Taliban America

Interesting article

So, evidently, a teacher is forbidden to speak up against religious fanaticism? Reminds me of the taliban regime...

I would understand the verdict if the teacher had pissed on the bible, however, in this case he only spoke up for science.

Quote:

---

James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, referred to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 classroom lecture

---

To be honest, you could ask pretty much any serious scientist and they would say the same.

Anyway, it was a sad day for science indeed... I cant believe the court ruled against him

That's just everyday America. Only place in the Western Civilized World where people are condemned for not being publicly religious.

Uhm......

Freedom of speech...? :dizzy2:

Freedom of speech becomes a bit of a sticky issue when you're taking government money teaching in the government's schools. This is a ridiculous case, admittedly, but when you take Caesar's gold you have to abide by Caesar's rules.

An interesting question, though—when a religious tenet directly contradicts science, should a public teacher be allowed to say that the untrue is untrue? Can biology be taught to a Christian Scientist's child? May a geology teacher tell a young earth creationist the correct date of planet formation?

Maybe this guy got in trouble because he was a jerk about it. That's often the case. When you see a silly lawsuit, it's safe to assume there's a jerk somewhere.

This was a history teacher. And if you even skim the article, you see he apparently singled out one student.

Freedom of speech includes freedom of religion - and that means the government not bashing or attacking one religion.

Quote:

---

"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."

Click here to read a follow-up story that analyzes the judge's decision from a constitutional law perspective.

In a December 2007 lawsuit, Farnan, then a sophomore, accused Corbett of repeatedly promoting hostility toward Christians in class and advocating "irreligion over religion" in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

---

Saying he's not allowed to speak about creationism is BS. He's a public employee, so that means he can't attack a religion for no reason. If he was a science teacher and was saying Creationism went against established science, that'd be something.

Quote:

---

"Americans aren't civilized. They are barbarians."

---

Indeed. Ever since we started the modern democratic revolution, whilst Europe was ruled by despots.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

That's just everyday America. Only place in the Western Civilized World where people are condemned for not being publicly religious.

---

And yet, for some reason, our former president was routinely condemned for being publicly religious. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

As I always say "Americans aren't civilized. They are barbarians."

---

We are full of people who were either rejected by Europe or unhappy with where civilized Europe was taking them. What else would you expect? Wouldn't have it any other way. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

This was a history teacher. And if you even skim the article, you see he apparently singled out one student.

---

Thus confirming my "jerk" theory.

I'm very happy that I won't be teaching history in that place. Because, if that subject comes up(randomly or whatever), I'm going to respond just like this guy.

And I will most certainly bash religion(or said in another way, I will speak my mind on the subject), public employee or not. But I won't be punished for it ~:)

Gentlemen,

Please do not feed the troll.

Thank you Lemur, drone and Crazed Rabbit for responding in a constructive manner to a rather inflammatory thread title and opening post.

I would appreciate similar levels of wisdom from all participants if this thread is to remain open.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Lemur,

Quote:

---

Freedom of speech becomes a bit of a sticky issue when you're taking government money teaching in the government's schools. This is a ridiculous case, admittedly, but when you take Caesar's gold you have to abide by Caesar's rules.

---

It's a SCHOOL, the teacher should focus on teaching scientifical theorys, not religious dogma, no?

Quote:

---

An interesting question, though—when a religious tenet directly contradicts science, should a public teacher be allowed to say that the untrue is untrue? Can biology be taught to a Christian Scientist's child? May a geology teacher tell a young earth creationist the correct date of planet formation?

---

I fail to see how that is an interesting question? Of course a teacher should state that the untrue is untrue... and a teacher should also of course tell a young earth creationist the correct date of our planet.

If not, you'be in what the topic refer to as "Taliban America", or am I wrong?

Quote:

---

Maybe this guy got in trouble because he was a jerk about it. That's often the case. When you see a silly lawsuit, it's safe to assume there's a jerk somewhere.

