Freedom of speech/religion - Robert Carter - robertcarter's Blog - Tehachapi News

Dec 17, 2007 at 12:12 PM : Sorry, I'm not...

Sorry, I'm not the Liberal that you're asking for, lol. I just wanted to mention how great it is to see a Christian stand up for what is right in this area.

It's wrong to allow people to pound Christianity "officially," just as it's wrong for anyone representing the state to "officially" promote Christianity. That's according to the Law, of course, not necessarily my personal opinion.

Yes, we Christians are certainly capable of thinking objectively and critically. A lot of people don't seem to believe that, or they don't care, or they simply think we will "turn the other cheek" every time. Hey, Jesus got mad when it was appropriate.

Christians, defend your rights as vigorously as you would defend someone else's (and as far as it is right to do so, according to Christ's teachings).

Dec 17, 2007 at 01:12 PM : I'm not your...

I'm not your liberal either, but I'd tell that student to "grow up". This teacher teaches an AP class, which means it's voluntary. A student's right to religion does not trump a teacher's right to free speech when that student is voluntarily in that class. Is it really necessary to remove a teacher that has an excellent record (according to the LA Times) because some students were offended by what he had to say? I don't think it's right to hang that over the heads of all teachers-- if you say something offensive, you're going to be booted. (Like it or not, most subjects are not objective. History is all about perspective. And Christians don't exactly have the greatest track record, historically speaking.) It wouldn't surprise me if the students that are so horribly offended are the type of students that refuse to listen to what the teacher is really saying, frustrating the teacher into saying more shocking things. I have seen it many times in classes and it's just outright annoying to be in class with students like that.

Sorry if that's just a nasty jumble of thoughts- I was so annoyed I couldn't quite make them coherent.

Dec 17, 2007 at 01:12 PM : I think a teacher...

I think a teacher should keep his personal religious views out of the classroom. If he believes in god or not should never be the issue. The teacher should be teaching the facts not his beliefs.I don't think god should be in the schools. I really haven't followed the ''in god we trust '' issue in Bakersfield but if it was not for religious reasons then why else would they fight to have it in all the classrooms. And wasn't the school board member also a minister.God belongs in church not schools.

Dec 17, 2007 at 02:12 PM : A teacher’s job is...

A teacher’s job is to be objective and try help students gain perspective. You can't teach history without delving into religion so it's important that teachers give an unbiased lesson regardless of religious or non-religious affiliation. When I was teaching reformation, I went over how Protestant denominations were formed from their separation from the Catholic Church. I talked about how much bloodshed was waged against the people in England and other European countries that had differing Christian denominations than the current King or Queen at that time. As a Catholic I had to be honest and talk about the horrors of the Spanish inquisition. The students were starting to understand how much violence has occurred because Ruling States have used religion to oppress people throughout history. This eventually led to the discussion of how it was important for the framers of the U.S. Constitution to separate church and state so people wouldn't be persecuted in the United States for their religious beliefs. As a liberal, religion has it's place in the classroom when it's appropriate. On the other hand, any preaching or teaching of religious beliefs belong at the Church.

Dec 17, 2007 at 04:12 PM : Hey madkow2747 - you...

Hey madkow2747 - you sound like the liberal I was looking for. So that it is it? Free speech wins over not speaking against any religion. Good to know. But what about that pesky amendment that says a state representative shouldn't speak that way?

Take off your "liberal" glasses and see the truth. Ticks you off doesn't it? Well now maybe you can see where this kid is coming from. By the way that same teacher was sued for his efforts to teach only evolution. He won the suit but the Judge did award attorney fees to the other guy as the suit was not without merit.

In my opinion that teacher's comments belong on an editorial page - not in a class room - where the teacher is to ompart knowledge - not bias.

Dec 17, 2007 at 05:12 PM : Just wait until that...

Just wait until that student gets to college and faces the professors with tenure... would he/she like to sue all of them as well (especially since almost all of them are liberal)? He must have a difficult time in life, being offended by everyone that doesn't believe in God. It doesn't annoy me that the student is religious- it annoys me that he is trying to remove a good (and well-liked) teacher because of a difference of opinion. I don't believe that a teacher is a representative of the state- they are representatives of learning. (Now if it were truly a representative, like an elected or appointed individual that holds office, and they were officially saying things like that, I'd agree with you.)

"Take off your "liberal" glasses and see the truth. Ticks you off doesn't it?" Not really. I think it's pretty funny actually. Then again, I'm not offended by people thinking I'm wrong.

