Strife767

lol, I love the way this thread went. Too funny (my satirical exaggeration added ). Original post: "hay guys don't u think that low-down sneaky boy took his poor defenseless teacher's words out of context to entrap him?" Responses: "No, stupid. The audio is available online, and that is obviously not the case" x 3 Hilarious to see a baseless accusation get shot down like that.

Got any examples of the apparently alleged "running to the principal?" I mean, since he allegedly does that whenever anything happens. Well?

Why not? It is a joke to believe in such nonsense. He has every right to mock/attack it on an Internet message board if he feels like it. And so do I: Indoctrinating a child into a religion is child abuse. There, see? I meant every word, too. Please explain how. You mean "shouldn't," I'm guessing. He didn't say that. He made a joke about the already-ridiculous "Noah's Ark" story plus dinosaurs (as if it wasn't retarded enough already). It doesn't make any sense. *shrugs* It's asking to be ridiculed. Deal with it. You're free to waste your money if you wish. Sure he could. But he didn't. Deal with it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The fundie persecution complex is really very pathetic.

Any evidence of this having ever actually happened, hotshot? Or are you just making things up? Besides, even if it had happened, that says nothing about anyone other than the people directly involved. How dare you judge an entire county on the actions of one or few? You should be ashamed of such generalizations.

Very well said.

"You couldn't be more wrong if your name was W. Wrongy Wrongenstein!" 1. Religion has been ruled in the courts several times to be okay in the proper context. History (except as an elective 'history of religion' class) and science are two of the contexts not included. 2. The reason you can't have any preaching in public schools and other state-funded institutions is because mentioning one means you have to mention ALL of them, in order for it to be 'level.' Because of the myriad number of religions, it is impossible to do this--therefore it's mandatory to go with the one other way to keep the playing field level: no religion at all. To include Christianity by itself (or with one or two other religions, regardless of the fact that they are majority religions) is equivalent to endorsing it. This is precisely why the teacher's actions were illegal. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Declaring that certain people "belong in hell" is far from an innocent 'opinion.' In fact, it's closer to hate speech. Regardless, declarations like that are an abuse his position of authority over his captive audience of public high school students and illegal. You have no defense for this. So are adults. But the mayor isn't allowed to preach to the board of education (as an example) at Town Hall either. You're missing the point. Utter lie. The law is quite clear on matters like these. If upholding the Constitution of the United States of America is what you consider an "anti-God antic" and "rediculous (sic)," then I have two things to say: 1. I pity you 2. Too bad. That's the law--if you don't like it, either try to get it changed, or move to a different country. Maybe a theocracy would be more your style.

Now you have. It sickens me to see people defending that teacher and his deplorable, reprehensible actions.

In the ground, same as everyone else. Death is the end. Deal with it.

Mean-spirited and angry? Sorry if it's difficult to smile when one sees a high school student stick up for the Constitution, only to see so many people ridiculing the kid and sticking up for the dishonest, law-breaking teacher. Matthew even got a death threat for what he did, for crying out loud! And you say the atheists are mean-spirited? The blind eye that's being turned to this dishonest mockery of a teacher is a gross injustice, and you're damned right I'm angry about it. Sorry if that offends you. I'd like to know if you'd react the same if Matthew was the Christian and the teacher was the atheist. This coming from the people defending a man who spent more time talking about who belongs in hell while on the clock than doing his job. Some example of "God's love" alright. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean a public school history teacher that dared to, instead of teaching history, which is his job, undermine the science curriculum with ridiculous statements about dinosaurs and "Noah's Ark," dared to proselytize to a class of public school students over which he is in a position of authority, dared to declare in that class that certain people "belong in hell," and then dared to lie about the whole thing to his superiors (good thing he was caught in his lie)? Yeah, thought so. Yes, it is. Preaching is not allowed in public schools, and this is a prime example of exactly the kind of thing the separation of church and state makes illegal. 1. He, like your average creationist, expressed the things he did, not as opinions, but as facts. He sure sounded quite adamant to that end in the recording. 2. While he is working at a state-funded school, teaching to state-funded kids, and on the clock, he is quite obligated to not preach to his captive audience in the classroom. Irrelevant. Regardless of who does or doesn't get offended by something does not change its (lack of) legality. Of course, you wouldn't have any evidence to back this up, would you? <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Prove it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Complete and utter lie. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life Everything here makes much more sense than "intangible omnipotent omniscient god poofed everything into existence," that's for sure.

