…and this is a 
This year, Texas will require its students to take a Bible course. In the supposedly secular public schools.
This could be a bad thing if all the schools bring in their local Southern Baptist minister to teach fundagelicalism…but it would be a great thing if the teachers brought a properly skeptical attitude towards it. Well, except for all the teacher lynchings that we'd be seeing around October.
A correction from the Texas Freedom Network:
Just a quick note about your post on Bible classes in Texas public schools. Unfortunately, the article you linked to in your post got it wrong - public schools in Texas are NOT required to offer Bible courses. In fact, we were successful in 2007 in changing that bill in committee so that high schools could choose whether or not they want to offer elective courses about the Bible's influence in history and literature.
The Texas attorney general has ruled that the law, as written, does require that something about the Bible's influence in history and literature must be in the curriculum somewhere, but it doesn't have to be a separate course. Of course, many social studies and literature classes have long included samples of sacred writings from Christianity and the other major religions and explain their influence on various cultures. So we don't think the law will change much unless school districts decide to offer separate Bible courses.
Education
Politics
Comments
Posted by: PaleGreenPantsWithNobodyInsideThem | August 17, 2009 12:00 PM
insane
Posted by: Michael Russell | August 17, 2009 12:03 PM
Technically, Texas schools are required to offer an elective course on Bible study. Students are not required to take it.
Now, the lack of a state-approved curriculum is where your concern should be in regards to this.
Posted by: TheBear | August 17, 2009 12:03 PM
A non-biased, neutral course in religion is of the good. Especially if it's done in a critical way and hihglights the plurality of beliefs.
But just teaching the bible? That does not bode well - and in my view it speaks loudly of how bigoted and chauvinistic (in a broad sense) Texans are...
Posted by: Drosophila Slayer | August 17, 2009 12:05 PM
Huh. Interesting. This reminds me of a Facebook flamewar I got into a couple weeks ago with a "friend" who happens to be on the school board of my hometown back in Missouri. She had joined a group called "Let's get God back in the schools!!" or something like that, and the expressed wish of this group was to teach the Bible in all public schools as a required course.
I commented that it sounded like a great idea, as long as it was in the context of a "History of Religion" type survey course, and that the origins of the Torah, the New Testement, Koran, Bagavad Gita, Upanishads, etc, should be covered as well. Maybe using Richard Wright's "The Evolution of God" as a text.
Of course that didn't go over very well.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | August 17, 2009 12:07 PM
Do you suppose they will teach about the strengths and weaknesses of the various internally inconsistent mythological stories in the Bible? Will they teach the many logical absurdities of Noah's Flood? Will they address the utter lack of scientific support for the creation myths of Genesis? Will they discuss the approval of ethnic cleansing, racial profiling, slavery, incest, polygamy and other 21st century politically incorrect topics? This could actually be fun!
Posted by: Kristine | August 17, 2009 12:07 PM
"The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it per say."
"Per say"?
"I think it is a good thing because a lot of kids don't have that experience, and they already want to take prayer out of school as it is..."
The kids want to take prayer out of school?
I suggest that they start teaching English.
Posted by: Kevin Gallagher | August 17, 2009 12:09 PM
I assumed the same thing when I attended philosophy though. I can't speak for every philosophy class of course, but the ones I attended were very pro-religion. The bible wasn't stated as fact but the arguments were treated as much more valid than mine. Everything I said was treated as 'the same old atheist bullshit'. I doubt this is going to go well.
Posted by: MikeM | August 17, 2009 12:10 PM
Man, I just can't see how this is constitutional. It definitely gives preference to one religion over others in official government business. It doesn't even matter the size of the religion.
But, you know, requiring religion, making science optional... Dumber and dumber we're getting. Our values are backwards.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 17, 2009 12:11 PM
In the abstract, it's all to the good.
If there were enough watchdogs and people potentially threatening lawsuits, it would be a good thing.
If it were in New York state, I bet it would work well, except in a few of the smaller towns.
With Texas doing it, well, I obviously worry. Even they should be able to do it well enough if guidelines are explicit (and teachers seriously warned to follow them) and keep it from becoming a laudatory session about that source of misery.
I'd guess that not too much really will come of it, with few students--mostly those committed to opposite poles--taking the courses. Maybe the watchdogs can keep them mostly in line, so long as not too many students are interested.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 17, 2009 12:11 PM
It's not totally clear from that article (though mostly) but I think this is an elective not required class.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 17, 2009 12:11 PM
Georgia had the same idea. They instituted a Bible courses that teaches the Old & New Testaments as historic and literary sources.