And BTW, I applaud his efforts to teach evolution only. It's a scientific theory that mostly fits the facts. Creationism does not follow the scientific method and has no place in a science class.

Dec 17, 2007 at 10:12 PM : I go to Capo Valley...

I go to Capo Valley High. This is an isolated case of a close minded christian kid getting offended by relating Christianity to AP European History. The quotes are taken out of context. For example when he said "take off your Jesus glasses" he was in the middle of a lecture connecting the fact the monarchies blinded their citizens from confronting injustices with the the church and religion. If conservatives throughout the country didn't jump to preemptive conclusions all the time and to ear the whole story maybe we wouldn't have these situations, Dr. Corbett hasn't even responded to these ridiculous allegations.

The country does not know this teacher. He is a brilliant man with a truly unique and candid perspective on today's society, he does not deserve to be removed due to trying to enlighten the children of the conservative bubble named Orange County.

Dec 17, 2007 at 11:12 PM : capomerv if you go to...

capomerv if you go to capo valley high then how did you hear of TN blog?

Dec 18, 2007 at 05:12 AM : I think the litigation...

I think the litigation crap has gone way to far in many ways. I had a high school English teacher that I think was from England or Britain. I can't remember. But my point is he use to say off handed comments about the States. I use to think go back home then. But it never occurred to me to sue him. If you don't like the teacher request to change teachers if possible. Even in Teh we had more than English teacher, and that was almost 20 yrs ago. What ever happen to have satisfaction of knowing you are right. Why do people feel the need to air out every little grievance in public forum. Just to let everyone else know that they are right all the time. I am getting to the point of whenever I hear of someone suing someone else, the person doing the suing automatically losses creditability with me. There is a time a place, but come on enough is enough.

Dec 18, 2007 at 05:12 AM : This has turned into a...

This has turned into a "sue" happy country. The parents are teaching their children to sue whoever offends your beliefs. I'm with you Colitas. Take the child out of that classroom and leave it at that. We need to learn to teach our children that there are offensive people out there and deal with it. We are going to have a lot of "scarred" adults out there someday if we don't teach our kids that people have different opinions and it's ok to be around ignorant people. They aren't going to really hurt you with their words if you are strong in your beliefs.

Dec 18, 2007 at 05:12 AM : Notwithstanding...

Notwithstanding lawyers running/ruining the country the teacher would never have dared say "Take off your Allah glasses." The remark about "Jesus glasses" was totally unprofessional and small-minded. As to the universities, this is where professors are found that believe they are the only true gods and "preach" accordingly to captive classes that don't dare dispute these gods.

Dec 18, 2007 at 07:12 AM : Someone said that a...

Someone said that a teacher should not be a representative of the state and therefore they can say anyhing they want to. Then how about a teacher telling his students that the world was created in seven days? Or that muhammed recieved direction directly from God? Or that the Red Sea did part for the Jews?

The college liberal teacher are in abundence. Why? Did one get the job and pull strings for others to get on the payroll? They are intelligent but they have not been great at predicting the evolution of society.

Dec 18, 2007 at 07:12 AM : They have been the...

They have been the dominant force in social engineering; and have failed miserably to understand the realities of life. Living in their insulated worlds much as politicians how can it be otherwise.

Dec 18, 2007 at 08:12 AM : ...First amendment to...

...First amendment to the Constitution. That one says that the state cannot back a religion but neither can it be against a religion.

So which religion is this teacher against? If the amendment states "a" religion, doesn't it have to be specific? Yes, I am being a smart ass. The whole thing is ludicrous. Where does a kid get the kind of money for a law suit? Yeah, mom & dad, so who is really behind it? Another craving for 15 minutes of fame.

Oh, and robertcarter, before I screwed up my elbow I was a hell of a baseball player. I just made sure I had my aluminum lined colander on my head under my cap...

Dec 18, 2007 at 08:12 AM : robertcarter, your...

robertcarter, your bias is showing....

I highly doubt that a teacher covering European history was "was sued for his efforts to teach only evolution." Evolution belongs in a biology class, not a history class. There goes that creationist clap-trap again!

:-)

I'll say that any child's faith that's so weak as to be endangered by a "Jesus" remark isn't based on a solid foundation to begin with. Being in a minority & challenging your own beliefs can be a great lesson for a young adult. Critical thinking skills are sorely lacking in our schools today, so we need more teachers willing to teach "outside the test."

Telling a kid to think critically shouldn't be a problem, folks. "Jesus glasses" don't necessarily have to blind a person of faith. Plenty of Christians accept the truth of the past.

