Strife767

LOL!!! Sorry buddy, but these things are not historically verified to be accurate at all: 1. God created everything 2. God (or anyone/anything) caused a worldwide flood 3. Dinosaurs and humans co-existed, and were both on a boat together for months and months on end 4. Jesus existed (if he did exist, he was just a normal dude--at best, a peaceful heretic who didn't do anything miraculous)--not only that, but God 'sent' him 5. etc. Say what you want about believing these things, but this is not history. If you want to talk about religious history, you talk about something like "what effect did Christianity have on society in this time period" etc. THAT is religion in a historical context. You know what's funny about all these "putting spin" comments directed at those in support of Matthew? It's always us, the supporters of the LaClairs, that quote the teacher from the recordings and transcripts, while the people on the other side spend much more time making broad generalizations and generally avoiding the 'hard facts' about the situation. Let me ask you something--just who do you think you're kidding? lol, also funny how Darwin is referred to, not as an extremely influential scientist, but as a cult leader, by the fundies. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fact of the matter--we are as sure of evolution as we are of gravity, scientifically speaking. Evolution does not explain, and does not attempt or _presume_ to explain, the origin of life. This is a big, fat, dishonest strawman. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) explains how life progressed after it 'starts.' The fundie crosshairs should lie on abiogenesis, not evolution, if they want to whine about science's conflict with their faith when it comes to the origin of life. Sure they are. But that doesn't mean one's opinion etc. can't be 100% wrong. For someone to just blindly say things as ridiculous as "evolution never happened" or "there is no evidence of evolution" is just plain wrong. I don't care what you believe--that is an inaccurate statement, plain and simple. P.S. As much as fundies will whine about evolution being anti-God, it isn't. The does not exclude a god at all, for the reason I mentioned above. Whether or not a god created life, evolution provides a VERY thorough understanding of 'what happens next.' <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You call me smug while you arrogantly ignore the evidence I provided you with--how typical of a fundie. This conversation with you is over until/unless you gain the ability to open your mind to the evidence instead of sticking your fingers in your ears. I know when I'm talking to a brick wall who will ignore anything he doesn't want to see. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fallacy of argument from incredulity. Ahem...why would they try to explain that? The accepted mechanism of evolution is not "random selection" (that's not even a scientific term); it's natural selection. And natural selection is the exact opposite of "random." Fallacy of the strawman argument. Even Answers in Genesis knows not to attempt this ridiculous line of argument. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html Strawman again. Natural selection is anything but random. At least you're right about one thing. And natural selection fits the bill, and the evidence, quite nicely. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you! My faith in humanity just went up a notch.

Thank you. It's so obvious...

Personally, I think a curfew is a great idea, BUT that it shouldn't be legislated...I'm tired of seeing people wanting to pawn off the duties of parenting to government and legislation. Instead of starting the 'there oughta be a law' rant, I say parents should be more on top of what their kids are doing, and doing more parenting. It is not the cops' job to make sure your children are home at night.

