Feeding Frenzy

[Strife767]

Sorry, Steve Boy.  Evolution is a theory, only a theory.  Dispite all the Darwiniac authors you can quote, it will remain a theory.

This is the oldest fallacy in the book, seriously. You are making other creationists look bad.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Strife767]

The U.S. was founded under Judeo-Christian principals.

Utterly false. But this time, I have a fun picture to go with it.

Our currency reflects that, as does our Pledge of Allegiance.

Pushy Christians injected references to god into both the money (a while after the civil war) and the pledge of allegiance (1950s, iirc) LONG after the USA was founded. But what are truth and facts but an annoying thorn in the side in fundamentalists?

We would be all better off if the non-believers would just shut up.

Your opinion, and you're free to have it--that's why this country is great. I'm also free to tell you that it's retarded.

If you want to worship Mohammad, do it in your basement, quietly.  If you believe in Mother Nature, fine, I don't want to hear it. The problem is that

The problem is that you don't feel exactly the way about Christianity as you do about Islam or other religions (or lack thereof), do you? That IS going to be a big problem for you, because the Constitution directly contradicts what you're saying.

the atheists feel they should have "equal billing" with the christians.

And the Constitution agrees. Eat it. :lol:

"It ain't gonna happen" !!

Let us know when you return to reality--not only will it happen, but the process has already started. Tough luck, bigot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest 2smart4u]

Yes, mice and elephants are related. They are mammals. They had a common ancestor millions of years ago. Through evolution some mammals got smalller and smaller to survive. Some got very very big. Mammoths are an example. Dinosaurs evolved into birds. Some mammals evolved to live solely in the water... whales and dolphins had ancestors that walked on land.

Here is what SCIENTIFIC THEORY MEANS:

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must have skipped class the day they covered gravity. Gravity's not a

"theory".

[Bryan]

No it isn't. It's essential to the freedom of everyone to worship as they see fit without government interference.

In that case, Paul would fight for the right of modern Aztecs to utilize human sacrifice in their worship.

Or would he?

Our country did just fine for many years without "under God" in the pledge, until the witch-hunter Joseph McCarthy, one of the most divisive politicians in our history, had it added in the 1950s'.

Well, if having a bunch of Communist and Nazi sympathizers is "fine" then I guess you're right.

Except for the Joe McCarthy thing. That part seems to be inaccurate (but it's always handy to drop Joe McCarthy's name when one wants to tar the opposition).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kelsbels/pl...etearticle.html

Doesn't that history tell you anything?

That Paul doesn't know the history of the pledge?

The Knights of Columbus (a Roman Catholic organization) and President Eisenhower were instrumental in added "under God" to the pledge. Yes, it had plenty to do with Communism, as in trying to draw a clear distinction between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., but that just helps to show its "secular" purpose.

I say again: Many nations have been ripped apart and even destroyed by religious conflict, but there is not one historical example of any nation being harmed by allowing all its people to worship freely as they see fit, the government staying out of it.

I doubt you can point to any nation that allows all its people to worship freely as they see fit, Paul. Exactly where can LaVey Satanists take revenge according to the tenets of their belief system?

Without a common culture, there is no nation (if a nation develops a second culture, the nation commonly splits into more than one nation--see Bosnia among a host of others).

I ask again: Why isn't this the best rule?

Because the equal respect for all cultures results in absurdity.

The fact that none of you even tries to answer this question is the answer.

Huh. Now you tell me.

[Guest 2smart4u]

So if the government is violating our Constitutional freedoms he should just "deal with it"? Interesting perspective, but not all citizens are content to be as lazy and irresponsible as that.

And 2smart's technique of labeling all evidence in support of Darwin as "Darwiniac lies" is a very conventient one, don't you think? It enables him to ignore all the evidence and insist that there is, instead, a global conspiracy of evil, Christian-hating scientists (many of them Christians themselves)... all without a shred of logic or evidence needed to support his own claims. "I don't need any evidence," he smugly announces, "as long as I can ignore yours and say it's all lies from proven liars. How do I know? Because they say something I've decided is untrue, and only liars would do that."

You can see how far he's progressed from the fundamentalist "reasoning" of The Bible Is True Because the Bible SAYS It's True. Ironically, people like 2smart are the best evidence against evolution--because it's clearly left him behind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love it !! Darwiniacs are so predictable. Unless you believe we evolved from worms, you're just not as smart as a Darwiniac. If you believe that intelligent design had a hand in creating a human being, then you're some kind of neanderthal.

Need I remind you once again that evolution is a theory ?? There is no fossil evidence of the "missing link", Darwiniacs cannot explain how an eye evolved from a sightless organism, Darwiniacs cannot explain the individuality of fingerprints, DNA and irises without considering intelligent design.

One further clue, intelligent design proponents are not necessarily fundamentalist bible thumpers, just as I think not all Darwinwiniacs are atheists (just most of you).