Dec 18, 2007 at 10:12 AM : oohchild, what is...

oohchild, what is ,"the truth of the past", do you mean your truth?, or your opinion?

Dec 18, 2007 at 11:12 AM : Did you read the...

Did you read the article, Starbucks1? The teacher was leading a class on European History, which occurred in the past..

robertcarter also made a reference to evolution, which is also something that has occurred in the past & which many Christians accept as truth. From the way robertcarter referred to "this teacher" being "sued" for teaching evolution, it sounded as if he does not.

[spam code: SICKU]

Dec 18, 2007 at 11:12 AM : Schools are payed by...

Schools are payed by taxpayer money and should not be used to promote any religion including the atheist one.
Schools are designed (or should be), to teach facts and how to analyze them. Private opinions are fine, but they cannot be systematically presented ex cathedra by any teacher. Many students confuse private opinions of this biased fanatic for objective truth. Worse, many are intimidated and do not dare to stand up against private opinions expressed by teachers. There are many other "wrongs" with public schools. Some biased organizations, such as planned parenthood try to impose abortion and contraception ideology on 12-year old students, without parental consent. Unlike religious organizations, they have unlimited access to public schools. When I protested, the answer was "we don't teach values." May be here was the problem of those Columbine murderers who "didn't believe in anything" and thought nothing of human life. It is time to stop opinionated teachers from pursuing their private agenda at taxpayer's expense. We need school vouchers and let them start atheistic indoctrination schools for those who want them.

Dec 18, 2007 at 11:12 AM : Yes, oohchild, I read...

Yes, oohchild, I read the article, and I was trying to decipher what you meant by Truth of the past, I know you would like to see more atheist agenda taught in schools, but I agree with almost everyone else on this blog, and believe it should not be taught in the classroom, along with any other religious view, George has it right, "many (students) are intimidated and do not dare to stand up against private opinions expressed by teachers", they are a captive audience and the teachers know it, my kids have had many psycho teachers, believe me, they are out there, they need to leave their own atheist or religious views at home.

Dec 18, 2007 at 11:12 AM : Sounds like people are...

Sounds like people are just trying to get an easy way out of school and trying to earn an extra little bucks doing it. I am in my twenties and personally volunteered in a second grade class in Tehachapi. I sat in the back while the teacher read a book about Candy Canes. The book explains that the red stripe stands for Jesus' blood that was shed when he was crucified. The white stripe stands for the purity of his soul. And the cane is shaped like a Shepard's staff because of the three Sheppard's that found him on the night he was born. And when you turn it upside down it is in the shape of a "J" for "Jesus". Now imagine if a child who grew up in a houshold where the parents talked about scientific studies and evolution, and never mentioned Jesus. Isn't that offensive to that child because the teacher was teaching about Jesus and our Lord in heaven? I was actually very shocked that this particular teacher was willing to read such a book for her young students. She also made it very well known how often she goes to church and where and when it is. But no law suits. We all just ignored her and got on with our own pleasant lives. No problem. Maybe this student shouldn't worry about others peoples "jesus glasses" and get on with his life. Just because you are taught something doesn't mean you are forced to believe it.

freedom of speech. so get over it.

Dec 18, 2007 at 11:12 AM : I'm sorry to hear...

I'm sorry to hear about your childrens' experiences with "psycho" teachers, Starbucks1. Were they able to "overcome" these teachings, or are they still atheists? As I said, anyone who loses their "god belief" over what a teacher said in school doesn't have a solid foundation of faith to begin with.

So, do you deny the influence of Jesus belief on European History, or do you just want the "good" stuff discussed & not the bad that goes along with it?

George, despite your misleading statements about atheists, a lack of belief in god(s) doesn't equate with religion. You can jump up & down & declare it to be so all you want, but atheism isn't a religion & it has bugger-all to do with yours. We don't really care what god(s) you believe in. As much as you would love to be able to group us in with you & yours, atheism is as much a religion as baldness is a hair color.

Dec 18, 2007 at 12:12 PM : oohchild, again you...

oohchild, again you twist what i say to align with your view. I never said psycho teachers that I dealt with were atheist, maybe I should have been clearer on that, so, none were atheist, that I know of, but they were very strange indeed, if you ever raised children and put them through any school system, you would know what I mean, its something you have to experience to understand. And on European history, I think it should deal with just that, historical facts, not personal opinion from the teacher., let the parents handle religous views, or lack thereof. I still agree with 95% of everyone else on this blog. And my children are quite happily Christian, and very successful.

Dec 18, 2007 at 12:12 PM : "The book...

