Calybos

See, it's FUNNY because 2smart has proven to be one of the dumbest posters here, with nothing to offer but snide insults and (hopefully) deliberate misunderstandings of what his betters are saying here. So Paul claiming that 2dim's ramblings are "too smart" for him to understand is a joke... because 2dim is actually very EASY to understand, and is actually the one with the reading comprehension problems. Get it now? Sheesh.

Oh, sorry, yes it is. In fact, the Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. Are we really back to that tired old dodge? "Sure he violated the Constitution, but since when is THAT a big deal? It's not like he broke the law or anything." The lengths these nuts will go to in defending classroom preachers is just amazing.

Unless he violates the terms of service with vulgarity or childish personal attacks (looking at you, "patriot"), Strife has every right to post his thoughts on any topic on this forum. As you do: so if you'd care to present some sort of position or argument you feel you can defend, by all means do so.

Standing up for our freedoms isn't a good thing that benefits many people?

Wrong as usual. Ask any lawyer or Constitutional scholar, or judge, and they'll tell you that noncitizens actually have many Constitutional rights. Not just the ones you personally believe they should have (i.e., none). I think the hardest thing for far-right wingnuts to understand is that stubborn denial really DOESN'T change reality.

Or that he recognizes such comments for what they are--a red herring by Mr. P's desperate defenders.

And if you knew anything about the Constitution you claim to love--anything at ALL--you'd know that all people have rights under our Constitution. U.S. citizens have more rights, but only an idiot would claim that aliens have none.

Are you one of his students? Because if so, Mr. P clearly WOULD be out of line and once again violating the Constitution... which appears to be a habit of his. Seriously, I know you think you're making a clever point--but you're not.

Which explains why you're still here sniping even though every "argument" you've made has been shot down. With very little apparent effort. I'm still enjoying the irony of a fool who hates freedom and the Constitution calling himself "patriot."

Oh, look! It's Pascal's Wager! Wow, it's been a loooong time since I've seen that outmoded and thoroughly discredit old gambit dredged up in an argument. Isn't it just adorable? Here's a brain-freeze for ya, Guest: What have you lost if the Moslems are right, and you've been worshipping the WRONG GOD all your life? "Nothing to lose," eh?

It may shock some of the guests to hear it, but most of Paul and Matthew's supporters are believers too... many of them Christians. They're just not theocratic lunatics like Mr. P and his crowd.

So was she preaching a particular religion to her students? The article doesn't say... and everything else cited seems to be irrelevant. Why exactly was she fired?

And yet, Mr. P was claiming that evolution is BASED on faith. Which is, obviously, untrue. More hair-splitting, Bryan. I must wonder why you're working so hard to defend someone as blatantly ignorant of both science and the Constitution as a good teacher for the next generation.

Because he has the freedom not to... until jingoist lunatics and fundies try to take it away, of course.

As soon as anyone can prove that Mr. P meant something other than the conventional definition of "faith"--i.e., belief without physical evidence--I'll be prepared to apologize. In fact, I'd be amazed if he had any understanding of epistomology... or even knew what it was. OR how to spell it. Clearly, Mr. P was trying to say that science and religion are equivalent because both are based on nothing more than faith. Just as clearly, that statement is false. Religion is based on faith from authority alone; science involves evidence. Even if you accept the notion that scientific knowledge requires some "faith" (which is dubious depending on how you define it), the point is that science ALSO requires MORE than faith. It requires evidence. Religion does not. The attempt to downgrade scientific knowledge to the level of blind faith is pretty clear--and pretty obviously stupid on Mr. P's part, since he was in a position to know he was both preaching AND lying to the students. But apparently any amount of dishonesty and law-breaking is okay if you do it for Jesus.

And I love the ignorance of the Radical Right; they make conservatives look so deranged with their ill-informed and easily-disproven "arguments." Speech on ANY subject is protected, even speech about criminal acts. Even stuff you personally disapprove of (that's what really bugs the reactionary nutjobs). Come on, so-called "patriot"--we've already established that you hate the Constitution, so why not go ahead and admit you're no fan of freedom and democracy while you're at it?

So the Catholic/Portugese community wouldn't approve of a mayor respecting the Constitution and protecting religious freedom? Gee, why would they have a problem with THAT?

And, Bryan... all your semantical quibbling aside, you're still stuck with Mr. P's statement that evolution is based on faith, and your agreement with it. And the only way you can try to support that claim is by redefining "faith" in terms of epistomology, where it supposedly applies to any and all knowledge whatsoever. Sorry, but that doesn't work. Because that sort of "faith" is very different from the faith underlying religion, and you know it. You're trying to twist the definition to defend Mr. P when he's clearly in the wrong, and no one's falling for it. Maybe you're the one who should go to law school.

Teaching your child to stand up for his beliefs and fight for what's right IS good parenting. I'm surprised you don't seem to think so, and I wonder what sort of message you're teaching your own kids: "Go along with the majority," perhaps? "Anything difficult isn't worth doing"? "Civil rights aren't that important"? By questioning Mr. LaClair's parenting skills, you're opening yourself up to commentary on your own, you know.

And you've clearly learned that skill pretty well yourself. Who is it that's always reminding us "There's no right not to be offended... people who complain about being offended should just shut up"? Gosh, which group is always saying that? I just can't recall.... If your kids really are smart, they'll eventually figure out that the 'beloved' Mr. P doesn't care about the principles our country was founded on. Hopefully your good parenting skills can steer them away from such a dangerous realization and let you continue playing the poor, oppressed majority.

Good thing he's right, huh?

Bryan, for someone who wants to fine-tune the definition of "preaching" to excuse Mr. P's actions, you seem awfully hung up on your specialized definition of "faith" meaning "any acceptance of any position or knowledge whatsoever." The epistomology comments are especially funny, since it's deliberate misinterpretation of the word "theory" that most anti-evolution nuts rely on in the first place! "Faith," as commonly understood in religion, means belief without physical evidence. Science, of course, relies on knowledge arrived at with supporting physical evidence. To say that the "knowledge" of religion is equivalent to the knowledge of science--by saying they're both "faith-based"--is, of course, deliberately misleading. Oh, let's keep it simple: it's a lie, and a very stupid one to boot. Faith in the religious sense ignores evidence; scientific knowledge relies on it. These are not equivalent. Are we done with your distraction tactics now, or are you going to meander about specialized definitions and reinterpreted meanings in another of your (futile) efforts to draw attention away from Mr. Paskiewicz's wrongful acts in violation of the Constitution?

Well, "patriot," you COULD try responding intelligently to his points with some semblance of reasonable argument. Oh, wait... forgot who I was talking to.

I believe this is known as "giving them enough rope." Go along with all their requests and still beat them at their own game. It's the best way to demonstrate good faith on your own part and remain above criticism. Keeps the focus nicely on their own dodging and cowardice, doesn't it?

"Evolution is based on faith" is what Mr. P said. I paraphrased... so I supposed you'll plunge into yet another semantics argument to dodge the fact that Mr. P's opinion is 1. Clearly false and 2. Clearly religion-driven? Of course you will. Hair-splitting to avoid the issue is your specialty.