[Guest Guest]

So gravity isn't a fact?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hoo boy, I know this is going to start a whole other big thing, but no, gravity isn't a "fact".

As stated before, gravity is a theory that is accepted as fact. However, "gravity" - as a theory - has gone through at least three permutations (first dividing it from "magnetism", then as theorized by Newton (Newtonian Theory), and then Einstein (Einsteinian Theory). So, as it currently stands, "gravity" is at least two separate theories.

However, even though the general concept of gravity (i.e., that atoms attract each other) is accepted as fact, the larger question of WHY atoms attract one another is still not understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces into a single unified theory - WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE AND WHICH KEEPS EITHER NEWTONIAN GRAVITATIONAL THEORY OR EINSTEINIAN GRAVITATIONAL THEORY FROM BEING ABOVE REPROACH.

Geez, stating that evolution or gravity as we currently understand them isn't an exact indisputable and universal truth is far from saying that Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark (note: where would they get a shovel big enough to ... oh, nevermind).

[Strife767]

You must have skipped class the day they covered gravity. Gravity's not a

"theory".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.onelook.com/?w=gravitational+theory

Imbecile.

[Guest Guest]

The problem is that the atheists feel they should have "equal billing" with the christians. "It ain't gonna happen" !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is that a problem? Isn't it bad enough we have an icompetent MISleader who calls himself the 'Decider'? What makes you think we need some WANKER like you deciding right and wrong?

[Strife767]

I love it !!  Darwiniacs are so predictable. Unless you believe we evolved from worms,  you're just not as smart as a Darwiniac.

Straw man--human evolved from hominids, not worms. Regardless, ignore the mountain of evidence supporting evolution all you want, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you believe that intelligent design had a hand in creating a human being, then you're some kind of neanderthal.

It is indeed rather primitive, childlike behavior to stick your fingers in your ears and go "LALALA" whenever it is pointed out that there is _zero_ evidence for creationism, and that _they_ likewise have _zero_ evidence refuting any part of the theory of evolution.

Need I remind you once again that evolution is a theory ??

Need I remind you once again how stupid (not to mention antiquated) that argument is?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html <-- "The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means 'a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena' (Barnhart 1948)."

There is no fossil evidence of the "missing link",

Yes, there is. Quite a few of them, actually.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Darwiniacs cannot explain how an eye evolved from a sightless organism,

Yes, we can.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

Darwiniacs cannot explain the individuality of fingerprints, DNA and irises without considering intelligent design.

No scientist ever considers intelligent design for anything, because intelligent design is not science. We have quite thorough explanations for all of these things that require no metaphysical cop-out of "God did it."

One further clue, intelligent design proponents are not necessarily fundamentalist bible thumpers, just as I think not all Darwinwiniacs are atheists (just most of you).

Creationism (come on, "intelligent design" is just creationists' lame attempt at making creationism sound like science) is _necessarily_ religiously-motivated, because creationism is religious in nature, _not_ scientific.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Paul]

You must have skipped class the day they covered gravity. Gravity's not a

"theory".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It most certainly is.

[Guest Paul]

In that case, Paul would fight for the right of modern Aztecs to utilize human sacrifice in their worship.

Or would he?

Well, if having a bunch of Communist and Nazi sympathizers is "fine" then I guess you're right.

Except for the Joe McCarthy thing.  That part seems to be inaccurate (but it's always handy to drop Joe McCarthy's name when one wants to tar the opposition).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kelsbels/pl...etearticle.html

That Paul doesn't know the history of the pledge?

The Knights of Columbus (a Roman Catholic organization) and President Eisenhower were instrumental in added "under God" to the pledge.  Yes, it had plenty to do with Communism, as in trying to draw a clear distinction between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., but that just helps to show its "secular" purpose.

I doubt you can point to any nation that allows all its people to worship freely as they see fit, Paul.  Exactly where can LaVey Satanists take revenge according to the tenets of their belief system?

Without a common culture, there is no nation (if a nation develops a second culture, the nation commonly splits into more than one nation--see Bosnia among a host of others).

Because the equal respect for all cultures results in absurdity.

Huh. Now you tell me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, both of the counter-examples you suggest involve the denial of someone's humanity and the violation of their essential rights. You can't argue for a right to engage in human sacrifice or engage in revenge without advocating gratuitous violence or killing. So your argument collapses on itself.

[Guest Guest]

2smart, you've got to be kidding! Missing link? Evolution of the eye? These points of argument were silly forty years ago. Now they're just sad. You are just plain old, flat out wrong. Most well educated sixth graders have a better comprehension of evolutionary biology than you.

Perhaps you would like to start a discussion on the composition of the luminiferous aether.

You must get dizzy watching the world pass you by so quickly.

[Guest Guest]

You must have skipped class the day they covered gravity. Gravity's not a

"theory".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll dig Sir Isaac up and tell him.

