Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
The main resion I don`t believe in God is because no one has proven he exists. Now I relise that you will reply by saying that no one has proven he doent exist but to a scientific mind that`s not how things work. Every thing else in the world has to be proven true, crimnials have to be proven guilty, medicine has to be proven effective, scientific theroies have to be proven true. Why should God be any different? The bible even if taken as fact, which is highly unlikley, would only be a witness statment there is still no solid evidence to back it up.
The resion people seem to hate God is because we can`t understand the logic in devoting your life to something that hasn`t been proven or deffending this devotion to a degree that seems ludacriss to the outside world. This causes a lot of friction and resentment
So you get the point. The other stuff that Christianity believes in that is good is stuff like: How they wish good will on others. How they take time out of their day to think good things about others [if they are trained to pray correctly] and for their family, and their future. Their love of humanity and the respect they pay to it. But there are too many flaws with it.
Mother-goose called, she wants her storybook back.
You obviously don`t--because if you did then you`d know it is often employed to denounce the existence of God. God is a superfluous explanation to the universe. Adding God into the equation anywhere makes something overly complicated and thus is logically unsound according to it.
The irony of it is, that a monk was the one who came up with it. Anyway, good luck with all the reading.
Make sure to read talk.origins and actually try to READ it and UNDERSTAND it. Once you do, we will be great friends because for once in your life you will finally have the doors to enlightenment forced open by the wisdom of greater men and women than both of us.
Well, your `veiws [sic]` are pathetically misinformed. You can think whatever you want, but at the end of the day, I am right, and you are completely and utterly wrong. Thanks for trying though.
It`s not like you`ve once stumped me. But everytime I stump you, you just find a new argument and disregard how badly you got verbally slaughtered.
Evolution != Abiogenesis
That`s what a SMART person does. They don`t just eat up the bias.
Just because someone doesn`t readily have an answer for you doesn`t mean that God did it. You have to learn that. God did nothing. God is in your mind. God is you. God is whatever you want to believe he is. God is something that people make up to explain away things that they do not understand. People feel extremely uncomfortable when they don`t understand something. Try reading a scientific paper with all the jargon in it. I`m sure you`d put it down because it makes you uncomfortable or bored to read something you don`t get.
God is the easiest, simplest, most irrational solution to any problem that humanity has ever faced. Anyone can grasp it. You don`t even have to THINK about it. Just say, "God did it."
And now you know why I genuinely hate people like you, and whenever I see people like you, I make any effort I can to show you how wrong you are.
Anyway, you l
So let me give you an example.
Say there is a dog, and we have the present day animal, and a fossil from 20 million years ago. They will say, "Hey, there is a missing link here!" We find it, and then they say, "Now there are two missing links!" And so on and so forth. Don`t get caught up in the hype. These people are lying to you, and confusing your sensibilities by forcing you to accept their doctrine and their way of thinking--which is extremely dangerous. Free your mind, child.
It still can move, just maybe not as efficiently, but if things were `irreducibly complex` then removing a single part from it would render it useless. That is the hypothesis behind it, and it was proven wrong years ago.
You`re a very lazy person, and I do think you are extremely stupid. Because so far you haven`t proven a shred of intelligence.
Anyway, go to talk origins and that will illuminate this.
I`m going to start with this.
Number one, I already know the answers to all of these things. Except for how a heart valve evolves [which is arguably not as hard as let`s say an eye, and I know how an eye evolves.]
There are still apes the same way there are still wolves, amoebas, lions, dolphins, mollusks, octopuses and other animals: because they fill a particular niche. Evolution is NOT, I repeat, NOT a teleological process in which it is based on a hierarchy, for instance, a meal worm is just as `evolved` as you or me. Evolution is not about how complex something is, or how many base pairs it has, or how complex its structure is. Evolution is merely a scientific theory that accurately describes how things have changed [which is based on the environment they are in].
any arguments that stems from being bullied by people that are equally as ignorant and self important as yourself isnt one basded out of rationality, but spite. noone ever bullied me about my beliefs little boy, that`s why i dont have to call people "2 paper clips", and constantly "end" arguments...
still, makes sense looking back on it.
scientific theory is not the most right you can be you tool. 2+2= 4 that is true, no doubnt about it. no science needed!
we exist! so how did we get here bigshot? have you any clue? or are you going to find another high school style american insult to throw at me? if evolution is so accurate about the origins of life, then let`s start at the beginning shall we? NO?? i thought not.
as for objections... why are there still apes? where are the mising links? how does double valve heart system evolve? why life? irreducible complexity? just google it, it`s pretty easy.
regarding myself, it astounds me that you think i dont know what occams razor is. you must think you;re such a smart gifted individual coz you went to a lecture about biology, and read the reccomneded reading!
i am not a christian by any stretch, i just see the flaws in your self inflated, incomplete, and noxious veiws on life.