If spoken from a scientific perspective, it's a completely valid statement to be made about anything supernatural. To be sure, you'd have to provide context (what they mean by "bunk" and exactly which "religious claims" were referenced). But see, I know it irks you that it's nearly impossible for an atheist etc. to get in the same trouble as Paszkiewicz did, simply because there is no hell for atheists to condemn people who disagree with them to. What's funny is that simply pointing out what science has led us to seems just as bad--to tell a religious person "when you die, you're just going to lie there and decay" seems like such a huge insult for some reason. *shrugs* I'll let you know once you provide me with the context. There needn't be an explicit law/statute/whatever. Paszkiewicz's acts were unconstitutional, as per the Supreme Court's most current interpretation of it. You keep telling yourself that. Maybe it'll be true one day. LOL! ...wait, you're serious? You can't be serious...can you? I hope you're leaning hard on that "if," man. So, in effect, you've admitted to what he said, but think it's enough of a defense to simply claim he wasn't talking about "a student or group of students" when he said it? Are you serious? He says equates evolution with religion (in fact, he claimed that it requires _less_ faith to believe in God than evolution--in one fell swoop undermining the entire biology curriculum on top of everything else), goes on about Jesus, Noah, dinosaurs on a boat, and hell, and you seriously think this does not count as proselytizing? Believe me, I would love to see you try and defend this nonsense in court. I'd like to know how if Paszkiewicz himself is as confident of his innocence as you are. Just gotta trivialize things, huh? "Hypersensitive," pff. Pff, I say! What a ridiculous statement. Separation of church and state exists for a reason. You guys don't preach in public school, and we promise not to do anything scientific in your church/temple/mosque/etc. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Strife767, on Dec 25 2006, 03:11 PM, wrote: [b]I fixed your tagging--you know, a closing bold tag needs an opening one.[/b] Your merit badge is in the mail. I'd have fixed it myself, given editing privileges. I've never had a problem editing my posts. [b]That would be because you've already proven just how little working knowledge you have of the First Amendment.[/b] Really. [b]None of it would need to be repealed or reinterpreted. The First Amendment gives people the freedom to practice religion, not to tell people what to believe. That includes children.[/b] Did you skip your government classes, or what? The Constitution doesn't give out freedoms. The Constitution give the government the responsibility for preserving inherent freedoms while restricting the government from infringing on those freedoms. When you have a kid, you can get him to believe about Santa Claus, and the government cannot throw you in jail for it--not until your don't getting the First Amendment reinterpreted your way. After that, maybe they can lock you up for spreading tales about a jolly old elf (to children!). It's perfectly possible to be honest about Santa Claus etc. and get kids into it and enjoying it without lying to them, which is what I'd generally like to see happen. I see zero benefit from lying to a child about there actually existing a Santa Claus or tooth fairy etc. I think going to _jail_ for that is pretty extreme (but what easier way to attack your opponent than with a strawman, huh?), but it should definitely be discouraged. However, this is not nearly the same as telling a kid that they have to be good or they're going to hell, because god is watching, etc. [b]People under the age of majority should not have to deal with indoctrination from their parents or any other figures of authority--if they want to believe in some religion or another, they can make that decision on their own once they are old enough to: 1. Realize that there are more religions out there than one's parents' (most parents will quite happily make their children feel like it's either their religion or no religion--in fact, I've seen several Christian fundamentalists equate all other religions with [i]atheism[/i]!). 2. Make an informed, responsible decision about what they want to believe. The fact that people like you like to pretend that atheism/agnosticism/secular humanism is a religion (likely because being religious, it's hard to imagine people who aren't religious at all, so the mind tends to want to assign them a religion, even if it isn't there--the same kind of thinking that assigns genders to inanimate objects) is irrelevant.