[Guest Guest]

Damned right there wouldn't. You know it, I know it, and I'm sure the fundies know it too. They always seem to shy away from this question--I've noticed it asked like half a dozen times, and it's never been given a straightforward answer by any of Mr. P's apologists. Not even once.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alright, not being one of Mr. P's apologists, but a supporter of Mr. P as a teacher (not his actions), I'll take a shot at being straightforward. This is only my opinion, so take it for what it is.

For better or worse, Kearny is, in the majority, a Christian community filled with people who have deep religious beliefs, and hold them dearly. People have voiced support for the teacher in response to PERCEIVED attacks on their religion (I'll address the "perceived" issue later). Is it a kneejerk reaction? Absolutely. Am I surprised? Absolutely not.

For those who keep asking about whether the community support would be any different if a teacher was preaching fundamentalist Islamic ideals, it is a flawed question. Let me try to give it an answer anyway. Yes, there would be far less support of the teacher in Kearny. However, if the teacher was preaching those ideals in a a community highly populated with Islamic fundamentalists (sections of Paterson, NJ come to mind), then I would tend to believe that community support would be similar to that found in Kearny. Communities seemingly respond strongly to certain issues that violate the collective conscience of its citizenry. For Kearny, it seems that religion is the issue. Does that make us hypocritical - to be honest, sure does. But people tend to react more strongly if the issue is personal to them. And if you think that your community would never respond similarly to an issue (albeit maybe not this religious issue), then you haven't found your town's "button" yet.

So Mr. P preached it, Matthew taped it, and newspapers published it. The people in town PERCEIVED that the LaClairs were attacking the substance of Mr. P's preachings. However, I don't think that enough people took the time to realize that the attack was not against Mr. P's religious beliefs but, instead, that it was against the fact that he preached those beliefs in a public school classroom in purported violation of the Establishment Clause. Why the kneejerk response? Well, according to early posts, the fact that Matthew secretly taped a teacher in class (as is permissible under applicable law) clearly violated some people's sensibilites about appropriate conduct in a classroom. It also seems that Matthew's refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance (in appropriate exercise of his First Amendment rights) got some of the patriots wound up and, as a result, probably a little less open to his side of the story. Sure, Matt's a brave little bugger ... and in this case a 100% in the right bugger ... but he's also a bugger nonetheless. These issues, and the perceived notion that Matthew is seeking media attention for himself, not the issues, does not offer up the most sympathetic plaintiff.

That being said, there is not, nor has there ever been, any reason for people to be picking on this boy the way that they have. The brave men and women who are coming home in flag-draped casksets took an oath to protect this country and its Constitution - which affords Matthew the right to sit for the flag salute, to tape a teacher when he perceived an injustice occurred and, yes, to be free of preaching in a public classroom. Our Constitution gives these rights not only to Matthew, but to all of us. And it's the reason why we are the greatest country on the planet (you can stop humming the Star Bangled Banner, I'm stepping off my soap box now).

So even though the LaClairs were making an argument to enforce valid and established principles contained in our Constitution, because Mr. P's comments were religious in nature, people PERCEIVED the argument to be against Mr. P's religious beliefs by a kid who does stuff that isn't very popular. Is it a kneejerk reaction? Absolutely. Am I surprised? Absolutely not.

As I stated earlier, people react strongly in response to attacks (whether real or perceived) on their beliefs. The LaClairs are as "guilty" of this as anyone. They have a strong - and many would say a healthy - belief in the scientific method and Constitutional boundaries. If they didn't, do you really believe that Matt would subject himself to the ridicule that he has received (or that his father would have let him)? Let me be the first to surmise that Matthew did not bring a tape recorder to school to catch Mr. P's opinions on Bush or even the weather in general.

And what about all of the Atheists that have jumped into this forum head first? Would you even had taken the time to get involved in this if it was NOT a religious based issue but, instead, was a debate about whether a gym teacher inappropriately scheduled archery class instead of dodgeball in violation of state curriculum requirements (maybe if he was combining archery and dodgeball into one sport ...)? When it affects your beliefs, it MATTERS to you. Just as it mattered back in the summer of 1925 when people came out in droves to take action against anti-evolutionary laws during the Scopes trial.

So how can I support the teacher? Simple. I think his actions were wrong. I think that corrective action ought to be taken (which, to my understanding, has occurred but the administration is either precluded from releasing information about the corrective action as a result of some sort of union contractual provision ... or the previous is a load of baloney and they're just being tight lipped about the whole thing while waiting for the issue to blow over). However, I do not believe that Mr. P should be fired as a result of this transgression.

Despite some radical assertions to the contrary, being religious (even being THAT religous) and being a good teacher are not mutually exclusive. As to the conduct that occurred AFTER the recorded class sessions (the allegations of lying, intimidation, etc.) there is no proof of that conduct beyond the word of Matthew. I know this pains some people to hear ... but conclusive proof other than assertions and allegations (as credible as the LaClairs seem to be) does not exist. Accordingly, I am unwilling to throw away someone's career and financial livelihood absent that proof (and for those that condemn the taping in class, this is why the taping was necessary, there wouldn't have been any proof of Mr. P's statements absent the tapes).