I like religion be it my own or not because it seems so natural. It`s natural when children make up "boogies" that scare them at night and for the sake of men`s own sanity to come up with strange if not ridiculous explanations of the world around them. Like these religion is something that forms on it`s own. Take today`s religions from the face of the world and people will eventually just make up their own for their own comfort. Some people will be satisfied with science while others just won`t take time to care in particular and just live. Of course everyone is smart and wants everyone to know how smart or how right they are and the problem again would be inability to agree to disagree. I can think of a other things that should be done away with and in my opinion are more halting than religion. How about murder? We should get rid of murder, but it is a ridiculous ideal to think that something
Religion leads to arrogance, and ignorance, due to the fact that their particular religion generally tells them that they are correct, when nobody knows what is going to happen in actuality. Why do you think there is so much conflict in the world regarding religion?
Religion is man made, thus it is idiotic to follow it. As an atheist, I can respect spirituality, but nothing that has specific guidelines, or any context that deems one particular group correct.
Religion is the most detrimental ideological standpoint on this planet, and the sooner it is gone, the better.
I agree. I was religious until my sophomore year in high school. Then I realized I didn`t buy into it, and now I`m atheist. If I sued every teacher I had who preached about how God is so wonderful and how everyone should be Christian, I would not have student loans coming out of my butt.
That teacher was not bashing Christianity - he was bashing religion. Was the classroom really the place for it..? No. But what would have happened if a Buddhist student would have taken this issue to court saying that the teacher was bashing RELIGION in general? Nothing.
Total BS if you ask me.
Yeah, and it happens all the time. I had to deal with teachers treating me unfairly because I didn`t subscribe to their particular beliefs, and often forcing me to side with them on religiously charged issues by screaming and yelling about it. What am I supposed to do? Tell the truth: that they are morons, or agree and get my A?
Scientology doesn`t explain anything correctly. Airplanes with jet engines on them, and nuclear bombs exploding in volcanoes that didn`t even exist during the time it is supposed to take place. It makes no sense at all. Just like you!
Evolution frequently has things `adapting` to their environment in order to survive, but you`re right, evolution isn`t adaptation. But you`re still wrong as hell. I really don`t know where to start. I don`t even understand your definition of adaptation, because it would still be a process that is not talked about in the bible. How could God have missed that part? Unless...it`s a fairy tale!
Also, if someone told you that light is shiny stuff bouncing around, and then someone told you that light is both a particle [photon] and a wave, which definition would you accept? Obviously the latter, because it has been expounded correctly [of course there is far more to say] whereas the other definition is foolish.
See how you don`t make sense?
I knew it was only a matter of time before circular logic would be employed! Life means creationism and creationism means life!
You sir, are fail. See how you don`t make sense?
See how that doesn`t make sense?"
Red is not subjective. Red is a very specific wavelength of visible radiation. Science explains that. See how you don`t make sense? Please stfu.
@catbarf:what do u call teling a kid that jesus is superstitious nonsense? not neutrality.
You do NOT give comments on political, social, or religious ideologies as a teacher. A teacher is state-funded and MUST remain neutral in class.
Why don`t we just set up a little forum on I-A-B so the religious and the atheist can go there and duel it out, instead of doing it in the comments sections of EVERY religiously based link?
Evolution and Adaptation are two different things. Creationists do not dispute that adaptions occur, or that species go extinct. Don`t say that because your theory explains something better than another it is right. I mean hey, look at Scientology!In other words, Evolution ≠ Adaption
And faith literally means believing in something without proof that it exists. Also, creationism is supported by the fact that life exists.