[/b] Tell me how you define religion, and I'll have you agreeing with me after about three more exchanges (assuming that you can shake your earlier habit of dodging questions). lol, okay, hotshot. First 'quick definition' on www.onelook.net will do fine: "noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny" --http://www.onelook.com/?w=religion Please, show me how to apply this definition to atheism, for example. I can't wait. [b]Children should not be forced to participate in their parents' religious rituals, and they _especially_ should not be led to believe that _any_ religion has any kind of factual foundation--I hate it when people pretend their beliefs are not beliefs, but irrefutable fact. :rolleyes:[/b] Is it an irrefutable fact that the beliefs of others are not irrefutable fact? I'd have to say yes, since a belief in any supernatural entity or element is, by definition, not fact, much less irrefutable or not. Or is that just a belief of yours that you want the government to enforce? Mmm, no, that's pretty much how it really is. [b]You see, I wouldn't have a problem with parents telling their kids (still against forcing them to participate or be present at rituals etc., though) about their religions, if only they would keep things in the proper context. But it is rarely the case that a parent tells a child "this is what I believe" when they explain their religion. A child is much more likely to hear "this is what is." That is damaging to the impressionable child's developing sense of reality, especially when they eventually are taught something in school that directly contradicts some teaching or another of the religious "facts" they've been taught at home. Why put a child through that?[/b] Because it is unavoidable in practical terms. That's why. Solipsism, for example, is unfalsifiable. You think you can bring up a child without discouraging his budding belief in solipsism? Did you miss the part where I am specifically talking about religious things pushed onto kids by parents/authority figures? If a kid starts to believe something on his own, that's a completely different story. In fact, that's healthy, I think. [b]This is my opinion,[/b] Yeah, that's what I thought it was. :) [b]but I dare say that religious indoctrination does to a child's developing sense of reality what adult/child sex does to a child's developing sexuality. Put your torches down, I am not drawing a parallel with child molestation--it's a metaphor. Religious indoctrination does the same kind of damage to a different part of the child.[/b] And you have placed your mountain of evidence where? I will say I don't believe it's irreversible or near-impossible-to-reverse damage, but it slows progress down--it at the very least inhibits reality. If you tell a child that rain happens because God is crying, it will obviously interfere with his learning of the actual causes of rain, etc. Is that really so hard to believe that nothing short of a "mountain of evidence" would so anything for you? Oh, that's right--it's your opinion. Your opinion that you want the government to enforce by keeping opinions contrary from yours away from the precious children. There's always got to be a dicohotomy, huh? Are you that afraid of children 'straying' that the idea of keeping religion out of their lives until they have grown old enough to choose for themselves bothers you that much? I say inject no supernatural elements into the mind of a growing child, and let them educate themselves on all the faiths around, and choose which they think suits them the best when they want. Why does that notion seem to irk you so? [color=blue]No hypocrisy there, no.[/color] Nope. I guess I'll never understand how _not_ teaching a kid "all about God/Jesus/Allah" is equivalent to indoctrination of something else in your mind, and the mind of every anti-atheist fundie I've ever spoken to. [b]In conclusion, I realize that parents would like to see their kids 'follow in their footsteps' in matters of faith. Parents also often want their kids to grow up into either their careers, or 'high-end' careers they unsuccessfully aspired to. But just because you want it, doesn't mean you have the right to impose it on your child. He/she is an individual and a human being, not a crafts project for you to mold however you like.[/b] Explain again how the First Amendment prevents me from imposing my belief in, say, the existence of an external reality apart from my child's mind (for example)? I didn't say the First Amendment would prevent you from doing that...I just don't see how anyone could think imposing their beliefs (you even worded it that way) on their kids isn't unfair to the child. [b](your sarcasm is terrible)[/b] You probably would have ignored it if it didn't connect. [code][b]Listen, I realize just how precious child indoctrination is to fundies--without it, your numbers would shrivel up to negligible amounts within a generation or two.[/b] Tell that to the Soviet Union. [b]Don't think I don't know how you guys work--I was born and raised on the inside of that 'little' scheme (I wish it was merely "little").[/b] There's still time for you to start reading Plantinga and such and realize the error of your ways. :) Don't hold your breath. [b]As much as I'm used to counter-arguments to this like "well, it's MY kid!" my answer is always the same: ethically, and morally, if not legally (yet), there are just some things that are just NOT in the best interest of the child. Forcing your religious beliefs onto them is one of them, imho. Simple as that.[/b] You've refuted your own argument, simple as that. Earlier, you assured me that no reinterpretation of the Constitution was needed to make indoctrinating children against the Constitution. Now you're admitting that it's not illegal ("yet"). So, it's impossible for a new law to be created without amending the Constitution? Yeah, right, sure, whatever you say. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe there is no hard proof of that (if it wasn't for Matthew's resourcefulness, there wouldn't be hard proof of _anything_ ), but I think the teacher's total lack of remorse and showing no signs of wanting to apologize for his actions at all does say _something_. What that something is may be open to interpretation, though.

