View Full Version : Free Speech: Okay to Prosletyze When Teaching Class?
This is an interesting one (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18kearny.html?ex=1324098000&en=87af8b74af1e13cc&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss). Teacher at a public school preaches to the class, describing how dinosaurs were on the ark, how evolution is wrong, and how a particular muslim girl at the school will go to hell. Student tapes the teacher, files some sort of complaint. No lawsuit, thanks goodness.
Anyway, from the sound of the article, the community is lining up behind the teacher, which leaves the lemur scratching his head. Something isn't quite right. If I'm engaged to teach, say, math, and I come from a religion that believes the value of pi is 4, am I allowed to teach that? If I believe that all novels are illicit wastes of time (this used to be a common position), am I allowed to teach that?
I have no problem with the teacher saying whatever he likes on his own time, but there's something distinctly odd about allowing him to contradict his curriculum (and commonly accepted scientific reality) while pulling down a state paycheck. Orgah opinions?
Article below spoiler, since source lapses into pay-only after 24 hours or so.
December 18, 2006
Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights
By TINA KELLEY
KEARNY, N.J. — Before David Paszkiewicz got to teach his accelerated 11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution this fall, he was accused of violating it.
Shortly after school began in September, the teacher told his sixth-period students at Kearny High School that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven, according to audio recordings made by a student whose family is now considering a lawsuit claiming Mr. Paszkiewicz broke the church-state boundary.
“If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong,” Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. “He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell.”
The student, Matthew LaClair, said that he felt uncomfortable with Mr. Paszkiewicz’s statements in the first week, and taped eight classes starting Sept. 13 out of fear that officials would not believe the teacher had made the comments.
Since Matthew’s complaint, administrators have said they have taken “corrective action” against Mr. Paszkiewicz, 38, who has taught in the district for 14 years and is also a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church. However, they declined to say what the action was, saying it was a personnel matter.
“I think he’s an excellent teacher,” said the school principal, Al Somma. “As far as I know, there have never been any problems in the past.”
Staci Snider, the president of the local teacher’s union, said Mr. Paszkiewicz (pronounced pass-KEV-ich) had been assigned a lawyer from the union, the New Jersey Education Association. Two calls to Mr. Paszkiewicz at school and one to his home were not returned.
In this tale of the teacher who preached in class and the pupil he offended, students and the larger community have mostly lined up with Mr. Paszkiewicz, not with Matthew, who has received a death threat handled by the police, as well as critical comments from classmates.
Greice Coelho, who took Mr. Paszkiewicz’s class and is a member of his youth group, said in a letter to The Observer, the local weekly newspaper, that Matthew was “ignoring the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives every citizen the freedom of religion.” Some anonymous posters on the town’s electronic bulletin board, Kearnyontheweb.com, called for Matthew’s suspension.
On the sidewalks outside the high school, which has 1,750 students, many agreed with 15-year-old Kyle Durkin, who said, “I’m on the teacher’s side all the way.”
While science teachers, particularly in the Bible Belt, have been known to refuse to teach evolution, the controversy here, 10 miles west of Manhattan, hinges on assertions Mr. Paszkiewicz made in class, including how a specific Muslim girl would go to hell.
“This is extremely rare for a teacher to get this blatantly evangelical,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit educational association. “He’s really out there proselytizing, trying to convert students to his faith, and I think that that’s more than just saying I have some academic freedom right to talk about the Bible’s view of creation as well as evolution.”
Even some legal organizations that often champion the expression of religious beliefs are hesitant to support Mr. Paszkiewicz.
“It’s proselytizing, and the courts have been pretty clear you can’t do that,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that provides legal services in religious freedom cases. “You can’t step across the line and proselytize, and that’s what he’s done here.”
The class started on Sept. 11, and Matthew quickly grew concerned. “The first couple of days I had him, he had already begun discussing his religious point of view,” Matthew, a thin, articulate 16-year-old with braces and a passion for politics and the theater, recalled in an interview. “It wasn’t even just his point of view, it went beyond that to say this is the right way, this is the only way. The way he said it, I wasn’t sure how far he was going to go.”
On the second day of taping, after the discussion veered from Moses’s education to free will, Matthew asked why a loving God would consign humans to hell, according to the recording.
Some of Matthew’s detractors say he set up his teacher by baiting him with religious questions. But Matthew, who was raised in the Ethical Culture Society, a humanist religious and educational group, said all of his comments were in response to something the teacher said.
“I didn’t start any of the topics that were discussed,” he said.
In a Sept. 25 letter to the principal, Matthew wrote: “I care about the future generation and I do not want Mr. Paszkiewicz to continue preaching to and poisoning students.” He met with school officials and handed over the recordings.
Matthew’s family wrote four letters to the district asking for an apology and for the teacher to correct any false statements he had made in class, particularly those related to science. Matthew’s father, Paul LaClair, a lawyer, said he was now considering legal action against the district, claiming that Mr. Paszkiewicz’s teachings violated their son’s First Amendment and civil rights, and that his words misled the class and went against the curriculum.
Kenneth J. Lindenfelser, the lawyer for the Kearny school board, said he could not discuss Mr. Paszkiewicz specifically, but that when a complaint comes in about a teacher, it is investigated, and then the department leader works with the teacher to correct any inappropriate behavior.
The teacher is monitored, and his or her evaluation could be noted, Mr. Lindenfelser said, adding that if these steps did not work, the teacher could be reprimanded, suspended or, eventually, fired.
As for the request that Mr. Paszkiewicz correct his statements that conflict with the district’s science curriculum, “Sometimes, the more you dwell on the issue, the more you continue the issue,” Mr. Lindenfelser said. “Sometimes, it’s better to stop any inappropriate behavior and move on.”
The district’s actions have succeeded, he said, as the family has not reported any continued violations.
Bloggers around the world have called Matthew courageous. In contrast, the LaClairs said they had been surprised by the vehemence of the opposition that local residents had expressed against Matthew.
Frank Viscuso, a Kearny resident, wrote in a letter to The Observer that “when a student is advised by his ‘attorney’ father to bait a teacher with questions about religion, and then records his answers and takes the story to 300 newspapers, that family isn’t ‘offended’ by what was said in the classroom — they’re simply looking for a payout and to make a name for themselves.” He called the teacher one of the town’s best.
However, Andrew Lewczuk, a former student of Mr. Paszkiewicz, praised his abilities as a history teacher but said he regretted that he had not protested the religious discussions. “In the end, the manner in which Mr. Paszkiewicz spoke with his students was careless, inconsiderate and inappropriate,” he wrote to The Observer. “It was an abuse of power and influence, and it’s my own fault that I didn’t do anything about this.”
One teacher, who did not give his name, said he thought both Matthew and his teacher had done the right thing. “The student had the right to do what he did,” the man said. As for Mr. Paszkiewicz, “He had the right to say what he said, he was not preaching, and that’s something I’m very much against.”
Matthew said he missed the friends he had lost over his role in the debate, and said he could “feel the glares” when he walked into school.
Instead of mulling Supreme Court precedents, he said with half a smile, “I should be worrying about who I’m going to take to the prom.”
Banquo's Ghost
12-18-2006, 19:27
:wall: :no:
It's not unbelievers that are going all to hell. :rolleyes:
Marshal Murat
12-18-2006, 19:36
What the heck?
I could understand some discussion, but the discussion seemed to portray it as very one sided. The teacher clearly preaching, and the accusations of a 'payout' don't make sense, especially when the student asked only for an apology.
doc_bean
12-18-2006, 19:49
Fire the ******.
yesdachi
12-18-2006, 20:03
I don’t understand how the students would have ever chosen to side with the teacher, that in itself is very un-American regardless of the topic. I am guessing they have been brainwashed or possessed by some kind of parasite that enters thru the ear or they really don’t like the tattletale kid.
I would send the freak teacher packing, but I would send most teachers packing. :shrug:
The teacher was out of line preaching in the class room. That is not where it belongs. (though they don't tell you if he said that in responce to a question or not...)
As for your post about evolution, I happen to disagree. They are many respected scientists that say the THEORY of evolution is bull. There is no way to prove any one theory, so the school should simply inform children about the most popular theories (Intelligent Design and evolution) and let them make their own desicions. It all comes down to a matter of faith wether you believe in religion of Christianity or the religion of Atheism.
There is in fact more evidence to support intelligent design than there is to support evolution. As I said though, both should be taught - let the students decide which they will believe.
Goofball
12-18-2006, 20:31
The teacher was out of line preaching in the class room. That is not where it belongs. (though they don't tell you if he said that in responce to a question or not...)
As for your post about evolution, I happen to disagree. They are many respected scientists that say the THEORY of evolution is bull. There is no way to prove any one theory, so the school should simply inform children about the most popular theories (Intelligent Design and evolution) and let them make their own desicions. It all comes down to a matter of faith wether you believe in religion of Christianity or the religion of Atheism.
There is in fact more evidence to support intelligent design than there is to support evolution. As I said though, both should be taught - let the students decide which they will believe.
Normally I stay out of "Jesus is better than science" debates, but the line I bolded above was just too much for me to resist.
Please expand. I await with eager anticipation.
As to the topic:
Keep your damned fairy tales out of any classes not clearly defined as "religious studies." Which, by the way, I will encourage my own son to take as an elective. It's important to learn about religion, but there should under no circumstances be any blurring of the line between science and mythology.
Pannonian
12-18-2006, 20:36
The teacher was out of line preaching in the class room. That is not where it belongs. (though they don't tell you if he said that in responce to a question or not...)
As for your post about evolution, I happen to disagree. They are many respected scientists that say the THEORY of evolution is bull. There is no way to prove any one theory, so the school should simply inform children about the most popular theories (Intelligent Design and evolution) and let them make their own desicions. It all comes down to a matter of faith wether you believe in religion of Christianity or the religion of Atheism.
There is in fact more evidence to support intelligent design than there is to support evolution. As I said though, both should be taught - let the students decide which they will believe.
Ah, but which version of Intelligent Design do you teach? I personally favour the Flying Spaghetti Monster school of ID.
Normally I stay out of "Jesus is better than science" debates, but the line I bolded above was just too much for me to resist.
Please expand. I await with eager anticipation.
As to the topic:
Keep your damned fairy tales out of any classes not clearly defined as "religious studies." Which, by the way, I will encourage my own son to take as an elective. It's important to learn about religion, but there should under no circumstances be any blurring of the line between science and mythology.
A.
Don't insult my religion by calling it a "fairy tale".
B.
A GOOD part of the scientific community disagrees with evolution (and a good part of them agree with intelligent design).
I never said anyone could prove intelligent design, but it IS impossible to prove it wrong. It is, on the other hand, possible to prove evolution false.
Evolution just is a load of it. The media is in favor of evolution and you always here about the evolutionary discoveries going on in the field of evolution (and it's funny how they always change and contradict each other).
The theory of evolution is like the wind, every changing and inconstant. It is funny to go back and trace the origins of evolution and watch as it mutates and evolves. ;)
Hmm, is there any way to discuss this topic without the thread turning into an evolution versus I.D. debate?