Your logic here is plain wrong. There are so many things that you need to know things, like a brain or things to know. But pick some random thing out of the air and you just sound stupid. I say: "What color is your shirt"You say: "So-and-so`s theory of what ever says that my shirt is red."
See how that doesn`t make sense?
It sickens me that you would be ignorant enough to post this comment. You say that "[every one]rants and raves at us for not believing in God we have to take it", but when you are subjected to religion it isn`t from a government paid person in a government institute. People are free to express their views, but as a teacher you represent the government, and the government is attempting to maintain that it is not biased and is impartial to religion. So in as a teacher while performing your duty to American citizens, you have no right to press religious views on the students.
Please, tell me these objections. Is it the second law of thermodynamics? Please say it`s that one. That one is my favorite one to laugh at.
Again, I am not an expert on these things, but clearly I know more about it than you do. I suggest you learn more about it than me, and then you can tell me a thing or two when I open my mouth. Now wouldn`t that be grand?
Go look that up after I say this.
But God is unnecessary in the model. You can add God or subtract him from evolution and it doesn`t change. Funny eh? Also, if "God" set everything in motion down here, why have the religious nuts been getting it wrong? I didn`t see, "The earth was created 4.56435495 billion years ago in the solar system called Sol. Then 500 million years later God waved his almighty hand and created the first self-replicating organism that was to say extremely crude, but God knew better! He knew it had just enough information to replicate itself and change, and in a few billion years he would have his greatest prize: Humanity!"
No. Because no religious group knows what the drat they are talking about. They are just non-nice individuals who want your money for the most part.
That`s intellectual laziness, fear, and most importantly ignorant. People only think like that when they are troglodytes. Pull yourself out of the cave. I`d prefer if everyone just accepted the truth. No one knows how we got here. If we ever do figure that out, it would be wonderful, but don`t let people feign knowledge when they are clearly mad.
*facepalm* Evolution != Big Bang. Evolution does not explain how ANYTHING got here. In fact, the big bang doesn`t explain how anything got here either.
You can say whatever the fu(k you want, but you`re still a jackass. I`ve really had enough of being cordial with you. You`re clearly unable to learn anything and you won`t change your goddamn mind.
The whole concept of causality doesn`t apply to the big bang. There is no cause for it. No discernible one at least. It`s possible that there are forces that are way beyond what we can conceptualize because we`re living in a pocket of space that we experience specific laws on a day to day basis. So it`s common to assume that we need a cause and effect, th
A scientific theory usually encompasses scientific laws and axioms. Scientific theory is the basis of all real knowledge in this world today. Without it you wouldn`t know anything. Without the scientific method you would have a bunch of hunches that are not put through the rigorous procedures that are used to obliterate subjectivity and promotes objectivity. When you have a panel of people scrutinizing your work, it`s much harder to get stupidity past them. The scientific method is not perfect because people are not perfect and they do make mistakes, but evolution has had a history of 150 years of being tested over and over. It`s a fact. Just as much as gravity exists, the sun is hot, and rainbows are just refractions of light. Just go read please.
But! Here is the fun part: A theory when applied to SCIENCE means a scientific theory which is the highest status that any body of knowledge can attain. A scientific theory encompasses everything that we can possibly know about it that can be tested. In fact, a scientific theory tells us more than a scientific law does, because a `law` just explains an observation [and finds axioms], but a scientific theory goes deeper and makes predictions, and creates a model that accurately describes reality.
Unfortunately we live in an anti-intellectual society in America. So people never feel forced to learn these things, or know what their politicians really mean so people are generally ignorant of the fact that scientific theory is NOT in fact a `theory.` A scientific theory is so approximate to the truth that it might as well be called true. That`s why I said I know evolution is true.
sound like anyone?
learn2science. Science is a process that welcomes being wrong. In fact, Science can be summed up as guessing how things work, trying to make an experiment that shows that your guess is wrong, then revising your guess.
To even attempt to equate "scientific fundamentalism" with religious fundamentalism just shows how poorly one understands science.
>there are a slew of philosophical and logical objections to creationism
Not it my book. The world was created sometime around 1988.
also, please stop telling me the debate is over. I dont think that is your call really.