"The book explains that the red stripe stands for Jesus' blood that was shed when he was crucified. The white stripe stands for the purity of his soul. "

The book correctly describes Christian symbols. This is fact, not an opinion.

As a scientist I can see no problem. When I say that there is life after death, then this is an opinion. The opposite is ALSO an opinion. Therefore theistic and atheistic opinions are just that! I see atheism as a subjective judgment of the kind "there is no God". Science has nothing to tell about God's existence or non-existence.

About evolution: the problem with evolution was well phrased by Carl Popper. "Evolution can tell everything about past and nothing about future." The statement may be exaggerated but underscores the fact that the value of science is in PREDICTION. Predictive value of evolutionary theory is limited. Many evolutionary events are so unlikely that they may not repeat themselves twice during the lifetime of the Universe. Jacques Monod considered the origin of life as such an unique event.

I don't like any patronizing to religious people from the "scientific" point of view. This is an example of nonsensical abuse of science.

Dec 18, 2007 at 12:12 PM : See, there's your...

See, there's your problem, George: "I see atheism as a subjective judgment of the kind "there is no God".

Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). The strong atheist will declare there is no god(s), but I've met very few of those. Most of us are weak atheists, FYI.

So there's the definition of "atheist." Good thing to know, true?

Evolution does have predictive powers, too. Otherwise we'd never be able to develop new antibiotics, or provide flu shots every year for those folks who need them. Again, I think you'd better provide me with your working definition of "evolution." I believe you may be mistaken there, too.

Dec 18, 2007 at 12:12 PM : I may agree that...

I may agree that atheism is a negative religion and Christianity is a positive religion.

Evolution has a LIMITED predictive power. This is very clear when it comes to complex events such as the origin of species. What you call "evolution" is a statement that selection including natural selection is possible. But survival of the fittest does not predict what the fittest is. It is about survival of survivor (tautology).

Dec 18, 2007 at 02:12 PM : Ahhh, I see your next...

Ahhh, I see your next problem, George. "Survival of the fittest" isn't the whole argument, now is it? Here's something written just for you (and a few million others who think this is a good argument):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

*note the correct spelling of Karl Popper's name*

'Fitness' to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population. This is not a tautology, or, if it is, then so is the Newtonian equation F=ma.

Again, you misunderstand evolution as both theory & fact.

The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was not even Darwin's. It was urged on him by Wallace, the codiscoverer of natural selection, who hated 'natural selection' because he thought it implied that something was doing the selecting. Darwin coined the term 'natural selection' because had made an analogy with 'artificial selection' as done by breeders, an analogy Wallace hadn't made when he developed his version of the theory. The phrase 'survival of the fittest' was originally due to Herbert Spencer some years before the Origin .

However, there is another, more sophisticated version, due mainly to Karl Popper. According to Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.

This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since (eg, Stamos). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see Dawkins). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.

Lots of predictions there, George. And what about the predictability of fossils? It's truly amazing how all these scientific disciplines all mesh together.

Dec 18, 2007 at 03:12 PM : Is atheism a religion?

Is atheism a religion?

Dec 18, 2007 at 03:12 PM : Atheism a belief but...

Atheism a belief but not a religion. Here's some definitions of religion that make it more clear:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader

Dec 18, 2007 at 03:12 PM : Yeah, being Austrian I...

Yeah, being Austrian I should have known better. Karl!. I apologize for anglicizing his name.

As far as the predictive value of evolution goes, it is limited, I repeat LIMITED!. The longer the time period, the less prediction. This is not physics. Those who study complex systems know that. This is not the arrogant XIXth century when everything was predictable "scientifically". This mentality of overstepping boundaries of science persists among followers of Dawkins et al., who is not original either. Marxists used to treat atheism as a state religion and believed in "historical determinism" guiding not only history but also evolution. They went to religious over-extension of Darwinism to the origin and evolution of the Universe. Perhaps they were not as vulgar as fascist atheists who believed not in class struggle but race struggle. These exchanges are too short to address the issue.

What I am trying to say is that scientific approach is limited, and certainly science has nothing to say about reality which cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. This does not prove that other reality doesn't exist and atheists who claim otherwise cannot support themselves with science. Likewise, this arrogant teacher has nothing to say about God. He doesn't even believe that human life is sacred because from the scientific point of view burning human alive is just another series of chemical reactions. He is not even consistent as he follows the feminist/atheistic superstition that human life starts after six weeks and abortion is fine. Science is irrelevant for such a superstition. Embryology defines mammalian/vertebrate life from the moment of conception,
not at 6 weeks, 5 minutes and 10 seconds. I put those seconds on purpose.