Vuk, aside from I.D., do you think it's okay that the teacher appears to have told students that a muslim classmate was going to hell? Where would you personally draw the line? Are there aspects of your personal religion which would not be appropriate to lay out in front of students in a class which you were teaching?
[edit]
I never said anyone could prove intelligent design, but it IS impossible to prove it wrong. It is, on the other hand, possible to prove evolution false.
Something that cannot be disproved does not rise to the level of theory in the scientific sense of the word. So it's false to say that I.D. is a theory; rather, it is a belief.
Pannonian
12-18-2006, 20:47
A.
Don't insult my religion by calling it a "fairy tale".
B.
A GOOD part of the scientific community disagrees with evolution (and a good part of them agree with intelligent design).
I never said anyone could prove intelligent design, but it IS impossible to prove it wrong. It is, on the other hand, possible to prove evolution false.
Evolution just is a load of it. The media is in favor of evolution and you always here about the evolutionary discoveries going on in the field of evolution (and it's funny how they always change and contradict each other).
The theory of evolution is like the wind, every changing and inconstant. It is funny to go back and trace the origins of evolution and watch as it mutates and evolves. ;)
What's your opinion on the FSM? It coherently and elegantly explains much of the evidence that scientists and historians have, and doesn't leave too many loose ends. IMHO it's a disgrace that teachers aren't dressing up as pirates to teach the science of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Ah, but which version of Intelligent Design do you teach? I personally favour the Flying Spaghetti Monster school of ID.
I said the most popular theories - that includes evolution and Christian Intelligent design. As you cannot fully explain ever theory, you would have to only inform them about the more obscure theories (Such as the Spaghetti monster).
Pannonian
12-18-2006, 20:52
I said the most popular theories - that includes evolution and Christian Intelligent design. As you cannot fully explain ever theory, you would have to only inform them about the more obscure theories (Such as the Spaghetti monster).
Isn't the FSM accepted by a greater range of the world's population than Christian Intelligent Design (which is mainly confined to the US)? Is there a tipping point of popularity beyond which an idea should be taught in school? Does anyone have reliable figures for how popular an idea Christian Intelligent Design is?
Goofball
12-18-2006, 20:53
A.
Don't insult my religion by calling it a "fairy tale".
Sorry pal. As soon as you start trying to insert your religion into my kid's science classes, it's open season.
Present it in an appropriate forum, such as a church (which I attend, albeit not as regularly as my wife would like) or a religious studies class, and you'll find that I am respectful and interested.
But otherwise, keep your peanut butter away from my chocolate. :thumbsdown:
B.
A GOOD part of the scientific community disagrees with evolution (and a good part of them agree with intelligent design).
I never said anyone could prove intelligent design, but it IS impossible to prove it wrong. It is, on the other hand, possible to prove evolution false.
Evolution just is a load of it. The media is in favor of evolution and you always here about the evolutionary discoveries going on in the field of evolution (and it's funny how they always change and contradict each other).
The theory of evolution is like the wind, every changing and inconstant. It is funny to go back and trace the origins of evolution and watch as it mutates and evolves. ;)
I see you disagreeing.
I see no credible evidence being presented that "a good part of the scientific community" chooses ID (creationism, by any other name) over evolution.
Hmm, is there any way to discuss this topic without the thread turning into an evolution versus I.D. debate?
Vuk, aside from I.D., do you think it's okay that the teacher appears to have told students that a muslim classmate was going to hell? Where would you personally draw the line? Are there aspects of your personal religion which would not be appropriate to lay out in front of students in a class which you were teaching?
[edit]
Something that cannot be disproved does not rise to the level of theory in the scientific sense of the word. So it's false to say that I.D. is a theory; rather, it is a belief.
I said that he shouldn't be teaching his religion in the classroom - which is different from teaching an explanation for the origin of life. He was out of line as I said.
And yes, evolution IS a theory. You obviously do not know much about it. Ask any scientist, evolution has not YET become a law, but is still a theory (and a pretty pathetic one at that...).
Sorry Vuk, the discussion got into I.D. so fast I missed the earlier comment on the teacher's behavior. My bad.
And yes, evolution IS a theory. You obviously do not know much about it. Ask any scientist, evolution has not YET become a law, but is still a theory.
In the scientific sense, being a theory is far from a bad thing. It's the only thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Characteristics):
Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:
It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.").
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
The difference between science and unscientific nonsense was well caught in Wolfgang Pauli's famous comment on a paper he was shown: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong."
Marshal Murat
12-18-2006, 21:10
I'm glad someone threw in the FSM.
Its just as viable and just as improbable and impossible to prove as I.D. or Evolution.
I personally subscribe to Evolution, with a slight tinkering in FSM. How do you explain dinosaurs? If we were made in 'God's Image' then why weren't we created FIRST? Why have millions of years of saurian evolution, and then 'poof' create man? Man has been around only 5000 years or so, while dinosaurs had millions of years to get it right before the 'Wipeout'. Where was God? Chillin' with the Saurian gods?
Its a history class. Stick to history. If it involves Jesus, Christianity, fine.
11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution
What the heck? It sort of makes sense that he starts this, but I would figure it's a one time thing. Not a couple WEEKS of discussion.
DemonArchangel
12-18-2006, 21:13
Violation of Separation of Church and State here. Fire the teacher.
The teacher is totally right.
Contrary to "popular belief", it's a teacher's job to teach the truth, not propagate the kids' minds with total horse manure which "evolution" and "the big bang" are.
"Teaching" evolution and the big bang are prosletyzing unfounded propaganda nonsense, and that is fundamentally wrong.
About time someone took a stand to end that crap.
Kudos to David Paszkiewicz! :2thumbsup:
doc_bean
12-18-2006, 21:56
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and treating it as such is a travesty.
And if evolution doesn't work without 'Intelligent guidance' explain to me the success of genetic algorithms. Does God intervene there too ? We know the FSM likes to tamper with scientific results, but what about Jah ?
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and treating it as such is a travesty.
Evolution is not a scientific theory - it fails to meet the rules of the scientific method which are necessary to become a legitimate scientific theory.
Yet most people want the non-scientific theory of evolution to be taught simply because it happens to agree with their personal anti-God mindset.
Navaros is right in one regard - it is the teacher's job to indoctrinate the kids. The only real difference here is that he's introducing ideas that aren't part of the designated group of notions which every good and honest citizen "should" accept as truth. I don't care if he was talking about Yeshua or time travel through autoerotic nipple-twisting; the man wasn't doing his job (read: sticking to official curriculum) and that's the only standard to which his behaviour can truly be measured. He's being paid to do it, after all.
Unless there are explicit guidelines regarding his punishment for such a thing, though, all reprimands are equally appropriate.
One more thing, though:
A.
Don't insult my religion by calling it a "fairy tale".
Hahaha, or what?
Kralizec
12-18-2006, 22:15
A GOOD part of the scientific community disagrees with evolution (and a good part of them agree with intelligent design).
A good part of the global scientific community, or just the US? As far as I know the US is the only western country where you can say you believe in ID without being dismissed instantly.
And what is a "good part" anyway? A majority? A third?
Evolution is not a scientific theory - it fails to meet the rules of the scientific method which are necessary to become a legitimate scientific theory.
It sounds like you know a lot about these rules of the scientific method, Navaros. Could you explain them to me, or at least give a quick synopsis?
Marshal Murat
12-18-2006, 22:21
I think he stepped out of line by using up class time to discuss ideals that should be reserved for pre-class or post-class time.
Wasting the students time by preaching about Jesus and Christianity not once but multiple times, and accusing people of going to hell. Thats what rubs me wrong. That he wastes tax dollars discussing something that he is not being paid to do.
I don't really have a problem with teaching I.D. along with Evolution, but thats for Science not 11th Grade History!
It sounds like you know a lot about these rules of the scientific method, Navaros. Could you explain them to me, or at least give a quick synopsis?
Rules of scientific method state that for a theory to be a validated as scientitic it must be repeatable, testable, observable and other things like that, none of which the theory of evolution or the big bang are. Yet in their athetistic zeal so-called "scientists" sweep that inconvenient truth under the rug because there is no rational way for them to defend how their zeal-based theories do not meet their own mandated scientific rules.
Spetulhu
12-18-2006, 22:26
I don't really have a problem with teaching I.D. along with Evolution, but thats for Science not 11th Grade History!
ID isn't science. If the "theory" is that some higher power made stuff and could make anything there's nothing to it but faith. A real theory should not only have an idea about what happens but what isn't LIKELY to happen. :furious3:
Kralizec
12-18-2006, 22:29
Rules of scientific method state that for a theory to be a validated as scientitic it must be repeatable, testable, observable and other things like that, none of which the theory of evolution or the big bang are. Yet in their athetistic zeal so-called "scientists" sweep that inconvenient truth under the rug because there is no rational way for them to defend how their zeal-based theories do not meet their own mandated scientific rules.
I'll indulge you: how does Intelligent Design meet these standards?
Frank Viscuso, a Kearny resident, wrote in a letter to The Observer that “when a student is advised by his ‘attorney’ father to bait a teacher with questions about religion, and then records his answers and takes the story to 300 newspapers, that family isn’t ‘offended’ by what was said in the classroom — they’re simply looking for a payout and to make a name for themselves.” He called the teacher one of the town’s best.Is anyone willing to consider the possibility that the NYT doesnt have/isnt telling the whole story?
You've got the school students and residents lining up behind the teacher, making statements like the above- yet we're willing to swallow the 1 student's version hook, line, and sinker. I wonder if the locals might have a better idea of what's really at play here. :shrug:
Kralizec
12-18-2006, 22:32
Check
http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/
Especially this thread:
http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=2955&st=20
Papewaio
12-18-2006, 22:33
A.
Don't insult my religion by calling it a "fairy tale".
I'll try to resist the dark allure of the that temptation. I will as long as you stop slinging insults about science.
B.
A GOOD part of the scientific community disagrees with evolution (and a good part of them agree with intelligent design).
Hmm, which part is that?
I never said anyone could prove intelligent design, but it IS impossible to
prove it wrong.
Because it cannot be proven wrong means it is not a scientific theory. Scientific theories have to be both testable and possible to be proven wrong. If it is an absolute it ain't a scientific theory.
It is, on the other hand, possible to prove evolution false.
Evolution just is a load of it.
That would be the insult to science. Please stop now, we have nukes and are willing to incinerate the world's atmosphere in just testing them. We also like to blow up ships that protest their use. Think of the bunny rabbits.
The media is in favor of evolution and you always here about the evolutionary discoveries going on in the field of evolution (and it's funny how they always change and contradict each other)..
I wouldn't use the media outcomes as a yardstick of intelligence, they themselves are smart but they are there to sell media and hence make snappy headlines for the masses.. Even if they are in favour of something it is like getting the last pick for a sports team, they won't decide the outcome just make up the numbers on it.
The theory of evolution is like the wind, every changing and inconstant. It is funny to go back and trace the origins of evolution and watch as it mutates and evolves. ;)
A self validating theory? :clown:
Don Corleone
12-18-2006, 22:37
The funny thing is, and I have to be VERY careful how I phrase this, who's to say there isn't such a thing as both? Why couldn't evolution and the Big Bang have been the methodology the almighty chose to bring His creation into existence? Wasn't it St. Paul who said that for the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years but a day?