I can see where you are coming from, regarding what we know and don`t know, but Gettier and tripartite wanderings aside , my point isn`t directed at wether people "truly know it", it`s about wether they beleive it enough to alter the way they live because of it.
Moving on, you cannot possibly know the evolution theory is true... that is why it is a theory, i could give you plenty of objections, but you`d know them already, sorry, but it`s a fact.
Furthermore, if you "know" it is true, but you can`t explain how it all began (the unmoved mover etc), it takes a lot of faith to just believe stuff started, then evolution happened after it. a similar level of faith one needs for religious beliefs, i would say.
Finally, i would ask you to explain why an infinitely powerful god figure would not have the ability to set the laws of evolution in to place?
The only gap that we have is how did we get our first protobacteria, and abiogenesis is finally starting to mount evidence to explain it--which would explain the origins of life from non-life from simple amino acids and proteins [which occur naturally and have been found everywhere--even in space]. Anyway, this debate is done. Thx.
Also, you don`t seem to understand science. I know enough about evolution to say that I don`t believe in it. I know it`s true. I can`t deny it even if I wanted to. The evidence is so overwhelming and elegantly described that I am forced to submit to the wisdom of the 150 years of painstaking research that has been put behind this great endeavor.
Also, if evolution is true [which it is] it completely negates creationism. Creationism has nothing to do with evolution. Creationism and ID both believe that everything here was created perfectly for its environment. Which is so wrong it`s not even funny.
Insults... the sign of a strong argument.
I suggest if there was nothing of substance you wouldnt have wasted yout time with 4 consecutiove posts.
I`m sorry i wasted my time trying to have a debate with you.
ok, so let`s take this nice and slow.
If evolution doesnt explain the origins of life, then what do we have? we have a huge hole.
so, this huge hole, which is not addressed by people such as yourself (because you have absolutely no idea, no notion of how it could happen according to your theory), goes unexplored... people just take for granted that a big bang happened, and cows turned in to whales, then people showed up.
rather than criticise the scientifically demonstrated development of species, which the theory of evolution purports, i am merely stating that there are people who beleive evolution to be true, not because it makes sense, not because it`s even correct, but because they have been told. This, in my mind is the very same thing as relgious fundamentalism, and should be treated as such within schools, with consideration, observation, and caution!
But let me just tell you the facts: Evolution happened. The mechanism is well understood, and the knowledge of it continues to grow, and is tested constantly. Every time a baby is born there is evolution. Bam. Can`t deny it unless you`re a fuc*ing idiot.
As for creationism: It`s just magic. It`s hocus pocus bullpoo. No one doubts the power of an almighty power to do such things, but why would the `almighty` place evidence that indicates nothing like creationism? Because it didn`t happen.
Evolution doesn`t try to explain the origins of life; it explains the massively complex organisms we see today. And finally, creationism doesn`t try to explain anything.
End of debate.
Evolution has clearly NOT been scrutinised by yourself, had it, you may be more aware of the inherent short comings in this most self important, ignoramus-inducing of theories. I suggest you google this subject for a quick rundown.
As for creationism, and your thoroughly well thought out opinions on the matter... I would love to hear your "slew of objections", rather than just an affirmation of your belief that what you have been told by "science" is true.
Scientific fanaticism is just as potent as religious fanaticism! "
No. Just no. When idiots on the internet try to feign enlightenment I have to just laugh. You don`t know anything about what you are talking about.
As for creationism, and your thoroughly well thought out opinions on the matter... I would love to hear your "slew of objections", rather than just an affirmation of your belief that what you have been told by "science" is true.
Scientific fanaticism is just as potent as religious fanaticism!
And yes, that teacher is obviously a douche. Teach the curriculum, not your own biased slanted hedonistic opinions.
But from what they played, it seems like he was being extremely opinionated, not outright discriminatory. And I doubt that many teachers are this extreme.
Agreed. Science is mallaeble and can shift in focus with new discoveries. I`ve personally helped out with that process.
Oh well.davymid--It`s a sad day for science if what you say is true. "There is no controversy?" The scientific method depends upon theories continually being tested and refined. If there is no controversy about the validity of evolution then evolution is being set up as a "religion" of science: dogma accepted as fact without sufficient evidence. Yet I`ve no doubt you won`t find a paper advocating intelligent design. It`s not a testable hypothesis.