Dec 18, 2007 at 04:12 PM : >This is not...

>This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since (eg, Stamos). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot. It >rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is >theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and >adaptive steps (see Dawkins). It rules out new species being established without ancestral species.

I agree with this. It has great explanatory power but LIMITED predictive power. And only Dawkins can predict that religion is a result of brain virus or something equally "scientifically primitive".

Dec 18, 2007 at 04:12 PM : And as I said before,...

And as I said before, there's plenty of predictability with evolution. You say it's "limited", but what limits it, in your opinion?

If scientists were able to predict where to find a (previously) unknown fossil of a water/land animal, would that be a long enough time period for you?

You say that science has "nothing to say" about reality that can't be reproduced in the "laboratory." And yet we know quite a bit about our solar system, which can't be reproduced in a lab. Do you doubt the Earth circles the Sun? Of course not, and yet this can't be studied under a microscope.

A murder can't be reproduced in the lab. Do we then reasonably doubt all accusations of murder, since scientists can't replicate it in a laboratory setting? Of course not. There's plenty of science that takes place outside the lab.

And the rest of your rant about Marxism & race struggles is just a desperate attempt to muddy the waters here. Focus, George, focus!

;-)

Dec 18, 2007 at 04:12 PM : Jot y- thanks for the...

Jot y- thanks for the sarcasim - Ibelieve it was in the same vein as mine. Now it seems that a teacher of European history would not talk about evolution. I didn't research Corbett that far but I did see the "Evolution" suit mention on the net. Maybe that was why he got sued. And who said the Kid was SO UPSET. Maybe he just saw a wrong and tried to correct it. Probably not because he must be a wacked "Born Again Christian". Or mayby someone else is just trying to put people in their own little pockets and judging before all is known. No just Conservatives would do that.

And where does it say that if you want to take an "AP" class you must accept that the instructors will spin everything to fit their own preconceived notions?

Dec 18, 2007 at 05:12 PM : Robert, you take a...

Robert, you take a class to learn the subject (and to pass with a good enough grade to get to the next level). This doesn't mean you have to accept everything a teacher says. Just chalk it up to a disagreement and move on. A teacher may have a right to free speech, but what is never impeded on is the student's right to think what he wants to think. He's allowed to disagree. But a disagreement does not give him the right to file a frivolous lawsuit.

I'm curious as to why he filed a lawsuit anyway... I've had two teachers that were removed- both were removed by the principal and his superiors due to student and parent complaints. Was the student not able to get enough people to complain? Was he alone or nearly alone in his objections?

And, as I stated before, AP means it was voluntary. If he was the only one that objected, he could easily go into another class. Maybe it wouldn't have looked as good when he was applying for college, but at least he wouldn't have to worry about his little mind being warped by his terrible, intimidating teacher.

Plus, many classes delve into many different subjects (I recall discussing evolution in sociology, psychology, and human sexuality, among other classes). Although my favorite was one of my husband's teachers (in an electrical engineering class) who made a student cry when he questioned the legitimacy of Jesus with the statement: "God can't f***".

Dec 18, 2007 at 05:12 PM : >And as I...

>And as I said before, there's plenty of predictability with evolution. You say it's "limited", but what limits it, in your opinion?

For example, you couldn't predict intelligent humans evolving from fish or from other primates on this matter. 95% species went extinct not because they were maladapted, but because of massive disasters which completely changed the course of evolution. Life is so fragile and depends on so many "right" conditions that it is difficult to understand that it exists at all. Then you go to even harder problems: for life to exist there must be a very unique physical reality. I all honesty, we have no clues, scientific or otherwise, how this reality originated. If so, it is arrogant to fight one belief (atheistic) against another (theistic)

>If scientists were able to predict where to find a (previously) unknown fossil of a water/land animal, would that be a long >enough time period for you?

If you assume that species A could not transform to C and you predict species B, then you SOMETIMES can guess (not predict, GUESS species B). There may also be species B1, B2, B3 etc., but in most cases there are no fossils of any intermediate forms and species appear relatively fast in the fossil record. There is a separate hypothesis dealing with this: punctuated equilibrium (Gould & Eldrige). It doesn't explain what happened, and there is a debate going on.

>You say that science has "nothing to say" about reality that can't be reproduced in the "laboratory." And yet we know quite a bit >about our solar system, which can't be reproduced in a lab. Do you doubt the Earth circles the Sun? Of course not, and yet this >can't be studied under a microscope.

