Calybos

Any endorsement of, or promotion of, a religious view by government employees in the performance of their duties is, in fact, a violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state. You can find any number of court cases and rulings backing up this basic principle, which Patriot and Bryan seem determined to pretend doesn't exist. But wishing--or praying--won't change reality.

There's another common thread among the "loony left Darwiniacs"... all the evidence is on our side, not yours. I guess reality really DOES have a liberal bias, huh?

Bryan, you really seem stuck on this point, so here's some helpful info for you. A teacher, in the performance of his duties during school hours, acts as an agent of government and is required to abide by the restrictions placed on government as specified in the Constitution. If he doesn't, he's breaking the law. Violation of the First Amendment's requirements is, in fact, lawbreaking, just as if a judge showed gender bias in the performance of his duties, or if a DMV worker refused to wait on a Hispanic citizen. Those actions by government employees are illegal, simply because they violate the terms of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. So yes, an individual certainly CAN break those laws. But then, such an understanding doesn't advance your "stop the secularists" agenda, so I can see why you'd resist it. Doesn't change the facts, though; a teacher preaching during school hours is automatically and inherently breaking the law, just as if he'd automatically flunked all his Muslim or black students.

So you're saying that government should be explicitly endorsing and supporting Christianity over other faiths, in explicit defiance of the Constitution? Check. It's good to know who here respects America and who wants a "Christian nation" or similar theocratic nightmare. By the way, plenty of REAL Christians want nothing to do with government involvement because they recognize and value freedom; you might want to look them up and learn a few things, Mr. "Christian."

Wrong again, O bigoted fool. Mohammed is the name of a human prophet of the Supreme Being, Allah. If you can't even get your racist slurs right, how can you hope to spread the goodness and love of Jesus?

The "secularists" are the ones who recognize the importance of keeping government and religion separate, exactly as the Constitution requires. Read that again: the Bill of Rights requires a secular government... one that is entirely, 100% neutral on all matters of religion in the performance of its duties. But thank you for making your true agenda crystal-clear to everyone.

Christians are obligated to follow the secular laws of the nation where they live; Jesus said so. Ignoring those laws "to spread the gospel" is both a crime AND a sin. Are you seriously suggesting that Christians should ignore the laws of our nation, including those that guarantee our religious freedoms? Seriously, folks; we don't live in a theocracy. Christians don't get a pass on the constraints of our Constitution; they have to obey it just like the rest of us.

Good points. Basically, the attempt to convert others by intimidation is inherently a non-Christian attitude that real Christians should find reprehensible.

Answer: Yes. The repeated need to "be seen" practicing their faith indicates a basic insecurity.

He's not the one trying to mingle the two: posters such as Angel, 2smart, and various "Guests" are. Now stop being obtuse.

And the counterpoint is, this ISN'T an attempt to discredit or attack God. It's an attempt to uphold the law. Why do you keep pretending otherwise?

Actually, the comparison is entirely valid; Mrs. Parks was fighting for the rights of a minority to get equal treatment from the government, just as Paul and Matthew are. Who is "attacking God," by the way? Or do you claim that requiring a teacher to obey the law--a doctrine of absolute religious neutrality from government, which is the only guarantee of our having religious freedom at all--is somehow "attacking God"?

And who's been doing that? So far, it sounds like the fundie zealots and the sullen teens who resent Paul "causing" a controversy by exposing the teacher's crime.

YOU can believe whatever you like; all we ask is that the government remain neutral on the matter, as required by the Constitution. And which, apparently, a lot of zealots have a problem with when it comes to public schools and public buildings. Then they resort to the whine that "Anything less than full federal endorsement of my faith is discrimination, and it violates My Rights." That's both stupid and hypocritical; unsurprisingly, a lot of us find that annoying.

Some people never progress beyond Pascal's Wager... "I'd better believe, just in case... don't wanna burn in hell, after all." Now THAT's a heartfelt profession of devotion if ever I've heard one. Good thing it'll fool God!

What on earth are you talking about? When has Paul demanded that anyone think the way he does? How is posting on a public forum "exactly the same thing" as misusing your position as a teacher--a representative of government--to brainwash captive schoolchildren with your pet superstitions? Paul doesn't seem particularly angry to me, but then again, not all anger is unjustified. Anger in the face of injustice is particularly valuable, for example.

Whenever a teacher is on the clock, in the classroom, during class time, he is--by definition--acting as an agent of government. Case after case has backed up this fairly obvious point, but it seems that this concept is 2smart4u.

So, if your child is standing up for his beliefs and his rights... your duty as a parent is to sit by and do nothing? Verrrry interesting theory of parenting you've got going there. By the way, you seem to have forgotten that the teacher is the one in the wrong here, not the student OR his father.

Yes, they're obviously trying to defend our Constitutional rights. Those evil, evil bastards.

No, typically we just stifle a long-familiar irritation with the general cluelessness of it all.

I see. So it's hypocritical for someone discussing a serious issue on one thread to also make jokes on a different thread. Interesting. Tell me--are reporters allowed to read fiction after work, or is that "hypocritical" too? How about doctors--are they allowed to get sick? Can construction workers tear down a rotting deck without falling to the earth, paralyzed by their own hypocrisy? No really, this is a fascinating outlook. Tell us more.

I did. What does that have to do with evolution... blockhead?

Agreed. I feel sorry for ANY students trying to learn with this nutty teacher raving and preaching at them instead of doing his job. Getting rid of him and getting back to teaching will definitely be worth the turmoil of exposing his behavior.

Or at least there's supposed to be.

What did this person do?