Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
About a year and a half ago I reported on a lawsuit filed in Capistrano Valley, California over a history teacher making a raft of anti-Christian comments in his classroom. The ruling (PDF) has now come down in that case and the plaintiff won, but only in regard to a single statement made by the teacher.
It was filed as an establishment clause suit, arguing that such comments amounted to hostility toward religion and therefore were forbidden for a teacher to make during instructional time. The judge in the case thus applied the Lemon test and evaluated the series of comments, which were captured on tape, on the basis of whether the teacher had a secular purpose in stating them.
It's a rather odd ruling. The court found that one statement violated the establishment clause and it was a statement about another teacher who was teaching creationism. Here's the court's analysis on that issue:
The Court turns first to Corbett's statement regarding John Peloza. This statement presents the closest question for the Court in assessing secular purpose. Peloza apparently brought suit against Corbett because Corbett was the advisor to a student newspaper which ran an article suggesting that Peloza was teaching religion rather than science in his classroom. Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, "was not telling the kids [Peloza's students] the scientific truth about evolution." Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense." One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is "superstitious nonsense." The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Yet the court ruled that other statements that seem much more problematic to me did not violate the Establishment Clause. Like this one:
Corbett's quotation of Mark Twain also requires close scrutiny. Corbett stated, "What was it that Mark Twain said? 'Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.'" The remark comes as part of a historical discussion of the tension between religion and science. Corbett contrasted science's continuing search for "rational" explanations when one explanation proves insufficient as opposed to stopping the inquiry in favor of "magic." Notwithstanding the biting nature of Twain's observations, and this one in particular, it illustrates a turn to the non-rational when man cannot, or is unable, to develop a rational solution. Moreover, it is not clear that Corbett was espousing Twain's view rather than merely quoting it. In context, the Court cannot say that the primary purpose of the quote was to disparage, and thus it does not violate the First Amendment.
This seems like very strained reasoning to me. I can't imagine any purpose to it other than to disparage all religious people and all religious belief. Whether you agree with that statement or not, I think it's quite clearly inappropriate for a public school teacher to make such a statement in an instructional setting. There is a difference between teaching things that conflict with religion, as any public school must do, and deliberately insulting the religious and claiming that all religion is a fraud believed in by fools.
Even worse is this one:
For example, in one of Corbett's lectures he stated, "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." However, this statement was made in the context of a discussion about how certain peasants did not support Joseph II's reforms for religious reasons, even though the reforms were in the peasants' best political and economic interests. Corbett also seemed to be making a general point that people sometimes make choices that are against their best interests for religious reasons and that religion has and can be used as a manipulative tool. He further suggested that in order to create social change and "overturn long-held traditions overnight without causing chaos" you need to first work to gather support for your position.The "Jesus glasses" phrase, standing alone, could be read as a general assertion that all people who believe in Jesus cannot see the truth. However, given the context of the discussion and given that "[w]e must be cautious about attributing unconstitutional motives to state officials," the Court declines to attribute such an overly-broad and improper purpose to the phrase for purposes of this motion.
Again, this is really strained reasoning. If he really wanted to make the nuanced point that the court thinks he was making, he could certainly have done it in a much more scholarly and serious way. Instead, the statement he made was inflammatory and insulting. There just isn't any place for that kind of hostility in a public school classroom.
There will inevitably be conflicts between things taught in school and the religious beliefs of some students. When those conflicts occur, a teacher has to handle those situations with some degree of sensitivity. It is one thing to tell a student that they are teaching something because it is the position best supported by the evidence; it is quite another to tell them that their religion makes them incapable of seeing the truth and that their religion is a fraud believed in by fools. I think this teacher clearly crossed over the line here, and not just in the one statement the court found to be a problem.
Politics
Comments
It really looks like this "decision" is bent and twisted to conform to political pressures: the court felt they had to take a stand against "anti-Christian" statements made by teachers, but the only "anti-Christian" statement they actually ruled against was the one against creationism, which probably has stronger political support (at this time at least) than other "Christian" misrepresentations in other disciplines.
The "secular purpose" of the anti-cretinist comments was perfeclty obvious -- the teacher was taking a stand against obvious LIES foisted off on minors. The court's deliberate refusal to acknowledge this has "political pressure" written all over it. We really need to see where this goes.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 4, 2009 9:45 AM
When I read this story, I thought that the ONE statement they flagged him for was actually the MOST justified statement the teacher made. In a discussion involving the teaching of creationism, how could any responsible teacher not have pointed out that creationism was, in fact, both superstitious and nonsense? The teacher definitely crossed a line with the Jesus glasses bit and should have been slapped down for that; the creationism statement was a matter of fact, not opinion, and I think every teacher should be required to teach this fact whenever they discuss creationism.
Posted by: Shygetz | May 4, 2009 9:54 AM
Shorter Raging Bee: A teacher can be a hostile jackass, which I'll conveniently ignore, as long as I agree with the positions of said hostile jackass.
Posted by: heddle | May 4, 2009 9:54 AM
Punishing a teacher for calling creationism what it is, is no different than punishing a teacher for pointing out that wine cannot turn into blood.
What the teacher said was unnecessary and stupid (stupid because it's not his job to do it, not stupid because it is wrong, because it isn't) but the court decided on a terrible statement for its verdict. Creationism =/= christianity.
Posted by: tincture | May 4, 2009 10:02 AM
I'm with Shygetz: the teacher was only punished for his mose sensible statement, and his less sensible statements got a pass. It's almost like the court was saying it's okay to make anti-Christian snarky comments, as long as they don't make too much sense. Because it's the true and sensible comments that have to be silenced.
Shorter heddle: I have no clue what I'm talking about, and my bladder is suddenly full, so I'll just make something up real quick before running to the men's room.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 4, 2009 10:07 AM
As tincture points out, I think that this ruling might have the opposite effect of what IDers pushing for inclusion in the science curricula want. A court ruling that equates creationism with Christianity.
They may think that this was some sort of victory for the religious but it might just come back to bite them in the ass.
Posted by: Pi Guy | May 4, 2009 10:25 AM
Why would the "Jesus glasses" comment be inappropriate? Jesus (if he existed, or other people in his name) promoted a certain set of moral rules that are demonstrably impossible to follow without acting against one's best interest, as the vast majority of Americans understand "one's best interest". It should be a history teacher's duty to explain why a certain group acted against its own interests - at least as it would appear to us. Unless there is evidence that "they were blinded/manipulated by religion" is not a fair explanation, i.e., not one widely accepted by historians, the teacher should be free to teach it.
As for the Mark Twain quote, as long as it is a true quote, it ought to be fair game for a teacher to use it. After all, Twain is arguably the greatest American writer ever (certainly the most acclaimed word-wide), and is (hopefully) well-represented on the syllabus of some required courses. Shouldn't students learn that the greatest American writer was an atheist?
And the statement for which the teacher was found liable is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The ruling is itself a violation of the First Amendment - and, ironically, there is no legal recourse to hold the judge liable for it.