Solar system is explained and its motions predicted based on laws of gravitation which can studied in the lab. Try not to be simplistic.

>A murder can't be reproduced in the lab. Do we then reasonably doubt all accusations of murder, since scientists can't replicate >it in a laboratory setting? Of course not. There's plenty of science that takes place outside the lab.

You can EXPLAIN the cause of death based on physical evidence left behind (if there is enough of it). You rarely can predict murders and the mind of murderers (otherwise you could prevent the crime).

>And the rest of your rant about Marxism & race struggles is just a desperate attempt to muddy the waters here. Focus, George, >focus!

The focus is on atheism and its fruits: arrogance based on "scientific" evidence which is not there and fanatical attack on religious people based on dogma of disbelief. And all this trash is pumped to immature minds at taxpayer expense. I don't even mention that science, cannot lead to any ethical system because ethical systems cannot be derived from chemistry, physics and so on. Ethics also cannot be derived from belief in the lack of absolute moral rules consistent with atheistic (dis)belief.

Dec 19, 2007 at 08:12 AM : George, it's just...

George, it's just impossible to discuss this with you when you go all over the place & fail to stick to the subject at hand. There's so many false assumptions in your answer it would take a page & then some in order to correct your mistakes. Taken all together, I'll suggest that just because you can't fathom a concept or explanation for something doesn't mean it's inconceivable to everyone else.

You grasp at the "laws of gravitation" (whatever those are) as an example of scientific study, & yet you fail to realize that scientists don't even know how gravity works. Just as with evolution, they can describe the effects of gravity as fact. The theory is something else. You don't even understand how this undermines your argument that we can really study the solar system "in the lab". Again, just because you don't get what scientists actually do when they study the universe doesn't mean the rest of us don't get it either.

We can't even agree on basic definitions of terms, like "religion" or "atheist". You refuse to answer my questions about "limits" & what creates them, or what time frames you consider to be too vast to predict. Until we can get over these hurdles, I'm quite sure you won't accept what I have to say.

;-(

robertcarter, maybe you should research a little more before flying off the handle. You seem to judge based on assumptions & hyperbole. Maybe that's why so many Christian kids loose their faith when exposed to different points of view - they feel lied to, in the end.

Dec 19, 2007 at 09:12 AM : oohchild, maybe some...

oohchild, maybe some kids do lose their faith at some point, but, when you consider that our country is almost 90% Christian, looks like most everybody is keeping the faith, I think your smart oohchild, who knows, maybe someday you might come back from the Dark side, ;)

Merry Christmas

Dec 19, 2007 at 10:12 AM : I still have a hard...

I still have a hard time believing that 90% of our country believes in a one almighty God. I've known many people who when I first met them would say they believe but don't practice. Then after they knew I wouldn't judge them they came clean and said they don't believe. Many believe just not the traditional views on one God. And I don't just associate with "One" group of people. So it is very hard for me to believe that statistic. If there were ever a way to truly take a poll that was absolutely anonymous I think the numbers would be different. I am not saying there are more non-believers, just more than 10%. Again, I don't know what you mean by "Christians" as well. Do you mean that Christ is their savior? If so, then I would think the numbers would even be more different. Just my experience and opinion.

Dec 19, 2007 at 10:12 AM : Colitas, poll after...

Colitas, poll after poll puts our country at around 90% Christian, some a little more, some a little less, but, bottom line here is the vast majority of people have some belief in God, much to the despair of all the atheists. and today, more and more Christians are speaking up!, defending their belief against the secular progressive move, something else the atheists are not used to, they are used to Christians rolling over and letting the ACLU win their petty lawsuits against nativity scenes and Christmas carols, well, no more, now stores are even saying Merry Christmas!, unlike a few years ago, when they forbid their employees from saying that.

Dec 19, 2007 at 10:12 AM : >You grasp at...

>You grasp at the "laws of gravitation" (whatever those are) as an example of scientific study, & yet you fail to realize that >scientists don't even know how gravity works.

I realized that you will go after Newtonian physics. If you remember well, it was about reproducing something in the lab. For this reason you "cleverly" chose the solar system "out there". Nevertheless, I used the "laws of gravitation" to link the famous Newton's apple as an example of experimental evidence. If I wanted to lecture, I would have to mention inertia etc. All this can be reproduced in the lab because physics laws are universal. Scientist have a pretty good theory how gravity works, and here I would have to lecture on time-space curvature which can be quantitatively described.