There are limits to what scientific observation can teach us about reality. Five hundred plus years ago, scientific observation told us it was likely the earth was flat and that the entire universe centered around it. Can science prove that evolution in some form exists? Yes. Can it prove that the evolutionary process, and natural selection, are the origin of life? No--it can only suggest the possibility.
No. Just no. There is no debate. The greatest trick the Creationist lobby ever pulled off was the tag-line "Teach the controversy!". There is no such controversy, it`s a deliberately engineered lie.
In challenge, show me a single paper in an international peer-reviewed science journal which advocates intelligent design (hint: small-town journals sponsored by the Discovery Institute don`t count) and I will shut up, forever.
Having said all that, this guy needs to keep his personal beliefs in his hat. Science class for science, Religion class for religion, and nowhere in any history class is it OK to expound one`s religious or non-religious beliefs. Time and a place, and this is neither.
As for sueing, well, that`s an American thing. I have nothing to opine on the matter.
As for the religious part I think that the teacher should have been found not guilty on all parts in that court hearing. First of all it`s European History and for much of Europes history religion was a leading force even above the government and the teacher has the right to say certain things about that religion. I will admit he probably went too far but still when a religion takes over whole nations and even goes above the government something is wrong and it should be brought up.
I also believe that it wasn`t a coincidence that the teacher was bashing christianity and the incident making national news on Fox.
But really, I think it`s above the pay grade of a high school teacher to claim he knows, without a doubt in his mind, the answer to life`s greatest question. How self-righteous can people get?
what can we deduce from this video?
America`s schools, judicial system and Fox news are all a piece of crap. It would be hilarious if it wasn`t so devastating.
that is all.
His opinions had nothing to do with European History.
Getting sick and tired of these condescending know-it-alls thinking they are somehow "evolved" while thinking that everyone that is religious is a degenerate.
ummm. wow. chill out there chief.
The Dark Ages didn`t start from religious wars. Go back to school and learn how to respect people, thanks. As for the video, the teacher was kind of being disrespectful.
"We aren`t going to be learning creationism because it isn`t science. Evolution is a theory and has gone through rigorous testing to be such, like many things taught in this class. Creationism is not a scientific theory and does not follow science, so regardless of any personal opinion it does not belong in a science classroom."
Yeahright, people that believe in god can go die, it`s a load of superstitious bullpoo that has NO place in modern society. We would be 2 THOUDSAND years ahead on science if we hadn`t have had the religious dark ages with crusades and all that bollocks.
Of course I don`t fully trust Fox, but if it`s true then yeah... >_>; I think that guy is out of line here.
I have one question though, WWJS? Who would Jesus sue?
You seem to know alot about the law, more than the average person normally knows.
And on this he should have been fired, public officials can`t bash a religion like that in school. Especially since its not a religious class.
You listen to the end of the video? He can`t get the guy fired even though he was in the wrong, what else can he do but a civil suit?
That seems to imply I may at times be wrong...
love and respect your fellow man/woman. it`s really that simple.
I.e., can`t violate the FIRST AMENDMENT freedom from religious oppression/hostility.
YOU DO NOT SEEM TO GRASP THAT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, ACTING AS IN LOCO PARENTIS, MAY NOT ACT HOSTILE TO RELIGION.
On your misunderstanding of the First Amendment, a teacher could tell children its his opinion that everyone should do heroin, and there is nothing anyone could do about it.
Freedom of speech has limits - just as you can`t yell fire in a theater (famous Judicial example), neither can a public school teacher ridicule a kid`s religion.
Your opinion is one thing - the law is another.
Yes....yes...that`s exactly what I mean. You get it now. O.o
For the record I totally agree with you on the neutral government and judiciary part(we`re actually studying the judiciary atm in my politics class so this is a pretty relative debate for me =P), I`m just expressing my opinion that suing someone is a pretty dick-ish move, especially from a Christian.
He can do whatever the hell he wants, I just don`t agree with him. Nor do I agree with what the teacher did.
You mean getting crucified like Jesus and Christians in the Collusem? I kid of course, but my point remains - NO STUDENT (below college level) should EVER HAVE TO DEFEND A RELIGIOUS BELIEF AGAINST A PUBLIC AGENT.