Posted by: bullfighter | May 4, 2009 10:39 AM
Well done Ed! Other science bloggers have simply assumed without further thought or research that this was an anti-science judgement and gone into rant mode. As you say:
I agree completely.It's not about what the guy said and it's not about factual accuracy, it's about how and where he said it. As an individual he has a right to free speech, but as a teacher in a public school he does not, he is bound by the legal restrictions of that role.
You and the commenters above are right about the judge's strange selection of which statements he disapproved of and which he deemed to be OK.
Just because religion is nonsense, that doesn't mean it has to be attacked all the time. Just as it's not always necessary to argue with relatives at a family dinner; there are times to "agree to disagree" or simply keep one's mouth shut.
Posted by: Sam | May 4, 2009 11:04 AM
I can't personally see the problem with the creationist statement. It is superstitious and it is nonsense. What is odd is that apparently the teacher who was TEACHING creationism is getting a free pass.
The Twain quote should be used in a classroom discussion. It is a historical quote from someone whose works are used frequently in schools.
The Jesus glasses seems abit snarky.
Posted by: JimC | May 4, 2009 11:42 AM
Science class should stick to science. To give time to creationism, is to give this legitimacy in a science class. We should not use science class to promote religion nor knock someone's religion. Science says nothing about the supernatural. I think the teacher stepped over the line. I agree with his statements, but I have so little time to cover traditional topics in biology to give any lip service to knocking creationism.
Listening to the current discussion of the new 2009 H1N1 flu virus (swine flu) shows how much work needs to be done to educate our general population about basic concepts in biology. Biology teachers should stick to the basics and not be pro or con about religion/creationism.
Posted by: DobyGS | May 4, 2009 11:57 AM
No, no, no!! You ALL don't understand -
It's that the teacher didn't keep a bible prominently on his desk, and he didn't
torture(pardon me) burn crosses into his student's arms with a Tesla Coil.IT'S PERSECUTION, I TELLS YA, PER-SEK-KUE-SHON!!eleventy one!!
Nope I guess the idiocy express really is only one way.
But the point is, had he assaulted students by using lab equipment in an unsafe way, he'd be a hero. But being snarky and forcing student to formulate their own ideas and opinions, well that's just plain illegal, right? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 4, 2009 12:03 PM
I'm with Ed on this. The teacher got slammed for the unobjectionable statement and given a pass for statements that -- unless there is some context we don't know about -- are objectionable. I assume the Peloza in question is the Peloza who lost a court case about his desire to teach creationsim. See 37 F.3d 517.
Posted by: CJColucci | May 4, 2009 12:29 PM
I assume you've seen PZ Myer's take?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/high_school_teacher_guilty_of.php
It's amazing how I can simultaneously agree with every word he says and yet still ask myself, "Why do people take this guy seriously as a journalist?"
Um, besides that, I agree with the general consensus here. Ruling was wrong, guy still deserved to be indicted.
Posted by: Brandon | May 4, 2009 1:01 PM
"Science class should stick to science."
I agree. However, the teacher in question is a history teacher.
PZ blogged about this, and I saw some odd comments from people who really seemed to miss the logic of the Establishment Clause, and missed the point that public school teachers are govt. employees.
I agree with Ed that the creationism slam is the least egregious/ most factual of this teacher's statements. He tends toward hyperbole (to say the least) but how would you teach about the Dover trial? Would quoting Judge Jones decision violate the First Amendment?
Posted by: Rick R | May 4, 2009 1:03 PM
I agree with Ed as well, except I think where he crosses the line with Creationism is in referring to it as "superstitious nonsense." I agree that it is, but stating that in a classroom environment is where he went too far.
I happen to teach AP European history, and we do cover a number of religious issues that always lead to conflict with students with very conservative religious beliefs. I have to deal with evolution both when we talk about Copernicus (geocentrism v. heliocentrism), and when we talk about Darwin in 19th century intellectual thought. There are definitely times when I would love to say some of the things that Corbett said, but I recognize that they would be inappropriate.
Posted by: dogmeatib | May 4, 2009 1:11 PM
All religion is a fraud believed by fools.
Ergo - you are a fool.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | May 4, 2009 1:19 PM
PZ blogged about this, and I saw some odd comments from people who really seemed to miss the logic of the Establishment Clause, and missed the point that public school teachers are govt. employees.
Scientific knowledge is not the eminent domain of the government. This was a college level course for college credit, which just happened to be given in a public school.
Anything goes in that environment. You people are very afraid.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | May 4, 2009 1:22 PM
Thomas Lee Elifritz: If you're looking for like-minded people, stick with Pharyngula. If you're trying to convince us of anything, nobody ever actually "wins" blog comment debates. Fair warning: whatever you're trying to accomplish, it's not going to happen here.
Posted by: Brandon | May 4, 2009 1:27 PM
No question the teaching practice is poor, but it's clearly part of a larger context in which teachers (Peloza) have left the classroom and entered the courtroom. The salient fact here is that Peloza sued, and that Corbett runs the newspaper. Before making a judgement about the particulars (which I'd say were at worst impolitic, and at best naively courageous) I'd look for a subtext in which students have sided with Peloza, as they tend to do in this type of broil, and are exploring new avenues of 'expression' after the Satanist Activist Judges shut down his (Peloza's) attempt to save the souls of his science students.
I run a student newspaper too. If a science teacher in this school made any overt attempt (as Peloza did) to foist religious doctrine on science students, we'd cover the crap out of it, and my editorial and column writers would not wear goatskin gloves. It's easy to imagine a militant Jesubite then looking for a chance to retaliate; it's also easy to imagine that student recording actionable statements in any number of rigorous courses. Just the other day my AP English students had a spirited discussion about the FCC, Bono, and the F-word; we also routinely use religious arguments to illustrate logical fallacies.
Corbett will win, and win big, on appeal.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | May 4, 2009 1:29 PM
I disagree. Would it violate the Establishment Clause for a teacher to say that the "Demonic Possession" theory of epilepsy was "superstitious nonsense?" What about the belief that having sex with a virgin will cure HIV?
The above are claims about science, even if they aren't themselves scientific. The evidence available to us more than justifies denouncing each and every one of these things as nonsense, even in public schools, even if it offends some people. There is a legitimate secular pedagogical purpose in correcting false scientific claims. I would also argue that the primary effect of Corbett's statement was also to inform students by denouncing a set of claims known by science to be false.
I'm surprised the judge didn't suffer whiplash, bending over backwards in some instances to find a secular purpose behind Corbett's statements, then burying his head in the sand in other instances to avoid seeing the secular purposes that were staring him in the face.