---

This may be true. However, we don't know if the student was the jerk or the teacher. We only know what the verdict was, and what he got sentenced for. So that is the topic, speculation about who was a jerk must unfortunately remain speculation unless someone has more info?



Crazed Rabbit,

Quote:

---

Freedom of speech includes freedom of religion - and that means the government not bashing or attacking one religion.

---

Then you have to define "bashing or attacking". To state that the bible is wrong, is that bashing? is it an attack? Schools are, at least over here in Europe meant to transmit scientifical education to the students. If that means attacking religion where it#s obviosly flawed (like; creationism) then do so by all means.

If the teacher had said that there are no God and anyone believing so is retarded, then I would have agreed he did very wrong. However, he only attacked creationism. And creationism is in my eyes a fair target for a teacher responcible for educating the young generation.

Banquo's Ghost, is a troll someone who doesnt bring anything to the debate?

He could have said it in a different way. He could have mentioned the theory of creationism and then the theory of evolution. He could have used it as an example to point out the sometimes problematic relationship and the contradictions between religion and science and leave it up to his pupils to form their own opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

a 20-year teacher

---

Children teaching children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

He could have said it in a different way. He could have mentioned the theory of creationism and then the theory of evolution. He could have used it as an example to point out the sometimes problematic relationship and the contradictions between religion and science and leave it up to his pupils to form their own opinion.



Children teaching children?

---

please note creationism is not a valid scientific theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Children teaching children?

---

That means he has been teaching for 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

please note creationism is not a valid scientific theory.

---

I didn't meant it as such. Sorry for the misunderstanding :bow: What I was trying to say is, that the teacher should have said that some believe in creationism, how it conflicts with the theory of evolution, use it as an example of how religion and science sometimes conflict. He can even give his personal opinion as far as I concerned, but should make it clear that it is his personal opinion. Give the pupils the information and let them make up their own minds. People don't like other people thinking for them. Everybody has a set of brains and should be allowed to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That means he has been teaching for 20 years.

---

Who ever invented English, should be punished for making such an unclear language :mean:

I did not expect any better from the US. Unfortunately the country seems trapped in an escalating campaign of shutting people's mouths...

Religious dogmas have a tendency of screaming 'rape' and claiming their rights are infringed until the day they become dominant and shut all opinions against them.

Children go to school to learn the truth. If they want to listen to fairy tales they are free to do so after school. This is freedom of speech. Forcing teachers to not speak the truth is not freedom of speech, it is superstitious and nonsensical, to say the least.

Taliban? America as a Christian Taliban? Yes, based on this article, that is clearly a completely logical assumption. As an AmeriTalibani, I thank you for your recognition of our true nature. SRSLY.

Religion has no place in school. Heck, it has no place in a modern western country.

I'm fairly tired of religious nutjobs who keep attacking freedom of speech to prevent any form of criticism of their dogma.

The hypocrisy is laughable. They keep refering to freedom of speech and of religion to limit other people's freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Religion has no place in school. Heck, it has no place in a modern western country.

I'm fairly tired of religious nutjobs who keep attacking freedom of speech to prevent any form of criticism of their dogma.

The hypocrisy is laughable. They keep refering to freedom of speech and of religion to limit other people's freedom.

---

I agree that a religious course does not belong at school. Teaching a certain religion to children in a school funded by tax money is a big no no.

But that doesn't mean one cannot talk about religion in a history class.

Anyway, it's one thing to teach history and to mention the conflicts that there have been between religion and science (e.g. the conflict between Galilei and the Catholic Church) as historical facts, in the proces referring to a more present day example (creationsim vs. theory of evolution) and stating an own, personal opinion (and making it clear that it's the teacher's personal opinion) and then leaving it at that, let the pupils think for themselves, but calling the beliefs of a certain religion "superstitious nonsense" is something completely different and unnecessarily offensive.