Think about how that kid felt in front of his peers when his teacher singled him out for ridicule. That should never happen.
Courts exist to vindicate the Constitution. A right was violated, and the violation was properly remedied. Federal laws exist specifically to allow private citizens to sue to enforce their constitutional. Why would such laws exist if people were not allowed to use them? Do you think Federal Judges are ignorant of the law or the Constitution? Do you think this case would have proceeded if it were frivolous or meritless?
The beauty of a federal judge is he or she can do the right thing, regardless of whether the masses understand it (and they usually don`t).
Not when that person is acting as an agent of the government and is being openly hostile to religion in a public school setting.
I know my posts will get buried, but I respectfully suggest you do not understand either freedom of speech nor freedom of religion (BOTH OF WHICH ARE FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES).
I am not a christian or a republican - I am an American, I love our constitution, and this ruling upholds it. Wonderful.
A child? Look at him. He`s not 8 years old. Plus, he`d studying European history, a subject which would be studied by a senior student in high school, so I`m going to put him around 16/17 years. From my own experience, I know that from the age of 13/14 I could have easily stood up for my beliefs to anyone. Besides, he doesn`t seem to have any trouble defending himself and discussing the issue here on the news.
OK, I see what you`re saying, sure, he shouldn`t have to defend himself against a teacher of all people, he may be shy or quiet, but suing the teacher is still jumping the gun a little bit. There are other directions he could of taken and like I pointed out before, as a Christian, and I`m not trying to point the finger of judgement at him here, nobody`s perfect, but as a Christian, he should be prepared to stand up for his beliefs in other ways.
THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT THE MERITS OF A RELIGIOUS VIEW. (Of course creationism is nonsense.) Its about the fact that the government may not attack a person for having a religious belief.
ALL THE LIBERALS HERE (of which young people tend to be) WOULD THINK DIFFERENTLY IF THIS TEACHER HAD TOLD A MUSLIM STUDENT THAT MOHAMMED WAS STUPID.
Be honest, you know its true.
Creationism is incidental to the case.
The result would have been the same if the teacher had just said all Christians/Muslims/Buddists (you pick) were fat and stinky stupid heads.
Typical journalistic sensationalism. This wasn`t about teaching creationism, ITS ABOUT FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION. Phrased that way, its not that controversial.
Honestly, this is something LIBERALS SHOULD BE HAPPY ABOUT. I know I am.
A FEDERAL JUDGE HELD THAT A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHEN HE CRITICIZED THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CHILD IN CLASS.
This wasn`t a revolutionary ruling, nor was it all that surprising...
Look, personally, I think organized religion in general is naive. But I strongly believe in FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and that includes not having your teacher pick on you in front of your friends because your mom and dad make you goto chuch...
Webz said: "By the sounds of things he didn`t really stand up for his beliefs there"
Seriously, think about what you said - you think a CHILD should actually have to defend a deeply personal family belief from a government agent who says he (and by implication, his mom and dad) are stupid???? No Child Should Ever Have To Defend A Personal Belief From Attack By A Teacher.
actualy where as you me and many many other people consider evolution as fact, it is still considered a theory due to the missing link (of course if the missing link has been/is ever found i`ll give good oods on it`ll be/been covered up)
This whole thing is contridictory in school had teachers opinions thrown onto me, hell we all had to say the lords prayer in assembly, which i personaly think is wrong, baring dedicated religous schools that kind of thing should has no place.if your going to teach religion in schools then teach "christians believe.." but also teach them "budddhist believe.." etc so they when children are older they can choose for themselves
but anyway this whole situation is like many have said sue culture mixed with some kids petty a$$ parents sueing pe
The issus is NOT that the teacher was anti-creationist - creationism is ILLEGAL to teach is US schools. The issue is a government official cannot be overtly hostile to relgion - even more so in the sensitive context of teaching children.
THIS RULING ACTUALLY ALSO PREVENTS A CHRISTIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER FROM EVER PUSHING THEIR RELIGION ON MY (eventual) KIDS.
Atheism = Religion = Christianity in the eyes of the US government, and none may be favored, and none may picked on. AMERICA IS GREAT AND FREE.
P.S. I am NOT a Christian, nor a Republican.
