Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mnodonnell

David Paszkiewicz should be fired

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
The Title was: “Everything you ever wanted to know about Darwin but were afraid to ask.”

· His title implied there would be a question and answer session. (There was not)

· He stated in his intro that there would be a question and answer session. (There was not)

· He spent much of his time bragging about himself. His proudest moment seemed to be when he was talking about his appearance on the Steven Colbert Show. (By the way, Colbert made a “buffoon” out of him on the show).

· Lastly: This man did exactly what Mr. P was “accused” of doing.

He was allowed to come into KHS and proselytize for evolution for a full hour.

He had a captive audience.

He was unopposed and the students could not ask questions.

This was far different than what occurred in the teacher’s classroom.

 

· Students asked questions.

· The teacher gave answers.

· There was discussion.

· Everyone was allowed to participate.

· Everyone was respected.

70783[/snapback]

Although you call it bragging, I call it making people aware of his credentials before speaking about a highly mis-understood subject of which his credentials should back up . "To proselytize for evolution" - evolution is science not religion. Finally wasn't his presentation cut short before he could take questions? I thought I read that somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I understand your point and agree up to a point. The fact is smokers are  one of the most highly taxed elements in our society with the incredibly high taxes on cigarettes. Unfortunately the taxes which are supposed to offset healthcare costs for smokers never get used for that, thus shifting some burden back to others.

I hear the arguement all the time about how it's costing you money. We smokers are already footing the bill but as I said before the money never goes where it is supposed to. Do you support the new SCHIP bill? If so guess who's paying for it? It's not you, it's smokers who will once again be taxed and this time they are not even hiding the fact that it won't go to offest smoking related illness. So don't whine to me about taxes, Paul. I pay my fair share and I feel that I have earned the right to smoke in a bar that still allows it and you don't have patronize the establishment if you don't want to. I realize that smoking is a divisive issue much like abortion and even spearation of church and state. I ask you, let's say tommorrow smoking is outlawed for good. What will be the next great boogyman? Redmeat? Frenchfries? How fit are you Paul? Could you stand to lose a few pounds? How would you like it if for example you were denied healthcare because maybe you have a thing for cheesecake? It may sound silly but I think in 10 years we will look back and asked what happened to our freedom of choice. I've supported alot of your opinions here but I got to call you on the 'ol "it's costing me money" dodge. Don't blame smokers for your tax bill because believe me smokers are paying thier fair share of taxes. Blame the gov't for thier continued mishandling and sleight of hand with our tax dollars.

70766[/snapback]

Keith, you make a good point about the taxes smokers already pay. I'd have to know how much revenue tobacco taxes generate to know whether you're paying enough, too much or the right amount.

I don't think smokers should be taxed only to the break-even point, though, because I desire that children be strongly discouraged from ever starting to smoke. So I want strong anti-smoking policies. The idea occurred to me to impose fines on smoking in some places where children can see it. That way, we could impose costs on the activity itself, which would eliminate any concerns about promoting a black market.

Your idea of taxing people who are overweight isn't totally crazy in my view, even though I'd be one of the many millions of Americans paying extra taxes. I can't deny that those extra pounds cost the taxpayers. Balanced against that, and against the arguments for taxes on tobacco, are the very appropriate rejoinders about government excessively meddling in public life.

In the end, then, I don't have the visceral problem you have with banning smoking in public places. The practice always annoyed me anyway, and no doubt my biases come into play, as I'm sure you would admit yours do, too. What I like about this discussion is that it moved forward, and speaking for myself it was productive. You made a point I hadn't considered.

Do you think the religious nuts reading this exchange will learn anything from it? Well, after all, hope springs eternal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
I understand your point and agree up to a point. The fact is smokers are  one of the most highly taxed elements in our society with the incredibly high taxes on cigarettes. Unfortunately the taxes which are supposed to offset healthcare costs for smokers never get used for that, thus shifting some burden back to others.