Posted by: DaveL | May 4, 2009 2:03 PM
I caught this story earlier and agree with Ed. However, contrary to some commenters, all three statements are out of line in a science classroom. I taught science, including evolution, for 26 years. I was always careful to never explicitly criticize religious beliefs. I of course think that Creationism is "religious, superstitious nonsense" but have never said that to students. I always said that Creationism was not science, but religion, and in this class we are only going to learn about science. The same for Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood: I never said A&E never existed or the Flood never occurred, but that there is no scientific evidence for their existence. I also frequently said that students were free to believe what they wanted, but they are advised to believe the scientific explanation and certainly to know it for the exams. I made it clear that outside of the classroom and especially after the final exam they could believe whatever the hell they wanted and then they had to live with their knowledge.
Freedom of individual conscience is a higher freedom than possessing or learning truthful knowledge. I have always lived by this view while teaching students, the vast majority of whom are religious. That doesn't prevent many stupid, bigoted, and ill-mannered Christian students from misunderstanding my principled and careful statements and accusing me of anti-Christian bias. I was always able to defend myself properly from student slanders. Sometimes there is nothing you can do to educate some students.
Basically, many Christian students--especially those in Texas where I taught most often--are taught in home, church, and Sunday school that Adam and Even were real, Noah's Flood literally occurred, evolution is evil, and Creationism is the truth. They are usually warned that in public school they may be taught the opposite, but to not believe it. Some take special umbrage at attempts to teach them the scientific understanding of these concepts and they mistakenly think that their religious views are being attacked (which is illegal to do, by the way, in a public school classroom and unwise to do in a university classroom). It is possible to state the correct information in ways that do not attack their religion no matter how stupid or wacko their religion is.
I think Corbett was being excessively confrontational (in a public school classroom) and one student called him on it. That's too bad for him. Of course Creationism is "religious, superstitious nonsense," but it is illegal to say that in a public school classroom. He should have said that Creationism is religious, not science, and it would be unscientific to accept it as truthful. It would also be unwise to not learn about evolution or to believe that Creationism will give you the best exam answers for the purposes of this biology course.
Posted by: Steven Schafersman | May 4, 2009 4:53 PM
Add me to the list of people who find Corbett's description of creationism the least objectionable of the things he's reported to have said. I'd consider a number of them way out of line in the context of high school. However, I'm flabbergasted that a Federal judge has equated creationism with Christianity, as most mainstream Christian sects have officially stated that they do not see a conflict between their faith and the ToE. Reading the decision, I'm even more dismayed:
Apparently, to Judge Selna, creationism is the same as religion in general. W.T.F.?.!. No "legitimate secular purpose"? WTFF?!
Logic this tortured should be a war crime.
Posted by: Pieter B | May 4, 2009 5:02 PM
As a science teacher I would not have used the Jesus glasses comment in class -- even if asked my opinion on some religious matter. However, to me, it seems clear that creationism is religious and has been so ruled by numerous court cases. So, it seems that the message must be not to speak factually about touchy subjects, if someone might get offended. I wonder if the kid is also offended when someone brings up the flat-earth is bunk notion.
Posted by: der Brat | May 4, 2009 5:46 PM
I, too, saw this story from PZ but just waited patiently until Ed did his thorough coverage.
I do think the teacher over stepped the mark with:
1. 'superstitious nonsense' - he should not have said this. How can he have a good relationship with his students if he handles their beliefs like this. (Sure, maybe only a few are creationists but any young christian is likely to be put of the teacher upon hearing this attitude).
2. The 'Jesus glasses' comment is just designed to annoy, insult and alienate. The primary purpose of this phrase was clearly 'to disparage'.
However, regarding the Twain quote I think the court got it right. The quote is reasonably apposite to the discussion they were having and above all is a quote not a statement by the teacher. If he had stuck to this type of thing he could have had a long career insulting religion!
The court says "In context, the Court cannot say that the primary purpose of the quote was to disparage" and I think that is a pretty good test. The teacher should not disparage his students or their beliefs; he should point out problems (in the context of certain lessons), explain alternatives etc.
If 'disparagement' is the test that I think he should not appeal.
Also, with that test I do not think that this is a strategic victory for those who subscribe to ancient middle eastern fairy stories.
Posted by: Felix | May 4, 2009 5:58 PM
heddle, that may have been your oddest post ever. I didn't see anything in Raging Bee's post that suggested what you got out of it.
Drive-by flamings with neither logic nor humor behind them--now that's the way to win friends and influence enemies!
Posted by: James Hanley | May 4, 2009 7:13 PM
The teacher got jobbed here. This was a History class. I give opinions on some subjects sometimes mainly because the kids ask. Should it have been said? Probably not but it is not the end of the world. The kids should make up there own minds.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 4, 2009 7:45 PM
I agree with Ed that the creationism comment was the least objectionable statement in the group, although the "superstition" comment certainly comes across as an unnecessary attack on all religion.
I'm not entirely clear on the context of the Mark Twain quote, but I think I would find that far more objectionable. If the instructor is taking a tour of famous persons' views of religion, than a "Here's what Mark Twain had to say about it" would be appropriate. But it sounds like the quotation was thrown out because the teacher wanted to make the same point himself, which would be an entirely different matter.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | May 4, 2009 9:15 PM
I disagree. Would it violate the Establishment Clause for a teacher to say that the "Demonic Possession" theory of epilepsy was "superstitious nonsense?" What about the belief that having sex with a virgin will cure HIV?
I agree with you in principle, reality is a far different matter unfortunately. The problem is you're challenging an actual religious position that people hold today. I could make fun of Egyptian Gods, Thor, Zeus, Mayan or Aztec Gods, joke about their idiocy, how silly their beliefs were, even point to simularities they had with today's Christianity (even in a college level class, half the kids wouldn't catch the irony because of their "Jesus glasses") But if I out and out say that something they believe is superstitious nonsense, especially if it IS superstitious nonsense, I fully expect that I would have, at the bare minimum, major complaints. I would also, knowing the realities of our legal system, etc., fully expect to lose the case. To be honest I'm rather surprised they found him guilty on just two statements.
For the most part I agree with Crawford, but I would never push the envelope that far. I get enough complaints challenging the kids to think critically as it is without actual lawsuits, an overt statement that assaults someone's faith is too far for a public employee. I can hold the beliefs, I don't get to force them down the throats of my students any more than a Freshwater gets to force his beliefs down the throats of his students.
Both actions are wrong, especially when your position, in my case secular humanism, rational thought, reason, etc., is the correct one.
This was a college level course for college credit, which just happened to be given in a public school.
Anything goes in that environment. You people are very afraid.
Thomas,
Hate to break it to you, but no, not anything goes in an AP environment. Every position I've held maintained that we had to follow district policies while teaching AP classes. I've taught four, counting a long term sub position, five. Even though I might believe that the Bush administration is utterly corrupt and that Bush ought to be impeached, I don't get to teach that position even though a college professor might do so. I can pose questions, develop debates, argue multiple points, but I don't get to teach my opinion as fact.