IF Matthew was able to provide proof of such conduct, I definitely would have second thoughts - HOWEVER - I would still be very reluctant to affect someone's livelihood for a single transgression (or a series of transgressions combining into one total event) absent serious physical, mental or emotional harm to a student (caused by the teacher, not by other students' and citizens' reactions to what occurred between the student and the teacher). I'm not saying that I WOULDN'T do it, I'm just saying that I would be reluctant to do so.

So there's some honesty. Punch holes in it. Turn it inside out. Call me either too supportive or not supportive enough ... it's all I got!

[Guest Steve_C]

Ok Fine, let's say that evolution is a just theory. That does not make any current religious dogma any more factual.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. There are very few facts involved in religion, like any good fiction.

[Guest Steve_C]

I love it !!  Darwiniacs are so predictable. Unless you believe we evolved from worms,  you're just not as smart as a Darwiniac. If you believe that intelligent design had a hand in creating a human being, then you're some kind of neanderthal.

    Need I remind you once again that evolution is a theory ??  There is no fossil evidence of the "missing link", Darwiniacs cannot explain how an eye evolved from a sightless organism, Darwiniacs cannot explain the individuality of fingerprints, DNA and irises without considering intelligent design.

    One further clue, intelligent design proponents are not necessarily fundamentalist bible thumpers, just as I think not all Darwinwiniacs are atheists (just most of you).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're high.

You've been provided links to the science of evolution. You just choose to ignore it.

It's been proven. ID is a sham propagated by christian scientists. Not one theory of ID has been tested or proven it is complete bullsh*t. It's just a bunch of religious people talking to themselves.

I provided links to the evolution of the eye. I provided links to what scientific theory means (theory and facts can be the same thing).

Scientists do know why every person's fingerprints, dna and eyes are different. We do know how eyes evolved.

We do have fossils of our ancient ancestors and every time we find a new one, creationists claim THERE'S TWO MORE GAPS TO FILL! Not accepting evolution as proven science is like claiming the the sun revolves around the earth.

Just keep ignoring every link, and all the evidence. Continue living in the dark.

Do you believe in the story of Noah's Ark?

How old do you think the earth is?

[Strife767]

You're high.

You've been provided links to the science of evolution. You just choose to ignore it.

It's been proven. ID is a sham propagated by christian scientists.

Not even! No one who engages in any sort of actual science gives any credence to that nonsense. Christians, sure. Scientists? No way.

Not one theory of ID has been tested or proven it is complete bullsh*t. It's just a bunch of religious people talking to themselves.

I provided links to the evolution of the eye. I provided links to what scientific theory means (theory and facts can be the same thing).

Scientists do know why every person's fingerprints, dna and eyes are different. We do know how eyes evolved.

We do have fossils of our ancient ancestors and every time we find a new one, creationists claim THERE'S TWO MORE GAPS TO FILL! Not accepting evolution as proven science is like claiming the the sun revolves around the earth.

Just keep ignoring every link, and all the evidence. Continue living in the dark.

Do you believe in the story of Noah's Ark?

How old do you think the earth is?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Paul]

Hoo boy, I know this is going to start a whole other big thing, but no, gravity isn't a "fact".

As stated before, gravity is a theory that is accepted as fact.  However, "gravity" - as a theory - has gone through at least three permutations (first dividing it from "magnetism", then as theorized by Newton (Newtonian Theory), and then Einstein (Einsteinian Theory).  So, as it currently stands, "gravity" is at least two separate theories.

However, even though the general concept of gravity (i.e., that atoms attract each other) is accepted as fact, the larger question of WHY atoms attract one another is still not understood. The goal is to combine gravity, electromagnetism and strong and weak nuclear forces into a single unified theory - WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE AND WHICH KEEPS EITHER NEWTONIAN GRAVITATIONAL THEORY OR EINSTEINIAN GRAVITATIONAL THEORY FROM BEING ABOVE REPROACH.

Geez, stating that evolution or gravity as we currently understand them isn't an exact indisputable and universal truth is far from saying that Dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark (note: where would they get a shovel big enough to ... oh, nevermind).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're asking people to think.

[Guest Paul]

2smart, you've got to be kidding! Missing link? Evolution of the eye? These points of  argument were silly forty years ago. Now they're just sad. You are just plain old, flat out wrong. Most well educated sixth graders have a better comprehension of evolutionary biology than you.

Perhaps you would like to start a discussion on the composition of the luminiferous aether.

You must get dizzy watching the world pass you by so quickly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't get dizzy so fast if your eyes are closed.

[Guest Paul]

Alright, not being one of Mr. P's apologists, but a supporter of Mr. P as a teacher (not his actions), I'll take a shot at being straightforward.  This is only my opinion, so take it for what it is. 