I hear the arguement all the time about how it's costing you money. We smokers are already footing the bill but as I said before the money never goes where it is supposed to. Do you support the new SCHIP bill? If so guess who's paying for it? It's not you, it's smokers who will once again be taxed and this time they are not even hiding the fact that it won't go to offest smoking related illness. So don't whine to me about taxes, Paul. I pay my fair share and I feel that I have earned the right to smoke in a bar that still allows it and you don't have patronize the establishment if you don't want to. I realize that smoking is a divisive issue much like abortion and even spearation of church and state. I ask you, let's say tommorrow smoking is outlawed for good. What will be the next great boogyman? Redmeat? Frenchfries? How fit are you Paul? Could you stand to lose a few pounds? How would you like it if for example you were denied healthcare because maybe you have a thing for cheesecake? It may sound silly but I think in 10 years we will look back and asked what happened to our freedom of choice. I've supported alot of your opinions here but I got to call you on the 'ol "it's costing me money" dodge. Don't blame smokers for your tax bill because believe me smokers are paying thier fair share of taxes. Blame the gov't for thier continued mishandling and sleight of hand with our tax dollars.

70766[/snapback]

Sorry, I forgot to log in. The previous post from just a minute ago was mine. I guess you figured that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
One more thing. The gov't really doesn't want us to quit as much as you may think otherwise. They may try to pigeon hole us to only our homes but trust me they do not want us to quit! We are a cash cow for them. Untold millions in taxes for them to play with instead of using it for it's intended purpose. One more thing about the healthcare discussion. We need to ask ourselves why it is so obscenely expensive in the first place. I guess it's just like oil and everything else... the fat cats at the top our licking off the cream while the rest of us are left to churn the butter.

70767[/snapback]

I know, but this isn't about the government. It's about what's best for our people.

You're a nice guy. Hope you'll stop smoking someday. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
The Title was: “Everything you ever wanted to know about Darwin but were afraid to ask.”

· His title implied there would be a question and answer session. (There was not)

· He stated in his intro that there would be a question and answer session. (There was not)

· He spent much of his time bragging about himself. His proudest moment seemed to be when he was talking about his appearance on the Steven Colbert Show. (By the way, Colbert made a “buffoon” out of him on the show).

· Lastly: This man did exactly what Mr. P was “accused” of doing.

He was allowed to come into KHS and proselytize for evolution for a full hour.

He had a captive audience.

He was unopposed and the students could not ask questions.

This was far different than what occurred in the teacher’s classroom.

 

· Students asked questions.

· The teacher gave answers.

· There was discussion.

· Everyone was allowed to participate.

· Everyone was respected.

70783[/snapback]

It's not proselytizing. Dr. Miller was teaching science. Public schools are allowed to do that.

What they're not allowed to do is what Paszkiewicz did, which was promote a religion. You can't just overlook the fact that Miller was teaching science and Paszkiewicz was proselytizing his religion. That's a key point.

So since you seem to be having a hard time with the distinction, I'll emphasize it for you.

Dr. Miller was teaching science. That's allowed.

Mr. Paszkiewicz was proselytizing his religion. That's not allowed.

Another key point is that what Paszkiewicz said about science was just wrong. That is why the school system agreed to bring him in. We said a year ago we wanted those comments corrected, and that is what Dr. Miller did. He taught real and accepted science to counteract the anti-scientific nonsense that Paszkiewicz spoke last year.

You've already been told all of this, but like most religious die-hards, you don't listen to anything you don't want to hear. You certainly didn't listen to Miller's lecture, because if you had you wouldn't make the ridiculous claim that he spent a lot of time talking about himself. Was I in the auditorium? No, but frankly Ken Miller simply wouldn't do that, and didn't do that according to everyone else who was there and reported on the assembly. That includes superintendent Mooney, who thought it was an excellent presentation.

You've also already been told that Miller intended to field questions, but Mr. Somma cut short the first assembly. But frankly, even if he just lectured, that's still permissible. The simple fact is that a renowned biologist presented a lecture on biological evolution, and you just don't like the subject matter.

If you don't like it, I suggest you complain to the proper authorities. Or, if you like, we can meet at the next Board meeting and I'll be happy to answer your questions. If you want to understand evolution better, I can provide you with a reading list.