>Just as with evolution, they can describe the effects of gravity as fact. The theory is something else. You don't even understand >how this undermines your argument that we can really study the solar system "in the lab". Again, just because you don't get >what scientists actually do when they study the universe doesn't mean the rest of us don't get it either.

Typical arrogance of an atheist. Evolution is DIFFERENT from physics. It can often explain current or past changes but cannot predict future events in the same way as you cannot predict current events from any historical knowledge. Any meaningful change in evolution is produced by a series of unlikely events (sometimes unique), and science is helpless when it comes to unique events. Unique events are by definition IRREPRODUCIBLE.

>We can't even agree on basic definitions of terms, like "religion" or "atheist". You refuse to answer my questions about "limits" & >what creates them, or what time frames you consider to be too vast to predict. Until we can get over these hurdles, I'm quite >sure you won't accept what I have to say.

I believe we can agree that atheism and all religions are based on SUBJECTIVE assumptions. In the case of Christianity, subjective assumptions are backed by unique historical events which cannot be confirmed or denied by science. Therefore, atheists assume that they didn't happen. However, atheists are faced with similar unique events such as the origin Universe or origin of life and try to dress themselves in "scientific" explanations where there are none. Worse, they use "secular" school to spread their private opinions as "scientific" facts. This is dishonest to say the least.

>maybe you should research a little more before flying off the handle. You seem to judge based on assumptions & hyperbole. >Maybe that's why so many Christian kids loose their faith when exposed to different points of view - they feel lied to, in the end.

More patronizing here. The lie is to tell those kids that atheism is supported by science (Soviets tried that before). Besides, atheists reduce human life to here and now. Atheism denies any sanctity of human life. Therefore, it accepts all pathologies of our civilization: hedonism, abortions, eutanasia etc. No hope! At the same time they try to block the message of hope by political means using falsely understood "separation od church and state." Atheism should be treated as any other personal belief, and not preached in secular schools unless we admit other preachers there.

Dec 19, 2007 at 10:12 AM : You seem to attribute...

You seem to attribute a lot of bunk & twisted thinking to atheists.

"atheists reduce human life to here and now"

"No hope!"

"they try to block the message of hope by political means using falsely understood "separation od church and state."

Of course, all of this isn't true in the least. This is why we can't communicate, unfortunately. And I really mean that - I was looking forward to helping you understand some of your incorrect stances (just stay where you are, Senator Craig).

I'm not bashing Christianity in the least here. I'm not attibuting false teachings to Christianity. But this is what you're doing to me & the several other atheists who frequent this board. If we can't get past this, how can we ever hope to speak of your misunderstanding of scientists & the scientific method? You speak of "no hope" and yet you are the one who is whisking it away. So sad, too bad.

You're mangling of science is the least of your worries, I'm afraid. Bearing false witness is a sin in your book.

Dec 19, 2007 at 10:12 AM : >Of course, all of...

>Of course, all of this isn't true in the least. This is why we can't communicate, unfortunately. And I really mean that - I was looking >forward to helping you understand some of your incorrect stances (just stay where you are, Senator Craig).

All right. You cannot touch science, so you attack ethical implications.

Let's start. Atheist claims that he lives only here and now. No afterlife. This immediately forces any atheist to focus on HIS life
even at the expense of somebody else's life. I am not surprised that this unfortunate atheist teacher/preacher had to attack Jesus in order to justify abortions (dressed in a foggy preaching on social justice etc).

Dec 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM : Examples: attack on...

Examples: attack on God in the pledge of allegiance, attack on Christmas/Easter displays in public places, censoring Christmas carrolls in public schools, attack on personal beliefs of others based on atheistic beliefs of this poor teacher we are discussing (for 19 years in this case). All this for tax money of most people with theistic beliefs. Should I go on?

Dec 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM : George is wrong again...

George is wrong again (doesn't it get boring after awhile?):

"Atheist claims that he lives only here and now. No afterlife. This immediately forces any atheist to focus on HIS life
even at the expense of somebody else's life."

Incorrect. We claim no knowledge of an afterlife, so we have no idea what happens after we die. Christians are the ones who claim to have positive knowledge of an afterlife. Most atheists I know view the idea of life after death much the same way they view life before birth. I don't know what it was like before I was born; I imagine it will be much the same after I die. But that doesn't mean I live at the expense of someone else's life: that's absurd. All morals are relative, and morals developed in society long before there was Christianity, let alone monotheism in general. I don't go out & try to screw over everyone I meet, and neither do you refrain from doing so just because you're afraid Jesus will condemn you.