"Just because there is no evidence that God exists, doesn't mean he doesn't." "Just because there is no evidence that Jesus existed, nor any that the myth of Jesus was not simply an amalgamation of a bunch of other myths from the time (to which there is plenty of evidence, especially in the absence of the former), doesn't mean that he isn't the son of God and our savior, etc. etc." "Just because there is no evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old nor any that the Earth existed for three days before the stars (including the one it orbits) existed as described in Genesis, DOESN'T MEAN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN EXACTLY THAT WAY AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU BELONG IN HELL." Please. Religious people _invented_ that faulty line of logic. On the other hand, scientists _do_ have evidence--a lot of it--that show clear trends of evolution between species. You don't need every single piece of a jigsaw puzzle in place to know what it's a picture of. However, by the same analogy, the religious insist they know what the puzzle is a picture of with no pieces--nothing but what they were told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone WHO DEFINITELY SAW GOD FOR REALZ! The level of hearsay/'gossip' present in religion wouldn't be enough to find someone guilty of the least crime in a court of law.

I agree wholeheartedly. I hope it isn't too long before the APA etc. have the guts to truly do what they've wanted to do for a while--classify fundamentalist, non-abstract belief in a God as the psychosis it is. It's textbook schizophrenia, after all.

Sorry, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you don't think a history teacher in a public school proselytizing to the point of declaring that certain people or groups of people "belong in hell" crosses that line, then I suggest you take a good, hard, long look at what you're saying before you embarass yourself any further. It wasn't too long ago that religious nuts were quoting bible verses to promote racism and slavery. And boy, did you guys whine when the "right" to enslave people was taken away from you--many of you still do whine about it. "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God" --Exodus 20:5 Are you prepared to judge your God for being jealous as well? Kent Hovind, arguably the most (in)famous creationist around, just was found guilty on 40+ counts of tax-related crimes, including tax evasion. He's been estimated to owe in excess of $400,000 in back taxes and the like. I'm not generalizing all religious people with Hovind--what I am saying is: if you think for one second that you can claim that being religious somehow makes one immune to greed, think again. Organized religion is almost invariably greedy--just look how tightly they cling to their (largely undeserved) tax-exempt status. Ran out of generalized accusations on that train of thought of yours, huh? No, that's just your persecution complex. Funny how people like you can feel persecuted when you're responsible for so much death and war. It sure wasn't atheists behind the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. etc. I believe you're the one who's presuming such a high moral ground compared to others. So callously too--you should be ashamed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is _tons_ of evidence for evolution. Just because you don't know about it (whether by accident or intentional ignorance) doesn't mean it isn't there. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html Absolute nonsense. I want to make this very clear. Whether you realize it or not, you are LYING. For a rudimentary introduction to the vast amount of information you are ignorant of: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html <-- "Primates" is the second heading down. Read it and learn something, if you dare.

I think it is pretty obvious he is referring to a "theory" in a scientific context: "In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws." --http://tinyurl.com/yke72o (just one example--it's #9 at the bottom (the other terms are definining specific theories)) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Talk about seeing the splinter but not the board...sorry, but religion has the market cornered on indoctrinating impressionable children into their beliefs. Firstly, don't you dare complain about it even if that is the case, because religious folks do it in far, FAR greater numbers, hypocrite. Secondly, this is an assumption. How do you know that they aren't Matthew's own views? In the absence of indoctrination, it makes perfect sense for anyone to grow up atheist. People aren't born with religious beliefs, you know. I wonder how many irresponsible, unfounded accusations you can spew into one post. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because you don't like the fact that separation of church and state demands that religion is kept out of public schools doesn't mean that religion's absence in public schools can be at all equated to "preaching atheism." Evolution is not atheistic (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html). Can you substantiate this assertion? ...at all? Rights end where they infringe on others' rights. The separation of church and state exists. Deal with it, or move to a theocratic country. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not when it's wholly deserved. Abusing one's position as a teacher to proselytize in public school (in history class no less), condemning students to hell, undermining the entire science curriculum, and then getting caught lying about it. Firing is too good for him. How exactly can anyone justify these reprehensible actions by that teacher?

Which is why they're bad people for standing up for the biggest "rules" this country has--namely, the Constitution? How ridiculous.

Sidenote: Evolution is not atheistic. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

Idiot. The teacher didn't make a "mistake." He knew damned well what he was doing, continued to do it for years beforehand, _and_ he knew it was wrong, which is why he denied making the statements to his superiors right up until the point Matthew whipped out his trusty CDs with the hard evidence on them. Face it. He was nailed by the truth. Hard. And he deserved it. He got caught, and he won't even apologize or anything. Firing is too good for him.

For one, I have not forgotten about this part of it, to be sure--all the more reason that firing honestly seems far too good for this bigoted man.