:shrug:

Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech in class? Wouldn't that open the door for the so called religious nutjobs to spout their so called nonsense and present it as "science" as well? Every teacher with a strong conviction would then be free to indoctrinate his students with his visions. You can't say "freedom of speech", but only for opinion A, not for B and C, because B and C are nonsensic. So the answer to "should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech in class?" is "no", I guess.

If I am ever a teacher, I hope people won't have a problem with me denouncing the entire class as reprobate and sinners, since it is clear to me that that is what people are.

More seriously, the problem is not the content of the teacher's argument, but the way that he states it as fact. Whether or not you consider evolution to be a fact, religious views must be respected regardless of what the current scientific consensus is, especially considering that this man gets his pay-check from the government. He could have said "I think that creationism is supestitious nonsense". He doesn't even need to be nice and diplomatic about delivering his opinion - so long as he is clear that it is his own opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

That's just everyday America. Only place in the Western Civilized World where people are condemned for not being publicly religious.

---

Aye. When a country caves in to Christian fanaticism, Salazar is what you get.


(Which hopefully equally provokes those who think America is barbaric as well as those who support the US religious right)

Frankly, this case has occupied my mind for the past hour or so. Very interesting. Some thoughts:

- The reading of the First Amendment appeals to me: teachers, as government employees, must be neutral towards religion. They can neither promote it nor be disparaging about it.
In the current case, it prevents the teacher from making (alleged) disparaging remarks about religion.
It should shield students from Christian zealots as well. I'm too lazy to find a court case to support this.

- I personally do not think the teacher was overtly anti-religious.

- The usual hypocrisy applies. Would these Christians also fund a court case that seeks to apply the First Amendment to prevent crosses in classrooms, prayers in school? To put an final end to what I consider the most infamous sentence of the American language, repeated daily by all American students:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.


- Freedom of Speech has different battlegrounds in Europe and America. The Americans don't understand why Europeans struggle with nazipropaganda. In nazi-propaganda threads Americans proudly boast that they have Freedom of Speech and that history is thus not a matter for their courts.
In matters of religion, the battleground in the US is about religion. Europeans, in turn, will boast that it is unthinkable in Europe that a judge should rule over the legal implications of saying that 'religion is a historical means of keeping the peasantry down'.
(Which is one the remarks by this teacher that was brought to court)

~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~

"There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed."

Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Weiss v. District Board, 1890-MAR-18.

:2thumbsup:

~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Who ever invented English, should be punished for making such an unclear language :mean:

---

I couldn't agree more. Civilized countries avoid the ambiguities of the Germanic languages by adopting a Latin one for public use. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the misguided francophile

I couldn't agree more. Civilized countries avoid the ambiguities of the Germanic languages by adopting a Latin one for public use. ~;)

---

One day, I'm going to come to Paris and talk some sense in to you, mon ami. In a man to man kinda way :whip:

~;)


Anyway, this thread has kept me busy as well.

Two things:

1) Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no", but I'd like to hear more from some of our US friends who are more sensitive when it comes to freedom of speech;
2) How about other employees? Can their employer limit their freedom of speech during work time? I'd say "obviously yes".
3) What is with Americans and their religion? "God bless America" vs. the concepts "secular state" and "seperation of church and state". I'm intrigued.

EDIT: there are three kinds of people: those who know how to count and those who don't :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Two things:

1)
2)
3)

---

There are two kinds of universe:

Reality. Where the laws of physics apply.

Surrealism. The realm of all things Belgian.



(Note: surrealism is a Belgian invention)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

What is with Americans and their religion? "God bless America" vs. the concepts "secular state" and "seperation of church and state". I'm intrigued.

---

It's a tension that has existed in America since well before the Revolution. Contrast the Puritans in Massachusetts with the profit-motivated tobacco farmers of Virginia (my people, BTW).