Posted by: dogmeatib | May 4, 2009 11:20 PM
It is funny how many commenters obviously didn't read the decision, so they are posting nonsense (not religious and superstitious, but nonsense nevertheless) that has nothing to do with the facts of the case. The teacher was not a science teacher, so all the comments about religion not being a subject in the science class are just silly. The "religious superstitious nonsense" comment was not disparaging any student, but a fellow teacher, and one who had fought in court (and lost) to teach creationism. The student who sued shouldn't have even had standing to sue over that comment. And the context of both Mark Twain and Jesus glasses was described in the opinion, and people might consider arguing with the actual arguments there instead of substituting their impressions.
It is patently ridiculous to claim that an off-hand "Jesus glasses" comment in an AP History class violates the EC when the Supreme Court has refused to rule that a daily "under God" drill from K to 12 has that effect.
Posted by: bullfighter | May 4, 2009 11:33 PM
Oh yes: Ed, you just lost a big chunk of credibility for criticizing the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Too bad, because I agree with you on those.
Posted by: bullfighter | May 4, 2009 11:43 PM
The thing that I find most extraordinary about this ruling is that was issued as a summary judgement. How can there possibly not be a dispute of material facts as to what the "purpose" of that particular statement was? It just doesn't seem that difficult to make a argumentat that the purpose of that statement was to prevent another teacher from making an illegal endorsement of religion in a student newspaper. Am I missing something here?
Posted by: ed r | May 5, 2009 12:19 AM
You use the word, but you don't seem to know what it means.
but also note:[emphasis mine]
So 'religion' has been regarded as being akin and attached to 'superstition' in the English language for over 600 years and with 'unreasonable notions' (ie. the 'irrational') for over 200 years.
"Hold the presses! Using English correctly now illegal!" - ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 5, 2009 2:53 AM
Political correctness run amuck?
This is an asinine verdict.
Posted by: DavidK | May 5, 2009 12:40 PM
I read the decision. Despite the context it still seems to me like the judge bent over backwards to impute a legitimate secular purpose and primary effect to the "Jesus Glasses" remark.
First of all, the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on any question hardly makes it ridiculous to hold on opinion on that question. Second, I have been a vocal critic of other SC rulings re: the 1st amendment, particularly the eminently ridiculous "Ceremonial Deism" doctrine. There is therefore no double standard being applied if I'm equally appalled by this latest ruling.
Posted by: DaveL | May 5, 2009 1:38 PM
I have read much of this blog about the teacher...I, also will have to say...this is absolutely no surprise to me.
The reason: this is just the direction that we're going in today.
Today much of the word's population is moving in an antichrist direction. Doing so in a most sly way...moving in that direction none the less.
Which to me anyway, is no great surprise. The great and mighty longing within the heart of mankind, to attain wealth, and to greatly exceed within the material realm, that with many to be regardless of the cost.
Most especially, when very young...them also never being rooted and grounded within the Christian faith. When in school...they're there to learn. With that there will always be someone there to make sure they're taught the atheist way. The reason for this: We're in and have always been within a spiritual warfare.
Even so, the Bible let's us know that within the last days
many will depart from the faith...giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.
Also, though we're to help others in every way that we can...that is, with us being led by the Holy Spirit, even so, we're to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling...the reason being...it is very serious business.
As all Christians will know this is not a game we're playing. This is a very serious journey we're on, we too are to take the salvation of our own soul very, very, serious.
Much love, your brother in Christ Jesus, our Lord.
(PS I'll leave a link to my latest published book.
Bill
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/BeyondTheGoldenSunsetAndByTheCrystalSea.html
Posted by: William Dunigan | May 5, 2009 6:32 PM
William Dunnigan:
STFU. People are not "moving away from GOD". They're moving away from superstitious nonsense. You're an idiot.
Posted by: democommie | May 6, 2009 8:02 AM
Click on Dunnigan's name and you'll find this info about his book.
Gay erotica by a fundamentalist Christian author? Who'da thunk it?Posted by: James Hanley | May 6, 2009 8:13 AM
William Dunigan:
If you really believe people should work it out for themselves, stop pushing for religion in schools.
Posted by: eric | May 6, 2009 4:37 PM
William Dunnigan,
Do you perhaps have an opinion to offer regarding, you know, the ruling? Perhaps some comment on the constitutionality of the teacher's remarks?
Rest assured we've all heard the theological crap before. It is neither original, nor interesting, nor useful.
Posted by: DaveL | May 6, 2009 4:44 PM
Good post Ed. I fully agree with your sentiments on this one.
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/05/06/student_wins_in_case_over_teacher_s_anti_1
Posted by: Kevin Wirth | May 7, 2009 12:09 PM
Actually, I think the ruling shows that a history teacher has wide latitude to include comments like the Twain comment, and to put forth historical details. Where he crosses the line is when he ventures into another specialty to make a snarky comment.
I find it surprising that a single teacher, in a single day's lesson, could have 20 such comments as some news stories have reported. A student recorded one class and got 20 comments like this, and the judge still found only one ... the one clearly outside of his subject area ... that violated the Establishment Clause.
Presumably, a science teacher could make the same comment and be within his rights, and to be a jerk who insults his students who are religious. The difference is not whether or not the students are insulted, but whether or not the statement is a over-reaching government intrusion into belief. The same science teacher would probably not get away with the Twain quote, or relating other things more appropriate for a history class.
Posted by: Frank Hagan | May 7, 2009 12:14 PM
What a stupid decision that highlights the fundamentalism ingrained in this country. Creationism IS superstitious nonsense (belief without evidence). And, since when did Christianity get exclusive rights to the term "creationism"? The teacher's statement was a disparagement of an idea (of many religions), not of religion or a religion. Hopefully, this case will be quickly appealed so that some judges without a religious bias can correct this travesty.
The job of a teacher is to help students gain accepted knowledge but also to support critical thinking. Not every idea is true or deserving of respect. Whether ideas are valid or ridiculous, even religious ones, is fair game for educational discussion that is on topic. And, it is fine for teachers to express their opinions as long as they allow reasonable dissent.
Posted by: robotczar | May 7, 2009 12:54 PM
many will depart from the faith...giving heed to seducing spirits
You mean like succubi? Cool! Will they look like Drusilla from the Pibgorn comic? Can I have one?
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | May 7, 2009 4:15 PM
PZ's even said that he doesn't overtly attack the religious when he discusses evolution. He simply states that his focus will be on where the evidence has led us. That's all the teacher - in any subject where this topic arises - has to say.
Now, what should really be frightening is the fact that Peloza is a science teacher. If he's ignoring the data and teaching creationism in the classroom, then it would seem to me that that is cause for legal action.
Corbett could've been softer but he was not wrong. Instead, Peloza's given free reign to proselytize with impunity.
Posted by: Pi Guy | May 7, 2009 8:48 PM
Why is this a surprise? Although I accpet and support the rule of law I still recognise that dogmatic adhearence to the constitution is no better than dogmatic adhearence to the 10 commandments. There is no set of perfect rules. I also hear the US elects their judges, if that's the case then I hope his voters hear the story.