"I am not surprised that this unfortunate atheist teacher/preacher had to attack Jesus in order to justify abortions"

Please provide evidence that this is what occurred, or admit you're incorrect in your assessment of the article being discussed. There's nothing written about this teacher attacking Jesus to justify abortions.

"attack on God in the pledge of allegiance,"

God was added to the pledge many years after it was orginally written (by a Christian preacher, no less.) If words can be added, why can't they be taken away? What was wrong with the original pledge? Do you realize that the only countries that recite such a "pledge", other than ours, are considered totalitarian politically?

"attack on Christmas/Easter displays in public places, censoring Christmas carrolls in public schools,"

You do realize that government property can include displays that encompass all of the holidays celebrated around this time of year, right? You do understand that Christmas carols are sung every day in public schools, and the ACLU has defended that right when school officials have misunderstood the rules, right? Would you like to show me one instance of "attack", as you so graciously put it, that wasn't just a lie of the neocons pushing this so-called "War on Christmas"?

More importantly, please show me one Christian student who lost their faith because a teacher ridiculed Jesus. If a young adult can't defend Jesus from the atheistic beliefs of some poor teacher (your words, not mine), then I wonder how strong their religious foundation was in the first place.

Dec 19, 2007 at 12:12 PM : >Incorrect....

>Incorrect. We claim no knowledge of an afterlife, so we have no idea what happens after we die.

This is an agnostic view.

> All morals are relative

Consistent with atheism, deadly implications.

"I am not surprised that this unfortunate atheist teacher/preacher had to attack Jesus in order to justify abortions"

I heard a recording in which he referred to Christians as "peasants" who wear "Jesus glasses" which prevent them from rational choices such as abortion. You will hear about it more when it comes to trial.

"attack on God in the pledge of allegiance,"

>What was wrong with the original pledge? T

here is nothing wrong with God in that pledge.
American constitutions refers to God as the originator of human rights. You cannot find such rights in relative moral values.

>Dou do understand that Christmas carols are sung every day in public schools, and the ACLU has defended that right when >school officials have misunderstood the rules, right?

I haven't heard of a single ACLU lawsuit against teachers removing carols, or permitting singing carols without any text
(just melody). Can you give me an example?

>More importantly, please show me one Christian student who lost their faith because a teacher ridiculed Jesus.

There are some parents claiming that in the lawsuit against the teacher we are talking about. I am not worried about anybody losing faith. What I am worried about are one-sided fanatical personal views preached in the classroom for taxpayer's money, under cover of "objective science"

Dec 19, 2007 at 12:12 PM : Looks like about 76.5%...

Looks like about 76.5% of Americans considered themselves to be Christian in 2001: 52% Protestant, 24.5% Roman Catholic. The estimate for 2007 is 71% Christian, dipping below 70% in 2008. And by the year 2042, Christians are projected to be in the minority. Fastest growing religion is Wicca. And, oh my, according to USA Today Gallup Poll, only 50% of Americans consider themselves religious, down from 54% in 1990. Here's the source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm (great page BTW).

I really agree with Colitas. I think a lot of people falsely identify themselves as Christian, just to avoid any trouble. The Bible Belt is not a fun place for a non-theist. They're practically ostracized from the community. So it's easier to keep up appearances by saying you're a Christian. And that fervent religious prejudice isn't limited to the Bible Belt, sadly enough.

Dec 19, 2007 at 12:12 PM : uugh, I don't...

uugh, I don't know why I can't always make links work! religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
There, maybe that will work.

Dec 19, 2007 at 12:12 PM : Shouting...

Shouting "wolf" will not undermine my credibility. Here is the transcript:

DR. JAMES CORBETT: "How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to counter that rational approach. When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth.

Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies. That's interfering with God's work. You've got to stay pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen and have babies until your body collapses."

Dec 19, 2007 at 12:12 PM : This immediately...

This immediately forces any atheist to focus on HIS life
even at the expense of somebody else's life.

George,,,,,Where in the name of whatever do you get this crap at!!! You get on oohchild's case, who I don't agree with all the time so don't start with the banding together crap, but you talk trash. At least she sounds intelligent. I haven't seen her group everyone together and start bashing, unless some ignorant ass pisses her off. Who the hell are you to say atheist don't care about others. My experience "they" seem to be more tolerant of people like you. Wow, you kill me. This is absolutely insane. George, did you know god was added to the pledge....but atheist are wrong. Show me one piece of hard evidence that "your" god exist. Not stories, not folk tales, fact. Not faith, fact. I don't know why I am even addressing you. Merry Christmas, or am I not allowed to say that!!!!