ [...]

In response to Rachael:

“Homosexuality is a sick & twisted lifestyle.”

According to what standard? The Bible? Are you saying that people shouldn’t be allowed to do things that some people consider sick and twisted? Some people think that symbolically eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Jesus is a disgusting practice. Does that mean that people shouldn’t be allowed to do it? Before you answer, recall that not everyone is a Christian.

“I can’t imagine how anyone could view themselves with respect when they are so pathetic that they have sex with the same gender.”

Again, this is only from YOUR consciously limited point of view. Realize that there are six billion people on this Earth, and they all view the world in slightly different ways. Any two people may have radically different views of the world. Who is to judge which person is more ‘correct’ than the other, whatever that means? I know you feel that your opinion is the “right” one, but I’m here to tell you that morality and rightness are completely relative. There is no single reference frame from which to judge every action as “right” or “wrong” or “disgusting” or “evil” or what have you.

“I am not closed-minded. I just know right from wrong.”

Seeing as you absolutely ignore (or deny) other people’s points of view as being valid, I’m going to say no to that one.

This kid has a lot of time on his hands for wrong things. God forbid if that teacher opened his eyes a little bit by violating the first amendment. At the same time this amendment is violated in much more horrible things all over the USA and this one gets into as major news in FOX news?

God saves us all from stupidity and ignorance.

Fortunately I live in Europe where people are NORMAL and don’t sue each other for some nonsense.

F*** this little piece of sh** Farnan. This is supposed to be the equivalent of a college class – it’s AP, meaning that kids get college credit. If this stupid little bible-thumping dumba** can’t handle a few opinions, he doesn’t deserve to go to college. Good luck in seminary, dipsh**. Stay away from real schools, they might test your faith.

First of all, spell my name right. Secondly, I do ignore everyone’s opinion because they’re WRONG!!!! Kevin, when you’re burning in Hell, let the words “I told you so” echo in your simple little mind.

Rachel: If I spelt your name right it would show up as asterisks…

You christians have a habit of ignoring other people’s opinions, maybe because you can’t make sense of them while you are blindly following you belief.

Let’s put religion aside for the moment, what you are saying makes you by any good persons standards, not a good person, what I mean is that people who are good do not despise people just because they are different.

As for your words, “Sick and twisted”, that is how I would describe a cult like the one you belong to.
You people think that you are doing god’s work, look outside the bible for crying out loud, do you seriously think that god would want you to become a business, advertising god like Ronald McDonald advertises McDonalds… not only is your whole religion a complete sham, the church that you represent does some of the most despicable actions in the world, the amount of priests that commit child molestation would be higher that any other job in the world on a graph…
I just cannot believe how closed minded you people are, it literally makes me sad to think that you are out there, thinking the things that you do.

Everybody else, peace out…

For anybody that thinks like this thing who calls herself Rachel, all I can say is try and open your mind, what if someone in your church knew all your secrets, do you think they would still welcome you, even though you believe in god, I think the majority of those people would close there mind to you, as you have to other people.

I can’t wait till religion finally falls out of favour… maybe something constructive will fill it’s place

moskvasoset i ne ebet!

[...] Breitbart.tv http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=336583 – view page – cached The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made by James Corbett during one day of class, all of which were recorded by Farnan, to support allegations of a broader teaching method that — From the page [...]

Anyone ever hear of pastafarianism?

-Touched by his noodly appendage-

Симпатичное сообщение

Post a Comment