Evolution gets into the what and the how. It never actually gets into the nuts and bolts behind the why.
For example, contrary to popular opinion... the time line in evolution is not linear. You don't see mutation and species development occur in roughly equally distributed epochs. In fact, quite the opposite is true. You see short bursts of extensive genetic activity, followed by long periods of relative stability and inactivity. Now, most external phenomenon have been ruled out: solar activity and other radioactive events weren't particularly more dramatic, there weren't necessarily major climatic changes, etcetera. Sure, sometimes these periods had an identifiable external stimulus, but even the cause of the end of the dinosuars at the conclusion of the Cretacsous period is only speculation.
So I actually believe in evolution as the method by which God has shaped life here on earth. Nothing in Darwin or any other part of Evolutionary Theory precludes the idea of God as the hidden stimulus (though there's nothing that requires it or even supports it either).
But none of that is here or there. The teacher was a HISTORY teacher. Why the Hell was he advocating ANY scientific theories? And why on Earth was he discussing the concept of salvation and the requirements for it in a public high school? Completely and utterly out of line. America's knowledge of it's own history is dreadfully inadequate, and even that shines brightly in comparison to our knowledge of history that occurred beyond our borders. How about we focus on some of the things we should know about history but don't. The list, even just thinking off the top of my head, is entirely too long to even begin... :dizzy2:
Kralizec
12-18-2006, 22:45
A.
Don't insult my religion by calling it a "fairy tale".
What's wrong with fairy tales? :stare:
Spetulhu
12-18-2006, 22:50
http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/IntelligentDesign.shtml
Quote:
"Intelligent Design" proponents are fond of claiming that "evolutionists" always approach the data with the wrong mindset (ie- not the "design" mindset). However, if we do approach it from an engineering mindset as they suggest, and we apply due diligence in that analysis, we will quickly find that the biological "product line" is such an egregious example of jury-rigged, half-assed design that no one in his right mind would ever attribute it to an intelligent designer, never mind one who is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and infallible.
Teacher at a public school preaches to the class, describing how dinosaurs were on the ark, how evolution is wrong, and how a particular muslim girl at the school will go to hell. Student tapes the teacher, files some sort of complaint. No lawsuit, thanks goodness.
Like Xiahou, I wonder about the reporting of the story. As its portrayed, the teacher has overstepped things: evangelism is not history, the salvation of persons is not history, dinosaurs on the ark is not history. Eleventh Grade is part of compulsory education. It is therefore part of the public trust. A teacher is constrained by that trust which trumps any personal impulse/agenda. If the reporting is accurate there should be serious consequences for this kind of breech.
Louis VI the Fat
12-18-2006, 23:05
There is no way to prove any one theory, so the school should simply inform children about the most popular theories
both should be taught - let the students decide which they will believe.Nope. They are students of science and should be taught scientific methodology.
Science class is not about indoctrinating pupils with given results. The idea that education is a contest between different sets of dogmas is untrue. This very premise is religious in nature.
Religion teaches dogma. Science teaches pupils valuable tools to form a critical opinion. Hence there is no need to have a popularity contest about what to teach them - they should rather be given a proper science class so they can develop the tools to figure out themselves what to believe.
Louis VI the Fat
12-18-2006, 23:06
A good part of the global scientific community, or just the US? As far as I know the US is the only western country where you can say you believe in ID without being dismissed instantly.Yup, it is about as common here as flat-earthers or people insisting they are Napoleon.
We don't dismiss 'm though - we offer them a cup of coffee, put a warm, friendly arm over their shoulder and ask if maybe they've got a telephone number on them, if there's somebody we can call...
Meh, if the Americans are going to waste science class by teaching their children Intelligent Design, then soon the Indians and Chinese are going to teach them the real meaning of Intelligent Design: that is, intelligently designed computers, cars, software and bio-tech. :no:
Marshal Murat
12-18-2006, 23:24
Don Corleone, thank you.
Goofball
12-18-2006, 23:33
Is anyone willing to consider the possibility that the NYT doesnt have/isnt telling the whole story?
You've got the school students and residents lining up behind the teacher, making statements like the above- yet we're willing to swallow the 1 student's version hook, line, and sinker. I wonder if the locals might have a better idea of what's really at play here. :shrug:
I'm willing to accept the possiblilty that the NYT isn't telling the whole story, but reading between the lines that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Just from looking at the pictures of the complainant (a kind of skinny, nerdy looking kid) and the teacher, and from reading the comments some have made about the teacher (big love fest, he's the best, a prince among men, etc...), it appears we have a student that wasn't popular to start with attacking a popular, hip teacher.
In other words, a popularity contest.
And I'm sure we all remember from our highschool days, "popular" beats "right" every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Also, none of the teacher's supporters are saying he didn't say the things that he is alleged to have said. They are all basically just saying they are on his side because they like him.
Add that to the fact that there are tape recordings of this teacher preaching his crap in class, and it makes it hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Reenk Roink
12-18-2006, 23:59
These kind of people need to get more creative when trying to "combat" evolutionary theory. :yes:
I never hear about a bible belt teacher throwing a skeptical argument to show evolution isn't justified. Just point out the fact that there is no good inference from sensory experiences to beliefs about material objects and boom...scientific theories which are based on beliefs about material objects collapse.
Tribesman
12-19-2006, 00:04
Suspend the teacher , then fire the stupid git .
If he wants to preach then stick to the pulpit or ranting on streetcorners .
Contrary to "popular belief", it's a teacher's job to teach the truth, not propagate the kids' minds with total horse manure which "evolution" and "the big bang" are.
Contrary to that pile of horse manure , it is a teachers job to teach what he is being paid to teach , in a manner and with content that is approved by the education authorities and the school board .
If he doesn't like it then he can bugger off and get a job that he can do .
AntiochusIII
12-19-2006, 00:05
Why the hell does this thread turn into that unIntelligible Design crap again?
This is about a teacher breaching some very clear lines between teaching and preaching, lying, even; or perhaps distortion of news, if Xiahou's and Pindar's suspicions are correct.
Should their suspicions be unfounded, however, just fire the fool. How many times have I heard those complaints about "liberal [teachers/professors] indoctrinating my kids"? It's time for those who complain to prove they're not hypocrites.
Navaros is right in one regard - it is the teacher's job to indoctrinate the kids. The only real difference here is that he's introducing ideas that aren't part of the designated group of notions which every good and honest citizen "should" accept as truth. I don't care if he was talking about Yeshua or time travel through autoerotic nipple-twisting; the man wasn't doing his job (read: sticking to official curriculum) and that's the only standard to which his behaviour can truly be measured. He's being paid to do it, after all.Not true. A properly run science class demands that the teacher takes initiative in openly exposing the students to the sources and ways that those knowledges are achieved as much as teaching the students the knowledges themselves; in fact, in my opinion, one of the ways to truly engage someone in the scientific world is by exposing on how it actually works and how all those data come from. The student can then make judgment on his/her own about it all.
If anything, the history of science is one of the most interesting topics around. You finally know how those criminally boring calculus formulas get their lives, for example.
Of course, lazy teaching would lead to the kind of indoctrination you claim happens.
Guess what a properly run "Intelligent Design" class would do?
Soulforged
12-19-2006, 00:14
As for your post about evolution, I happen to disagree. They are many respected scientists that say the THEORY of evolution is bull. There is no way to prove any one theory, so the school should simply inform children about the most popular theories (Intelligent Design and evolution) and let them make their own desicions. It all comes down to a matter of faith wether you believe in religion of Christianity or the religion of Atheism.
There is in fact more evidence to support intelligent design than there is to support evolution. As I said though, both should be taught - let the students decide which they will believe.Sorry Vuk, but even if you disagree, and correct me if I'm wrong, the teacher has to respect a program wich is provided by the school, is not a purely discretional thing. What he did was wrong on so many levels that it speeks for itself?
What should be done is another thing. However you're incorrect there too. There's no way to prove Intelligent Design because it parts from supraempirical preconceptions, but evolution is a scientific theory, as such it can be proved, not yet fully proved, but it's susceptible of such thing. And even if both were probable, kids cannot learn every theory on every field, the program has to be reduced to accepted realities to not confuse their minds with unnecessary information.
Sorry Vuk,And even if both were probable, kids cannot learn every theory on every field, the program has to be reduced to accepted realities to not confuse their minds with unnecessary information.
surely the kids have to learn as muich of the spectrum as possible in terms of theory, especially if neither have been entirely proven - its hardly unneccessary, i'm fairly neutral on the whole creation thing, i exist, so why i exist doesnt really matter - although i did think the person who first called religion a "fairy tale" was being a bit mean :laugh4:
all of this digresses from the topic, the teacher (apparently) went of of his way to try to teach something to the pupils which was not on the syllabus, and effectively tried to preach to them his own viewpoint, i actually think that teachers should reveal their own views more oppenly when teaching, because it allows pupils to creatively think about a topic in a way that is agaisnt the teachers, ie active learning, however if the teacher only showed his own view then it is wrong... anyway, what's a history teacher doing teaching science, (although you could argue that creation is history)
:2thumbsup:
When I read the article my first conclusion was that this History Teacher has clearly reached beyond what his subject was suppose to be about. When looking at it in that matter the teacher is clearly wrong from going into science and religion in a history class. From the article. The leading paragraph.
Before David Paszkiewicz got to teach his accelerated 11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution this fall, he was accused of violating it.
Shortly after school began in September, the teacher told his sixth-period students at Kearny High School that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven, according to audio recordings made by a student whose family is now considering a lawsuit claiming Mr. Paszkiewicz
But I begin to wonder why a history teacher would approach that subject matter in a history class. If I remember my standard history classes for HighSchool they normally follow the lines of the state history to United States History. The historical effects of religion on American history could be studied in that regrads - especially when one studies several landmark legal cases from the turn of the century to mid 1950. However if the teacher actually broached the material presented in the article - he definitily went down the wrong branch of his stated material for his subject. However a portion of the article that leads me to conclude that there is definitely more to the story is this little bit from the article.
The class started on Sept. 11, and Matthew quickly grew concerned. “The first couple of days I had him, he had already begun discussing his religious point of view,” Matthew, a thin, articulate 16-year-old with braces and a passion for politics and the theater, recalled in an interview. “It wasn’t even just his point of view, it went beyond that to say this is the right way, this is the only way. The way he said it, I wasn’t sure how far he was going to go.”
On the second day of taping, after the discussion veered from Moses’s education to free will, Matthew asked why a loving God would consign humans to hell, according to the recording.
Some of Matthew’s detractors say he set up his teacher by baiting him with religious questions. But Matthew, who was raised in the Ethical Culture Society, a humanist religious and educational group, said all of his comments were in response to something the teacher said.
“I didn’t start any of the topics that were discussed,” he said.
Just leaves me wonder a tid bit.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-19-2006, 00:39
The thing I love about the anti-big abng brigade is that they always tout it as an axample of anti-theism. Big Bang, a theory which states the universe began in a moment for unkown reasons replaced a theory so pervasive that Einstien fudged his calculations to support it, steady state. Steady State says the universe has always been, unchanging and eternal. Big Bang says someone flipped the switch.