Note that the oath of the Presidency does not contain any reference to God, but that George Washington insisted that he be sworn on a Bible, and added the words, "So help me God," as well as kissing the Bible at the end. Everything but the kiss has survived intact for centuries, although it is codified nowhere.

Note that the Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by a socialist minister, and did not contain any reference to God until 1954, when it was thought that adding the words "under God" would help root out socialists and communists. Like the one who invented the Pledge in the first place.

Observe that the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by our second President and the first bill to be ratified by a unanimous senate, contained the following language: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [...]"

We're a nation of paradox and contradiction. I think it just adds to our charm and girlish figure.

Kadgar, I'm afraid Banquo is right; both your OP and your subsequent posts have had a certain lives-under-a-bridge-eating-wayfarers quality.

I stand by my "jerk" theory. You don't see lawsuits of this sort unless somebody is being unreasonable. That could have been the teacher picking on a student, which does happen. And that could be a student (and more likely his parents) jumping on a chance to sue the Great Satan for daring to contradict their Biblical literalism. I haven't read the court transcripts, so I wouldn't attempt to say who is the Jerk Prime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

1) Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no", but I'd like to hear more from some of our US friends who are more sensitive when it comes to freedom of speech;

---

Of course they should have unlimited freedom of speech, as everyone else. We don't limited freedom of speech. However, that means that he should in no way be punished by a court, it does not mean that he cannot be fired by his superior. Nor does it mean that said superior cannot be fired by said superior's superior. And so on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

2) How about other employees? Can their employer limit their freedom of speech during work time? I'd say "obviously yes".

---

In general, no. But again, they can fire people for being hostile/impolite, of course.

For the record, I wasn't flaming or trolling in any way. I was merely reflecting my opinion on how American values sometimes ranges the practice of what I call barbarian, when compared to my own values. The example cited in the OP is a very clear example of it. Rome may have exported have also reinvented Republicanism, but that doesn't negate the fact that they were barbarians in many ways, when compared with Modern European values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

I was merely reflecting my opinion on how American values sometimes ranges the practice of what I call barbarian, when compared to my own values.

---

I fully support the timeless tradition of naming anything and everything outside of Mediterranean Europe civilization 'barbaric'. :beam:

Nevertheless, the barbarians do have an anthropologic appeal. We must study their exotic ways to increase our knowledge. :book:

Quote:

---

The United States Constitution prohibits any law “respecting an
establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. Amend. I. The parties agree that the
appropriate test for determining whether Corbett’s statements were permissible
under the Establishment Clause is found in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

There, the Supreme Court established a three-pronged standard in its review
of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion;
finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

---

This is suprisingly (or maybe not) close to the proudly secular French/Belgian/Portuguese law. No excessive government entanglement with religion in public schools.

Andres: Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no"
My first answer would be 'no' too. Alas, this case reminds me that 'no entanglement' also means that there must be a limit to anti-religious statements.

(With the disclaimer that Freedom of speech is far too often invoked. It should mean freedom from criminal persecution. Not the freedom to say anything anytime, for which it strangely has become shorthand in recent years.
For example, a teacher has the 'freedom of speech' to repeatedly say 'Hey jude' and nothing else. A math teacher however can not invoke 'freedom of speech' when he's fired for only singing Beatles songs instead of teaching math)


This 'no entaglement' rule gives me a problem. Because I feel it supports that sphere of untouchability that religion has demanded for itself. That it makes an exception for religion above all other thought. An exception that makes religion impervious, untouchable to public critique.
A teacher can disparage 'flat earth' theory. But not 'young earth' theory. The latter is deemed 'sacred thought' by some. Hence, taboo. Untouchable, unmentionable.

How to reconcile my two diverging thoughts, I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~

"There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed."

Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Weiss v. District Board, 1890-MAR-18.

:2thumbsup:

~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~

---

In God we trust.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Observe that the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by our second President and the first bill to be ratified by a unanimous senate, contained the following language: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [...]"