Finally, your statement that Mr. Paszkiewicz respected everyone is not true. That's one of many reasons why what he did was so wrong. He completely disrespected our religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
The man had one hour. He took 15 minutes to brag about himself. According to my math he had left 45 minutes to indoctrinate the students. No question asked.

70786[/snapback]

Matthew says that's not true. I don't believe it for a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Provide all the context you wish.  There's nothing about the problem of evil until Matthew introduces it.

Strife, of course, tried to provide himself an out by essentially trying to say that once Paszkiewicz talked about religion that any religious topic therefore traces back to Paszkiewicz.  That's the epitome of disingenuous argumentation (not new territory for Strife, either).

It's not proselytizing to factually relate biblical doctrines, and LaClair obviously went to a brand new religious topic with his question, regardless of your attempt to obfuscate the fact.

Matthew didn't challenge anything.  He changed the topic.

Right.  Paszkiewicz should have been fired as soon as he mentioned the religious topic of Halloween.

70784[/snapback]

This is what Bryan was commenting on:

Paszkiewicz: "The Bible explains inspiration, and it occurs in a number of different ways. Inspiration from the biblical writers, according to the Bible, not according to what some professor said, it works like this: God speaks through prophets and inspires their writing. The text itself could reflect the personality of the writing. Your style of writing permeates the text. But the accuracy is ensured of what you're writing. And Moses was a prophet. And he got these revelations from God. I'm sure the primary sources that he used - for example, if I was Noah, and I knew the flood was coming, I wouldn't just take those two animals on the ark of every breed, I would also take every map I could find, every math book, whatever, whatever he had in his day, the technology of the day, I would have taken on the Ark. I'm sure Moses had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah was on there with his 3 sons. Well, read the text of Genesis, at least one of his sons was still alive even when Abraham was around. Now let's say Noah's son Shem, since he lived a significantly long time after the flood, and let's say I was a little boy Abraham, and I was his descendent. I'd be visiting Grandpa, he'd be telling me these stories on his knee. And I'd probably write them down. Or somebody in my family would, and they would pass them on. But these guys may have operated from primary sources, but the biblical convention is that the accuracy is ensured by God."

LaClair: "But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an example of a mistake by God?"

The fact is, Paszkiewicz was preaching his religious views, including the religious myth of Noah's ark, and the student asked a question that challenged those views. It takes an extremely thick skull to think that the student introduced a new subject.

The law is, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that Matthew asked questions. It doesn't matter that twenty minutes earlier a female student asked whether dinosaurs were on Noah's ark. It wouldn't matter if the entire class had been arguing about religion the entire hour, and in the last three seconds the teacher said "Jesus loves you."

He's not allowed to do it. It's the promotion of a religious opinion by a state actor, and it's not allowed. It doesn't matter who raised the subject. It doesn't matter if it starts with a student question. It doesn't matter if the entire class gets on their knees and begs him to teach them about the Bible. It's not allowed. Not permitted. Against the law. Can't do it. Period. End of story. Cut it out. Stop it.

And of course, leave it to Bryan to try to compare this to a mere mention of Halloween, which of course is not the promotion of any religious view, any more than the mere mention of Christmas or Hanukkah would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Matthew says that's not true. I don't believe it for a second.

70847[/snapback]

I'm so sorry!

Matthew said so it must be law. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Newton's third law states that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Your accusation was so ridiculous that I felt there should be an equal and opposite ridiculous response. I usually make my arguments in a more intellectual manner, however I felt that your remark did not necessitate such a response.

70692[/snapback]

So you utilized the fallacy of appeal to ridicule, then.

Your daddy uses fallacies routinely, also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what Bryan was commenting on:

Paszkiewicz: "The Bible explains inspiration, and it occurs in a number of different ways. Inspiration from the biblical writers, according to the Bible, not according to what some professor said, it works like this: God speaks through prophets and inspires their writing. The text itself could reflect the personality of the writing. Your style of writing permeates the text. But the accuracy is ensured of what you're writing. And Moses was a prophet. And he got these revelations from God. I'm sure the primary sources that he used - for example, if I was Noah, and I knew the flood was coming, I wouldn't just take those two animals on the ark of every breed, I would also take every map I could find, every math book, whatever, whatever he had in his day, the technology of the day, I would have taken on the Ark. I'm sure Moses had ancient accounts that were written by men on the Ark, because Noah was on there with his 3 sons. Well, read the text of Genesis, at least one of his sons was still alive even when Abraham was around. Now let's say Noah's son Shem, since he lived a significantly long time after the flood, and let's say I was a little boy Abraham, and I was his descendent. I'd be visiting Grandpa, he'd be telling me these stories on his knee. And I'd probably write them down. Or somebody in my family would, and they would pass them on. But these guys may have operated from primary sources, but the biblical convention is  that the accuracy is ensured by God."