I fail to see how it contradicts God, if anything it was his biggest PR coup of the last century.
Evolution:
Consider this, God seeds the garden, being omnipotent he knows what will grow. He goes on holiday, he comes back, kills the dinosaus with a meteorite because Jesus accidentilly dropped some weeds in with the plants while helping dad. He has breakfast, because Mrs God makes a mean fry-up, he comes back and hummanity has evolved.
Wayhay, things are getting interesting. So God has a bit of a chat with Adam and decides he can take him out of the Green House, hence man's fall.
Currently God is having lunch, when he gets back I expect he'll find a way to get rid of all the nasty powerplants that have sprouted in his lovelly garden.
The Bible is manifestly wrong about dates. Man has history which stretches beyonf the Bible's reckoning, never mind pre-history.
ajaxfetish
12-19-2006, 01:34
The very statement that it is impossible to disprove intelligent design places it outside the realm of science immediately. As to my personal beliefs on the matter, they fall much in line with Don Corleone's. I don't consider a creative God and the discoveries of science to be mutually exclusive.
However, that whole debate has nothing to do with the issue at hand here. Because of free speech, it is perfectly ok to proselyte as a private individual. The problem is the teacher is not acting in the capacity of a private individual, but as a representative of the school system, and in a larger sense the American government. When he has his 'teacher badge' on, he needs to represent the views of the organizations he represents, even if they contradict his own. If he cannot do so in good conscience, he is in the wrong job, and should either find employment where he represents only himself, or where he represents someone who shares his views. What he does outside of his capacity as a teacher is his own business.
Ajax
I'm willing to accept the possiblilty that the NYT isn't telling the whole story, but reading between the lines that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Just from looking at the pictures of the complainant (a kind of skinny, nerdy looking kid) and the teacher, and from reading the comments some have made about the teacher (big love fest, he's the best, a prince among men, etc...), it appears we have a student that wasn't popular to start with attacking a popular, hip teacher.
In other words, a popularity contest.
And I'm sure we all remember from our highschool days, "popular" beats "right" every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Also, none of the teacher's supporters are saying he didn't say the things that he is alleged to have said. They are all basically just saying they are on his side because they like him.
Add that to the fact that there are tape recordings of this teacher preaching his crap in class, and it makes it hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Or maybe the kid was a well-known, snotty pain in the ass (with a rich lawyer daddy) who's always trying to stir up trouble- as suggested by the comments in the article. Who knows? :shrug:
Dont mind me though- I don't want to get in the way of the witch-hunt... :sweatdrop:
Not true. A properly run science class demands that the teacher takes initiative in openly exposing the students to the sources and ways that those knowledges are achieved as much as teaching the students the knowledges themselves; in fact, in my opinion, one of the ways to truly engage someone in the scientific world is by exposing on how it actually works and how all those data come from. The student can then make judgment on his/her own about it all.
What part of what I said isn't true?
So I actually believe in evolution as the method by which God has shaped life here on earth. Nothing in Darwin or any other part of Evolutionary Theory precludes the idea of God as the hidden stimulus.
This is a very sensible opinion. I've never understood why some people on both sides of this issue believe that one position must exclude the other.
Both Xiahou and Pindar are correct, there does seem to be more to this story. We'll just have to see what other coverage it gets ...
[edit]
Once again, it seems that South Park had this topic nailed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcugPvN7k90) some months ago.
Alexander the Pretty Good
12-19-2006, 08:17
The problem was he was proselytizing Christianity. If he was a Marxist and told some bourgeois kid he was going to hell, he might get away with it.
My thoughts lie near Lemur's, and DC is chipping away at my admittedly-parental-inspired hostility to evolution.
doc_bean
12-19-2006, 10:07
The funny thing is, and I have to be VERY careful how I phrase this, who's to say there isn't such a thing as both? Why couldn't evolution and the Big Bang have been the methodology the almighty chose to bring His creation into existence? Wasn't it St. Paul who said that for the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years but a day?
Well, it's perfectly normal for a European believer to accept the theory of evolution, the vatican accepts evolution (maybe not as openly today, but they did in the past anyway), heck, there was a whole period in time when no one saw a problem, until some zealots (in the US) started preaching against it, and the meme spread. Why ? I don't know.
Now the problem is that the people are told they can't believe in God AND evolution it seems :shame:
Intelligent design is a bit of a cop out, if they just said, yeah evolution is true, God has created the principle because he knew Man would result etc., etc. there wouldn't be much of a problem. The problem is that ID (often) preaches 'guided' evolution, the idea that evolution as a 'force of nature' does not exist, that it would all be random if it were not for an interventionalist God.
Now this is where it gets problematic. You see, evolution is everywhere, Vuk said it was ironic how the theory of evolution has 'mutated' so much, but that's just the thing, every theory does this. Every time you tell someone a theory, an idea, you'll get a small mutation. Every time someone puts two theories together (or views a theory in light of a different paradigm), you have cross-over.
Genetic programs start with a bunch of random solutions to a problem, the best get selected and they get combined to form even better solutions. The principle of evolution works, independent of an outside force. It is a quality inherent in information transfer (that description of biological evolution probably makes some neo-darwinist orgasm).
Now does this mean there is no room for a God ? No. Like all things sience discovers, it can say WHAT exists, but not WHY. Evolution appears to be some sort of emergent behaviour, but then, could not a God have designed it to be this way ?
As to how non-guided evolution can still result in Man: it's primarily a statistical proces and therefor the outcome is not completely random, God could have simply kicked things off. There's also the possibility of a deterministic universe (Einstein would have loved that one), although where that leaves free will, i don't know.
The point is, evolution does not rule out God, it might rule out certain passages in the Bible (Genesis, primarily), but only a few zealots belief the Bible to be the absolute truth. Most people (even religious people) see it as a book 'about God' written by man.
Evolution gets into the what and the how. It never actually gets into the nuts and bolts behind the why.
Then it wouldn't be science.
Tribesman
12-19-2006, 11:07
The point is, evolution does not rule out God, it might rule out certain passages in the Bible (Genesis, primarily), but only a few zealots belief the Bible to be the absolute truth. Most people (even religious people) see it as a book 'about God' written by man.
True , and the irony is that many of those who are really zealous and vocal about it don't even know the book very well that they claim is the basis of their position .:shrug:
There was apparently this bloke a long time ago who gave out on this sort of subject , something about people not knowing scripture and applying it where it doesn't apply .
It was something along the lines of people of weak faith and little knowledge holding themselves and their "proclaimed" faith up to ridicule .
I think his name was something like St.Augustine , well not his real name that his parents gave him of course , but that's what he became known as ~;)
Now for some light entertainment .
If this was a Islamic teacher telling kids that they must follow his vesion of the truth of Islam , and anyone that isn't Muslim is going to be condemned would they still be speaking in his defense ?
Now Navros probably would since he supports fundamentalism for all the peoples of the books , but how about any of the others ?
If not then it is quite simple to sum up ....damn hypocracy .
macsen rufus
12-19-2006, 12:17
Teacher was way out of line -- he should do his preaching on Sundays, teaching on workdays. We'd get well p'ed off if he was say, a sheriff, and used his work time to collar a few people just because he didn't like them.
and for Alexander - Marxists don't tell people they're going to hell, they say "Come the glorious revolution, comrade, you'll be first up against the wall..." :laugh4:
I wouldnt like it if a teacher started preaching islam in one of my classes. Preachers should preach in church, not in school. He could though tell what christrians beleive, nothing wrong with that.
If teachers aren't allowed to indoctrinate children then somebody call the police. You wouldn't believe how much extreme leftist propaganda one can find in dutch schoolbooks, it would be sad if it wasn't so disastrous.
oh yeah link for dutchies
http://www.mijneigenweblog.nl/weblog/entry.php?w=NederKrant&e_id=26376
doc_bean
12-19-2006, 14:19
http://www.mijneigenweblog.nl/weblog/entry.php?w=NederKrant&e_id=26376
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Those things seem all to familiar. Schoolsbooks are full of 'truth' where there should be theory, but then that would require the students to think, and we don't want that do we ?
Funniest example evar (imho): on a test for 'Bible studies' one of the questions was : Did Jesus ever get mad. And the answer was 'no'. :laugh4: Way to mix up the message with the truth folks ...
You can laugh at the more silly stuff but look at this
"Taarten in het gezicht van politici, ketchup over driedelig grijs, kogelbrieven bij het ontbijt: burgers zijn niet alleen actief in het stemhokje." (Impuls, maatschappijleer)
We both know what they mean here,
from
http://www.nos.nl/archief/nederlandkiest/2002/afbeeldingen_redactie/217_160/fortuyn_taart2d%20copy.jpg
to
http://www.manbijthond.be/Data/Images/1113-01.jpg
is political activism. They should be arrested for calling for violence.
"Door zijn scherpe opvattingen maakte Fortuyn veel tegenstanders. Dat werd hem uiteindelijk noodlottig." (Indigo, geschiedenis).
uh-huh, yeah that was it, walk the line
The evidence for evolution is all around us. It's now got to the stage that it's indisputable, despite it being a theory and not a law. Some people simply close their minds to it.
doc_bean
12-19-2006, 14:47
Honestly, those quotes are indeed retarded, but they probably don't appear in the majority of the books used, and are probably taken out of context. Classes like 'social studies' which I imagine is a lot like our 'Religion' classes are filled with this 'feel good, wouldn't the world be better if we were all nice to eachother BS'. Probably because only frustrated idealist have the patience and time to write something that can be used in classes like that.
We had idealisitic teachers and retarded books, most of us still gr'ew up rather normal (and middle-right, according to Belgian standards)
It's a problem when blatant lies are taught about political party's, history and when people are basicly told to go out killing rightwing politicians because they be mean.
Don't the yanks read these :laugh4:
"De Amerikanen stuurden een half miljoen soldaten om het Vietnamese communisme uit te roeien. (-) Wanneer de Amerikanen hoorden dat de (communistische) Vietcong zich in een bepaald dorp bevond, staken ze het in brand en schoten iedereen die ze aantroffen dood." (Indigo, geschiedenis)
"Het grootste succes van Gorbatsijov was dat hij een einde maakte aan de Koude Oorlog." (MeMo, geschiedenis)
"Niet iedereen was het met deze superieure houding van de Amerikanen eens. (-) Ook in het buitenland nam het verzet toe tegen de overheersende Amerikaanse principes. Dit bleek op 11 september 2001 bij de aanslag op het World Trade Centre en het Pentagon." (MeMo, geschiedenis)
crikey :sweatdrop:
"De Amerikanen stuurden een half miljoen soldaten om het Vietnamese communisme uit te roeien. (-) Wanneer de Amerikanen hoorden dat de (communistische) Vietcong zich in een bepaald dorp bevond, staken ze het in brand en schoten iedereen die ze aantroffen dood." (Indigo, geschiedenis)
"Het grootste succes van Gorbatsijov was dat hij een einde maakte aan de Koude Oorlog." (MeMo, geschiedenis)
"Niet iedereen was het met deze superieure houding van de Amerikanen eens. (-) Ook in het buitenland nam het verzet toe tegen de overheersende Amerikaanse principes. Dit bleek op 11 september 2001 bij de aanslag op het World Trade Centre en het Pentagon." (MeMo, geschiedenis)
I am offended! I am up in arms! Whatever these people are saying, I'm completely against it!