Posted by: Alan | May 8, 2009 8:42 AM
I find it amazing that some readers of this blog seem to think that stating the obvious - that religion is superstitious nonsense should demand punishment. It really doesn't even matter that he was teaching history rather than science.
History deals with what we can determine about facts also. Stating in a history class, a McDonald's restaurant or a wet T-shirt contest that belief in dog is superstitious twaddle does not make it less true. And if offends the likes of nongs like dinnigan above all the better. Its about time they were served a healthy dose of reality with a liberal lashing of "SHUT THE FUCK UP".
The judge was clearly in contempt of intelligent thought when he made this ruling. Permitting this sort of crap is why the USA is headed down the tubes - fast. Remove the judge from the bench and throw the kid out of school. If you don't start disciplining these officious idiots before you know it the country will be driven to financial ruin by corporate blue eyed boys with fat bonuses as reward for failure and a "get out of jail free" card....er..thats right, that's where we are now isn't it?
Posted by: Peter McKellar | May 8, 2009 8:47 AM
He should have said that "Intelligent Design" is superstitious nonsense; then, according to creationists, that could not be an anti-religious statement because ID is science, not religion.
David
Posted by: David | May 8, 2009 1:52 PM
...."that could not be an anti-religious statement because ID is science, not religion....."
There is no scientific evidence to suppport ID (Intelligent Design).
It's not science.
It's Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
It's getting a bit old that people have to walk on eggshells in a classroom, teaching science or history, in a way to prevent "offending" anyone. If the truth/facts offend, that says more about the one being offended.
Posted by: Misha | May 9, 2009 9:54 AM
Anyone else notice William Dunigan whining about:
Just before a big fat plug for his (latest) book? Giving it away gratis et libre, eh Willie?
Posted by: DingoJack | May 9, 2009 10:54 AM
Peter @ 46
While I agree with you that religion is superstitious "twaddle" as you put it, or nonsense, I cannot, in my role as a teacher, an employee and representative of the state, express my opinion as fact in such a circumstance. This is in the same vein as my not expressing my utter contempt for the Republican party while teaching political science or arguing that a more liberal ideology is "better" than a conservative one. While I may consider all of those positions to be fact based upon my interpretation of the evidence (or lack of evidence in the case of religion) I cannot simply pass of my own personal beliefs as proven fact despite my greater knowledge, experience, and education. To a certain degree, I check myself at the door and adopt the persona of a neutral devil's advocate on all issues.
To be quite honest I would expect the same of a teacher who "knew" that Jesus is the true lord and savior, "knew" that the Republican party is the true party of America and "knew" that good conservative values are the bedrock of our society.
No matter how much I "know" that religion is idiotic, that it is wasteful, often hurtful, unrealistic, and silly, I cannot tell my students that. First, it would be hurtful, and really, no matter how deluded I think they are when it comes to this issue and hope they come to their senses, I would never intentionally hurt or be hurtful to them. Second, it is counter-productive. If I create a hostile environment, I can't do my job. Finally, it isn't necessary to do the job. I teach this same class. It is often critical of religion, it often challenges religion with science and shows the illogic inherent within religion. I can, and should, present those facets of the course. But it is utterly inappropriate for me to flat out express my own opinion as fact.
Posted by: dogmeatib | May 9, 2009 10:57 AM
Dogmeatid - nicely said.
Posted by: Anna | May 9, 2009 12:16 PM
Perhaps I said it elsewhere, but I repeat:
"No one deserves to be ridiculed or denigrated for their religious beliefs. However, equally, there is no presumption that students will go unchallenged or unoffended (particularly in classes designed to ready students for the more rigorous college environment).
Unless some specific insult or ridicule was aimed at a specific individual or identified group of students, then I think it comes under the rubric of challenging opinions in order to foster reasoned arguement either in favour, or against, the arguement presented. But, of course, the context of these comments are not clear enough to really make a definitive judgement about that one way or the other."
Just my (unqualified and inexperienced) 2 cents worth. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 9, 2009 12:52 PM
Sometimes in my introductory physics or astronomy courses, I pose a problem: Supernova 1987A exploded about (some number of miles or kilometers) away, and we saw it in 1987. I give the speed of light, and ask how long ago the supernova occurred. Speed-distance-time problems are the most basic problems in physics.
After giving them a chance to do it (hearing the answer, usually correct, around 170,000 years ago) and doing it myself, I announce that this is my shot against the idiotic notion going around that that universe is only 6000 years old. For some reason, I often get anxious when making that comment.
Once, one student replied, "Let's not go into that." Unfortunately, I just froze up. I thought of a decent answer too late, which would have gone something like this: "I hope you reconsider. That notion flies in the face of everything we learned in astronomy and geology the past century."
Posted by: John Morrison | May 9, 2009 6:33 PM
John,
It is bizarre running into people who can sit in classes that, at their very foundation, shatter the notion of a young universe yet they somehow absorb, or at least listen to, information that directly contradicts their beliefs without their head exploding. I too have had it happen where someone makes a comment like your student did and just completely lock up. In those instances, it seems like my brain is shutting down in sympathy for what their brain apparently doesn't want to, or is unable to face.
I had a similar experience at the last school where I worked. There was an astronomy teacher who was a young earth creationist. I asked them, "how do you balance your scientific knowledge with your beliefs?" Their response was, "I just don't believe that stuff." My brain suffered a complete shutdown trying to wrap itself around the idea of obtaining a degree and a certificate in a field you resolutely and absolutely refused to accept the evidence for ... seriously ... WTF?
Posted by: dogmeatib | May 10, 2009 7:14 PM
Thanks for the reply. Actually, that particular exchange occurred in a physics class rather than an astronomy class. So the contradiction is less immediate for most of the class.
My tendency to freeze up at highly inopportune moments has embarrassed me all too often.
Posted by: John Morrison | May 11, 2009 12:00 AM
John - I'd guess that compartmentalisation helps those who are YECs (and the like) avoid cognitive dissonance fuelled brain meltdowns. Still, one has to try to lead them to water.
PS: Simply because I was curious, I checked the numbers. SN1987A exploded approximately 167,644 years ago. (c 51.4 Kpc distant).
Posted by: DingoJack | May 11, 2009 12:42 AM
DingoJack: I wouldn't trust the last three digits in the time if I were you. :-)
Even before reading about this case, I've sometimes become paranoid about the possibility of facing a hostile judge over this issue. It would be unlikely, as I teach in a community college rather than a high school, but I still imagine the possibility. I would, of course, argue accuracy, academic freedom, and free speech.
But faced with a hostile judge who would order me not to make the argument in class, I would do my best to pin the judge down and have him commit precisely the point I may not cross.
Am I forbidden from saying that we see various galaxies as they were hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions of years ago? Am I forbidden from concluding in class that, since a particular galaxy is 108 million light-years away and light travels one light-year per year, that the light we see now was emitted 108 million years ago? Or am I not allowed to conclude that the galaxy (and hence the universe) existed 108 million years ago?