---

You're right but truth is in the details. We were not founded on Cristian religion on that we do not use the Bible like a constitution (and etc. I'm no theologian). It is undeniable, however, that most of the founders were deeply spiritual in their belief of Judeo-Christian as well as Grecko-Roman values. Without God there is no natural law. It's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

Having read part of the ruling it seems that there's absolutely no consequenses for the teacher for losing this trial. The court just determined that some of his comments violate the establishment clause.

If he persevered in this kind of remarks, I'd have no problem giving him the sack :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

This 'no entaglement' rule gives me a problem. Because I feel it supports that sphere of untouchability that religion has demanded for itself. That it makes an exception for religion above all other thought. An exception that makes religion impervious, untouchable to public critique.
A teacher can disparage 'flat earth' theory. But not 'young earth' theory. The latter is deemed 'sacred thought' by some. Hence, taboo. Untouchable, unmentionable.

---

That doesn't seem to be the case. From the ruling:

Quote:

---

The Court also noted that “the state has
no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to
them.” Id. at 107 (citing Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 505
(1952)).
...
Likewise, in Epperson v. State of Ark., 393 U.S. 97, 89 (1968), the Supreme
Court struck down Arkansas statutes forbidding the teaching of evolution in public
schools and in colleges and universities, finding that the statutes violated the
Establishment Clause. The Court found that the statutes were unconstitutional
even if they merely prohibited teachers from stating that the theory of evolution is
true.
...
One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his
religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the
students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief
that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” The Court cannot discern a legitimate
secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement
therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the
Establishment Clause.

---

If I understand this reasoning correctly, it's permissable for (a representative of) the state to say "the theory of evolution it's true". Saying "creationism is blatantly false bull:daisy:" would not be.

EDIT: just to add, a teacher wouldn't have any business deriding a student for being a libertarian or a socialist either.

In God we trust does not neccesarily mean the Christian God nor does it force its handler to make spiritual decisons. The mere fact it is on millions of bills merely makes it a ceremonial thing.


The teacher was a jerk. And if he is so big on this science stuff why did he half to resort to name calling? Sounds like one of those stupid Chrisitians. There should be a full investagation to make sure this man is in fact an atheist.

The quote from Louis mentioned religion entering our government. I'm mostly making the statement that it's already entered our wallets. Why then, is the pledge of allegiance so offensive when we spread pro-religious propaganda every day? Not that I mind, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The quote from Louis mentioned religion entering our government. I'm mostly making the statement that it's already entered our wallets. Why then, is the pledge of allegiance so offensive when we spread pro-religious propaganda every day? Not that I mind, of course.

---

Even the thought of having a thing such as a "pledge of allegiance" is offensive to me.

There's no way you'll ever hear something like that come out of my mouth, hopefully no-one will ever come up with such drivel here... I draw the line at saluting our inbreeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

1) Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no", but I'd like to hear more from some of our US friends who are more sensitive when it comes to freedom of speech;
2) How about other employees? Can their employer limit their freedom of speech during work time? I'd say "obviously yes".
3) What is with Americans and their religion? "God bless America" vs. the concepts "secular state" and "seperation of church and state". I'm intrigued.

---

My little opinions. Okay little may not be the best term...

1. Teachers should stick to the curriculum approved to be taught to the students. If the school board decides it wants to teach religion as science, that's fine. But it shouldn't get public money, it should get private/church money and I should have a right to say no to sending my kids there. Teachers should be free to express their personal opinion on any issue, so long as they don't mandate that the children agree with them. What the exception to that is, is if the subject matter teaches something like science and the topic of creationism comes up, the teacher is correct to say it isn't considered scientific, and the student should be aware that all projects, tests, etc related to the subject matter will only accept scientific explanations because it is a science class not a religious class.