Ga Dept of Ed Bible Courses
Apparently, it has fewer students than they had anticipated because the fundie types (who were drooling to get the Bible in the schools), don't take it when they find out it is purely academic and not religious in nature.
Can't have the little dears opening their brains to any Biblical knowledge that isn't propaganda for their church.
Posted by: daveau | August 17, 2009 12:12 PM
So what takes precedence here; Federal law or State law?
Posted by: Pablo | August 17, 2009 12:12 PM
To an extent, yes, but it goes farther. Whether there are going to be a large fraction of teachers who don't actually use the state-approved curriculum, should there even be one, is also a big concern.
You don't need a "state-approved" curriculum if everyone were to approach this properly. However, no state-approved guidelines are going to prevent a lot of evangelicals from using the class for bible promotion.
So yes, a state-approved curriculum would be nice, but there needs to be resources for assessment and enforcement.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 17, 2009 12:13 PM
HB 1287
AN ACT
relating to public school elective courses providing academic study
of the Bible.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter A, Chapter 28, Education Code, is
amended by adding Section 28.011 to read as follows:
Sec. 28.011. ELECTIVE COURSES ON THE BIBLE'S HEBREW
SCRIPTURES (OLD TESTAMENT) AND NEW TESTAMENT AND THEIR IMPACT ON
THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION. (a) A school
district may offer to students in grade nine or above:
(1) an elective course on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old
Testament) and its impact and an elective course on the New
Testament and its impact; or
(2) an elective course that combines the courses
described by Subdivision (1).
(b) The purpose of a course under this section is to:
(1) teach students knowledge of biblical content,
characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to
understanding contemporary society and culture, including
literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy; and
(2) familiarize students with, as applicable:
(A) the contents of the Hebrew Scriptures or New
Testament;
(B) the history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New
Testament;
(C) the literary style and structure of the
Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament; and
(D) the influence of the Hebrew Scriptures or New
Testament on law, history, government, literature, art, music,
customs, morals, values, and culture.
(c) A student may not be required to use a specific
translation as the sole text of the Hebrew Scriptures or New
Testament and may use as the basic textbook a different translation
of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament from that chosen by the
board of trustees of the student's school district or the student's
teacher.
(d) A course offered under this section shall follow
applicable law and all federal and state guidelines in maintaining
religious neutrality and accommodating the diverse religious
views, traditions, and perspectives of students in their school
district. A course under this section shall not endorse, favor, or
promote, or disfavor or show hostility toward, any particular
religion or nonreligious faith or religious perspective. Nothing in
this statute is intended to violate any provision of the United
States Constitution or federal law, the Texas Constitution or any
state law, or any rules or guidelines provided by the United States
Department of Education or the Texas Education Agency.
(e) Before adopting rules identifying the essential
knowledge and skills of a course offered under this section, the
State Board of Education shall submit the proposed essential
knowledge and skills to the attorney general. The attorney general
shall review the proposed essential knowledge and skills to ensure
that the course complies with the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and the board may not adopt rules identifying
the essential knowledge and skills of a course offered under this
section without the attorney general's approval under this
subsection.
(f) A teacher of a course offered under this section must
hold a minimum of a High School Composite Certification in language
arts, social studies, or history with, where practical, a minor in
religion or biblical studies. A teacher selected to teach a course
under this section shall successfully complete staff development
training outlined in Section 21.459. A course under this section
may only be taught by a teacher who has successfully completed
training under Section 21.459.
(g) For the purpose of a student earning credit for high
school graduation, a school district shall grant one-half academic
elective credit for satisfactory completion of a course on the
Hebrew Scriptures, one-half academic elective credit for
satisfactory completion of a course on the New Testament, and
one-half academic elective credit for satisfactory completion of a
combined course on both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New
Testament. This subsection applies only to a course that is taught
in strict compliance with this section.
(h) If, for a particular semester, fewer than 15 students at
a school district campus register to enroll in a course required by
this section, the district is not required to offer the course at
that campus for that semester.
(i) This section does not prohibit the board of trustees of
a school district from offering an elective course based on the
books of a religion other than Christianity. In determining whether
to offer such a course, the board may consider various factors,
including student and parent demand for such a course and the impact
such books have had on history and culture.
(j) This section does not prohibit a school district from
offering a course, other than the course authorized by this
section, in the academic study of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New
Testament, or both for local credit or for state elective credit
towards high school graduation.