For better or worse, Kearny is, in the majority, a Christian community filled with people who have deep religious beliefs, and hold them dearly.  People have voiced support for the teacher in response to PERCEIVED attacks on their religion (I'll address the "perceived" issue later).  Is it a kneejerk reaction?  Absolutely.  Am I surprised?  Absolutely not.

For those who keep asking about whether the community support would be any different if a teacher was preaching fundamentalist Islamic ideals, it is a flawed question.  Let me try to give it an answer anyway.  Yes, there would be far less support of the teacher in Kearny.  However, if the teacher was preaching those ideals in a a community highly populated with Islamic fundamentalists (sections of Paterson, NJ come to mind), then I would tend to believe that community support would be similar to that found in Kearny.  Communities seemingly respond strongly to certain issues that violate the collective conscience of its citizenry.  For Kearny, it seems that religion is the issue.  Does that make us hypocritical - to be honest, sure does.  But people tend to react more strongly if the issue is personal to them.  And if you think that your community would never respond similarly to an issue (albeit maybe not this religious issue), then you haven't found your town's "button" yet.

So Mr. P preached it, Matthew taped it, and newspapers published it.  The people in town PERCEIVED that the LaClairs were attacking the substance of Mr. P's preachings.  However, I don't think that enough people took the time to realize that the attack was not against Mr. P's religious beliefs but, instead, that it was against the fact that he preached those beliefs in a public school classroom in purported violation of the Establishment Clause.  Why the kneejerk response?  Well, according to early posts, the fact that Matthew secretly taped a teacher in class (as is permissible under applicable law) clearly violated some people's sensibilites about appropriate conduct in a classroom.  It also seems that Matthew's refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance (in appropriate exercise of his First Amendment rights) got some of the patriots wound up and, as a result, probably a little less open to his side of the story.  Sure, Matt's a brave little bugger ... and in this case a 100% in the right bugger ... but he's also a bugger nonetheless.  These issues, and the perceived notion that Matthew is seeking media attention for himself, not the issues, does not offer up the most sympathetic plaintiff. 

That being said, there is not, nor has there ever been, any reason for people to be picking on this boy the way that they have.  The brave men and women who are coming home in flag-draped casksets took an oath to protect this country and its Constitution - which affords Matthew the right to sit for the flag salute, to tape a teacher when he perceived an injustice occurred and, yes, to be free of preaching in a public classroom.  Our Constitution gives these rights not only to Matthew, but to all of us.  And it's the reason why we are the greatest country on the planet (you can stop humming the Star Bangled Banner, I'm stepping off my soap box now).

So even though the LaClairs were making an argument to enforce valid and established principles contained in our Constitution, because Mr. P's comments were religious in nature, people PERCEIVED the argument to be against Mr. P's religious beliefs by a kid who does stuff that isn't very popular.  Is it a kneejerk reaction?  Absolutely.  Am I surprised?  Absolutely not.

As I stated earlier, people react strongly in response to attacks (whether real or perceived) on their beliefs.  The LaClairs are as "guilty" of this as anyone.  They have a strong - and many would say a healthy - belief in the scientific method and Constitutional boundaries.  If they didn't, do you really believe that Matt would subject himself to the ridicule that he has received (or that his father would have let him)?  Let me be the first to surmise that Matthew did not bring a tape recorder to school to catch Mr. P's opinions on Bush or even the weather in general.

And what about all of the Atheists that have jumped into this forum head first?  Would you even had taken the time to get involved in this if it was NOT a religious based issue but, instead, was a debate about whether a gym teacher inappropriately scheduled archery class instead of dodgeball in violation of state curriculum requirements (maybe if he was combining archery and dodgeball into one sport ...)?  When it affects your beliefs, it MATTERS to you.  Just as it mattered back in the summer of 1925 when people came out in droves to take action against anti-evolutionary laws during the Scopes trial. 

So how can I support the teacher?  Simple.  I think his actions were wrong.  I think that corrective action ought to be taken (which, to my understanding, has occurred but the administration is either precluded from releasing information about the corrective action as a result of some sort of union contractual provision ... or the previous is a load of baloney and they're just being tight lipped about the whole thing while waiting for the issue to blow over).  However, I do not believe that Mr. P should be fired as a result of this transgression. 

Despite some radical assertions to the contrary, being religious (even being THAT religous) and being a good teacher are not mutually exclusive.  As to the conduct that occurred AFTER the recorded class sessions (the allegations of lying, intimidation, etc.) there is no proof of that conduct beyond the word of Matthew.  I know this pains some people to hear ... but conclusive proof other than assertions and allegations (as credible as the LaClairs seem to be) does not exist.  Accordingly, I am unwilling to throw away someone's career and financial livelihood absent that proof (and for those that condemn the taping in class, this is why the taping was necessary, there wouldn't have been any proof of Mr. P's statements absent the tapes). 