However, even I, an ardently non-religious person who has a laundry list of complaints with organized religion, think that the teacher should have been talked to regarding religious tolerance. I'd like to publicly destroy (using words) certain fundamentalist sects of (religion) in Saudi Arabia which treat women like cattle, but a public school... isn't the correct forum.

I can hold the anti-creationism view all I like, but I cannot look into a child's eyes and tell him that I know for certain it is utter hogwash. What I can tell him is that it's the best, most accurate modern theory we have, and that it does have more evidence and logic supporting it than other opposing theories involving what is essentially magic. But to say creationism isn't true is actually unscientific in and of itself. It may not be a scientific theory, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily false.

2. Politics are fine to discuss off of your work hours, or even during break time. During work time, it isn't kosher. It is distracting and can create a hostile working environment for coworkers and it may upset customers or others. There is a division between your personal time and company time. Just like they can tell me what shirt and what hat to wear and call it a uniform.

3. People can say God Bless America, and I see no reason why it needs to be removed from our currency either. It could say "The Leprechaun wishes you Good luck" or "may Fortune smile upon you" or "the Fates will be kind" and it all means the same thing to me: Hope. It's just money... I don't really care what is on it unless it has maybe a swastika or a political slogan on it, profanity or whatnot. It pays for the same junk that I buy no matter what it says on it.

However, when they start regulating the state with religious teachings, requiring me to swear on a Bible, requiring me to pray, or posting the Ten Commandments all over a courtroom... I say that is an intrusion into the impartiality of our system. I welcome religion, though I disagree with it and think it needs to stay the heck out of legal systems and scientific discussions. I don't wish to extinguish it from the Earth. I want protections to keep it from unduly affecting my life, but I don't wish to prevent people from speaking their minds about their religion or debating me about it, fierce as the debates may get.

There is room for both the secular and the religious viewpoint. I don't see a conflict except when personal religious views are forced upon me as fact or upheld as law by the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It is undeniable, however, that most of the founders were deeply spiritual in their belief of Judeo-Christian as well as Grecko-Roman values. Without God there is no natural law. It's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

---

Most of our founders owned slaves. I don't consider referring to them constantly as a moral compass to be correct. Those really are Greek/Roman values.

Without God there is no natural law? I disagree. That's like saying "without God there is no morality" or "without God there is no mathematics". One can be perfectly non-theistic and still be moral, lawful, ethical, and understand logic and mathematics. If you're referring to your personal religious viewpoint that's fine, but we non-theists get along quite well without supernatural intervention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

In God we trust does not neccesarily mean the Christian God nor does it force its handler to make spiritual decisons. The mere fact it is on millions of bills merely makes it a ceremonial thing.

---

Yes it does, yes it does and no it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The quote from Louis mentioned religion entering our government. I'm mostly making the statement that it's already entered our wallets. Why then, is the pledge of allegiance so offensive when we spread pro-religious propaganda every day?

---

Why is it offensive? Imagine the reverse:

Would any of these bank notes be acceptable to you:
'In Allah we trust'
'God does not exist'
'In Satan we trust'

What would either of you think of the following:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one undivided atheist Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.


The current pledge is an outrage, an insult to free thought, and decidedly un-American. It is 1950's brainwashing. It's natural environment is East Germany, 1965. The pledge has no place in a free country. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yes it does, yes it does and no it doesn't.
Why is it offensive? Imagine the reverse:

Would any of these bank notes be acceptable to you:
'In Allah we trust'
'God does not exist'
'In Satan we trust'

What would either of you think of the following:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one undivided atheist Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.


The current pledge is an outrage, an insult to free thought, and decidedly un-American. It is 1950's brainwashing. It's natural environment is East Germany, 1965. The pledge has no place in a free country. :no:

---

The American people are able to discern such grey areas. In god we trust on the currency holds no more weight than the pyrimad or all seeing eye.

American atheists are free to do as they please, living there lives seemingly unhampered by the crippling effects of this 2 point font. You fight this and you lose all credibilit, then when a real challange comes around you can't fight it.