Told the truth. Well, no, because now there are two issues. Here's a clear example: If a criminal (let's say he broke into someone's house, and was out of jail by now) stops a thief, you can support him and be proud of what he did without necessarily condoning the criminal's prior transgressions. Same if that first criminal broke into a house after stopping the thief. Right now, there is one issue. To support the teacher here is to support his actions within the issue. That's the difference. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

{Twelve quote tags and they stopped rendering again...maybe the change to 25 didn't work or something? I did check for unclosed tags. o.o} LOL - well, Strife, you must be alot of fun at parties. Hey, the next time you call a stranger a bastard and they don't take offense ... please, let me know. That was a metaphor, you know. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this isn't as 'bitter' sounding as it seems. I think you are misreading how sensitive I am to your use of "superstition" when it comes to religion. It's probably my fault for bringing it up once too often. At least you admit it--I thought it better to address it than to ignore it. I am simply trying to highlight a point - which you helped me to illuminate with your "bastard" comment. You use terms like "superstition" and "myth" when referring to religion, KNOWING that they have a negative connotation. And yet, not expressing that connotation, as I clearly stated. As George Carlin said, "the words are completely neutral--it's the context that makes them good or bad." I have no problem with personal religions--I merely have a problem with people who just can't seem to control themselves enough to keep their religions to themselves, and start preaching their Truth® to me or anyone else. Other than responding to those types of people, only those who ask explicitly would even _know_ that I am atheist. I don't know ... to me it seems like there should be a more civil way to get from point A to point B, especially since most atheists I've encountered seem to aspire to living on a higher plane of morality. Even though in general, practically everyone I know would consider me to be pretty mild-mannered and soft-spoken, I don't think I have any duty/obligation, moral or otherwise, to sugarcoat what faith is. Is it really so "uncivil" to hear it described in a plain, upfront, and straightforward way? Is it that hard to stomach a description of your beliefs that isn't buttered up? Considering the incredible bias against atheism in this country (polls have shown that people generally think of atheists as the "least American" citizens of this country), I don't think I owe any out-of-the-way 'civility' or tact to any religious person. I don't want people to baby talk me either--I don't like that sort of walking on eggshells bullshit. I dare say I have the _guts_ to describe faith accurately and objectively. If that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe instead of getting upset with me over it--maybe you ought to look inside yourself and think about _why_ it makes you uncomfortable. After all, I'm not exaggerating. I'm not stereotyping. I am simply describing. And shouldn't everyone aspire to a 'higher plane of morality?' I have to disagree with you on the racism/harrassment point. I know that it may difficult for you to see because you are making your statement with a pure heart. However, making a comment about a religion can be as offensive to an individual as making a comment about race, ethnicity, gender, etc., which is why it is protected under Title VII. And for it to constitute racism or harrassment, it is not a prerequisite that the party making the statement intends to offend the party. Simply making a statement that a reasonable person in a Title VII class could find offensive is enough to cause a violation of the Civil Rights Act. If you disagree with me, then when you get to work tomorrow (assuming you work in a decent sized office), email EVERYONE stating that their religious beliefs are superstitions and myths. You'll be called to the Human Resources offices within the count of 10. To be completely frank and honest, the idea of getting in trouble for that kind of thing disgusts me. I don't know where people get off thinking they have a right to not be offended--there is no such right out there. In FACT, the freedoms our Constitution grants us GUARANTEE that people will get offended--freedom of speech cannot exist without guaranteeing that people will get offended sooner or later. Like I have mentioned before, I'm no lawyer nor anything resembling a fan of combing through legislation, but I will say this, as a total aside--if there is in US laws a law that will get someone in trouble for offending someone with a TRUE statement, or even a false one...any statement that in and of itself does no direct harm to anyone, their job, or whatever...it needs to be repealed. For the good of this country and the freedoms it gives us, it needs to go. Seriously. It flies directly in the face of freedom. Lastly, as to my "shifting the burden" I am doing no such thing. Yes you are--you have insisted that if I do not "disprove" the existence of your god, than atheism is somehow just as superstitious as religion. Because I do not care what you believe, I have no obligation to prove the existence of God to you. I did not tell you that you had any such obligation. It was you who tried to make atheism sound like a faith