Posted by: Chico | August 17, 2009 12:14 PM
Screw the First Amendment! We obviously don't need it, so why don't we just mix in a dose of religion with everything and let it take over so we don't have to keep using these pesky brain cells.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 17, 2009 12:14 PM
My retired father-in-law taught an English course for years at the Junior College where he chaired the English Department--Bible as literature, so such courses certainly can be taught by atheists. (His atheism began when, willfully foregoing bedtime prayers, he was not Zotted, and that was that.) Increasing familiarity with the Bible is among the best vaccinations against Christianity, so from our perspective, carefully chosen reading assignments are not necessarily a good thing for the fundies who rammed this through. The question is, how many atheist high school teachers are there who are willing to teach the Bible as literature in Texas, and who determines what goes in the syllabus?
Posted by: WordSpinner | August 17, 2009 12:15 PM
I'm going to go to college and we're going to study the bible in the core class. Of course, we also read the Talmud, the Koran, the Bagavad Gita, various Greek philosophers, and Marx, among others. I honestly think a similar course would be good for highschoolers, but I don't think this is that course. It might be somewhere, but.
When my Dad went to high school in Wyoming, they had a course called something like civics, but it was basically anticommunism 101. I bet most of these bible courses end up something like Christianity 101 (for believers).
Of course, since most Christians don't seem to know their own bible very well, this might lead to some looking at it--without the teacher's help--and saying, "wait, what? This doesn't make any sense!"
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 12:15 PM
So basically the Texas state government is saying that they will use the wedge to bring in the Bible for teaching in the public schools. Parents are not responsible enough to have church and the home environment to teach the Bible, we must make it once again state policy. I hope this makes it to the Supreme Court quickly.
Posted by: Barry | August 17, 2009 12:15 PM
You should look at it in a positive light. When you talk of the evils of the story of Lot and his daughters, the silliness of creation, and the stupidity of Noah’s flood - yada yada yada. At least the kids from Texas who visit your site will know what you’re talking about.
Posted by: jardmonkey | August 17, 2009 12:17 PM
Actually the bill says that all Texas public school districts must offer a bible as literature course if 15 or more students express interest. It is not required for all students, but offered as an elective.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/MYSA010608_05B_UJWRELIGION_293418f_html1857.html
This does not mean it is any less insidious.
As the Bad Astronomer often says, Texas is DOOOOOOOMED.
Posted by: senecasam | August 17, 2009 12:21 PM
Maybe when they learn what a convoluted, contradictory, and violent collection of tales and the ravings of madmen the "Holy Bible" is, many of these students will throw off the yoke of superstition and super-naturalism and embrace science, reason and reality.
Posted by: Malachi Constant | August 17, 2009 12:21 PM
@ #14
The last few paragraphs highlight why this seems unconstitutional to me. You may have courses about other religious texts, but you must have one about the bible.
How is this not showing preference for one religion over another? You could say it has more impact on our society than other books, but that seems irrelevant to me, you're still showing preference.
I'm a Texan and this makes me ill.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 17, 2009 12:22 PM
I particularly like the language of the act saying that the purpose of the course is to
The extent to which Biblical passages are still relevant to our "mores" and our "public policy" is the extent to which we are a backward, bigoted nation. And on the literature score, well, I take positive delight in anticipating which Bible stories will have to be taught for students to understand Shakespeare. "O Jephthah, judge of Israel, what a treasure hadst thou!"
Posted by: annabones | August 17, 2009 12:22 PM
what is wrong with your country?
Posted by: Eye of Horus
|
August 17, 2009 12:22 PM
Religious education classes should be like the ones I had at school. We watched Final Destination (with the excuse it's about death), Mrs Doubtfire (a film about divorce) and Muriel's Wedding (to learn about weddings). God knows how I passed that exam.
Posted by: Dan506 | August 17, 2009 12:23 PM
On the plus side, now we can blame every problem in Texas on Christianity in schools - since previously they blamed every problem on it's lack.
Posted by: Becky | August 17, 2009 12:26 PM
For equality they also need to offer a FSM class. I'd take that.
Posted by: DaveX | August 17, 2009 12:26 PM
As written, the law sounds fairly benign-- I highly doubt that this class will be such in practice, though. Sounds like more wedge BS to me.
Posted by: tsg | August 17, 2009 12:31 PM
The bill, on the face of it, seems pretty reasonable including training for teachers of the course in
If we could take the act on its face (and that's a big "if"), I don't see any problem in offering the course. The potential for abuse is, however, quite large and Texas hasn't shown itself to be particularly trustworthy in these matters.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 17, 2009 12:32 PM
Malachi Constant (#22):
Oh, it most definitely is.
By the indices the Bible-boosters typically quote — references in art and literature, sayings in common speech, etc. — a class on Greco-Roman mythology has an equally strong claim to a mandate.