LaClair: "But for example, wouldn't something like Noah's Ark be an example of a mistake by God?"

The fact is, Paszkiewicz was preaching his religious views, including the religious myth of Noah's ark, and the student asked a question that challenged those views. It takes an extremely thick skull to think that the student introduced a new subject.

How would the flood being a mistake possibly challenge what Paszkiewicz had said?

It's a complete change of subject; the only commonality is that it's still talking about the Bible (leaping off from the mention of Noah and the ark). That'll be enough for the weasel, Strife.

The law is, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that Matthew asked questions. It doesn't matter that twenty minutes earlier a female student asked whether dinosaurs were on Noah's ark. It wouldn't matter if the entire class had been arguing about religion the entire hour, and in the last three seconds the teacher said "Jesus loves you."

You've changed topics on us. I was dealing with Strife's claim that Paszkiewicz "introduced every religious topic himself."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=70567

He's not allowed to do it. It's the promotion of a religious opinion by a state actor, and it's not allowed.

By what law or precedent?

It doesn't matter who raised the subject. It doesn't matter if it starts with a student question. It doesn't matter if the entire class gets on their knees and begs him to teach them about the Bible. It's not allowed. Not permitted. Against the law. Can't do it. Period. End of story. Cut it out. Stop it.

Back it up or zip it. ;)

And of course, leave it to Bryan to try to compare this to a mere mention of Halloween, which of course is not the promotion of any religious view, any more than the mere mention of Christmas or Hanukkah would be.

70854[/snapback]

Again, you're engaged in a confusion over our topic. Strife made an inaccurate statement about Paszkiewicz (part of a river of disinformation from his detractors) and I challenged it.

This serves as yet another fine example of your side rushing to take statements out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One more thing. The gov't really doesn't want us to quit as much as you may think otherwise. They may try to pigeon hole us to only our homes but trust me they do not want us to quit! We are a cash cow for them. Untold millions in taxes for them to play with instead of using it for it's intended purpose. One more thing about the healthcare discussion. We need to ask ourselves why it is so obscenely expensive in the first place. I guess it's just like oil and everything else... the fat cats at the top our licking off the cream while the rest of us are left to churn the butter.

70767[/snapback]

Once smoking has been done away with they'll identify another health hazard (cheeseburgers?) and tax that.

Don't underestimate the willingness of the government to find a new source of tax revenue, Keith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's the system we've been living under since the country was founded. It's not a matter of favoring a secular religion.

Then why did "Guest" (was it you?) write "Some religions are secular"?

If some religions are secular then why can't the government favor one of them?

It's a matter of eating, clothing ourselves and taking care of ourselves. Those are secular concerns. Those are the things we all have in common. Just because some people call that their religion doesn't change the fact that we must attend to those things.

70707[/snapback]

The government could maybe favor the Clothes-wearing religion over nudists?

Whatever happened to the First Amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
I know, but this isn't about the government. It's about what's best for our people.

You're a nice guy. Hope you'll stop smoking someday.  :rolleyes:

70840[/snapback]

I appreciate that Paul but when and if I do decide to quit smoking I would like that to be a decision made by me, not for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

He was cut short, iirc.

Were you there? <_<

Because he was cut short/ran out of time.

Were you there? <_<

Yeah, because he didn't endorse his religion (which is Christianity) by the way). :rolleyes:

What twisted version are you talking about? :blink:

He quickly shut down anyone disagreeing opinions.

