Calybos

Wow, you're actually THAT dumb--to consider Ann Coulter a "hero"? (Well, I guess "heroine" wasn't an option....) Seriously--Ann Freakin' Coulter, who even the farthest of far-right zealots are embarrassed by? I don't even have to worry about whether 2smart is sterilized; it's obvious no woman would want anything to do with him.

Actually, I AM grateful to him, for exposing the hypocrisy and evil of the evangelical agenda for the anti-American swill it is. We need an occasional reminder like this, to keep our freedoms properly defended.

Willingness to trash the Constitution is, indeed, anti-American squalling. The rationale offered --"It's to stop terrorists and Keep Us Safe!"-- makes no difference and is no excuse for such a blatant violation of our freedoms. Yes, that does make such an attitude anti-American... rather obviously, in fact, which is why the politicians pushing it are so careful to phrase it in other terms. Thankfully, the posters here aren't as sophisticated and tend to make their freedom-hating agenda more blatant.

Ah yes. Yet another piece of rabidly anti-American squalling from the so-called "patriot."

No. Do YOU suddenly repent of your wasted life following a false god and beg Buddha (or Allah, or Amaterasu) to receive you? So why should anyone else abandon THEIR beliefs?

No, it's an excellent argument. I do see how poorly you process simple analogies, though... however, I can't think of another way to dumb it down for you even further. Either answer the question, or admit you have a bias for preaching and against freedom.

So-called "patriot" is alone in his bizarre interpretation that America is a specifically Christian nation. Thankfully, someone as stupidly anti-American as "patriot" has no influence on our legislature or judiciary, who have been 100% on the other side throughout our entire history.

By the way, plenty of the Talk Origins participants are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, and many other faiths besides. There's nothing "atheistic" about it, other than the fact that science doesn't involve deities anyway. As for the "Darwiniacs" comment... you're stuck there. You want proof of Darwin's work and then reject it from those who have studied it, tested it, seen the evidence for it, and concluded it's correct? What ARE you looking for--proof from people who ignore and reject the evidence? Why not ask for proof from "independent" flat-earth crackpots that the earth is round? That's about as sensible. No, you've pretty much decided that evolution MUST be a lie, and that therefore anyone who provides evidence of it must be a committed liar. From that perspective, there can BE no proof that satisfies you--enabling you to continue proclaiming "There's no proof!" You're incapable of looking at the facts because of your blind preconceptions. Not that this is a huge loss or anything, since your demonstrated intellectual skills are considerably lower than a good public-school system should produce.

Yeah, this one was so woefully uninformed that even I was impressed. Is the original poster seriously complaining that a newspaper has an 'editorials' section? THAT's the complaint??? Yikes.

Wow, three blatant lies in only three sentences! A new record for you, patriot! The U.S. was founded under Enlightenment principles, and the founders were largely deist--certainly not Christian. Our currency and Pledge of Allegiance were both officially updated with "god" references during the Red Scare. And our Constitution says that we're all better off if NOBODY "just shuts up." There's this pesky little First Amendment... come to think of it, that's the very amendment that allows you to be a Christian bigot without interference from government! Wrong again, "patriot." Everyone is free to worship and express their faith equally under the law, no matter what that faith may be (including no faith at all). Christianity has no privileged status, as countless examples of legal and judicial precedent would show you if you bothered to do any reading. You don't want to hear it? Tough; this is America. The screen name "patriot" has never been more ironic, given your blatant contempt for American ideals and principles.

So if the government is violating our Constitutional freedoms he should just "deal with it"? Interesting perspective, but not all citizens are content to be as lazy and irresponsible as that. And 2smart's technique of labeling all evidence in support of Darwin as "Darwiniac lies" is a very conventient one, don't you think? It enables him to ignore all the evidence and insist that there is, instead, a global conspiracy of evil, Christian-hating scientists (many of them Christians themselves)... all without a shred of logic or evidence needed to support his own claims. "I don't need any evidence," he smugly announces, "as long as I can ignore yours and say it's all lies from proven liars. How do I know? Because they say something I've decided is untrue, and only liars would do that." You can see how far he's progressed from the fundamentalist "reasoning" of The Bible Is True Because the Bible SAYS It's True. Ironically, people like 2smart are the best evidence against evolution--because it's clearly left him behind.