Yeah totally man. I don`t see why everyone has to drill their point through till like they feel like they have won. People believe something some people don`t. Big woop. Let`s move on. Pass me a beer...
Bit of a side-note but...Anyone else think nowadays when some people state an opinion they go on about it like it was a stone-cold solid fact? Or is that just me?
WE (the US) DO. Thats why this case turned out this way.
Do you have any education whatsoever????
1st Amendment Begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
An inverse inferance the Courts have made from this is that Government may not be hostile to religion.
NOTE: KID DID NOT SUE FOR MONEY - he sued to enjoin this teacher from being openly hostile to religion in class, and he won.
CONSIDER THIS - lets say a public school teacher told athiest kids that they were stupid for not believing in god. THAT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
Government nuetrality is the name of the game - BE HAPPY GOVERNMENT TAKES NO VIEW ON WHAT RELIGIONS ARE GOOD, BAD, OR OTHERWISE.
I just think that America should have the same system of religious education that we have in Finland- where you simply learn about all religions, and what their believers believe. Without any judgment on what`s true or false.
In any other subject, the question of religion is misplaced.
PEOPLE SHOULDN`T BE MAD AT THIS KID.
If you don`t want creationism is schools, neither should you want hostility towards religion in schools.
THE TOUCHSTONE IS GOVERNMENT NUETRALITY.
Wait...let me explain. I actually understand the establishment clause and a bit of the Supreme Court precednet on the matter.
Just as the United States Constitution prevents the teaching of creationism in schools, (i.e. No Gov`t Favoritism Of Religion), so to does it prevent government HOSTILITY towards it (i.e., government officials cannot favor NON-religion).
The key is GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY PERSON FEEL LIKE AN OUTSIDER. Period.
This is NOT a free speach issue - this teacher can say what he wants, IN PUBLIC. But he cannot, as an agent of the government,advocate non-religion over religion.
This case was rightly decided.
number two, in european history religion takes a HUGE role. almost everything is connected to religion back then. during our history classes at school we were taught these things. perhaps is this student took his head out of his arse and listened instead of thinking, `hmmm, there must be some way in which i can exploit this` and promptly taped the teachers classes. as well as history in school i had to take religion and we were not allowed to be athiest in these classes. when i wanted to drop the class because i did not agree with it i was informed they would suspend me without my taking my exams. I DIDN`T GO AROUND SUING!!!
number three, this cases shouldn`t have even made infront of a judge. they sould focus on things like rapist, paedophiles and murders instead.
ok, rant over, i`m all good now :-)
There is a time an place for everything. A class on Euro History is NOT the time nor the place to espouse your views on theology. The kid won because as the teacher is a government employee, he is not entitled to teach against religion in the classroom.
If you want a debate, then have a debate. Don`t get up in front of a class and rant against me telling me I`m foolish for my beliefs. That`s the kind of irrational thought that gets people in trouble.
And, yes, Christian teachers who bring their views to class do get sued constantly. Some science teachers have gotten fired because they refuse to teach evolution unless it`s mixed with creationism.
there is no reason why this cannot be taught in schools. Its true.
Still, while I don`t think what he said or where he said it was inappropriate, he should have known better. Even if he was in California.
What I will say is don`t blame religion for this. Blame the rapidly increasing `sue-culture` in the developed world and the inability of people these days to deal with others who may disagree with their beliefs.
I entirely agree that the sueing (is it spelt like that?) culture of today, and mostly in the US, is way out of bounds.
But I do think that what the teacher did was wrong, as it was as if he was stating facts when it was his opinion. I believe something, you may believe something else. I am fine with that. I do not feel a need to "make" you believe what I believe, so why can`t people just leave it at that.
That would be to both paries, for the kid to forgive and move on and know what he believes, and for the teacher to state what he believes as beliefs and not as facts.
Is that fair enough, can we try to do that?
Basically what I`m gathering from the comments.
Well no actually, because taking someone to court over their religious views is just drated up, but typical of this "sue anything" culture we have today. If it was a christian teacher and a non-christian student, i don`t believe the non-christian should take them to court over some rant, whether or not they agree. I don`t sue when mormons knock at my door i just politely turn them away. I am not religious, it does annoy me off from time to time, but i have enough tact not to sue or complain when confronted with someones beliefs christain or not.
id say the same about any other religion too.
