Taliban America

[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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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

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

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

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

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.

[KarlXII]

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.

[rasoforos]

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 ).

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.

[Vladimir]

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

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

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Andres]

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.

[Vladimir]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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

[Don Corleone]

You're criticizing an overreaction by overreacting.

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?

[Vladimir]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

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. .

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?