Calybos

I've read both books as well, and I know enough science to spot their errors and (to put it politely) incorrect assumptions, as well as their sweeping generalizations and philosophical meanderings. If evolution has been falsified, it's a shame that not one reputable biologist across the globe has heard about it--or agrees with you. Must be a conspiracy, huh?

I thought "hiding and praying for the government to protect you, rights be damned" was the current neocon slogan. Did that change course, like Bush just did?

Goodness isn't a "who," it's a what. I understand that the concept is unfamiliar to you, 2dim.

So, is it your claim that he's spamming, or trolling? Or are you just unhappy that he's mounting an argument you can't refute logically or factually, so you've resorted to complaining that he posts at all?

Thank goodness. Nice to see that the system still works, albeit slowly.

Yes indeed... the best example of why we need to keep watch over our civil liberties.

And if you choose to believe that God is behind evolution, that's your right. Just don't expect to find such a claim in the realm of science, or in a science curriculum. 'Cuz it AIN'T SCIENCE, get it? Sheesh.

2dim, I know you're incapable of understanding the discussions going on here; don't worry, I understand and sympathize with your plight. But try to keep quiet while the grownups discuss something important, okay?

And as soon as the majority consensus of credible scientific minds agree with you, then it'll be worthy of consideration for a public science curriculum. Don't hold your breath.

Gosh, that makes this unprecedented power-grab okay, then. After all, it won't be affecting me personally, so why should I care if the Constitution's getting trashed (again)? If only "patriot" were here to offer his cheerful support for theocratic tyranny, too.

Not a bit; why would I be "frightened" by the private religious actions of people I've never met, as long as they don't affect me? Plenty of Congress people go to church every Sunday, too; as long as they don't try to make it part of their official duties as government officials, I'm fine with it. Because the government is set up to be secular; the private actions of individuals AWAY from their governmental duties are their own concern. That's kind of, y'know, the whole POINT of Paskiewicz's crime. He brought his preaching into the classroom, where it has no place.

If it's "really thoughtful," how did you understand it? We've seen that you're solidly opposed to thought of any sort.

Try this link instead: Through a Glass Darkly

Why would it? Does YOUR hand burn when you touch a copy of Grimm's Fairy Tales?

Actually, you're wrong on that too. The official swearing-in is done as a group, with a simple raised hand. There's an optional ceremony for individuals later, in which they can swear on a book if they choose... but it has no official standing. Just like nobody has to swear on a bible to testify in court, although many people still believe that's required.

Bryan, you're also overlooking a fairly obvious point. Arguing about the Founders' personal religious beliefs is irrelevant to whether those beliefs should be espoused and endorsed by government. And on that point, it wouldn't matter if every Founding Father had been a hardcore Southern Baptist. They STILL didn't want government involved in religious matters, and they explicitly set up our Constitution to guarantee that. That's the inarguable point that the evangelicals, fundies, and similar Chrsitian zealots try so hard to deny. It's why they muddy the waters with context-free quotes, speculation about motives (both those of the founders' and of any who disagree with their agenda, such as the LaClaris), and hysterical cries of "persecution." Because thet government is designed to be wholly, explicitly, 100% secular, and they know it. They don't LIKE it, but they know it.

You mean patriots like Matt LaClair, who's doing exactly that right now?

He doesn't "lose." A right position can be unpopular and still be right... and Strife's is 100% correct. It's just a shame to see that so many Kearny residents are so deeply misguided--which is an even better reason to improve the quality of public education there, in fact.

No, 2dumb, I'm suggesting that science classes focus on SCIENCE. Which intelligent design is not.

Good of him to finally respond, with the expected (and usual) defenses of tearing down church/state separation. The Founders had a great deal of respect for Jesus and his teachings... and made every possible effort to ensure that religion would play no role in government whatsoever. To many religious folks, this seems like a contradiction--and it's been the basis of all our church/state problems ever since. The Constitution makes no mention of God or Jesus; in fact, the only two references made regarding religion are the mandate that government stay out of it (the First Amendment) and two prohibitions against having any sort of religious test for holding public office. If they wanted a religious government, they had every opportunity to endorse and establish one; instead, they did the exact opposite. The "tyranny" of the judiciary that Mr. Paskiewicz is so angry about, is likewise a construct of the Founders' wisdom. They recognized that the Will of the People can often become a tyranny all its own, a mob of the majority trampling on the rights of those who think, speak, and believe differently. That's why we have enumerated and unenumerated rights in the Amendments, and it's also a primary function of the judiciary: protecting the rights of minorities even against legislation enacted by an overwhelming majority. No matter how great the majority, the judiciary will uphold the Constitutional freedoms guaranteed to ALL citizens--including free speech (yes, even for NAMBLA), free assembly (yes, even for the Klan), and freedom of religion (yes, even for non-Christians). And the only way to guarantee freedom is to restrict the power of government; where government is required to back off, freedom flourishes. Mr. Paskiewicz, in the performance of his job responsibilities, is an agent of government. To guarantee our freedoms, his own range of permissible actions in doing his duty--and dealing with the public--is narrowly restricted. Just as a judge would be censured for openly favoring white defendants, so a teacher deserves censure for openly preaching his personal faith to a mixed class of students. When he's on the job, Mr. P is government--and his actions and rights are limited to preserve our freedoms. Church/state separation is a well established Constitutional principle, as any lawyer or judge (or legal scholar) could tell you. The fact that the specific words do not appear in the Constitution is commonly--and simplistically--alleged to be a "weakness" of this principle. It's not. The Constitution is an outline of general principles, the interpretation and application of which is up to the judiciary. That's their function, just as the Founders intended. Mr. Paskiewicz claims that "our freedoms" are under assault, and that the Founders would be shocked by this turn of events. But whose freedoms are more important--those of the government employee (Mr. P), or his students--captive minors who are supposedly free to think and worship as they please without interference from an authority figure?

There you go, Strife; you and the LaClairs are the only patriotic Americans in Kearny. How embarrassing for your community.

According to the Constitution and a huge pile of case law, court rulings, and other precedent. Is that good enough for you? Sorry, but as Americans the LaClairs have every right to live here and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else. Mr. P attempted to deny them that right--why don't you call for HIM to leave town?

Try a mirror.

Thankfully, we don't need to convince loons like you in the process of doing responsible and effective science. You can choose to ignore the evidence all you like; and as with fundie denial, it won't change reality one bit. Evolution is an observed phenomenon; the theory of natural selection is the best available explanation of how it operates; and "intelligent design" simply isn't science, and has no place in public schools. (Frankly, it has no place in private schools either, but we don't have the right to intrude on the lies and fairytales that go on there.) The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it makes--guess what!--not the slightest difference. All we ask is that you get out of the way and let students learn while they still have a chance to learn REAL science, not your concoction of lies and fables.

Wow, you've really got nothing left to argue and you know it, huh? Obsessing over the word "train" as yet another desperate distraction from the inescapable fact that the teacher violated the Constitution, clearly and unequivocally. He's inarguably in the wrong. So, like a true fundie zealot, you ignore the reality and turn to wild guesses and speculation on the thinnest of evidence--did he use a word you dislike? Did his father offer an opinion, thus "proving" he's really behind it all? Isn't it obvious that the LaClairs are commie-atheist-terrorist-loving-insurgents out to destroy America by undermining a teacher's credibility at a Kearny high school? These desperate tactics are both amusing and pathetic to watch, 2smart. Keep it up! The whole country's laughing at you.