And if this was a Christian teacher speaking about Christian things I`m sure that you would say congratulations to the student for winning the lawsuit.
"*gasp* I`m so offended!""Oh, you poor boy, we can`t have that. That teacher shouldn`t speak his mind!"
What the hell? There was NO discrimination whatsoever! Creationism, sold as science, IS religious superstitious nonsense.Why is it so hard to do it like we do it over here? You disagree, you deal with it. You argue, you maybe have a verbal fight, and then that`s settled.This is disgusting.
And why doesn`t it surprise me that apparently, they didn`t have the teacher on?
Stating the creationist theory is superstitious nonsense is a religous belief- simple as that. Sure, there is evidence and conclusions that can be made that support the theory of evolution - but there is also debate on this in the scientific community - and of course evolution could BE the intelligent design that creationists speak of.
You are in class to teach the subject at hand. Oreilly and Hannity are not history.
Now saying this, i`ve had my share of jackass teachers, we all have so suing just seems like a bad idea.
Perhaps you can now tell me where the quote you just put up has been attributed to Napoleon on here?
It hasn`t been.
What the hell happened to freedom of speech and freedom of religion (or lack thereof)?
It really can`t be argued that what he was saying had no place in the classroom. He was talking about god-fearing peasants at one point. That sounds a hell of a lot like European history to me.
Well if I`d known he was quoting Bonaparte I`d not have made any of those silly comments. I take it all back. FOX/Hannity/Oreilly are all extremely relevant to European history if they inspired Napoleon.
Got any links to demonstrate this?
I am fine with, and agree with, the statement that their actions were unislamic, go specifically against various teachings in the Quran and whatnot, however, Islam is quite clear that Man cannot decide who is and who is not a Muslim, and furthermore, by labelling them as "not Muslim" you unfairly place the blame on atheists.
I also apologized for this here back when I was...18.. ish.. about 8 years ago. Here.
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet"
if Napoleon isn`t relevant to European history, who is?
a few snippets that some whinger has taken offence to, doesn`t show the context in which they were intended.
mind you... you do have to be a bit thick to believe the universe was created in 6 days by what is essentially an imaginary friend.
As a teacher, it is your responsibility and your job to teach the topic at hand to the best of your ability and not digress into your own personal opinions or beliefs. If you want to rant about something, get a blog.
Atheist, agnostic, theist--you are a teacher first in the halls of a secular school so you should teach your lesson as clearly and objectively as possible; end of story.
I`d like to hear his side of the story, not just some ignorant kid and his jackass of an attorney.
QUICK! Somebody post a picture making fun of atheists AND religious people! XD
I would boot the teacher over sharing his political views like that to the class, but not for calling creationism BS.
This is the exactly kind of preachy evangelical atheists that hurt the public opinion of other atheists.
Also, "What`s wrong, this guy is a totally rational, clever, smart, erudite, handsome, ...." You know nothing about this guy but that he agrees with your opinion on a single topic. That`s why you`re laying on the praise. There is nothing in the video to demonstrate any thought has gone into any of his opinions.
Isn`t that the basis of rational? The epistemology, not the conclusions? Even if (and this is a stretch) he is right about everything, that doesn`t make him rational.
Also: He`s rational because he agrees with me, is self serving irrationality of the highest level.
i think that he fox news needs to be burnt to teh ground. and that judge is a dumbass."
Exactly. Neither instance is correct and both situations should be rectified.
I wholeheartedly agree. The teacher should have kept his angry opinions about religion out of the European History classroom. He`s free to believe what he desires about debatable things, same as his students; however, I am not convinced that a lawsuit was necessary.
i think that he fox news needs to be burnt to teh ground. and that judge is a dumbass.
*ends my opinion*
The comments were not appropriate for this classroom. If it was a class that dealt with those topics, ok. Otherwise it`s out of place, whether you agree with the teacher or not.
I really don`t think the kid was recording hours and hours of class to get prepared for class. He was doing it to get prepared for the lawsuit and his 15 minutes of fame.
I tend to agree with the teacher on some points, but he shouldn`t have been making those points in that class.
OK, so I did respond. Sue me next.