And of course, what would he order me regarding the Big Bang in astronomy classes?
Posted by: John Morrison | May 12, 2009 2:39 AM
Greetings to one and all: in that Mighty Name: the one and only, Lord, and Savior, Jesus the Christ.
I'll say here also: I've read many of the above given comments. What do I have to say about all of those nasty comments that have been made?
It's your dime...spend it in anyway you’d like. I don't write to help folks like the ones on here that have made all of those insulting remarks. I make comments thinking perhaps someone, who's heart is receptive to the truth, or, the gospel of my Lord and Savior, may read it.
I also fully well knowing there's many like yourself, out there, that have...possibly been turned over to a reprobate mind to believe a lie and be dammed. As the Bible puts it.
On the other hand there's plenty our there who really would like a helping hand. This is a big, big, old world that we live in. just like going fishing within a huge lake or within the ocean, when you through out the net...you're apt to bring your net back in with both desirable and undesirable catch. What do you do if you bring it back with a lot of the undesirable type. You do just as our God will do at the ending of the age, you keep the good and dump the other's back.
As for God concerned though...the bad, or the undesirable ones won't just be dumped back into their natural habitat, but into a lake of fire. If you have been turned over to a reprobate mind, to believe a lie and be dammed, this, and everything that I'm saying and have said, will go right over your head.
The reason: the prince of darkness has you hooked. You've swallowed his bait: hook, line, an sinker.
Warm Regards
William Dunigan
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/BeyondTheGoldenSunsetAndByTheCrystalSea.html
Posted by: William Dunigan | May 13, 2009 9:11 PM
Willie, Keep fishing your shrinking, anoxic, muddy pond if you feel you must. The rest of us prefer the wild & untamed oceans and seas (to continue your metaphor). -DJ
PS: Still trying sell your homo-erotic Christo-porn I notice Willie. Have you decided to follow the example of 'He of that Mighty Name' and moved to 'free & libre' yet?
Posted by: DingoJack | May 13, 2009 9:40 PM
Greetings to one and all:
I'll make another comment on here. Though, seemingly most making comments on this blog about this teacher who opened his mouth and stuck his foot in it, are greatly caught up in the happenings of this world.
So much so, they do not actually realize that a spiritual world does truly exist. I too, do not know, nor, do I care what your age is. I would think though, all are rather young.
Even so, that is none of my business one way or the other. For young or old, regardless of age, none of us have the promise of another hour, much less another year or so, to dwell on planet earth.
If each of you are satisfied with just letting yourself get carried away in deep studies, studies that have to do with and pertaining to earthly matters...such as how long this earth has truly been in existence and so forth. Which we all know such things are important as well. Even so, they should not take the place of you also deeply exploring your inner self.
You could also ask yourself: does giving my every waking moment, thinking about these things produce something worthwhile within my innermost being. Also ask yourself: would it really make sense: though even if I could actually in someway, gain this whole world...spending so much time in doing so, that I lost my own soul...would I have truly accomplished all that much?
This is what is accomplished by accepting the Lord, Jesus into one's life. Galatians 5:22-26 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
I won't even bother to mention all of the torment that comes into a person's life by leaving the God of Glory out of one's life.
Warm Regards
William Dunigan
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/BeyondTheGoldenSunsetAndByTheCrystalSea.html
Posted by: William Dunigan | May 15, 2009 5:27 PM
William, you seem to think people like me have not taken the time to explore the possibility of the existence of a spiritual place. This is not so. I myself have spent plenty of time in this, and have come to the conclusion that it does not exist.
Once that happened, I discovered something else. You know that "torment that comes into a person's life by leaving the God of Glory out of one's life"? I discovered it doesn't exist. You know that "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance" that were supposed to be the fruits of The Spirit? I discovered they were equally present in the lives of nonbelievers and often absent in the lives of believers.
In short, I discovered that people just like you had been lying to me all my life and were continuing to lie. Now, given that I already know you are willing to lie without hesitation or remorse regarding things I can easily check myself, why should I take your word regarding fantastical stories beyond any hope of human verification?
Posted by: DaveL | May 15, 2009 6:11 PM
Davel...I sent you words from the Bible, just as they were written. If you don't believe that...looks as though you may have gone beyond the point of return. However, only time will tell about that. Here: I'm only say there's no more words that I could give to help, for nothing nor no words, from no one, is more powerful or persuasive than those copied directly from the Bible.
This below text was sent to a missionary over in Africa.
this may also be helpful to someone on here as well.
Greetings to one and all:
I'm quit sure that spending quality time within Africa will be a tremendous blessing.
It also offers opportunity for the missionary, as well as for the people. Of course, this would only be so if the missionary has been placed there of our God and not by and through, only the will of man.
Him trying to do something to please God, but not striving for the leadership of our God.
For as most true Christian's know: the Bible let's us know: unless that we do, is truly in the leadership of the Holy Spirit: that though, seemingly a wonderful thing to do...still, will not accomplish nothing worth while.
The Bible lets us know: Though we even give our body to be burned...also give all of our good’s to feed the poor…if it is done outside of his leadership, it will profit nothing worthwhile within the spiritual realm.
This is why it is imperative that we earnestly seek his guidance before making a move in a different direction. For no matter how good it looks to the carnal mind...if it is not of our God it will profit us, or the people we've gone so far to help, very little…and hardly nothing within the spiritual realm.
With people...they often have a big problem with getting ahead of God in their plan making.
Why would this be? Some may wonder.
Because our very educational system teaches us to always figure things out. Have our plans all mapped out within our head or on paper. And let nothing get us off track with that, of keeping, or sticking very rigidly, to those well thought out plans.
Too, as all will know: there's nothing within the educationally system, that gives emphases, to whether there even is anything, such as the Holy Spirit.
This being true...we, as spiritual leaders, must relearn all over again the right approach to our decision making.
We also cannot always depend on some of the high mucked mucks in church. For though they may have attained a high position by exploiting their high learning, or their several master degrees from a well know collage...even so, they could be completely ignorant about the following of the Holy Spirit.
Back in Jesus' day they did the same thing. The fact of the matter: it was the highly educated, religious leaders that had Jesus Crucified.
Of course, it would have made everything alright, they also would have allowed Jesus to come into their religious group…may would also allowed him to have taught a Sunday school class…if he’d only left this thing he was telling others about…that is claiming to actually be the Son of God. This was so horrible!! They just couldn’t stand it. So, they just could allow this to go no further. The nerve of this guy…coming into our synagogue claiming to be so close to God…when, everyone knows we’re the ones that handles all of the affairs of God.
We’re the one’s to be looked upon as a direct representative of God.
The nerve of this idiot, one who was born in a stable, now having nothing but the clothes on his back. This stupid penniless beggar, who does he think that he is…we and we alone are the direct reflection of God. Fellow highly honored of God…this leaves us only one choice…this stupid beggar…calling himself: Jesus…the Son of God. Must be crucified. Claming to be the Son of God…with this he leaves us no other choice!! HE Must DIE!!