Keep trying. :blink:

Everyone was respected? What about the people in his classes that he declared belonged in Hell as a result of their beliefs? You call that respect? Is that what your religion teaches you--that it's respectful to condemn unbelievers to eternal suffering?

If you don't like go tell God. But since you don't believe in God just wait until you feel the heat. To be honest God might chose to start with your tongue just to teach you a lesson for all the times you mocked Him. :o

When that time comes, don't act stupid, as you do here everyday.

Accept what comes to you. It was your choice. NOT God's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Matthew says that's not true. I don't believe it for a second.

70847[/snapback]

Did he bring his recording device to that meeting too? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Although you call it bragging, I call it making people aware of his credentials before speaking about a highly mis-understood subject of which his credentials should back up . "To proselytize for evolution" - evolution is science not religion. Finally wasn't his presentation cut short before he could take questions? I thought I read that somewhere.

70830[/snapback]

It was not cut short.

He had a certain amount of time and he used part of that time to talk about himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not proselytizing. Dr. Miller was teaching science. Public schools are allowed to do that.

(even if it's wrong)

This idea has been pushed back into the news recently by the news that Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

(I tried to find a source Paul would trust)

What they're not allowed to do is what Paszkiewicz did, which was promote a religion. You can't just overlook the fact that Miller was teaching science and Paszkiewicz was proselytizing his religion. That's a key point.

I find a way to make clear that I do not regard evolution, properly understood, as either antireligious or antispiritual. Most students seem to appreciate those sentiments. They probably figure that Professor Miller, trying to be a nice guy and doubtlessly an agnostic, is trying to find a way to be unequivocal about evolution without offending the University chaplain.

There are always a few who find me after class and want to pin me down. They ask me point-blank: "Do you believe in God?"

And I tell each of them, "Yes."

http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

Miller seems to have a relatively poor understanding of philosophy (he might be slightly better at philosophy of science--one can hope).

So since you seem to be having a hard time with the distinction, I'll emphasize it for you.

Dr. Miller was teaching science. That's allowed.

Sounds like he goes beyond that with his own students.

Mr. Paszkiewicz was proselytizing his religion. That's not allowed.

What Paszkiewicz and Miller do with their students looks rather similar. But Paul agrees more with Miller.

Another key point is that what Paszkiewicz said about science was just wrong.

What Miller said about philosophy (and science, in referencing contingency) in his book excerpt was just wrong (and Paszkiewicz was right about each of the areas of science that the LaClairs have claimed were wrong). I hope he didn't repeat the bad information to KHS students.

That is why the school system agreed to bring him in. We said a year ago we wanted those comments corrected, and that is what Dr. Miller did. He taught real and accepted science to counteract the anti-scientific nonsense that Paszkiewicz spoke last year.

What, specifically, did Miller teach that contradicted Paszkiewicz?

You've already been told all of this, but like most religious die-hards, you don't listen to anything you don't want to hear.

Kind of like Paul LaClair that way. LaClair still hasn't admitted that he and Mini-me were wrong about the big bang, and the elder LaClair, to my knowledge, still hasn't admitted his error regarding the bogus targeted gas boycott idea.

You certainly didn't listen to Miller's lecture,

Well, got me there.

Finally, your statement that Mr. Paszkiewicz respected everyone is not true. That's one of many reasons why what he did was so wrong. He completely disrespected our religion.

70846[/snapback]

And that's why Matthew had to take statements out of context and lie to Paszkiewicz's supervisors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Keith, you make a good point about the taxes smokers already pay. I'd have to know how much revenue tobacco taxes generate to know whether you're paying enough, too much or the right amount.

I don't think smokers should be taxed only to the break-even point, though, because I desire that children be strongly discouraged from ever starting to smoke. So I want strong anti-smoking policies. The idea occurred to me to impose fines on smoking in some places where children can see it. That way, we could impose costs on the activity itself, which would eliminate any concerns about promoting a black market.

Your idea of taxing people who are overweight isn't totally crazy in my view, even though I'd be one of the many millions of Americans paying extra taxes. I can't deny that those extra pounds cost the taxpayers. Balanced against that, and against the arguments for taxes on tobacco, are the very appropriate rejoinders about government excessively meddling in public life. 