A good teacher who preaches and lies about it? Interesting definition of "good." For the 900th time, this isn't about being "offended." It's about defending our Constitutional freedoms from governmental promotion and endorsement of religion in our public schools. Right and wrong aren't determined by majority vote. That's why we have guaranteed freedoms in the Bill of Rights. "Small town matters" such as protecting the very Constitution our soldiers are supposedly dying to defend. Should we do less?

"2smart" is doing the fundie mindset proud: ignore the evidence, deny the facts, and then insist no one has been able to provide either in response to his "challenge." His question about the eye's evolution has already been answered several times, with copious evidence. He chooses not to see it. Apparently some of us have eyes more evolved than his....

My only question is whether this is "2smart" or "patriot" forgetting to sign in, lost in their eagerness to hurl incoherent insults because they know they can't argue the facts.

Great argument... and so well supported, too! I especially like how you ignored the recordings which are available online for all to hear, in order to pretend that they don't exist. You truly embody the religious-fundamentalist mindset, wishing reality away like that.

In addition to the fact that the Supreme Court has already declared the concept of "consent" irrelevant when minor children are facing a teacher in authority over them. I wonder if some other fundie nutjob will start asking the cheerleaders "Do you mind if I start stroking your leg? I just control your grade point average, but no worries... Any objections, anyone? Anyone at all?"

And the fact that he's right is just a coincidence? The fact that the law and American principles are on his side... that's irrelevant, yes? Because he can't POSSIBLY have a valid argument, this must be just some attention-seeking ploy. Yikes, folks. Is this how you want the nation, and the world, to see your community? I live in Cobb County, GA, and I can assure you that it's not worth it just to defend your brand of religious hypocrisy.

Wow, looks like somebody already constructed his favorite alternate-reality version of the truth and is scavenging around for some "evidence" to prop it up. Shared computer, forgot to change the login... from that you get a conspiracy and cover-up? You should write fiction.

Apparently, Mr. P has said MORE than enough... and to a captive audience of minors instead of doing his job. And then lied about it. No, he's said all he needs to say; the smartest thing he can do now is shut up--or at most, apologize.

I don't see any hypocrisy... is Christmas supposed to be some sort of religious holiday, rather than an annual gift-swap?

Wow. Is this a parody? Or are there really people this stupid still wandering around loose among the rest of us?

Excellent point. It would be more honest if they just said, "Look, I don't like the first amendment when it gets in the way of preaching my preferred religion, so the hell with it." But they know that argument won't get very far in America, so they throw out distractions and cheap insults.

Bryan, you're really getting desperate now. There's no doubt that what the teacher did was unconstitutional, so now you're claiming that this is not "technically" breaking the law... because he hasn't been charged or arrested? That's some weak stuff, there; it's like quibbling over "whether I specifically said the word 'imminent' when I was lying to the public." The Lemon test, as I've already referred you to, is regularly cited and referenced in school/religion cases. In addition, there's Edwards v. Aguillard, which set the precedent specifically about denying science in favor of promoting religious views in public schools, and Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, which examined the improper religious proselytizing of a single, individual teacher during class time. Then there's last year's William Lee v. York County School Board (Virginia), in which the solitary actions of an individual teacher were censured for violating the required religious-neutrality position of government... in other words, exactly what we're talking about here. The judge pointed out, for about the thousandth time, that as government employees and "agents of government," public schoolteachers do NOT have unbridled free-speech rights during the school day. (Read about it at http://blog.au.org/2006/03/misguided_missi.html) From the Department of Education: Really, what's left for you to argue? A teacher IS an agent of government and IS required to abide by the restrictions on governmental speech and action spelled out in the First Amendment. The only defense you've offered is a smokescreen, claiming that violating the constitution is somehow not "lawbreaking per se" simply because the clear wrongdoing of the teacher hasn't resulted in charges and jail time. Which doesn't change the fact that he's clearly in the wrong and has clearly violated the Constitution. Whether he actually gets sued, or even charged in court, is irrelevant.

Okay, let's boil it down even further. You agree that this teacher's actions were a violation of the First Amendment-required separation of church and state... you just don't consider that "lawbreaking," right? Or is that another distraction tactic, along the lines of "It depends on whether I specifically used the word 'imminent' to lie to the public"? You're splitting hairs in a desperate attempt to throw a smokescreen around this teacher's clearly wrongful, unconstitutional act. But you're still stuck with it. Whether he's sued or not--whether he's even charged or not--this teach violated the requirements of the First Amendment regarding what the government (and its employees) are permitted to do in the performance of their duties.

It's not mine, it's from Stephen Colbert.