If this that I'm saying goes over anyone's head...just know you were not ready for this as of yet. Also that you may never be ready for this, within this life, only God would know about that.
Warm regard to one and all.
William Dunigan
Posted by: William Dunigan | May 16, 2009 12:49 PM
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason people don't believe in the words of the Bible is because its a load of ridiculous horseshit?
Let's hope so, for my sake and that of my family.
Your quote from the missionary misses the point entirely. It is you and this missionary friend of yours who are ignorant of the Holy Spirit, because you are not apparently aware of one important fact about it: it does not exist. If you do not comprehend this fact, all your so-called spiritual discernment is in vain.
Posted by: DaveL | May 16, 2009 3:05 PM
By: William Dunigan
Davel...it's your life, your dime, spend both in anyway you see fit. Also I don't argue the Bible...I give the person what is stated by the Bible...from there they take it or leave it...also with that I'm out of here for that one subject.
If you belong to Jesus He'll bring you out of your darkness within time...if you do not, then there certainly is no use me spinning my wheels trying to break through your darkness.
Though, I know many do try to play God...I do not. If the person is too far gone for God to reach them, I most certainly cannot. (This is by no means saying that I think you are, for in time the Holy Spirit may break through that hard crust of unbelief that separates you from Himself…if so, only God would know about that.
Warm Regards
William Dunigan
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/BeyondTheGoldenSunsetAndByTheCrystalSea.html
Posted by: William Dunigan | May 16, 2009 4:31 PM
Amazing how christianity has wormed its way into such dominant positions in the US. It's funny how christians like to talk about how they are oppressed, when they have spent 2000 years oppressing those of other beliefs. They no longer torture us, or cut of our heads, or burn us at the stake. Their oppression is more subtle, because they can't get away with that crap anymore. Now, any legitimate questioning of christianity is heresy, and apparently "unconstitutional". I find it unconstitutional the way christianity tries to control the political process and public policy, not allowing alternate viewpoints (especially non-believers). For example, nobody professing atheism would ever be elected president. I'm comforted that more and more people seem to be questioning their superstitious beliefs, and the Internet is a great help. It's harder to control people through fear when information is so available. As a former christian, I'm looking forward to the day when we can all laugh together that so many people still believed in things that make absolutely no sense.
Posted by: Janet Greene | June 3, 2009 4:21 AM
Well, Janet, you saying that your were once a Christian, truly means, there is hope for you. However, many of whom claim to be a Christian...many of them also truly feeling that they are a Christian...are in all reality, not a Christian at all.
For with many, of whom would come under this category, due to no fault of their own, have only become welcomed into a group of shallow or deeply religious people.
Some would wonder...if deeply religious, then wouldn't they also be Christians? No!! not necessarily so. They could be deeply religious and also be very devout Christian's as well. However, this would not necessarily be so, by no means.
For you see: it was the tremendously, and most religiously, of the time of Christ, who had Jesus Crucified...them truly thinking themselves doing a great service, for God.
Things in the religious spectrum are not always, by no mean, what they seem to be. Though, this is not true within the Christian walk. That is, once a person truly have learned what the Christian walk is.
Jesus said: no man can come unto me except my Father draws him. Some...even some Christians, don't fully understand this statement, made by Jesus.
All people can go into religion. They can also go into it at anytime. Some can go into religion, thinking they're going into Christianity. They may also be told by the high up's in the group...join our club or organization and you're then a Christian. The person not really knowing what Christianity consist of, of course, believe what they've been told to be true.
The Bible lets us know that we're to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. It also tells us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. (meaning: in a very serious way...it being of the utmost of importance.)
You truly may have friends on here, or elsewhere, that will agree with you, that you can live your life just in any old way and make heaven your home...when closing your eyes for the last time within this life.
Even so, you, and you alone must walk that lonesome valley at sometime. None of your advise givers will be there. There also will be no one to cheer you on. Just you and Jesus...or you and the prince of darkness...according to what you choice has been, while still within this life. Which ever your choice has been, whether it has been Jesus or the prince of darkness, the two of you (Jesus or the prince of darkness)will go walking hand in hand off to your final dwelling place. For your sake: I'm hoping your final choice...before closing your eyes in sleep, for the last time, will be Jesus.
Much love, your brother in Christ Jesus.
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/BeyondTheGoldenSunsetAndByTheCrystalSea.html
Bill
Posted by: William Dunigan | June 9, 2009 10:17 AM
Yeah, yeah, Billy, we know, we know, you're The World's Only True Christian™ and absolutely everything is a vast worldwide conspiracy against you. Yeah, yeah, whatever, cry me a river, you don't get to declare yourself god and be taken seriously by any sane person.
Your god is imaginary, and exists only in your delusional mind. Your cult spreads falsehoods and hatred, and is a plague on humanity. Your bible is nothing more than old myths, badly translated.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 9, 2009 10:53 AM
Greetings to one and to all:
I haven made a blog on here in quite sometime now, though, I know that some will think that great. For with some I know that I grieve them with my talks about my Lord, and Savior, Jesus, the Christ.
But you know...He's just my all in all. He's most precious for me. With out him I'd simply be able to do nothing but with him I can do all things.
Really...though I know some on here don't believe this but He's the one that makes life worth living. If you've never give Jesus a try at your life...go on give him a call today...for He's never that far away. He's actually touched with the feelings of our infirmities.
Let me exhort you to give the Lord, Jesus a call today and invite him into your life. He's truly a friend that sticketh closer than a brother. Once you've received him into your life...He'll never leave or forsake you, but will be with you until the very end of the world.
If this message has any meaning to you it will be because that He is giving you an invitation, to sup with Him and He with you.
Much love,
William Dunigan
Posted by: William Dunigan | August 21, 2009 6:14 PM
Greetings to one and to all:
I have not made a blog on here in quite sometime now, though, I know that some will think that great. For with some I know that I grieve them with my talks about my Lord, and Savior, Jesus, the Christ.
But you know...He's just my all in all. He's most precious for me. With out him I'd simply be able to do nothing but with him I can do all things.
Really...though I know some on here don't believe this but He's the one that makes life worth living. If you've never give Jesus a try at your life...go on give him a call today...for He's never that far away. He's actually touched with the feelings of our infirmities.
Let me exhort you to give the Lord, Jesus a call today and invite him into your life. He's truly a friend that sticketh closer than a brother. Once you've received him into your life...He'll never leave or forsake you, but will be with you until the very end of the world.
If this message has any meaning to you it will be because that He is giving you an invitation, to sup with Him and He with you.
Much love,
William Dunigan
Posted by: William Dunigan | August 21, 2009 6:24 PM
Shorter Dunigan:
I only want to HELP you... to give me all your money.
PLEASE BUY MY BOOK!!!
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 21, 2009 6:47 PM
"Let me exhort you to give the Lord, Jesus a call today and invite him into your life. He's truly a friend that sticketh closer than a brother."