because of a lack of 'disproof' of your god. I am simply giving any atheist, including yourself, the opportunity ... or better yet, the challenge ... to prove to me that your beliefs are correct. And I explained to you exactly why they aren't beliefs. And when I stated "hard" proof, I wasn't speaking about polaroids of Jesus faking his wounds or anything like that. I know how difficult it is to prove a negative, child molestor. I am looking for something other than the blanket statement that because I cannot prove God's existence, He must not exist (I did, however, personally witness a flying spaghetti monster after an evening of good scotch and bad marinara sauce). Here is another common misconception about atheism. Because atheism is not a faith, atheists feel little to no conviction/attachment to their so-called "beliefs." I don't believe a sentient creator/god exists because there is no evidence to even suggest it--there are thousands of empty claims, but no proof. Despite being open-minded, because it is scientifically impossible to prove the existence of god, I think I can safely assume I will die as atheist as I am today. But hypothetically speaking, if proof popped up, atheists by and large would have no problem accepting it. They would likely (as they should be, whether in matters of God or anything else) be skeptical at first, but if evidence appeared and solidified, they (and I) would have no problem adjusting. That's the beauty of it, if you ask me--the ability to adapt that no religion I've ever seen has. Religions are static, and frankly, have a reputation of being quite stubborn and resistant to change. Very, VERY few atheists will say, "God must not exist" or "God definitely does not exist." The most common statement you will hear when you ask an atheist to sum up what atheism means to him/her is something along the lines of, "I have/there is no reason to believe that a god exists." And there isn't, beyond speculation. Sure, there might be a god out there guiding everything here on earth. In the same way, our universe may be an alien's toy. But if one is going to spend time thinking about all of the things that "might be out there," one would die long before s/he would stop wondering. There is a point when one needs to return to reality as we understand it. I simply choose to accept the world as best as I and my fellow humans see it. I feel no NEED to believe in a supernatural god--personally, everything going on down here that we _are_ sure of is complicated enough without adding intangible things no one knows anything certain about and that very well may not even be there to begin with. It just doesn't seem worth it--I've decided that I'm going to live as good a life as I can. If I do that, I will die without regrets--and if a truly benevolent god is waiting to have a little chat with me after I'm dead, then I am sure it would understand where I was coming from, and reward me for my good deeds and intentions. And that would be swell. But if someone asks me if I expect that to happen...no, I don't. I expect to die and rot and continue the circle of life. And maybe, just maybe, it's a little unfair to expect more. My heels are not dug into the sand, and I am always open to intellectual discourse. I am also not saying that I am absolutely right (as other "zealots" seem to flock to you in droves to do). You've noticed that too, huh? But don't worry--I'm not new to it. I have been "tempered in raw shit" (thanks again, Carlin ) when it comes to this. I am just saying that when I put my puzzle pieces together, it shows a picture of God (or maybe it's just George Burns). Yours may show something different or nothing at all (or as Spinal Tap would say, none more black). But until someone convinces me that my beliefs really have no possibility of truth, I shall agree with Willy Wonka, who said, "no one should ever doubt what no one is certain about". No one could honestly ever tell anyone that something like that is impossible. I mean, what the hell do we know, right? But ironically, that is exactly why I am atheist--I would not presume to have knowledge of things like that. Nor do I think it would be a good idea to take my guess and ride it out for the rest of my life. I'm going to take care of the life I have (at least, this life I'm sure I'll get--there's no being sure about an afterlife or second life or reincarnation or anything once I'm dead), in the reality I live in, and let those other things, however few or many (or none) they may be sort themselves out. And I just won a $20 bet with a friend who said that I couldn't fit George Burns, Spinal Tap and Willy Wonka into one paragraph. Scotch and spaghetti is on me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Liar. It's more like 75%. Is that what Jesus would say? If the Jesus described in your Bible was alive today, I don't think he'd be too happy with your attitude. Satin feels nice, but not that nice. I wouldn't worship it. I don't need anyone's prayers, and I'm sure any benevolent Christian out there would have no need for prayers from someone as bigoted and intolerant as you either. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just something directed at "Bryan" and whoever else likes to pretend that there is some loophole that prevents Mr. P's actions from being in violation of the Establishment Clause: Even these guys realize the implications of those Supreme Court decisions.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=39899 Seconded.

