Strife767

Well, you've got my attention. That's what you believe. *nods* But believing in the divinity of this guy Jesus is enough. That is the defining factor of Christianity, and where the word "Christianity" comes from (after all, the word doesn't appear anywhere in the bible, iirc). Neither you nor anyone else has the right to go on about what a "true" Christian is. If one believes in Jesus's divinity, then they are Christian--end of story. You might not like knowing that there are so many psychos out there who do crazy things in the name of your beliefs, but that does not give you the right to tell them that they are any less Christian (technically speaking) than you. They are technically (that is, they have the beliefs that define Christianity) Christian--and whether or not any one Christian thinks any other Christian(s) is "doing it right" is irrelevant to that end. A moment of realistic self-awareness, I dare say. Or at least, that is what your beliefs dictate. Good question. Quite respectable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

False. http://www.addictionrecoveryguide.org/trea...al_secular.html Also false. Religions adopted moral codes of the time, not the other way around--morals as a whole precede all organized religions. Uh, actually, I think it's pretty obvious that religion/faith is doing humanity a great disservice as a whole. Religious motivation has caused several magnitudes more suffering and death than non-religious motivation. I dare say faith/religion is dooming us. When you take a tally of all the killing that could have been so easily prevented if only people would stop worrying who's got the better imaginary friend--I can say with quite some confidence that humanity could do just fine without religion. That's the least of it. "Hating" is bad--but it's not tangible/physical...not the way 9/11 was. Not the way the Crusades or the Inquisition were. I dare ask--what has religion done for humanity, other than distract them from reality? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So because someone is a Good Person in the opinion of "a lot" of your friends, they are automatically innocent?

Learn something from the guy who thinks Mr. P. is innocent because he's not Congress? :lol: :lol: No thanks. By the way, your sarcasm is truly shoddy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it is true, I think he has not only tremendous balls (XD) but a sense of humor, and a sharp mind too. Looks like someone else didn't listen to the recordings. Besides, even if Matthew _did_ try and 'bait' the teacher, that wouldn't make the teacher any less wrong for going along with it. You know what one, as a teacher, does when they're asked questions or feel led into inappropriate topics by a student? They tell them so and end the conversation. All you've done was suggested more incompetence from Mr. P. by suggesting he didn't have the integrity to do that. That is, if your statement about 'leading' had any truth to it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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}>

If you, instead of just saying you believe in God, will proclaim that his existence is fact (with such confidence too)--you are in dire need of psychological evaluation, as you are showing textbook signs of schizophrenia. God is not a fact, you crazy guest you. Not even close. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes they did. http://www.davidkowalski.com/teachpreach.mp3 http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2006/...recordings.html Partial (the last one might be complete, I'm not 100% sure) Transcripts http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/11/...m_right_now.php http://rationalrant.blogspot.com/2006/11/t...ew-laclair.html http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258518.htm http://www.dranger.com/classtranscript.html

I don't think so--it was apparently his reaction to the revelation of the recordings. I don't think Matthew was recording the showing of the recordings, lol. After all, why would he? He recorded the important part--the proselytizing--already.

This should clear it up for you. Evolution is a theory and a fact, scientifically speaking. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html Not at all--I'll explain below. Ah, but you do realize that this is a common misconception about the theory of evolution, don't you? Evolution explains how life progresses after it starts--it does not explain nor does it attempt to explain how life began. The idea of life coming from non-life would be covered by the relatively new science, abiogenesis, not by the theory of evolution. The reason fundies hate the theory of evolution is because their beliefs dictate not only an origin, but a lack of progression. That's the thing they don't like about evolution--their beliefs say that all the different "kinds" (goooood luck getting ANYONE to give you a real, workable definition of what entails a Biblical "kind"--fundies always avoid that question because the second they give a definition, it will be destroyed outright. *chuckles*) poofed into existence at once, and that species never evolved into new species. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html I see you haven't refuted any of this yet.

Ignore? LOL! YOU willfully _ignored_ the evidence I provided to you, and the fact that even the majority of creationists have abandoned this argument (Answers in Genesis includes it in their "arguments we believe creationists should NOT use," if I remember correctly). Remember this post? http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40572 Don't forget these: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40641 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40643 http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40646 Not all of us have that short an attention span. You have miserably failed at this argument, and we all know it. Not only can you not prove that a "designer" created the human eye in its present state, but you can't even refute the accepted path of evolution that is accepted for the development of our eyes--the best you can do is a fallacious argument of incredulity, lol. Feel free to try again, but I warn you in advance--just about every creationist argument has long ago been completely destroyed. Oh well--if you bring ridicule on yourself, it's not my problem. :P

I had a feeling--these people are stooping pretty low to just invent things now to try and incriminate Matthew with (even though they are such pitiful attempts that even if they were true, they wouldn't hurt Matthew's 'case' in the least). Truly pathetic.