Except that, um, I don't read Dutch. Sorry. Translation for the Dutch-impaired?
It says that USA went to Vietnam not to fight but to extreminate, that you were pretty good at it, and that you burned all villages and executed all villagers when a vietcong soldier was found. (Yes that has happened, but here in Holland it happened every time). Also, Gorbatjov ended the cold war, and 9/11 happened bacause you are arroganty pricks that got what they deserved.
ok I took a few liberties here, but basicly that's it.
Kanamori
12-19-2006, 15:24
Frag's talkin about the vietnamese communists, vietcong doods, that we didn't kill.
Eh, or Frag would post before me:(
doc_bean
12-19-2006, 15:25
I am offended! I am up in arms! Whatever these people are saying, I'm completely against it!
Except that, um, I don't read Dutch. Sorry. Translation for the Dutch-impaired?
1. The Americans send half a million soldiers to exterminate communism in vietnam, when the Americans heard the Vietcong where hiding in a village they burned it down and killed everyone they found there.
2. Gorbatsijov ended the cold war
3. Not everyone agreed with the attitude of superiority of the americans - In foreign countries the resistence to the dominating American principles grew. This become apparent with the attacks of 9/11 against the WTC and the Pentagon.
EDIT: late but my translation is teh best
Kralizec
12-19-2006, 15:35
"Taarten in het gezicht van politici, ketchup over driedelig grijs, kogelbrieven bij het ontbijt: burgers zijn niet alleen actief in het stemhokje." (Impuls, maatschappijleer)
Well, that's the reality, isn't it? It doesn't say that any of those are good things.
"Door zijn scherpe opvattingen maakte Fortuyn veel tegenstanders. Dat werd hem uiteindelijk noodlottig." (Indigo, geschiedenis).
The truth isn't always pretty.
"De Amerikanen stuurden een half miljoen soldaten om het Vietnamese communisme uit te roeien. (-) Wanneer de Amerikanen hoorden dat de (communistische) Vietcong zich in een bepaald dorp bevond, staken ze het in brand en schoten iedereen die ze aantroffen dood." (Indigo, geschiedenis)
"Niet iedereen was het met deze superieure houding van de Amerikanen eens. (-) Ook in het buitenland nam het verzet toe tegen de overheersende Amerikaanse principes. Dit bleek op 11 september 2001 bij de aanslag op het World Trade Centre en het Pentagon." (MeMo, geschiedenis)
These two are bad though. Your site mentions that they're from HP/De Tijd. I'll see if I can find that particular issue in a library.
Well, that's the reality, isn't it? It doesn't say that any of those are good things.
They present those things as functional aspects of democracy, sure you see nothing wrong with it? 'burgers zijn niet alleen in het stemhokje actief'. Obvious enough for me, if the votes aren't convenient resort to plan b, intimidation and ultimatily violence. It's a clear hint at Fortuyn's assasination.
doc_bean
12-19-2006, 15:48
Honestly, context is everything. Some of our books had essays with controversial points in them, and we had to analyse them and debate them, they could have been taken from parts like that.
Kralizec
12-19-2006, 15:57
They present those things as functional aspects of democracy, sure you see nothing wrong with it? 'burgers zijn niet alleen in het stemhokje actief'. Obvious enough for me, if the votes aren't convenient resort to plan b, intimidation and ultimatily violence. It's a clear hint at Fortuyn's assasination.
Or it could just be a cynical take at the matter. Somehow I doubt the publisher of that book intended to convey the idea that death threats are an acceptable form of voter activism.
(side note, remember that Paul Rosemuller and his familiy also got death threats)
Of course some study books are going to be biased, and not just in the Netherlands.
Tribesman
12-19-2006, 16:00
So Doc , when you say.....
late but my translation is teh best
Are we to take it that what you put down is an accurate translation ?
Because if it is then Frags.....
ok I took a few liberties here, but basicly that's it.
Is one hell of an understatement .
Soooooo Frag are you lying again ?
You do realise that if you cannot make your point without resorting to falsehoods then you have no valid point to make ?
And as for............
We both know what they mean here,
from
to
is political activism. They should be arrested for calling for violence.
.............
Now despite the very tenous , or even non existant link between spattering a politician with food and shooting him in the head , do you not remember your post calling for violence against immigrants because you dodn't like your countries policies ?
Oh dear Frag , by your own standards you should be arrested :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
[QUOTE=Tribesman]
Because if it is then Frags.....
Is one hell of an understatement .
Soooooo Frag are you lying again ?
You do realise that if you cannot make your point without resorting to falsehoods then you have no valid point to make ?
[/B]
It won't score any points with perceptual memorygames, but the message is the same isn't it? Just a yummiefication from my part, as I said. What can I say I'm a poet.
Now despite the very tenous , or even non existant link between spattering a politician with food and shooting him in the head , do you not remember your post calling for violence against immigrants because you dodn't like your countries policies ?
No, probably because I never said that, what I did say when it seemed like riots were spreading to Rotterdam and that I'd be happy to go there and wash their ears. Which, if so, I was going to do, but alas the riots never happened. You still promised me something though.
have a few,
http://rebellyon.info/IMG/jpg/Ritalin.jpg
doc_bean
12-19-2006, 16:20
So Doc , when you say.....
Are we to take it that what you put down is an accurate translation ?
1 and 3 are reasonably accurate, 2 is a simplification but that doesn't really matter
That's what I thought, but then again I am less prone for psychotic episodes then iraboy here, the rabies got the better of him I guess.
Ser Clegane
12-19-2006, 16:36
:stop:
No more personal attacks and back to the topic please
Randarkmaan
12-19-2006, 17:02
The problem was he was proselytizing Christianity. If he was a Marxist and told some bourgeois kid he was going to hell, he might get away with it.
I don't see how that would have happened... anyway Marxists are atheists. I don't really see what's wrong with many people here, at once when someone has done something stupid who is not a leftist, liberal, black or muslim they immediately say that had he been leftist, liberal, black or muslim he would have been praised rather than critisized. What sort of bull is this? What makes so many people think that there is some sort of international leftist-liberal-black-muslim conspiracy which is blaming all the worlds problems on white conservative people? And what's so wrong with the idea stated in many text books and by many people that the world would be a little better if we learnt to get along? I know it's unlikely but it's a nice idea, it's just like having a goal of no deaths in the traffic, unlikely, but it's a nice goal.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-19-2006, 18:08
I've been reading Marx recently, he's a Christian Humanist, as well as a Communist.
For some reason the US has a problem with anything other than fundamentalist Christianity. That doesn't mean that there aren't other types of Christians but what is the odd minoriety here in Europe seems to be the norm in the US now.
The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury have both given the green-light to evolution. Why do Christians in the US have a problem with it. Even more so, why do they have a problem with the Big Bang.
Vuk, Nav, do you guys actually believe the world is only 6,000 years old.
Goofball
12-19-2006, 18:30
Or maybe the kid was a well-known, snotty pain in the ass (with a rich lawyer daddy) who's always trying to stir up trouble- as suggested by the comments in the article. Who knows? :shrug:
Dont mind me though- I don't want to get in the way of the witch-hunt... :sweatdrop:
There are tape recordings of this teacher preaching to his class when he is supposed to be teaching them history.
Don't mind them though. Wouldn't want them to infringe on your "Christians are oppressed victims" complex...
Don Corleone
12-19-2006, 18:31
Even the most biased and leading of polls place creationism and intelligent design adoption at ~35% here in the US. Ones that are somewhat more balanced and objective place it at about 15%. So yes, it probably has more of a following here in the US than it does in Europe, it's hardly a majority opinion. And just for the record, Navaros is Canadian.
Tribesman
12-19-2006, 20:00
1 and 3 are reasonably accurate, 2 is a simplification but that doesn't really matter
Thanks Doc , a nice demonstration of how the alteration or omission of a few words during translation can completely change what was originally written to suit the agenda of the translator .
So to recap ....The Americans send half a million soldiers to exterminate communism in vietnam....can become
It says that USA went to Vietnam not to fight but to extreminate.......if people are of a mind to change the meaning of what is written to suit their purposes .
Which ties in quite well with this topic about spouting from a very old heavily edited multiply translated book and claiming it as the absolute truth . Though of course this topic spreads into spouting it in an environment where the spouter is being paid to say something else entirely .
For some reason the US has a problem with anything other than fundamentalist Christianity. That doesn't mean that there aren't other types of Christians but what is the odd minoriety here in Europe seems to be the norm in the US now.
The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury have both given the green-light to evolution. Why do Christians in the US have a problem with it. Even more so, why do they have a problem with the Big Bang.
Vuk, Nav, do you guys actually believe the world is only 6,000 years old.
If it's not fundamentalist, it's not Christianity. It's apostasy. End of story.
The US is one of the last bastions of Christian population members who are not apostates.
The Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury are both apostates, and they have absolutely no legitimate connection to God or Christ.
Why legitimate Christians have a problem with evolution and the big bang is because it is contrary to what the Word of God declares to be true. In addition to being severely contrary to all sorts of other vital aspects of the Word of God apart from the "face value" discrepancies, ie: man's sin nature.
Remember, God and Jesus said that a friend of the world is not a friend of theirs. The world loves apostates who claim to be Christians. But the fact that the world has no problem with them is alone enough to prove that they are not really followers of Christ; since Christ himself said that the world will hate those who stay true to his teachings.
I do not know if the world is 6000 year old but it surely is a lot closer to 6000 than the malarkey time frames evolutionists would give.
IIRC Don Corleone's numbers in the above post are quite wrong as has been proven in a thread on this board a few months back that caused him to get very upset that apostates and secular humanists were starting to get outnumbered by Bible-believers.
Kralizec
12-19-2006, 21:54
You should buy a dictionary, Nav.
An apostate is someone who entirely gives up his faith. As such the Pope and the Archbishop can never be considered apostates. You might consider them heretics for holding corrupted beliefs. I doubt that they'd care, though.
And considering your beliefs in regards to Islam and Judaism, one might consider you a heretic as well.
You should buy a dictionary, Nav.
An apostate is someone who entirely gives up his faith. As such the Pope and the Archbishop can never be considered apostates. You might consider them heretics for holding corrupted beliefs. I doubt that they'd care, though.
The Pope and Archbishop have entirely given up their faith: they put the evil thoughts and desires of men ahead of what God said. Surely that is definitely giving up their faith in God and replacing it with faith in evil man himself. In addition to committing what the Bible says is the one unforgivable sin: turning the Word of God into a lie. This is exactly what the apostate church as described in the Bible consists of.
EDIT:
I just looked up heretic to be sure, it's a synonym of apostate. So I'll have to agree that in addition to being apostates, the Pope and Archbishop are also heretics.
Kralizec
12-19-2006, 22:05
Neither ever said that Genesis was a lie. They're just interpretating it differently. You can think that they're stretching the text, but neither denies the verity of the text itself.