In the end, then, I don't have the visceral problem you have with banning smoking in public places. The practice always annoyed me anyway, and no doubt my biases come into play, as I'm sure you would admit yours do, too. What I like about this discussion is that it moved forward, and speaking for myself it was productive. You made a point I hadn't considered.

Do you think the religious nuts reading this exchange will learn anything from it? Well, after all, hope springs eternal.

70838[/snapback]

Sorry, but I just got to thinking a little more about this post. Please expand on "fining people for smoking where children can see them" First of all how would you propose to enforce this? Secondly instead of fining me, an adult smoker, how about we let those parents do thier job and explain to the children about smoking. Again I ask you Paul, what's next? Today I'm fined because a child saw me smoke, tommorrow you are find because some kid saw you with a large order of fries? You of all people should be aware of the kind of precedents we would be setting with this kind of activity. I have to be honest that I am sick and tired of my activities as an adult being being called out because we have to protect the children. Maybe it should be up to parents should do thier jobs and teach children instead of Kindergarten Cops handing out tickets because some kid saw me lighting up in my vehicle. BTW no one in my family smoked while I was growing up so I don't think your theory would work too well. If you really want to "protect" the children maybe you should be more concerned about what's on TV, video games and music. Children can come home from school and watch the Jerry Springer show or any other manner of trash but you want to fine me if one see's me smoking? Naturally I don't advocate anyone smoking unless they are 18 but that is no excuse to infringe on my rights as an adult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Since when does a privately owned establishment have the "right to make its own decision about what activites are allowed on the premises"? There are numerous laws regulating what goes on in any privately owned establishment.

70717[/snapback]

Exaclty and most of those laws I have a problem with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
This might end arguments on the playground with other children, but you'll have to work a bit harder here where the grown-ups are.

70714[/snapback]

Maybe , but it sure made me feel alot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's why your side refuses to consider the evidence of the tape apart from snippets taken out of context, I suppose.

70780[/snapback]

Jeez, Bryan, we've been over this many times. Those on both sides have listened to the entire exchange. I know I did. We heard proselytizing. As I may have mentioned before, I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church. I certainly recognize preachin' when I hear it.

I don't think there's any good evidence that he lied about it on the tape.  You'll disagree and refuse to discuss the specifics ... no doubt because you're open-minded while I am closed-minded.

70780[/snapback]

The denial is not on the tape, as you very well know. It comes from Matthew's testimony. I believe him. You don't. I believe Matthew because he has been the more credible witness. And if P. has denied it, I'm not aware of it. And by the way, I don't think you're close-minded. I think you're willfully blind.

For some reason I don't think you're referring to yourself.

70780[/snapback]

(as a moron) That would be correct.

I showed on numerous occasions where Paszkiewicz was unquestionably taken out of context.  Your side does nothing but repeat the charges without solving that problem.

70780[/snapback]

You've certainly attempted to demonstrate some problem with context -- ad nauseum, in fact. You've failed miserably.

Like you'd recognize any of it.  :rolleyes:

70780[/snapback]

(This was in response to my assertion that I don't tolerate bad theology, scientific quackery, and fake history.)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that someone who says dinosaurs were on the Ark is full of crap. P.'s later letter to the editor was full of fake history, courtesy of that crackpot David Barton. And his take on hell is very bad theology indeed, as we exhaustively explored on another thread.

So yes, I can recognize those evils when I see them. Just as I can recognize your sophistry, no matter how much you roll your eyes.

Leigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therefore the United States government could constitutionally promote atheism?  :rolleyes:

70781[/snapback]

They could, but I think it would unconstitutional. It would be a restriction on various freedoms that are protected in other areas of the Constitution.

But as we have seen with the push for a marriage amendment, there is no guarantee that our government will not act to constitutionally suppress individual freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, under the law, atheism is a religion. If you think about it, it has to be. Government can no more promote atheism than theism. It must remain neutral. No easy task to be sure, but neutrality is the key.

70764[/snapback]

There is no way that atheism is a religion, the same way that "independents" are not members of a political party.

It's true that atheism, as a concept, only exists in the context of religion/theism/deism, but that does not make it a religion per se.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...