IF Matthew was able to provide proof of such conduct, I definitely would have second thoughts - HOWEVER - I would still be very reluctant to affect someone's livelihood for a single transgression (or a series of transgressions combining into one total event) absent serious physical, mental or emotional harm to a student (caused by the teacher, not by other students' and citizens' reactions to what occurred between the student and the teacher).  I'm not saying that I WOULDN'T do it, I'm just saying that I would be reluctant to do so.

So there's some honesty.  Punch holes in it.  Turn it inside out.  Call me either too supportive or not supportive enough ... it's all I got!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Superb post. Obviously you took considerable time with it, and thought it through carefully. Yours is a model to emulate.

I have two questions for you.

Is a more idealistic view appropriate: i.e., a view that says it's our civic duty to root out bigotry, not merely to say "well, that's how it is." That sets up conflict, but how else do we maintain democratic ideals?

Isn't content important? We do have a commitment to science and the Constitution. In a public school, don't those commitments trump competing private commitments? It's not like we're pulling these out of thin air. These commitments are what a public school is supposed to be about, no? An irony in this is that a few have accused us of being relativists, but obviously our position is far from the relativism that the right loves to criticize.

[Guest Guest]

Alright, not being one of Mr. P's apologists, but a supporter of Mr. P as a teacher (not his actions), I'll take a shot at being straightforward.  This is only my opinion, so take it for what it is. 

For better or worse, Kearny is, in the majority, a Christian community filled with people who have deep religious beliefs, and hold them dearly.  People have voiced support for the teacher in response to PERCEIVED attacks on their religion (I'll address the "perceived" issue later).  Is it a kneejerk reaction?  Absolutely.  Am I surprised?  Absolutely not.

For those who keep asking about whether the community support would be any different if a teacher was preaching fundamentalist Islamic ideals, it is a flawed question.  Let me try to give it an answer anyway.  Yes, there would be far less support of the teacher in Kearny.  However, if the teacher was preaching those ideals in a a community highly populated with Islamic fundamentalists (sections of Paterson, NJ come to mind), then I would tend to believe that community support would be similar to that found in Kearny.  Communities seemingly respond strongly to certain issues that violate the collective conscience of its citizenry.  For Kearny, it seems that religion is the issue.  Does that make us hypocritical - to be honest, sure does.  But people tend to react more strongly if the issue is personal to them.  And if you think that your community would never respond similarly to an issue (albeit maybe not this religious issue), then you haven't found your town's "button" yet.

So Mr. P preached it, Matthew taped it, and newspapers published it.  The people in town PERCEIVED that the LaClairs were attacking the substance of Mr. P's preachings.  However, I don't think that enough people took the time to realize that the attack was not against Mr. P's religious beliefs but, instead, that it was against the fact that he preached those beliefs in a public school classroom in purported violation of the Establishment Clause.  Why the kneejerk response?  Well, according to early posts, the fact that Matthew secretly taped a teacher in class (as is permissible under applicable law) clearly violated some people's sensibilites about appropriate conduct in a classroom.  It also seems that Matthew's refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance (in appropriate exercise of his First Amendment rights) got some of the patriots wound up and, as a result, probably a little less open to his side of the story.  Sure, Matt's a brave little bugger ... and in this case a 100% in the right bugger ... but he's also a bugger nonetheless.  These issues, and the perceived notion that Matthew is seeking media attention for himself, not the issues, does not offer up the most sympathetic plaintiff. 

That being said, there is not, nor has there ever been, any reason for people to be picking on this boy the way that they have.  The brave men and women who are coming home in flag-draped casksets took an oath to protect this country and its Constitution - which affords Matthew the right to sit for the flag salute, to tape a teacher when he perceived an injustice occurred and, yes, to be free of preaching in a public classroom.  Our Constitution gives these rights not only to Matthew, but to all of us.  And it's the reason why we are the greatest country on the planet (you can stop humming the Star Bangled Banner, I'm stepping off my soap box now).

So even though the LaClairs were making an argument to enforce valid and established principles contained in our Constitution, because Mr. P's comments were religious in nature, people PERCEIVED the argument to be against Mr. P's religious beliefs by a kid who does stuff that isn't very popular.  Is it a kneejerk reaction?  Absolutely.  Am I surprised?  Absolutely not.

As I stated earlier, people react strongly in response to attacks (whether real or perceived) on their beliefs.  The LaClairs are as "guilty" of this as anyone.  They have a strong - and many would say a healthy - belief in the scientific method and Constitutional boundaries.  If they didn't, do you really believe that Matt would subject himself to the ridicule that he has received (or that his father would have let him)?  Let me be the first to surmise that Matthew did not bring a tape recorder to school to catch Mr. P's opinions on Bush or even the weather in general.