If you were entirely consistent in what you think, you would label Muslims apostates as well- since the Qu'ran is basicly a rewrite (with some additions) of the Old and New Testaments.
Suit yourself, Nav. I hope that one day you're going to write your own dictionary. I'd buy one, it should be good for a few laughs.
Ser Clegane
12-19-2006, 22:14
:stop:
Calling members of certain branches of the Christian church apostates/heretics is not appropriate here.
If this further descends to bashing people with different views on Christianity than yours this thread will be closed and appropriate actions will be taken.
Thanks for your attention
:bow:
Goofball
12-19-2006, 22:20
:stop:
Calling members of certain branches of the Christian church apostates/heretics is not appropriate here.
If this further descends to bashing people with different views on Christianity than yours this thread will be closed and appropriate actions will be taken.
Thanks for your attention
:bow:
Burning at the stake?
:hide:
Sorry, couldn't resist. It's just something I never thought I would hear in an online gaming forum.
BTW, thanks for the new siggy.
:beam:
Tribesman
12-19-2006, 22:33
In addition to committing what the Bible says is the one unforgivable sin: turning the Word of God into a lie. This is exactly what the apostate church as described in the Bible consists of.
So Navaros , which bible is it you talk of when you talk of the Bible ?
You never have clarified which version of scripture it is that you think is the true one .
Is it the bible that was given to you by those "apostates" you condemn or is it a bible you have discovered all by yourself and kept hidden from the world ?:dizzy2:
Why legitimate Christians have a problem with evolution and the big bang is because it is contrary to what the Word of God declares to be true.
So since you are a legitimate Christian Nav do I take it that when you have a house that suffers from damp you get a preacher in to purify it with bird blood , or if you have a zit or boil do you go to an Aaronite priet and get put in isolation for 7 days ?
If not then you are an apostate for being contrary to the word of god :yes:
Watchman
12-19-2006, 22:37
Maybe I'm thinking of this too simply, but doesn't the denial of evolution more or less require the denial of the entire heredity principle - which it so happens is both readily observable and been used by people for millenia to mold domestic animals and plants alike to their purposes...?
Always kinda wondered about that.
Ser Clegane
12-19-2006, 22:47
Burning at the stake?
:thinking:
I'll have to check with Tosa if he could add that to the moderators' toolbox...
Kralizec
12-19-2006, 22:49
Maybe I'm thinking of this too simply, but doesn't the denial of evolution more or less require the denial of the entire heredity principle - which it so happens is both readily observable and been used by people for millenia to mold domestic animals and plants alike to their purposes...?
Always kinda wondered about that.
Well domestic animals like dogs, cats and even cows (I think) are still interbreedable with their wild ancestors. Till that changes I'm not sure if we can talk about different species. When we can, however...
What's silly (IMO) is the belief that the Earth is a measly 6,000 years old, and the implicit or explicit denial of prehistoric peoples.
Watchman
12-19-2006, 22:55
And dinosaurs. Do the cads not have a thought for the kids, who're smitten with those cool critters ?
Well domestic animals like dogs, cats and even cows (I think) are still interbreedable with their wild ancestors. Till that changes I'm not sure if we can talk about different species. When we can, however...
Why not? We can see genetic codes are clearly heriditary and carry information. Sooner or later they will be so different as to prevent cross-breeding, at least usually. Therefore different species. I'm not sure there is any sensible way to argue against that, at all.
Watchman
12-19-2006, 22:59
That's what I was referring to. Since evolution of living things is basically a side effect of heredity, it would seem to me refusing one would basically require also dumping the other more or less per definition.
Papewaio
12-19-2006, 23:21
I do not know if the world is 6000 year old but it surely is a lot closer to 6000 than the malarkey time frames evolutionists would give.
Its not evolutionists who have figured out the age of the Earth. It was geologists and then later on refinements in physics and chemistry that lead to even more accurate analysis of the Earths age. Geophysicists are pretty happy with the age measurements and they are a lot older then 6000 years old.
Add to that what astronomers figured out what the age of the universe is. Add more refinements from Astrophysics and the age of the solar system is for all intent and purposes the age of the Earth. A lot of this was figured out after we understood nuclear fusion far better and then the results in B^2FH paper. So we can figure out the age of stars.
The size of the galaxy alone being 100,000 light years across... meaning just to see the other edge of from our position would take 80,000 years... puts a minimum age of our galaxy at that... which well and truly beats 6000 years. Then add in further afield galaxies that we can see and the minimum age of the universe increases.
So from stellar nucleosynthesis we know our star is at least a third generation one. That is because we have elements heavier then iron. We know that it is a typical star of its size (main sequence) and hence it is about 4,570,000,000 years. The Earth formed out of the same solar nebula hence we know it is of the same age category.
So astronomers, astrophysicists, geologists, geophysicists and run of the mill physicists have all determined in one way or another that the age of the Earth is significantly more then 6000 years old.
Not biologists.
For some reason the US has a problem with anything other than fundamentalist Christianity. That doesn't mean that there aren't other types of Christians but what is the odd minoriety here in Europe seems to be the norm in the US now.
The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury have both given the green-light to evolution. Why do Christians in the US have a problem with it. Even more so, why do they have a problem with the Big Bang.
Hi Wigferth,
Your question is more properly addressed to Evangelical Protestantism rather than a larger label Christian*. Evangelicalism is doctrinally most often part of Reformed Christianity. This means notions like sola fides and sola scirptura are stresses. The rhetoric of sola scriptura is important because it serves as a counter to the traditional claims of say Catholicism to having ecclesiastical authority. It also means the scriptural text (The Bible) is taken as complete and untainted revelation. This is where notions of inerrancy (meaning without error) derive. Thus, reference to a six day creative period can be taken at face value.
Evolution as a mid-Nineteenth Century innovation is seen as a direct attack on the Divine Creative impulse where man was formed complete and in relation with God until the advent of Original Sin and the Fall. The Fall is understood as the issuing in of death: man and creation became mortal. Evolution has death as a critical function of natural selection, which applies to all organisms, is thus incompatible with a Divine Order that was once pristine and complete.
*Though interestingly Evangelicals will often refer to themselves as Christian to the exclusion of any other sect of Christianity.
Soulforged
12-20-2006, 00:38
The problem was he was proselytizing Christianity. If he was a Marxist and told some bourgeois kid he was going to hell, he might get away with it.
LOL- You silly anticommunist, if you knew your enemy well you'll know that marxists hate the idea of hell as much as they hate the bourgoisy. If the teacher was an actual marxist he wouldn't be teaching at all, what you describe is just hate without ideas, like all the nonsense that this teacher allegedly spouted.
Louis VI the Fat
12-20-2006, 01:28
in addition to being apostates, the Pope and Archbishop are also heretics.If there's any sort of benevolent God, he'll reserve a private part of heaven for you alone...just so you'll never ever find out about all those other Christians who made it to heaven too. ~:)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-20-2006, 01:35
Hi Wigferth,
Your question is more properly addressed to Evangelical Protestantism rather than a larger label Christian*. Evangelicalism is doctrinally most often part of Reformed Christianity. This means notions like sola fides and sola scirptura are stresses. The rhetoric of sola scriptura is important because it serves as a counter to the traditional claims of say Catholicism to having ecclesiastical authority. It also means the scriptural text (The Bible) is taken as complete and untainted revelation. This is where notions of inerrancy (meaning without error) derive. Thus, reference to a six day creative period can be taken at face value.
Evolution as a mid-Nineteenth Century innovation is seen as a direct attack on the Divine Creative impulse where man was formed complete and in relation with God until the advent of Original Sin and the Fall. The Fall is understood as the issuing in of death: man and creation became mortal. Evolution has death as a critical function of natural selection, which applies to all organisms, is thus incompatible with a Divine Order that was once pristine and complete.
*Though interestingly Evangelicals will often refer to themselves as Christian to the exclusion of any other sect of Christianity.
Uh okay, that makes it slightly clearer. To be honest though as a moderate Arian Christian I'm not impressed by the arguement. Just because the Bible is perfect (which I don't believe) that doesn't mean it all has to be taken litterally.
If the Bible is just litteral (six days) then that makes it pointless. It means you never have to think about what you are reading, where is the understanding? It's God just appearing and saying "believe or else." If he does that faith becomes irrelevant.
I would contend that the Bible cannot be taken litterally.
The Pope and Archbishop have entirely given up their faith: they put the evil thoughts and desires of men ahead of what God said. Surely that is definitely giving up their faith in God and replacing it with faith in evil man himself. In addition to committing what the Bible says is the one unforgivable sin: turning the Word of God into a lie. This is exactly what the apostate church as described in the Bible consists of.
Or perhaps they are more tollerant and forgiving of the faults of the world and try to gently correct them, rather than launching a crusade.
Uh okay, that makes it slightly clearer. To be honest though as a moderate Arian Christian I'm not impressed by the arguement. Just because the Bible is perfect (which I don't believe) that doesn't mean it all has to be taken litterally.
The tension with evolution is not the literalness per say, but the notion that pre-Fall death could occur.
If the Bible is just litteral (six days) then that makes it pointless. It means you never have to think about what you are reading, where is the understanding? It's God just appearing and saying "believe or else." If he does that faith becomes irrelevant.
I would contend that the Bible cannot be taken litterally.
Not all Evangelicals are complete literalists. Inerrantists would argue the text is without error. This doesn't mean analogies and metaphor don't exist. Even so, a penchant for literalism seems more common than not.
Dear diary, they just don't understand me
Actually, the correct translation would have been 'to whipe out'. Been nice here.
macsen rufus
12-20-2006, 15:00
Oh, well, I was about to say what Papewaio said (though less eloquently than he did). To rule out evolution and rule in a 6,000 yr old earth also requires such things as the speed of light, radioactive decay, plate tectonics, and other DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE AND VERIFIABLE PHYSICAL PROCESSES to be discounted. The only option is to believe that "God" is a consumate deceiver, that he created the world so that in the short term things work, but he fixed the books on the past. Not a great reference for an entity propounded as the only source of truth. I thought it was The Other Guy who was supposed to be the Great Deceiver :devil:
I was also under the impression that the Fall/Original Sin theology derived from Augustine, rather than the Bible itself, and have been far more impressed by the "Original Blessing" / Creation Theology championed by theologians like Matthew Fox, which he makes a very good case for being a suppressed and more original theology of the Christian tradition.
But what really bugs me about the literalist/fundamentalist mindset is that it is so anti-intellectual, encouraging people to discount science as "anti-Biblical", to rule out any validity for rational investigation of the universe and effectively neutralising any attempt at education and rejoicing in the resulting ignorance. That's why I believe creationism and its mutant offspring "Intelligent Design" deserve no place in the schoolroom.
Don Corleone
12-20-2006, 15:51
IIRC Don Corleone's numbers in the above post are quite wrong as has been proven in a thread on this board a few months back that caused him to get very upset that apostates and secular humanists were starting to get outnumbered by Bible-believers.
I got upset because of the way the polling question was asked and the way the answers were interpreted. They asked Americans a leading question that did not directly point to evolution or creationism, and from the answers, they drew the erroneous conclusion that 65% of Americans believe in the 6 day creation story. The point of the poll, and the thread itself was not that Americans were particularly evangelical. It was how ignorant and stupid Americans as a whole are.