Posted by: Jim B | August 17, 2009 12:34 PM
Although I'm in Texas now, I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. In freshman English class in high school we spent a few weeks reading sections of the old and new testament. That was back in 78 or so. The course work wasn't pushing belief; the Bible was just studied as literature.
So, on the one hand I can understand the worry that this could be used to push a belief system, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so. I guess my point is that we should wait until some fool teacher decides this is their chance to let the jesus genie out of the bottle in the classroom, and then we should take them to court over it.
Posted by: Erp | August 17, 2009 12:40 PM
I believe there are two major independent curricula out there
The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools
"The Bible in History and Literature"
http://www.bibleinschools.net/
Bible Literacy Project
"The Bible and its Influence"
http://www.bibleliteracy.org/
and FAQ
http://www.bibleliteracy.org/site/Case/index.htm
The latter is fairly strictly on literary influence of the Bible so
gives a good grounding on the stories but makes no statements as to
them being true or not. The former well it's intent goes a lot
further.
Bible Electives in Public Schools: A Guide From the Society of
Biblical Literature
http://www.uni.edu/coe/jrae/Spring%202009/SBL%20Guidelines%20Spring%202009.html
is an article on teaching the Bible in public schools and briefly
discusses the two curricula. The society itself is academic not
religious.
Posted by: JRQ | August 17, 2009 12:41 PM
Surely, it would be no problem for this objective academic bible course to be taught by an Atheist or Muslim teacher...
Posted by: Jim Linville | August 17, 2009 12:43 PM
I do not think this bodes well. I'm an atheist Old Testament prof up in Canada and I'm all for teaching school kids about world religions in a neutral fashion, and for teaching them how to spot biblical allusions in Western art and so forth.
The trick, of course, is with guaranteeing neutrality in the way the class is actually delivered (as opposed to the guidelines). And it is pretty hard to do, unless one is very careful.
The problem with the "Bible as Literture" approach is that a vast amount of ink has been expended within the academic and quasi-academic guild of biblical studies on this question, the result of which is that the Bible is accorded such a high level of artistry and meaning that it is very often portrayed as book that is continually relevant to just about any issue facing the modern world. As Hector Avalos explains in his book, The End of Biblical Studies, this often amounts to whitewashing its ugliness and its outrageous violence and the preservation of the idea that without it constantly being read, soceity is doomed. I think it would be too easy for teachers to slip into this mode unconsciously. The biblical academy will certainly help them along!
The largest academic society for biblical studies, the Society of Biblical Literature, is superficially secular and its thousands of members do a lot of good work. Probablly the majority of them, however, have some denominational affiliation and tons of theology is carried on under the SBL's auspices, even at its own meetings. Many members will side with at least a "professional agnosticim" if they were asked to review Bible as Lit classes, but the tendancy in many others would be affirm the Bible as a foundational text for western culture whose status as such should be confirmed.
There is a very fine (well, broken...) line between reading the Bible as literature and theology. Both generate subjective meanings and the two merge into one quite often.
Posted by: MatthewScience
|
August 17, 2009 12:45 PM
I am simply appalled when a theist says, "Our students are failing because prayer has been removed from public schools."
No. Teachers cannot waste valuable class time by subjecting a diverse body of students to a prayer reading that is decided by a biased board. Students are able to pray on their own time, as long as it is outside of the classroom. I enter a science classroom to learn science. I enter a classroom for mathematics to learn mathematics.
You cannot simplify the advancing state of society and claim that students are failing because they do not utter a prayer in the classroom. They are quite free to do this outside of the classroom, so long as it is not disruptive. I am an atheist, and I am quite an active and moral individual. I do not need a prayer to do well in school; rather, I need dedication that does not have to come from any religious source. Thank you very much.
Posted by: jardmonkey | August 17, 2009 12:50 PM
http://tinyurl.com/ldfp2n
Posted by: Newfie | August 17, 2009 12:51 PM
Sanctioned dumification of the populace... the churches are losing members and thus, political donations from the churches are down. Screw the little shits' minds, we need more money on this gravy train.
.. and it's Texas.
Posted by: Dennis | August 17, 2009 12:51 PM
That's going to be an expensive Supreme Court bill.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 17, 2009 12:52 PM
Indeed, PZ, you should correct your post. Not that this isn't disgusting anyway, but accuracy is important here. Otherwise, the retort will be, "Those lying atheists, there the ones who want to force kids into a particular worldview! We just want to offer them an option!" The constitutional and practical problems with offering an elective Bible class need to be tackled head-on, not by misleading people into thinking it is mandatory.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 17, 2009 12:53 PM
Of course it's an elective. Students are never pressured by teachers or peers to attend specific classes. Everyone knows Christians are kind and accepting of those with divergent beliefs.