And what about all of the Atheists that have jumped into this forum head first?  Would you even had taken the time to get involved in this if it was NOT a religious based issue but, instead, was a debate about whether a gym teacher inappropriately scheduled archery class instead of dodgeball in violation of state curriculum requirements (maybe if he was combining archery and dodgeball into one sport ...)?  When it affects your beliefs, it MATTERS to you.  Just as it mattered back in the summer of 1925 when people came out in droves to take action against anti-evolutionary laws during the Scopes trial. 

So how can I support the teacher?  Simple.  I think his actions were wrong.  I think that corrective action ought to be taken (which, to my understanding, has occurred but the administration is either precluded from releasing information about the corrective action as a result of some sort of union contractual provision ... or the previous is a load of baloney and they're just being tight lipped about the whole thing while waiting for the issue to blow over).  However, I do not believe that Mr. P should be fired as a result of this transgression. 

Despite some radical assertions to the contrary, being religious (even being THAT religous) and being a good teacher are not mutually exclusive.  As to the conduct that occurred AFTER the recorded class sessions (the allegations of lying, intimidation, etc.) there is no proof of that conduct beyond the word of Matthew.  I know this pains some people to hear ... but conclusive proof other than assertions and allegations (as credible as the LaClairs seem to be) does not exist.  Accordingly, I am unwilling to throw away someone's career and financial livelihood absent that proof (and for those that condemn the taping in class, this is why the taping was necessary, there wouldn't have been any proof of Mr. P's statements absent the tapes). 

IF Matthew was able to provide proof of such conduct, I definitely would have second thoughts - HOWEVER - I would still be very reluctant to affect someone's livelihood for a single transgression (or a series of transgressions combining into one total event) absent serious physical, mental or emotional harm to a student (caused by the teacher, not by other students' and citizens' reactions to what occurred between the student and the teacher).  I'm not saying that I WOULDN'T do it, I'm just saying that I would be reluctant to do so.

So there's some honesty.  Punch holes in it.  Turn it inside out.  Call me either too supportive or not supportive enough ... it's all I got!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your honesty is refreshing and very much appreciated. You make some excellent points. Can't say I totally agree with you on the topic of the teacher being fired, but I understand your points, and they do have some validity.

Thanks again.

[Guest Wanda K.]

Alright, not being one of Mr. P's apologists, but a supporter of Mr. P as a teacher (not his actions), I'll take a shot at being straightforward.  This is only my opinion, so take it for what it is. 

For better or worse, Kearny is, in the majority, a Christian community filled with people who have deep religious beliefs, and hold them dearly.  People have voiced support for the teacher in response to PERCEIVED attacks on their religion (I'll address the "perceived" issue later).  Is it a kneejerk reaction?  Absolutely.  Am I surprised?  Absolutely not.

For those who keep asking about whether the community support would be any different if a teacher was preaching fundamentalist Islamic ideals, it is a flawed question.  Let me try to give it an answer anyway.  Yes, there would be far less support of the teacher in Kearny.  However, if the teacher was preaching those ideals in a a community highly populated with Islamic fundamentalists (sections of Paterson, NJ come to mind), then I would tend to believe that community support would be similar to that found in Kearny.  Communities seemingly respond strongly to certain issues that violate the collective conscience of its citizenry.  For Kearny, it seems that religion is the issue.  Does that make us hypocritical - to be honest, sure does.  But people tend to react more strongly if the issue is personal to them.  And if you think that your community would never respond similarly to an issue (albeit maybe not this religious issue), then you haven't found your town's "button" yet.

So Mr. P preached it, Matthew taped it, and newspapers published it.  The people in town PERCEIVED that the LaClairs were attacking the substance of Mr. P's preachings.  However, I don't think that enough people took the time to realize that the attack was not against Mr. P's religious beliefs but, instead, that it was against the fact that he preached those beliefs in a public school classroom in purported violation of the Establishment Clause.  Why the kneejerk response?  Well, according to early posts, the fact that Matthew secretly taped a teacher in class (as is permissible under applicable law) clearly violated some people's sensibilites about appropriate conduct in a classroom.  It also seems that Matthew's refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance (in appropriate exercise of his First Amendment rights) got some of the patriots wound up and, as a result, probably a little less open to his side of the story.  Sure, Matt's a brave little bugger ... and in this case a 100% in the right bugger ... but he's also a bugger nonetheless.  These issues, and the perceived notion that Matthew is seeking media attention for himself, not the issues, does not offer up the most sympathetic plaintiff. 

That being said, there is not, nor has there ever been, any reason for people to be picking on this boy the way that they have.  The brave men and women who are coming home in flag-draped casksets took an oath to protect this country and its Constitution - which affords Matthew the right to sit for the flag salute, to tape a teacher when he perceived an injustice occurred and, yes, to be free of preaching in a public classroom.  Our Constitution gives these rights not only to Matthew, but to all of us.  And it's the reason why we are the greatest country on the planet (you can stop humming the Star Bangled Banner, I'm stepping off my soap box now).

