an American in Texas

Ken Miller is not an atheist. He's a devout Christian (Roman Catholic). He is also a high-regarded professor of cellular biologist at Brown University. I'm not an atheist. I'm a devout Christian (Methodist). Philip Johnson is a lawyer, not a biologist. Michael Behe is a tenured professor of biochemisty, but his scientific reputation is so bad that his department has put up a disclaimer of his views on its website. He was also forced to admit (in his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case) that his version of ID isn't science. You can't even construct an appeal to authority that doesn't backfire on you. You're an idiot and a liar. And by the way, why do you think calling someone an atheist constitutes a devastating insult? That's just another example of your bigotry and stupidity. Oh, and congratulations on coming up with yet another silly tag-phrase. Good to see you've branched out from Koolaid to comic books, though you might want to update your terminology since they're now called graphic novels. I have a little side bet riding on the content of your next withering reply, so please do answer soonest! Leigh

Nobody who thinks pure chance drives evolution should express an opinion about it. Better to stay quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Get thee to a library, 2ignorant4U! You might start with Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God. Leigh

YAUG: "You say justice is an all encompassing value judgment. I say justice is very simply, fairness. By this definition, eternal torment is compatible with justice. It is perfectly just for God to punish a man eternally for rejecting salvation. After all: 1. God created man and gave him life. 2. God sustains man. 3. God entered human time, flesh and space to die for man. The only unforgiveable sin is rejecting Christ as your Savior from the penalty of sin. Therefore, in answer to your question, eternal torment serves the highest value, justice." Guest, there are no words to express how evil and blasphemous these assertions are. Apparently your embrace of Calvinist theology completely blinds you to even the simplest of moral judgments. The wickedness of some so-called Christians never ceases to horrify and amaze me. Leigh

The sheep are a product of 2dum2live's fevered imagination. Actually, I'm in computers and am the CIO of a construction company. I have no truck with sheep . . . or with sheeple. Leigh

What nonsense. Remember, we all HEARD THE TAPES. We know very well what was said in the classroom, and also what tripe has been spouted by those of your ilk on this board. Besides, your opinions ARE idiotic and sick. Leigh

All you right-wing idiots seem to forget the historical background of the Kool-aid jibe. Jim Jones, Jonestown, religious fundamentalist loonies -- ringing any bells yet? I've seen it used on FreeRepublic and on Daily Kos. As a witty riposte, it's just . . . lame. It's used only by those who have no cogent argument to make and who rely on name-calling instead. Leigh

Gavin, thank you so much for replying to Bryan. I'm not thanking you for sounding trouncing him (although you did), but for trying so hard to engage him and teach him something in the process. You must be quite remarkable in the claassroom. I wish I could see you in action. Bryan's head is hard, but perhaps the seeds you've planted will someday bear fruit and he will take off the self-imposed blinders of religious fundamentalism. It's such a pity that a bright intelligence like his is being wasted in the service of foolishness. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas

Dear Concerned, Your argument fails on two points. The first is that the Amish school was explicitly a private religious school, so the kinds of group prayers and devotionals I infer you would like to see were, in fact, being done. The second is that God is entirely welcome in any school, public or private, whose students choose to pray during the school day. No one will stop them. Teachers and staff are also free to pray as they will. The school staff can't specify or lead prayer for them as an exercise in organized devotion, however! We go to church for organized devotional activities, not the public schools, which are after all open to children of all faiths. There is absolutely no rational reason to imagine that failure to establish the Christian religion in our public schools was the proximate cause of these tragedies. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas

Well, folks, there it all is. Read it . . . read it ALL . . . and decide for yourself. Bryan says this isn't preaching Christianity. I say it is. Bryan says it's purely an example of free speech protected by the First Amendment. I say it's illegal proselytizing and clearly prohibited by establishment clause of the First Amendment. Frankly, I am eager for the case to go to trial. The outcome is a foregone conclusion, as everyone except Bryan recognizes. Leigh

First, let me say that I agree with your post. The only point I'd like to make is that Bryan does not represent the whole of Christendom. Many Christians, if not the majority, reject the fundamentalism of the Religious Right. And most American Catholics reject the Church's position on birth control. We don't get as much press. Maybe we don't say it loudly enough. Or maybe our beliefs aren't outrageous enough to attract the media's attention. My mind isn't "convoluted by Christianity." I think Bryan's mind is convoluted, not by Christianity, but by Christianism, sometimes known as Christian Reconstructionism or Dominionism. Those views are rejected by liberal and moderate Christians. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas

Huh? First, we should all step back and recognize that the Framers very intentionally did NOT use the word God in the Constitution or Declaration. Jefferson used a term from Deism, "Creator", instead. Bryan seems to equate the two, but it's clear that the language was deliberately chosen to be as vague and nonsectarian as possible. Bryan, is your argument that we Americans don't recognize the primacy of these documents? That we reject them? Do you really believe our nation's JUDGES reject them? Do you have one shred of PROOF (not just your fanciful extrapolation) of this ridiculous claim? You know, as in citing a case, quoting a judicial opinion, any of those real-world evidences . . . I know that some on the religious right have a problem with "activist judges", but really, don't you think that's taking religious paranoia just a little far? And let me hop down that promising side bunny trail just a minute. It's really outrageous when the majority religion uses the vocabulary of oppression to whine when they can't preach on the taxpayer's dime. Ahem. But to resume the thread of my argument, it's disingeneous to claim that we don't have a shared worldview, which I suppose could even be called a "secular religion", that is distinctly American and grounded in the principles expressed in our Constitution and the Declaration. If you DON'T understand that, Bryan, I recommend that you read the following books as a kind of remedial course in civics and American History: The Americanization of Ben Franklin Gordon S. Wood Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787 Catherine Drinker Bowen Thomas Jefferson and the Foundations of American Freedom Saul K. Padover Those would do to get started -- these are just some that are currently on my bookshelf and that I've read (or re-read) recently. Leigh

Fine. But what's wrong with using the American worldview, rather than any religious sect's? You know, the worldview that's well-described in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and case law? That seems to be Paul's goal. Paul doesn't seem to be promulgating any particular religion. If he were, surely we would be able to define what his religion actually is. As far as I can tell, he's advocating that schools teach, and more importantly, PRACTICE American values. Or maybe not hypocrisy at all. It seems to me he's being consistent in insisting that public institutions be religiously neutral, a philosophy that is enshrined in that most American of documents, the Constitution of the United States. You can arbitrarily define that as a "religion" if you want, but if so, it's one that all patriotic Americans should subscribe to. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas

Well, just to point out the obvious yet again, Paul and his family are taking a lot of hits from people like you, just because they believe it's important to defend the Constitution. I too wish that this would come to trial soon. The outcome is not in doubt; a more egregious case of proselytizing would be hard to find, and the evidence is unmistakable. I have a new interest in the case, because a bill has been introduced here in Texas to require that all school districts offer a course on the Bible, using the Bible itself as the text. This last clause is a transparent attempt to ensure that the materials published by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a group with a clear pro-Protestant and evangelical bias, are adopted. One Texas district's course using their materials included a PowerPoint presentation, "God's Roadway For Your Life," with slides proclaiming "Jesus Christ is the one and only way." It's unlikely that the bill will pass, but another case that sets a clear anti-proselytization precedent would be very welcome and would provide additional ammunition against the intrusion of fundamentalist thought into the classroom. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas

Patrat just dislikes me, folks. And while I appreciate the defense, Stixx, we'd really do better to ignore him. He probably won't go away, but we shouldn't waste our time on him. Because, really, what can we possibly say to someone who thinks that calling a middle-aged mother of four "gay" is a witty comeback? Obviously he's a bigot -- for civilized people, "gay" is not a slur. We'll never be able to teach him to run with the big dogs. He's just not equipped in temperment or intellect. Leigh

Huh? This post is largely incoherent, Yet Another Unidentified Guest. It would help a lot if you'd refrain from using the pronoun "this" several times in every sentence. We can't tell what the antecedent (reference) for "this" is. Example: You searched Yahoo, 411, etc., for an outpoken guy. I'm guessing this Vic fellow (?) Then, "this guy" (Vic? Paul? David?) would do anything to keep this (the proselytizing? the whole flap? Matthew's skirt?) quiet. And what does Whitewater have to do with it? Now, maybe I've missed some posts, but this is all clear as mud to me right now. I can't even tell if you're pro- or anti-Leclair, though I'm guessing anti- since you brought up Whitewater (still don't know what that has to do with it, though). I am gathering that the next part, on the HBO special, is directed at Matthew, Paul, and Debra. You seem to think that the skirt incident was Matthew's attempt to get his parents' attention. I guess he decided skipping school, drinking, smoking dope, knocking up some girl -- you know, the usual attention-getters -- were too tame? Matthew has made it plain that he was making a (in my opinion quite witty) protest about a school dress code. Paul was amused and certainly got the point. And I see no evidence whatsoever that Paul and Debra aren't attentive parents; quite the contrary, in fact. It's a pretty sure bet that when your son internalizes your most dearly-held principles and begins to act on them, you've been a winner as a parent. Leigh

Our congregation includes Democrats, Republicans, and many independents. How many of each, I can't say, because oddly enough (to you, perhaps), we spend more time talking about Christ, His kingdom, and our responsibilities as His disciples than we do talking about partisan politics. Leigh

Yes, I do regret my intemperate language. I had hoped that KOTW might censor that one, since my internal censor failed. Hasty language in the heat of anger is (one of my) great faults and is always a mistake -- not to mention unChristian! Leigh