Oh yeah, THAT'S hate speech, as opposed to saying that everyone who doesn't believe in the dogma you do belongs in hell. For you to equate pro-Constitution to anti-God is an insult to every decent human being, whether of faith or not. I smell persecution complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Such goodness it must require to condemn people to hell! And then people are surprised at the kinds of reactions people like this get? Hey buddy, "keep in mind" that the USA is not a theocracy, and its rules override the laws of your God. Your God has no authority here--deal with it. LOL, I love it when someone defending him is like "he did nothing wrong" but at the same time turns around and is like "don't do it again, though." Please--if you _really_ believed your precious proselytizer was innocent, you wouldn't throw that last part in. Just who do you think you're kidding? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Recordings are publicly available online, moron. Instead of saying something that amazingly stupid, how about actually listening to them? http://home.comcast.net/~observereditorial...strecording.m4a http://home.comcast.net/~observereditorial...ndrecording.m4a http://idisk.mac.com/kevincanessa-Public/0...rdrecording.m4a P.S. "Was you?" I have never made that mistake once in my entire life, in any grade. Who educated you?

Naturally, now I can't wait to read the rest of this post. Uh...okay, how exactly would you define "support the teacher" then, if it doesn't mean supporting what he did? And those are people who are making a statement that they think it's okay for a teacher to keep his job despite his proselytizing and lying about it. They are saying that they don't think that is grounds for dismissal. Just how much better do you feel about that? Not outright support, but trivialization of activities that set a terrible example for the students he has power over? Yes, that's so much better. Guess not--in this post, your stance seems to be "he did stuff wrong, but it's no big deal." Big difference. Colleagues? I'm not in some sort of _affiliation_ with anyone else here. Wow. I never thought an unregistered member could be so condescending (then again, maybe the added anonymity is exactly _why_ s/he feels fine acting the way s/he does). Just the fact that you capitalize "atheist" says more about just how much you understand than anything else. I have nothing more to say about that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is no getting around the fact that there is no objective proof backing up religious belief. Until/unless such appears, words like "myth," "superstition," etc. will continue to be accurate regarding not only Christianity, but any sort of a belief in a sentient creator/god. This is the reality of it, as objectively as I think it can be stated. I do not think it is insensitive or intolerant to point this out--all it does it make it all the clearer what exactly faith is and why Christianity etc. is called a faith. I have a feeling you take offense to hearing your faith called a "superstition" or "myth" in the same way a child of unmarried parents can take offense to being called a "bastard." While in both cases the terms are accurate, there is a negative connotation attached to the specific terms that makes it unpleasant to have them directed at your beliefs (which many people equate with themselves). However, negative connotations in and of themselves do not define my intentions. When I say "Christianity is a myth," for example, I am making a matter-of-fact statement. That's all. Honestly. I must disagree, but I want to see how you came to this conclusion. Whoa, I think you've really missed the mark here. Once again you have likened a comment about religion to a comment about a person--they are not the same thing. Also, the false analogy of, for example, "organized religion is necessarily superstitious" being compared to racism and sexual harassment is far off the mark, I must say. I've already talked about the issue of "insensitivity" above--as far as "broad generalizations," there is nothing to generalize. To put it in perspective, I offer an analogy of my own: If I say "the idea that the Earth is flat is completely mythical and scientifically unfounded," I am not generalizing anything about the Flat Earth Society or anyone else who believes the Earth is flat. If I say the above, I have in fact made a true statement about the idea itself. It is impossible to be "insensitive" to an idea with such a statement, and because it is one idea all by itself and not a group of people, there is also no way to call it a "broad generalization." Do you understand that my statement about religion is not a personal attack? *sighs* Frankly, I thought someone who came off so intelligently would not stick his nose into two (they're actually kinda parts of the same fallacy, in this case at least) of the biggest logical fallacies anti-atheists find themselves dealing with. Firstly, shifting the burden of proof: the one who claims/believes "X is" is the one who has the burden of proving him/herself correct, and a lack of an ability to disprove something does not make it true. In the past I have made light of this fallacy by asking the person who haughtily demanded I prove him wrong (he was quite a nasty fellow, just as fair warning for those who might read