Folks, I urge you to remember that evangelicals such as Navaros do not have a particluarly universal view of Christianity. Anybody that disagrees with a strict literal interpretation of the bible or that disagrees with what their particular pastor teaches on ANYTHING isn't welcome and they don't view the rest of us as Christian. So when Navaros says something like 'All Christians agree with me', in his view he is correct, as none of the rest of us qualify, BECAUSE we disagree with him, and there's only about 40 Christians out there. Fred Phelps and Dr. James Dobson BARELY qualify....
How come you never answer people on other literal interpretations Navaros? I'm getting a little tired of you skulking in here, firing off a missle attacking everyone who doesn't subscribe to your limited world view, then refusing to answer rebuttals. Do you actually stone your neighbor to death if he sleeps with his wife after she's had her period but before she's ritually cleansed herself in the Jordan? You've been asked time and time again about those portions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy that you choose not to cite, as apparently they don't suit your purposes, and to be honest, your silence is very telling.
I swear, "Christians" such as yourself, so full of anger and intolerance, you miss the whole point. Reminds me of a funny joke:
On one particular morning, a bunch of newly deceased souls arrive at the pearly gates. St. Peter welcomes them all heartily and leads them all over to a tour bus. He ushers them on and begins a tour of Heaven. He drives along the road and the riders see a large mansion. Hundreds of people cavort and dance in the front yard. Wine and beer are abundant, but nobody appears to be out of control. St. Peter explains that's where the Catholics live. He continues driving along the road. They come to a large beautiful golf course. It seems every golfer hits a hole in one, every time he swings a club. St. Peter explains that's where the Presbytarians live. At the next stop, there is a huge picnic with blankets all scattered around. St. Peter explains that's where the Methodists live. As the bus crests a hill, St. Peter shuts the bus off and coasts down the hill. He whispers loudly that nobody is to make a sound. Halfway down the hill, they pass an eerily quiet southern mansion. People walk quietly about the grounds, and they have a bit of a dour look. Once past, St. Peter starts the bus and begins driving again. One of the riders asks what the last place, with all the taciturn folks was. St. Peter giggles and explains that's where the evangelicals live. He continues with "We have to hide from them. If they knew anybody else was here, they'd leave!" :laugh4:
Usually it's navaros that is being attacked, ask his opinion and you know what you are going to get. Doesn't really offend me as a protestant-light by the way, and if our pressence offended him he probably wouldn't be here. I grew up in the dutch biblebelt, there are many people that think like Navaros there, kinda got used to it. The guy is serious about his religion.
Kralizec
12-20-2006, 16:08
I haven't met a lot of people who are so deeply religious, but those I did weren't self-righteous and smug about their beliefs. There are a few (moderate) christians I sometimes talk with about religious stuff, but I can't imagine a conversation with Navaros in real life without me leaving the room halfway.
Don Corleone
12-20-2006, 16:11
Well, when somebody calls me a heretic, because I focus on the message of love and forgiveness that Christ preached, I feel a need to defend myself. You're right of couse, Fragony, that at the end of the day, Navaros probably pities all of us. It seems like there's some anger there too, but I imagine it's mostly pity. I'm sure he thinks he's doing the right thing, and I can appreciate that. Sorry Navaros, Fragony's right... I should learn to try to just take what you have to say at face value. ~:cheers: (don't worry, that's grape juice in there).
I haven't met a lot of people who are so deeply religious, but those I did weren't self-righteous and smug about their beliefs. There are a few (moderate) christians I sometimes talk with about religious stuff, but I can't imagine a conversation with Navaros in real life without me leaving the room halfway.
Well if you are ever close to Barneveld, steer clear then, you wouldn't believe it :beam:
Louis VI the Fat
12-20-2006, 16:26
Well seeing as how everybody is jumping at Navaros somebody's got to say something in his favour as well: to me, his beliefs certainly don't make any less sense than generally held ideas such as bread turning into human flesh and wine into blood by blessing it; a vaguely humanoid entity creating the entire universe by sheer willpower; three being really one.
In fact, he often simply carries widely held theological beliefs to their logical conclusion.
To me, he differs from mainstream Christians mostly in that the latter are more at ease with those of different persuasion, and more at peace with the material world around them. (Navaros, sometimes you sound almost Manichean in this last respect...)
Reenk Roink
12-20-2006, 17:04
To rule out evolution and rule in a 6,000 yr old earth also requires such things as the speed of light, radioactive decay, plate tectonics, and other DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE AND VERIFIABLE PHYSICAL PROCESSES to be discounted.
And this is really how the creationists should proceed... :idea:
Skeptical arguments about the material world are powerful, and would be a much more devastating critique of current scientific theories than what is being offered.
I was also under the impression that the Fall/Original Sin theology derived from Augustine, rather than the Bible itself...
Hi Macsen rufus,
That is correct. Original Sin is a product of St. Augustine and thereby the early Fifth Century. Recall the Reformers were heavily influenced by St. Augustine: Luther had been an Augustinian monk. Bucer, Calvin etc. followed in Luther's basic footsteps. Augustine, as filtered through Luther and/or Calvin, typically serves as the theological backdrop through which the Bible is understood for Evangelical Christians. Most Evangelicals I've met are not familiar with the larger Christian Theological Tradition.
Well, when somebody calls me a heretic, because I focus on the message of love and forgiveness that Christ preached, I feel a need to defend myself.
Heretic!
Skeptical arguments about the material world are powerful, and would be a much more devastating critique of current scientific theories than what is being offered.
Most are unfamiliar with Hume's work.
Tribesman
12-20-2006, 20:26
I must wonder further , since Navaros is once again reluctant to answer simple questions about his very strong and vocal beliefs , perhaps a simpler one might get a response .
So Nav , do you believe the theories of geocentric astronomy , as proven beyond doubt according to scripture by God making the sun stand still ?:inquisitive:
I haven't met a lot of people who are so deeply religious, but those I did weren't self-righteous and smug about their beliefs. There are a few (moderate) christians I sometimes talk with about religious stuff, but I can't imagine a conversation with Navaros in real life without me leaving the room halfway.
I know a few very religious christians who have similar views to Navaros, and they're very nice people, even when talking about religion they are forceful, but very polite and mannered, although they obviously disapprove of my lack of belief.
Reenk Roink
12-20-2006, 21:23
Most are unfamiliar with Hume's work.
Well, true, and considering Hume's attack on religion, creationists would be reluctant to use his arguments anyway.
But they can look other places; Bishop Berkeley would be a perfect fit.
Well, true, and considering Hume's attack on religion, creationists would be reluctant to use his arguments anyway.
But they can look other places; Bishop Berkeley would be a perfect fit.
The bugger with the British empiricists is opting for one of the earlier versions points you on the way to Hume. Perhaps, a better option would be Bergson's philosophical critique of evolution. It doesn't require an idealistic appeal or a rabid skepticism.
Meneldil
12-20-2006, 23:10
The teacher is totally right.
Contrary to "popular belief", it's a teacher's job to teach the truth, not propagate the kids' minds with total horse manure which "evolution" and "the big bang" are.
"Teaching" evolution and the big bang are prosletyzing unfounded propaganda nonsense, and that is fundamentally wrong.
About time someone took a stand to end that crap.
Kudos to David Paszkiewicz! :2thumbsup:
I've been lurking in this forum for like 2 years, and I still don't know if Navaros is talking seriously, or just trolling for the fun of it.
Papewaio
12-21-2006, 00:23
I must wonder further , since Navaros is once again reluctant to answer simple questions about his very strong and vocal beliefs , perhaps a simpler one might get a response .
So Nav , do you believe the theories of geocentric astronomy , as proven beyond doubt according to scripture by God making the sun stand still ?:inquisitive:
Just to annoy both of you... Inertial Frame of Reference a la Relativity. :2thumbsup: :laugh4:
Reenk Roink
12-21-2006, 01:52
It doesn't require an idealistic appeal or a rabid skepticism.
Where's the fun in that then? :grin2:
macsen rufus
12-21-2006, 12:46
I've been lurking in this forum for like 2 years, and I still don't know if Navaros is talking seriously, or just trolling for the fun of it.
Same here - it's the "light blue touch-paper and retire" style that makes me wonder..... :beam:
Rameusb5
12-21-2006, 21:18
Since when did getting a teaching certificate count as a license to teach whatever the hell you want? This guy should be fired immediately. I could care less what the "community" thinks. I grew up in a small mid-western town where a lot of people looked the other way as history teachers taught straight out of the Bible instead of the textbook. I actually had one teacher (chemistry) disrupt his own curriculum to rant about how the history teach tought evolution even though he was REQUIRED BY LAW to do so. Thanks for wasting my time. Thanks also for brainwashing yet another generation in thinking that there could only possibly be one answer, so why bother trying to explore the world around you at all? Try doing your job instead. It's why we pay you.
If you want your kids to learn about religion, take them to church. There are plenty to choose from. But school is mandatory for kids and should NOT be used as a forum to spread your own personal beliefs, no matter HOW right you happen to think you are.
I'm really getting sick of people who take side with a wrongdoer simply because they approve of his message. I wonder how they'd feel if the teacher had said that Islam was the true faith and all Christians were going to hell? The way I see it, it's EXACTLY the same thing.
Louis VI the Fat
12-21-2006, 22:15
I could care less what the "community" thinks.On a completely different side-note:
I could care less
I couldn't care less
I hear and read both versions. Logically, 'I could care less' makes no sense, it means you care a lot. Yet I see it so often it is probably not a mistake. Nor does anybody ever seem confused about it, or tries to correct either one. Apparently, rather than meaning the opposite, both have the exact same meaning of 'I don't care'.
Why is that? Why is that? Why is that? http://matousmileys.free.fr/tr35.gif
Is it yet another Anglosaxon plot to confuse foreigners? A prank that you're all in? From Alaska to England to New Zealand? Just another one of those genetic designed linguistical defects of the English language, where opposites can mean the same and the same often can mean the exact opposite?
http://matousmileys.free.fr/headbang.gif
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-22-2006, 00:01
On a completely different side-note:
I could care less
I couldn't care less
I hear and read both versions. Logically, 'I could care less' makes no sense, it means you care a lot. Yet I see it so often it is probably not a mistake. Nor does anybody ever seem confused about it, or tries to correct either one. Apparently, rather than meaning the opposite, both have the exact same meaning of 'I don't care'.
Why is that? Why is that? Why is that? http://matousmileys.free.fr/tr35.gif
Is it yet another Anglosaxon plot to confuse foreigners? A prank that you're all in? From Alaska to England to New Zealand? Just another one of those genetic designed linguistical defects of the English language, where opposites can mean the same and the same often can mean the exact opposite?
http://matousmileys.free.fr/headbang.gif
No, it's an idiotic type from people who speak English and are lazy. They do not mean the same thing but if I piped up every time I'd get a reputation as an arsehole.
It's the same as "could of" instead of "could have." Learn to scan over it and read it as "Couldn't care less."