They'd be happy to see that some of us, at least, "get it." The Constitution's framers worked hard to enshrine the principle of freedom of religion in our country's highest Law. Whether they were, or were not, Christians themselves is really beside the point. It is true that some were overtly deists. Others, for example John Adams, were devout Christians. But regardless of their personal religious beliefs, they did agree that the new government should be separate from, and distinct from, religious observance. And there is no doubt whatsoever that the purpose of the first amendment is to guarantee that the rights of religious minorities would always be protected from any infringement by the majority. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, and Washington's letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island, make that very clear. What many Americans misunderstand is the degree to which freedom OF and FROM religion has fostered a vibrant and dynamic church here in America. That's true for the minority religions, but also and most strikingly for the Christian community. So, be careful what you wish for, Dominionists. It's sad to think that the very thing you want most ardently, the enshrinement of Christianity in both law and custom, is the thing most likely to kill the church altogether. One need only look to Europe to see that a state-sanctioned church is the one most empty of congregants. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas

Patrat, you don't have a clue what it means to be an American, do you? You know nothing about the foundational principles of this country. The "experiment in democracy" just passed you by, didn't it? What I meant (as was clear to everyone with an IQ above that of brussels sprouts) was that we would lose that which makes us uniquely and proudly the American heirs of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison. I think you understand that, but couldn't resist the urge to make a D**bA** post using the word Koolaid. You continue to be the most ironically named poster on the board, surpassing even 2smart4u. Leigh

Apparently Patrat doesn't take communion. Somehow, I'm not surprised . . . We drink grape juice, not Koolaid, at communion, you moron. Leigh

Bryan "metaphysics at some level" hardly equates to the blatant preaching of fundamentalist Christian doctrine in a classroom. It's you who misunderstands the relationship between "the democratic process", by which I infer you mean "rule of the majority", and the Constitution. You don't like it that judges can overrule legislators (or school board members) who trample on the rights of minorities. Too bad; that's the way our country is set up. And at the moment that's no longer true, we cease to be Americans and become the subjects of a theocracy. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas

Oneellama, I agree, your post was very good indeed. I have only one small nit to pick, and that's with "It's high time the 'moderates' underneath the Christian umbrella took a look at the tacit support of religious extremism that persists there, under the guise of 'tolerance.'" No kidding. But what do you think I'm doing here, if not this? They're not getting any support from me, tacit or otherwise. On the contrary, I'm here and elsewhere, posting and protesting away, giving money, and talking it up! And I've not been alone; in the last couple of days, for example, a new poster named Foger has joined me. I do agree, however, that we moderate and liberal Christians have been indecently supine for far too long. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas

Bryan, that link currently points to "Confrontation at Concordia," also a very interesting video, but not on global warming. Apparently Brightcove changes their lineup frequently. I think you're referring to "The Great Global Warming Swindle." This Youtube link might work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU It aired on Britain's Channel 4, not on the BBC (they rejected it). It's been extensively debunked already (google it), but here are some links: http://reasic.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/the...stions-answered http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/ http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03...structing_.html One of the "eminent scientists" quoted in the documentary, in fact the only one whose findings haven't already been disproven, is considering legal action against Martin Durkin, the director. "Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was ‘grossly distorted’ and ‘as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two’. He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. ‘I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,’ he said. ‘This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.’ He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator." (quoted in the Guardian ) "Professor Wunsch said: “I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled.” (quoted in the Independent ) I've also read that Channel 4 was forced to issue an apology for another, similar series by this director. This article from the Guardian confirms that, and also extensively criticizes the documentary. The tagline on the article is "The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2032575,00.html Leigh Williams Austin, Texas

God Save Us From Christians names a number of prominent Christianists: Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Tom Delay, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, (I omit Jesse Jackson because I know nothing about his theology). And by the way, s/he missed the most important one of all, James Dobson, and one other prominent one who immediately comes to mind, Rick Scarborough. Let's get this straight -- these are not MY leaders, nor do they lead Christians with whom I commune. These people are Christians, no doubt, but their political activities, like those of the rest of the religious right, are more properly termed Christian Reconstructionism or Dominionism. Some call them Christianists, in an apparently futile effort to separate their politics and Dominionist theology -- rejected by mainline Christians -- from their more conventional Christian theology. I urge you to google these terms. They are important in the current U.S. body politic. Among their more egregious faults, they erroneously claim that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, they reject evolution and science in favor of their interpretation of Scripture, and they claim they're being persecuted when the Constitution is enforced. Foger, thank you for pointing out this important distinction. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas

As the only self-professed practicing Methodist on the board, I can tell you that those universities affiliated with my denomination have no problem matriculating and graduating good students from a wide variety of religious backgrounds. They needn't be Methodists or even Christians. So I'm not sure why Drew's choice of college is relevent here. I can also say that most members of my denomination would have a real problem with Mr. P's proselytizing in class, and not just because the theology he was teaching is not the same as ours. If he'd been a good Methodist preacher riffing on our own party line, we would still think his behavior was grossly inappropriate in a public school classroom. We believe in and uphold the principle of separation of church and state and regard his behavior as an unconstitutional violation of that principle. We believe our young people should be taught theology in our homes and churches, not at school. Leigh Williams Austin, Texas