I'd like to call him, but I asked Jesus for his number at a bar once, but he shot me down. I think it was because I used that "Did it hurt when you fell from heaven?" pick-up line. Must have struck a nerve.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | August 21, 2009 6:52 PM
Why would it be inappropriate for a public school teacher to make such a statement about religion in an instructional setting? Aren't teachers supposed to teach what they believe?
The problem with religion in public schools is that people assume there is such a thing as neutrality in pedagogy.
If people don't like what is taught in public school, why even bother having it? There are alternatives to suit every taste out there.
Posted by: Jeremy | September 14, 2009 8:06 PM
No, they're supposed to teach what is in the curriculum.
And the idea that compulsory education should be abolished is not really even worth responding to. The current system is certainly not perfect, but it is currently the only system that has a chance of encouraging a more educated, equal, and rational society.
Posted by: Damian | September 14, 2009 8:34 PM
Once again, I bid each and every person a most wonderful and glorious day. I would also that the blessings or our Lord, and Savior, Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God rest up all of those who read this message. That is, those who read each line from top to bottom.
Why I put it in this way is: I know those who have a deep antichrist spirit will skip over, or drop out, once it become obvious, this being a Christ glorifying message, rather than being a message that puts “Jesus the Christ” and all that He stands for down.
Yes, sad but true just the same, we seemingly move into more of a Christ denying…also a Christ hating society day by day. However, the truth of the matter is: this should not be a surprising issue for believers. For just like within this world that our God of love has created, He has given us both light and darkness. As we each know there is a time for both. The light makes it more convenient for working and getting things done, whereas, darkness makes it more convenient for rest from all the work we’ve accomplished during the daylight hours, as all will know.
Within the spiritual realm it is pretty much the same. The difference being: now we’re to work while it is yet day, in preparation of our soul’s salvation. The night (which, much of it, we’re now within.) is for checking out…as a person would do when in preparations for making a long trip. For they sure don’t want to forget anything. Also making preparations for a long, long trip, the electricity is soon to be turned off.. After which, they’ll not be able to see anything, therefore making it very hard to stumble around in the darkness making preparations to make their departure.
To make a long, long, story short folks…we’re now within the preparedness hour. What I’m saying in shorter words…will we now get ready…put differently…will we now set our house in order…or, will we choose, by not doing so, to be left behind?
John 9:4
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
WilliamDunigan
www.eloquentbooks.com/BeyondTheGoldenSunsetAndByTheCrystalSea.html
Posted by: William Dunigan | November 17, 2009 2:51 PM
I must work the works of him that sent me...
You call pasting the same tired old ravings on a dead thread "work?" The night has already come for your kind: you're not doing the least bit of real useful work. The rest of us have only begun to do the work of cleaning up the mess you Christurbators have made.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 17, 2009 2:58 PM
I'm just wondering what the point of William Dunigan's post was. It doesn't seem to address the the article or relate to any of the points discussed. In fact the whole thing comes across as self-aggrandizing and hypocritical (in a Matthew 6:1-6 kind of way). It’s no surprise it culminates in an advertisement for his book. But I suppose saying, "Look everybody, I’m a pious man. Give me money and you can be too," might be too obvious. The sad thing is he probably doesn’t even realize that’s what he’s doing. Religious whackos, the idiot savants of the con world.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 17, 2009 3:33 PM
Once again:
Greetings to one and all in that Mighty Name of our Lord, and Savior...Jesus the Christ. The one and only one with power to save to the uttermost.
He also is the only one who gives you "Joy unspeakable" it being also full of his Glory. For you who are separated from him...that being done by the prince of darkness (him wanting you for his own, as he has a special place within his domain reserved for you) you really don't need to wonder about all of this. With truth, explore your own inner self. All of mankind is seeking peace and happiness, joy, and a good inner feeling about themselves. You don't need to prove to no one, that you do or do not have these things within, for you and you alone will be the person who will suffer if you do not have these things. You alone will also be most blessed if you do have.
It truly is none of my business whether you do or do have them. I have them within my own life. This just helps me to realize the tremendous agony the people who do not have God's blessing resting upon them.
Here is believing for the Lord, Jesus to help you with this lacking of his peace and happiness within your life. I know this will apply to many who make post's on here...so if this does not apply to you...just skip over this blog.
Warm Regards
William Dunigan
www.eloquentbooks.com/BeyondTheGoldenSunsetAndByTheCrystalSea.html
Posted by: William Dunigan | November 25, 2009 3:50 PM
See what I mean?
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 25, 2009 3:55 PM
Is it getting awfully deja vu in here, or is it just me?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 25, 2009 3:55 PM
Seriously... it seems like he's just stringing together random sentences together. Kind of like the Postmodern Essay Generator: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Does something like this exist to create such mind-numbling prostylizing automatically? Or do you think Billy the Bookseller is making this crap up every time by himself?
Posted by: doctorgoo | November 25, 2009 4:08 PM
Hi everybody!! Now i know i am not the only one with a problem like mine. I've never made any trips back to Africa since past 3 years i left my country.I have a valid A - DIRECT AIRSIDE TRANSIT VISA from United Kingdom to my country issued in New York but no money for plane ticket. I have a plan to go to my country to submit my old passport and get a new passport even to visit my Dad and my family members and come back. I pray to God that there is someone out there that will be able to help me, please contact me (prof4real2005 AT yahoo DOT com)to take my information that you can use to buy me a plane ticket. THANKS. MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALWAYS. prof4real2005@yahoo.com
Posted by: Chi | December 6, 2009 8:10 AM
Greetings to one and all:
Yes!! It’s been a long, long, time since I've made a blog on here. So I know this has given you, who are opposed to anything that has to do with the Salvation of the Soul, a little time to breathe with greater ease. What I'm saying: giving you a break of having someone constantly reminding you, that time is swiftly running out.
For as most will know...there truly is a destination awaiting each of us. NO!! When we close our eyes for the last time here within this life...that's not the end of the journey by no means my friends...and also to those of whom, in no way, consider me as a friend.
However, the definition of a friend, or of a true friend, is not one who cheer's you on, them knowing that the direction you've chosen is taking you down, and out, is not a friend at all. A true friend is one of whom will tell you the truth...even though you may hate and despise them for doing so. The truth of all I've said on any of the blogs that I've made on here and elsewhere is: There truly is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun my friend.
Much love,
Your brother in Christ Jesus, who is both our Lord, and Savior.
www.eloquentbooks.com/BeyondTheGoldenSunsetAndByTheCrystalSea.html
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/OffToVisitTheProphetElijah
Posted by: Willaim Dunigan | January 6, 2010 6:13 AM
Yes, yes, we've heard it many times before. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
BTW, this site is a blog, specifically Ed Brayton's. The blogger (Ed) writes posts, about which people leave comments. These comments form a thread. You are not making a blog, you are leaving a comment. In fact, truth be told you are spamming.
Posted by: DaveL | January 6, 2010 6:36 AM