So even though the LaClairs were making an argument to enforce valid and established principles contained in our Constitution, because Mr. P's comments were religious in nature, people PERCEIVED the argument to be against Mr. P's religious beliefs by a kid who does stuff that isn't very popular.  Is it a kneejerk reaction?  Absolutely.  Am I surprised?  Absolutely not.

As I stated earlier, people react strongly in response to attacks (whether real or perceived) on their beliefs.  The LaClairs are as "guilty" of this as anyone.  They have a strong - and many would say a healthy - belief in the scientific method and Constitutional boundaries.  If they didn't, do you really believe that Matt would subject himself to the ridicule that he has received (or that his father would have let him)?  Let me be the first to surmise that Matthew did not bring a tape recorder to school to catch Mr. P's opinions on Bush or even the weather in general.

And what about all of the Atheists that have jumped into this forum head first?  Would you even had taken the time to get involved in this if it was NOT a religious based issue but, instead, was a debate about whether a gym teacher inappropriately scheduled archery class instead of dodgeball in violation of state curriculum requirements (maybe if he was combining archery and dodgeball into one sport ...)?  When it affects your beliefs, it MATTERS to you.  Just as it mattered back in the summer of 1925 when people came out in droves to take action against anti-evolutionary laws during the Scopes trial. 

So how can I support the teacher?  Simple.  I think his actions were wrong.  I think that corrective action ought to be taken (which, to my understanding, has occurred but the administration is either precluded from releasing information about the corrective action as a result of some sort of union contractual provision ... or the previous is a load of baloney and they're just being tight lipped about the whole thing while waiting for the issue to blow over).  However, I do not believe that Mr. P should be fired as a result of this transgression. 

Despite some radical assertions to the contrary, being religious (even being THAT religous) and being a good teacher are not mutually exclusive.  As to the conduct that occurred AFTER the recorded class sessions (the allegations of lying, intimidation, etc.) there is no proof of that conduct beyond the word of Matthew.  I know this pains some people to hear ... but conclusive proof other than assertions and allegations (as credible as the LaClairs seem to be) does not exist.  Accordingly, I am unwilling to throw away someone's career and financial livelihood absent that proof (and for those that condemn the taping in class, this is why the taping was necessary, there wouldn't have been any proof of Mr. P's statements absent the tapes). 

IF Matthew was able to provide proof of such conduct, I definitely would have second thoughts - HOWEVER - I would still be very reluctant to affect someone's livelihood for a single transgression (or a series of transgressions combining into one total event) absent serious physical, mental or emotional harm to a student (caused by the teacher, not by other students' and citizens' reactions to what occurred between the student and the teacher).  I'm not saying that I WOULDN'T do it, I'm just saying that I would be reluctant to do so.

So there's some honesty.  Punch holes in it.  Turn it inside out.  Call me either too supportive or not supportive enough ... it's all I got!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Finally! Someone made the point that Kearny isn't the only place subject to kneejerk responses. As you said, it doesn't make it right. But those from out of town who seek to criticize should be mindful of their own houses.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You're high.

You've been provided links to the science of evolution. You just choose to ignore it.

It's been proven. ID is a sham propagated by christian scientists. Not one theory of ID has been tested or proven it is complete bullsh*t. It's just a bunch of religious people talking to themselves.

I provided links to the evolution of the eye. I provided links to what scientific theory means (theory and facts can be the same thing).

Scientists do know why every person's fingerprints, dna and eyes are different. We do know how eyes evolved.

We do have fossils of our ancient ancestors and every time we find a new one, creationists claim THERE'S TWO MORE GAPS TO FILL! Not accepting evolution as proven science is like claiming the the sun revolves around the earth.

Just keep ignoring every link, and all the evidence. Continue living in the dark.

Do you believe in the story of Noah's Ark?

How old do you think the earth is?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The links you've posted have all been written by atheistic Darwiniacs, they have no credibility. If that's all the "proof" you have, you lose.

[Guest Patriot]

Utterly false. But this time, I have a fun picture to go with it.

Pushy Christians injected references to god into both the money (a while after the civil war) and the pledge of allegiance (1950s, iirc) LONG after the USA was founded. But what are truth and facts but an annoying thorn in the side in fundamentalists?

Your opinion, and you're free to have it--that's why this country is great. I'm also free to tell you that it's retarded.

The problem is that you don't feel exactly the way about Christianity as you do about Islam or other religions (or lack thereof), do you? That IS going to be a big problem for you, because the Constitution directly contradicts what you're saying.

And the Constitution agrees. Eat it.

Let us know when you return to reality--not only will it happen, but the process has already started. Tough luck, bigot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"The process has already started" ?? In your dreams.

[Strife767]

The links you've posted have all been written by atheistic Darwiniacs, they have no credibility.

In other words, "I can't refute a single word of the evidence you show me, so I'm going to do some vigorous hand-waving."

Nobody is falling for it. But thanks for admitting you have no answer when it comes to actual evidence. You should quit while you're ahead, before you embarass yourself further.

If that's all the "proof" you have, you lose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You wish.