Personally I agree with you in theory but in practice these things are petty and not worth the time nor effort. People who get worked up about these kinds of things are generaly self-serving and self centered. In France I know you're brought up taking this stuff to the Nth degree but here in America we're more laid back about it, so meh.

Besides, like all other ills in this country this can be traced back to the catholics.

I'll state, again, since the headless chickens running around with indignation about the "American Taliban" don't get it:

• This guy was a history teacher, not a science teacher.
  
• He did not simply say creationism was nonsense once.
  
• He repeatedly insulted a specific student's belief multiple times over time.
  
• He is a public employee; they are not supposed to promote one type of belief over another - and that means not promoting a lack of belief either.
  
• A science teacher could have talked about how there was no evidence for creationism. That is not what this teacher did.
  
• As a final point, why don't you folks ask yourselves what you would want to happen if the roles were reversed; if a religious teacher berated an atheist student multiple times, where that had nothing to do with the class being taught.

Quote:

---

I did not expect any better from the US. Unfortunately the country seems trapped in an escalating campaign of shutting people's mouths...

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Says the fellow from Greece, where in the 1990s the Prime Minister said there were no Macedonians in Greece, and where the country has prosecuted those who put up signs in Macedonian.

CR

So ironic that Louis VI is making these statements. Alas, in line with Crazed Rabbit's argument, I would point to the fact that complete separation between Church and State was only attained in France during the early XX century, as opposed to in 1787 in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Burgoyne

So ironic that Louis VI is making these statements. Alas, in line with Crazed Rabbit's argument, I would point to the fact that complete separation between Church and State was only attained in France during the early XX century, as opposed to in 1787 in the US.

---

The state is the religon in France. Hardly better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yes it does, yes it does and no it doesn't.
Why is it offensive? Imagine the reverse:

Would any of these bank notes be acceptable to you:
'In Allah we trust'
'God does not exist'
'In Satan we trust'

What would either of you think of the following:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one undivided atheist Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.


The current pledge is an outrage, an insult to free thought, and decidedly un-American. It is 1950's brainwashing. It's natural environment is East Germany, 1965. The pledge has no place in a free country. :no:

---

Oh, my communard friend. When did you climb up Montmarte and start executing the clergy for their lack of reason? :clown:

Seriously folks, it boils down to teachers not being able to prostelize. As CR has said until he was blue in the face, this wasn't a science class discussing evolution or the age of the universe, it was a history teacher ridiculing a student for his beliefs in front of an entire class.

If that's not forced indoctrination into atheism, I don't know what is.

The rest of it is you all wetting your pink panties, IMHO. If the teacher preached for creationsim in a history class, we'd have no debate on this issue. But he attacks the personal beliefs of one of the students in his care, ridiculing him publicly on multiple occassions, and half the org is screaming about America is a Christian fundamentalist state. Unbelievable. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

If that's not forced indoctrination into atheism, I don't know what is.

---

Well then you don't. It's not forced indoctrination, it's a teacher ridiculing a student for his beliefs. Obviously, this is completely unacceptable and I trust the teacher will get what he deserves. There is no conspiracy against us Christains, they're not going to sterilize us for God's sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Says the fellow from Greece, where in the 1990s the Prime Minister said there were no Macedonians in Greece, and where the country has prosecuted those who put up signs in Macedonian.

CR

---

I apologies for having an opinion. I did not know this was a 'who is worse' contest. I thought it was a thread.

The government (any government) indeed tries to shut people's mouths now and then. Fighting against it is what differentiates citizens from sheep.

However, your argument is an attempt to troll out a response since:

a) It has nothing to do with the current discussion

b) It is not my opinion or decision. It is a, supposed by you, action of a government and, last time I checked I was not the prime minister. You are just trying to elicit a flaming response by touching another member's patriotic sensitivities (rather non existent as they might be :freak:).