the following and think it to be over the top as a response--believe me, it wasn't) on the same subject or admit that he's right about the existence of his god, thusly: I claimed that he secretly molests children on a daily basis, and that by his own logic, he is a proven child molestor unless he can disprove my claim. Even though the ridiculousness of the fallacy was exposed (and just about everyone but him had a good laugh), he was still too dumb/stubborn to realize it, and wouldn't budge. From then on, I regularly attached ", child molestor" to the end of any instance where I addressed or referred to him. Secondly, proving the negative: I "believe in the absence" of God for the same reason I "believe in the absence" of leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, or flying spaghetti monsters (http://www.venganza.org/). This is not a belief system; this is not faith. It takes no faith to 'not believe,' nor does it take any faith to believe in an absence of something in the face of zero evidence showing a presence of the same thing. And that is why I'd only advocate doing it when met with an equal/greater lack of civility. If some guy tells me I'm going to hell for not believing in his god or something like that, damned right I'm going to put him in his place. He deserves it for being disrespectful of me, and for being arrogant enough to declare his faith to be both: 1. Somehow superior to an absence of faith 2. Superior to any other faith That kind of self-righteousness very richly deserves the kind of response I mentioned. Bad things happen when people are 100% complacent to that kind of behavior. And I say you are equally justified in getting indignant and letting them know very clearly that their faith is no better than yours. The Constitution itself is what allows me to tell a religious zealot just what I think of his/her actions. If you think that's insensitive, fine--but remember, I don't go out and bash religious people or their religions just for the hell of it (despite the fact that you still seem to take personal offense at the very fair statement that organized religions are superstitious/mythical)--I am talking about reacting people who 'start' with me with that self-righteous, self-important garbage. I think zealots deserve and _need_ to be taken down a notch or two sometimes (don't take this as meaning anything other than what I've already mentioned--not talking about beating anyone up or anything). Their self-righteousness and arrogance do no one any good. On the contrary--that attitude is the sort of thing that grows into an Inquisition or a Crusade if ignored/avoided and not reacted to. You are once again asking for the logically fallacious "proof of a negative." Asking for "hard proof that disproves" the existence of something supernatural is a truly ridiculous request, I must say. The claim that God exists is truly extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scratch a fundie and you always get a racist, among other things. Hey moron, "Allah" is just their word for "God." It's just a name, you imbecile.

I do believe you're lying--the teacher quite explicitly stated that anyone who doesn't 'see it his way' dogmatically and religiously, "belongs in hell." And he is Christian. LOL, you have got to be kidding! If those teacher's actions aren't proselytization, nothing is. Have you even listened to the recordings? He deserves to be dismissed not only _because_ of his actions, but because he lied about his actions (which is an admission of guilt in my opinion, since no one put him up to lying or anything) and showed no remorse for his activities when they were revealed. This should be good, considering you've already claimed that there is no "strong supporting argument" that the teacher was proselytizing. Not exactly the same, but the same sorts of principles. What I want to know is how exactly you can justify religious preaching done by a government employee, and say that it is not a violation of separation of church and state. He's a government employee. Like I said, I don't like delving into legal stuff. However, I'd say that the only way for that teacher to be innocent is if there is no separation of church and state at all. And obviously, that's not the case. Then the teacher did something that is "not allowed." There is no getting around that. So even if you maintain that he only violated an "employment practice," how exactly do you claim he should still keep his job? Either way, he should be fired. Still having trouble seeing why exactly you disagree with that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, no...he is not unfit to teach because of his beliefs. He is unfit to teach because he can't control himself and keep his beliefs out of the classroom. He has already demonstrated his inability to check his sermons at the door (and quite a few kids commented that this has been going on for years! As if the entire first week of a semester wasn't bad enough). Therefore, he should be removed from his position, for everyone's sake. Simple as that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=39731

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's the case I was looking for mention of before! Thanks.

Holy shit, that's what he was saying? *rereads* I see it now--wow, what a jerk. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>