Pannonian
12-22-2006, 01:20
On a completely different side-note:
I could care less
I couldn't care less
I hear and read both versions. Logically, 'I could care less' makes no sense, it means you care a lot. Yet I see it so often it is probably not a mistake. Nor does anybody ever seem confused about it, or tries to correct either one. Apparently, rather than meaning the opposite, both have the exact same meaning of 'I don't care'.
Why is that? Why is that? Why is that? http://matousmileys.free.fr/tr35.gif
Is it yet another Anglosaxon plot to confuse foreigners? A prank that you're all in? From Alaska to England to New Zealand? Just another one of those genetic designed linguistical defects of the English language, where opposites can mean the same and the same often can mean the exact opposite?
http://matousmileys.free.fr/headbang.gif
As the properly civilised peoples in the British Commonwealth know, the correct phrase is "couldn't care less", meaning the speaker cares so little about the subject that it is not possible for him to care any less than he already does. However, we forgive the Americans for making this mistake as English is a foreign language to them, since they've been separated from civilisation for over 200 years. There may be plans to invade the Americas and bring culture to these benighted peoples if our government can spare some time, but I doubt it, since we British simply couldn't care less.
Louis VI the Fat
12-22-2006, 02:17
Ah, so both mean the same. 'Couldn't' is the proper form in the Commonwealth and both could and couldn't are correct, at least: used, in the US. It's mainly an American vs Commonwealth English thingy then?
Naturally, I'll stay clear of any debate about preferences of Commonwealth over US English - I couldn't care less which is English proper.
I will use both when adressing Americans and make sure to use couldn't in all other instances. (Or rather, I won't as there's no way I'll remember this six months from now...)
if I piped up every time I'd get a reputation as an arsehole.Hehe, if you 'piped' everytime over here you'd get quite a different reputation...and not for sucking on a pipe. :beam:
Louis VI the Fat
12-22-2006, 02:22
Wait! This just in: there's more (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/001182.html) to it than American carelessnes!
English-language prescriptivism has always had a solid admixture of anti-Americanism. Yet the Oxford English Dictionary has allowed 'could care less' since 1966, and for good reason. The melodies and stresses are completely different. 'Could care less' is not illogical, it's sarcastic:
Caring less with stress
I thought I had already broken the ultimate taboo, but it turns out that there were some depths yet to be explored. Believe it or not, I'm about to defend Richard Lederer against Steven Pinker.
In a recent Language Log post, Eric Bakovic gives Lederer a hard time for asserting that people who say I could care less are being illogical.
Eric's first argument is that since people use this form just about as often as I couldn't care less, Norma Loquendi has spoken, and we need to listen. I agree with Eric up to this point. Eric offers some Google counts in support: the two phrases are about equally frequent. In an earlier posting here, Chris Potts listed I could care less as an example of the "handful of English constructions in which, quite surprisingly, one can add or remove a negation without change of meaning", and he took it for granted that this is just a usage to explain, not an error in logic.
Speaking for myself, I don't take this to be a point of principle, that whatever is said or written reasonably often must ipso facto be part of the language.. Especially where negation is involved, there are plenty of common mistakes, like fail to miss used to mean "miss", or no X is too Y to ignore used to mean "no X is so Y that one should ignore it." It can be a complicated question, conceptually and practically, to decide whether such cases are constructions, fixed expressions, idioms or whatever, as opposed to natural mistakes that people often make in using a psychologically difficult combination of elements and structures. This is partly a question of linguistic analysis, and partly a question of psychological interpretation, and partly a question of social norms. In any case, the categories of "mistake" and "English expression" are obviously overlapping, psychologically, historically and socially.
However, I don't think there's much question at all about could care less, which has clearly become a well-accepted colloquial expression in contemporary American English. This conclusion can claim the sanction of the OED, which gives sense 4 of care as
4. In negative and conditional construction: a. not to care passes from the notion of ‘not to trouble oneself’, to those of ‘not to mind, not to regard or pay any deference or attention, to pay no respect, be indifferent’.
and then among the various subtypes listed (e.g. care a button or a fig) comes eventually to the specific phrase in question,
(c) Colloq. phr. (I, etc.) couldn't care less: (I am, etc.) completely uninterested, utterly indifferent; freq. as phr. used attrib. Hence couldn't-care-less-ness.
for which the earliest citation is from 1946, and then gives an explicit listing to the unnegated form:
(d) U.S. colloq. phr. (I, etc.) could care less = sense (c) above, with omission of negative.
1966 Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1 Nov. 21/2 My husband is a lethargic, indecisive guy who drifts along from day to day. If a bill doesn't get paid he could care less.
1973 Washington Post 5 Jan. B1/1 A few crusty-souled Republican senators who could care less about symbolic rewards.
1978 J. CARROLL Mortal Friends III. iii. 281 ‘I hate sneaking past your servants in the morning.’ ‘They know, anyway. They could care less. Thornton mistreats them horribly.’
with a first citation a mere 20 years later. The OED does tell us that (I, etc.) could care less is a "colloq. phr." -- but so is (I, etc.) couldn't care less. The only difference is that (I, etc.) could care less is a "U.S. colloq. phr."
This is not much of a difference for Lederer to hang his hat on, but then English-language prescriptivism has always had a solid admixture of anti-Americanism.
OK, so far, so good. Eric, Chris, Google, the OED and I are all in agreement.
But Lederer is not off Eric's hook yet. Eric points out that Steven Pinker has written about could care less, both in The Language Instinct and in a 1994 New Republic article. The crucial Pinkerian passage is this:
A tin ear for stress and melody, and an obliviousness to the principles of discourse and rhetoric, are important tools of the trade for the language maven. Consider an alleged atrocity committed by today's youth: the expression I could care less. The teenagers are trying to express disdain, the adults note, in which case they should be saying I couldn't care less. If they could care less than they do, that means that they really do care, the opposite of what they are trying to say. But if these dudes would stop ragging on teenagers and scope out the construction, they would see that their argument is bogus. Listen to how the two versions are pronounced:
COULDN'T care I
LE CARE
i ESS. LE
could ESS.
The melodies and stresses are completely different, and for a good reason. The second version is not illogical, it's sarcastic.
(By the way, could care less is hardly used only by "today's youth" -- the authors of the OED's 1966 and 1973 citations are presumably old and gray by now, if they are even still alive.)
As Eric says,
...this hypothesis has the added advantage of not insulting the intelligence of the half of the population that uses the allegedly incorrect form. (The only thing missing is independent evidence that the same intonational distinction holds of other sarcastic-nonsarcastic utterance pairs; Pinker also does not cite any sources for this claim, unlike many other claims made and discussed in the book.)
But unfortunately, that's not the only thing missing. Pinker doesn't provide any evidence that the claimed difference in stress and/or pitch is actually used to distinguish these phrases, or that it would have the asserted effect on interpretation if it did. And unfortunately for this otherwise neat hypothesis, I'm fairly confident that (a) the two phrases are not generally distinguished prosodically as Pinker asserts they are; and that (b) the cited prosodic difference would not as a general rule yield the asserted (sarcastic vs. non-sarcastic) difference in interpretation.
I promise to examine the examples in some conversational speech corpora to evaluate (a), and show you all the pitch tracks. And I'll say more later about (b), and how to evaluate claims like this. For now you'll just have to take my word for it , or rather, take note that I disagree with Pinker's analysis. But I've put in some time working on the analysis and synthesis of English intonation, and I'm fairly confident that Pinker is stretching a bit here, as Tom Sawyer might have said.
Whatever the origin of I could care less -- and it's as likely to have to been confusion about negation as sarcasm -- by now, it's just an expression. And as Eric hints, grammar anti-mavens may also sometimes try to make us believe something false just by asserting it.
It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Lederer has never bothered to read Pinker's account of the alleged intonational disambiguous of could care less. But if he had read it, the kindest thing might have been just not to mention it, as indeed he didn't.
As the properly civilised peoples in the British Commonwealth know, the correct phrase is "couldn't care less", meaning the speaker cares so little about the subject that it is not possible for him to care any less than he already does. However, we forgive the Americans for making this mistake as English is a foreign language to them, since they've been separated from civilisation for over 200 years.
The propriety of grammar or idiomatic expression is determined by the nation with the larger GNP.
Pannonian
12-22-2006, 04:35
The propriety of grammar or idiomatic expression is determined by the nation with the larger GNP.
Then I suppose in 50 years time you'll be looking in the Beijing English Dictionary or Zhang's Modern English Usage for the correct usage of the English language.
I think I'll stick to English as spoken by the English.
Then I suppose in 50 years time you'll be looking in the Beijing English Dictionary or Zhang's Modern English Usage for the correct usage of the English language.
Such does nothing for Albion
I think I'll stick to English as spoken by the English.
Very provincial of you.
macsen rufus
12-22-2006, 11:00
I think if you borrow someone else's language the least you can do is look after it and not give it back all mangled and mispelt. If it was the lawnmower you'd borrowed and snafu-ed there would be no neighbourhood barbecue at the weekend! ~;)
Hey, Louis - if English was logical then "flammable" and "inflammable" would be antonyms :beam: Just remember, English syntax and grammar were developed during our early history as a secret weapon to weed out spies and infiltrators.... (anyone that can get it right MUST be a foreigner who's studied too hard :laugh4: )
Pannonian
12-22-2006, 11:30
I think if you borrow someone else's language the least you can do is look after it and not give it back all mangled and mispelt. If it was the lawnmower you'd borrowed and snafu-ed there would be no neighbourhood barbecue at the weekend! ~;)
Hey, Louis - if English was logical then "flammable" and "inflammable" would be antonyms :beam: Just remember, English syntax and grammar were developed during our early history as a secret weapon to weed out spies and infiltrators.... (anyone that can get it right MUST be a foreigner who's studied too hard :laugh4: )
So that's why they hanged that monkey.
Pannonian
12-22-2006, 18:19
The propriety of grammar or idiomatic expression is determined by the nation with the larger GNP.
Thinking about it, there may be some substance to this assertion. English, as spoken by the Indian upper class, retains some archaisms that were present in the 19th century, but which have disappeared or changed in English English during the 20th century. One could say Indian English is the purer form, while English English is the bastardised version. Certainly cricket reports from India have a Wodehousian quality to them that seems quaint to modern English eyes.
Thinking about it, there may be some substance to this assertion. English, as spoken by the Indian upper class, retains some archaisms that were present in the 19th century, but which have disappeared or changed in English English during the 20th century. One could say Indian English is the purer form, while English English is the bastardised version. Certainly cricket reports from India have a Wodehousian quality to them that seems quaint to modern English eyes.
I've heard the same. Several journalists I know actually prefer to read Indian and Pakistani papers precisely because of the preserved quality.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-22-2006, 21:14
I would like to think that my English remains as free of Americanisms as possible, sadly despite my best efforts even I am not as pure as I would wish.
I have an agreement with a friend of mine, she picks me up on my Americanisms and I apolagise and slip back into Home Counties English.
With America its not the pronounciation or grammar so much as the spelling. "Favour" is spelt that way for a reason. "our" represents something halfway between "er" and "ar." If Americans really wanted to pronounce it phonetically why do they spell it "favor" instead of "favar" or "faver?"
Still at least it allows the English, Canadians and Australians to make fun of you chaps.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.