I shall leave it at that and would request you not to try that again. You could counter my argument or request clarification but you have elected not to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

b) You are just trying to elicit a flaming response by touching another member's patriotic sensitivities (rather non existent as they might be :freak:).

---

Is this a reference to some sort of Greek homosexual joke? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

Well then you don't. It's not forced indoctrination, it's a teacher ridiculing a student for his beliefs. Obviously, this is completely unacceptable and I trust the teacher will get what he deserves. There is no conspiracy against us Christains, they're not going to sterilize us for God's sake.

---

No, you don't!!! That's what the entire thread is about!!! The guy was punished for ridiculing a student for his religious beliefs, and viola, we have a groundswell comparing American Christians to people that murder rape victims in soccer stadiums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

No, you don't!!! That's what the entire thread is about!!! The guy was punished for ridiculing a student for his religious beliefs, and viola, we have a groundswell comparing American Christians to people that murder rape victims in soccer stadiums.

---

I agree that the title of this thread is in very poor taste. And it's even more silly if you take into account that all in all, the teacher in this particular case was in fact way out of line with his comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

No, you don't!!! That's what the entire thread is about!!! The guy was punished for ridiculing a student for his religious beliefs, and viola, we have a groundswell comparing American Christians to people that murder rape victims in soccer stadiums.

---

You're criticizing an overreaction by overreacting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

I apologies for having an opinion. I did not know this was a 'who is worse' contest. I thought it was a thread.

---

I forgive you. ~;p

Why did I bring up Greece? Well, to point out how you were wrong and the hypocrisy of your statement. You said you didn't expect any better from the US, an indication that you think badly of my country. And then you go on to ridiculously state that this is a freedom of speech issue, and that the school was forcing the teacher not to speak the truth.

And you say I'm trolling? You come and agree with a trolling OP and title, and clearly don't bother to read the article at all.

I included the bit about Greece to show you what real repression of freedom of speech was. As for your 'arguments' - I addressed them in the same post of mine you replied to.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You're criticizing an overreaction by overreacting.

---

:inquisitive:

So I misread the the title of the thread? Kadagar meant that other Taliban... the cute, cuddly, Taliban.... sort of a religiously motivated Apple Dumpling Gang, with Osama bin Laden playing Don Knott's lead role?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

:inquisitive:

So I misread the the title of the thread? Kadagar meant that other Taliban... the cute, cuddly, Taliban.... sort of a religiously motivated Apple Dumpling Gang, with Osama bin Laden playing Don Knott's lead role?

---

No, no...Just looking at all the exclamation points in the strongly worded post. It's usually best to demonstrate the absurdity of an overreaction then overreact yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

No, no...Just looking at all the exclamation points in the strongly worded post. It's usually best to demonstrate the absurdity of an overreaction then overreact yourself.

---

Well, fair enough. I'm not particularly empassioned about the thread subject matter itself. My exclamation points were indicative of bewilderment at the congruity of the statement I had bolded, but you make a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But he attacks the personal beliefs of one of the students in his care, ridiculing him publicly on multiple occassions, and half the org is screaming about America is a Christian fundamentalist state. Unbelievable. :dizzy2:

---

I'm not sure if that is how I would sum up the linked article. It seems the teachers used a fairly robust and critical mode of debate.

A teacher ridiculing a student might if he was particularly insulting get reprimanded in a public school in Aus. He would get far worse if a child fell over, broke a toe and then went to comfort him by giving him a hug... but hey we can never be to careful about pedophiles or pediatricians for that matter. :smash:.

For those of us in other countries the part that makes it a pseudo form of state religion laws is that someone can be sued for having a different belief system other then Christian. Creationism has no place in science or history. If it is to be studied it should be in social studies, or comparative religion or something else. History should be using factual text books, and not be used to push a religion by supporting a religious tenant such as a creation hypothesis. Also which creation myth of which religion takes precedence if they contradict each other?