One's personal religious beliefs hardly qualify as 'previous experience' in a professional context, I dare say. Unless there was ample time for teaching everything in the curriculum, I _would_ get annoyed if my teacher went off on unrelated tangents on a regular basis, regardless of the off-topic subject, and for good reason, I think. The issue at hand is just so much worse because it wasn't once, it wasn't brief/isolated, and it wasn't simple off-topic chatter--it was unconstitutional preaching. It's a fair point. The fact of the matter is that it is irrelevant. If a Christian is preaching in a public school classroom where 100% of the students therein are also Christian and agree with everything he says and have issue with none of what he says, it is _still_ unconstitutional, and _still_ should not be tolerated at all. The separation of church and state _mandates_ that governmental institutions remain religiously neutral. Out of curiosity, I'd want to know too, but in the context of the issue, it really makes no difference. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40778 Agreed... :/

...huh? What are you going on about? What does his sister's college _type_ have to do with anything? (fixed your size tag)Okay.

I did, which is exactly why it's so painfully obvious who's in the wrong here. Matthew deserves to be commended for not backing down and getting the evidence he needed. Yeah, okay. From the way you talk, it really sounds like you haven't. Damn right, I'm proud. Class of '02, right here. Which is why I'll be damned if I'm just going to sit by and see that teacher just get away with ridiculously obvious proselytizing. Something needs to be done--we haven't even gotten as little as a "sorry, it won't happen again!" That's insulting, quite frankly. Please--Mr. P.'s actions went _way_ past the line of 'innocent mistake,' okay? And on top of that, in the absence of any apology, it seems he _still_ won't admit to having done anything wrong. So don't even try that line, okay? Not when they preach on school time, they don't. So that he could go on preaching without anything being done about it? I'd bet that's what you wish were the case. That's a lie! Plain and simple. Uh, that's 100% irrelevant. The all caps seem to suggest you think this is a huge revelation that changes everything. It changes nothing. Also irrelevant. Even if he never did this sort of thing before (and even students defending him have stated that it's been going on for years), he was doing it presently, and that merits _actual_ disciplinary action, at least.

Oh, so you mean they were letting the girls wear skirts but not the guys wear shorts? So he came in with a skirt when he was not allowed to wear shorts? That is brilliant. Why does everyone keep calling this a blog? Guys, this is a forum. LOL, okay, so try and blame a student for the stuff the teacher was saying. No, it's pretty obvious in the recordings that he went on and on of his own volition, where if you were correct, he could have easily nipped it in the bud and be responsible enough to stop at the point where he would start unleashing his dogma on the class and talking about who will or won't suffer for eternity based on their beliefs. Uh, what? Name me an example of Matthew trying to get anyone to admit they are wrong when they aren't. Sorry, this is a straw man. He was trying pretty hard to get the teacher to admit to his _obvious_ wrong, but he just wouldn't do it. So Matthew set out to acquire indisputable proof. It was a good move. What are you babbling about? I'd call it a slippery slope fallacy, but it actually doesn't seem to be leading anywhere. It's hilarious and depressing all at once that you seem not to care at all about exactly what Matthew LaClair caught his teacher doing, and proved that he was doing. Good thing you made it clear that was your own opinion, or else this would likely be met with a (bigger) storm of laughter. Come on, now--no one has even come close to suggesting anything resembling this. Suuuuure he will. It has already been pretty strongly established that there was nothing illegal about Matthew's recordings. A public school classroom is not a private conversation in the least. Duh. They were not recorded illegally. Learn some law before you make more such ridiculous statements about what is and isn't illegal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love to see a dishonest/fallacious argument just completely destroyed like this. Nice work.

What a great story. A second bravo from me.

I think it is both heroic and courageous for him to take a stand and actually get some hard evidence on the unconstitutional actions of a teacher that was generally well-liked among his peers. It's not easy to 'tell on' a teacher people like, even when the teacher is doing some very reprehensible things. If it's not courage to do that, and it's not kinda heroic to be the one and only person with the guts to do it, then how do you define those words?

I don't know, but I really, _really_ hope it's not that common... :/

Frankly, no, I never considered that being told to not apologize would be "corrective" in any way at all. Do you think not allowing him to apologize would make any sense at all to that end? Why in the world would anyone advise him not to apologize if he wanted to? Doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, hypothetically. But practically, I maintain that makes absolutely no sense. Wouldn't an apology be the perfect first step toward actually "correcting" something? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not at all paranoid--just playing the odds with the type of person most likely to be supportive of Mr. P's unconstitutional acts.