"nigelTheBold, could you please give us four examples of historical evidence to support the flood?"
"No, Ms. Godbegood. There is no evidence to support a worldwide flood at all."
"nigelTheBold! How dare you! Didn't you read your text? Let me help you. There are many animals alive today. That means they must've all been saved by Noah. Since Noah had to save them in a boat, there must've been a flood. Now, can you give me evidence that Jesus actually lived?"
"Yes, Ms. Godbegood. I was taking your momma from behind in back of the gym last night, and she kept screaming, 'Jesus!'"
Yeah. What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by: tsg | August 17, 2009 12:54 PM
I'm perusing the Texas Education Code trying to see the context of this act. It's particularly bothersome in that no other religious studies are required to be offered other than the Bible. What makes it more conspicuous is that they are very specific about using the Bible for their religious literature classes, but, for example, the foreign language requirements don't mention a single foreign language to be taught, even as a suggestion. You'd think that Texas schoolchildren might benefit from a course in Spanish, but it's not in there at all. Why be so specific about the Bible, then?
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 17, 2009 12:54 PM
The more I read, here and at Dispatches, about some US state trying to sneak in bible classes with a new dodge and then being smacked down by the courts the more I think someone smart could sell a Dan Dennett-style, fact-based religion programme to American schools. It is one way to get the bible read in school after all. And once it's being discussed it's kind of hard for a religionist to oppose without looking like they don't really believe (the truth will shine out, right?)
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 17, 2009 12:57 PM
IIRC, the Society of Biblical Literature has never had an openly irreligious president. Food for thought.
Posted by: dobbinRiddle | August 17, 2009 1:01 PM
@ #23
Thanks for the link to the Brick Testament. Finally a version of the bible that I'll let my children read!
Posted by: Chris Caprette | August 17, 2009 1:02 PM
I agree with Malachi Constant @ 22. While IANAL, the text of the bill requires schools to offer a bible course. If the law merely stated that the schools were permitted to offer such a course, then no problem. Whether the course is an elective for students or not should be irrelevant. Requiring the schools to put the course on the books means that they must expend time developing the course and spend money to provide classroom space, books, salary for the instructor, and so on, thus diverting resources from other courses. I believe that SCOTUS has ruled that the first amendment prohibits an agency of the state from expending resources in preference of one religion over any other. The board could require that schools offer a religious studies elective, but not one exclusively about the Christian bible and its source material or influences.
Posted by: MatthewScience
|
August 17, 2009 1:02 PM
I think our main concern (and rightfully so) is that a state like Texas could make this offering as ambiguous as possible. Who knows what they could potentially include in order to further a religious agenda? I have no issues with the Bible being taught as a piece of historical literature, but I'd also like other pieces of work to be presented for differing viewpoints, as well.
I'm not interested in indoctrination from theists.
Posted by: Eric Houg | August 17, 2009 1:03 PM
I don't see anything about required Bible instruction on the TEA web site. I do see some stuff about last years elective bible course. But nothing on required instruction.
If anyone has a link on this could you please forward it to me. I would like to discuss it with my state legislators.
Posted by: jen | August 17, 2009 1:04 PM
My senior year of high school, I took a Humanities course that was offered as an elective alternative to the senior English course. We started with the part of Genesis that talks about the flood, followed immediately by the flood section of the epic of Gilgamesh. I think we also read the story of Job, and some of the old Greek and Norse myths.
It was secular "religion as part of our cultural heritage" done right.
But when you take just one religion and say it's about the effects of that one religion on history and America, of COURSE it's going to be used to advance that religion. What are they going to say - "ok, kids, now be aware that the Founding Fathers weren't all Christian, and we likely wouldn't have had the Salem witch burnings without that whole 'suffer not a witch to live' thing"....? Hardly!
Posted by: RamziD | August 17, 2009 1:05 PM
While I think this is just a loophole to preach religion in the classroom, you should really change the wording of your post to reflect accuracy, PZ. They are not required to take the course. Schools are just required to offer it. It's either way, but you should at least cover the story accurately.
Posted by: ObSciGuy | August 17, 2009 1:06 PM
The law HB 1278 can be read in full at:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/HB01287F.pdf
Posted by: John A. Broussard | August 17, 2009 1:06 PM
Bible teaching could be a gift from heaven (I use the word advisedly). My reason for saying so is based on how the librarian at the college where I taught used to use the Bible to deal with self-appointed censors.
When some parent came in (and they do at the college level) to complain about the indecent book assignments in some classes (probably mine), the librarian would thank her/him for all the concern and beg for help to eliminate obscene literature on the campus.
Saying that, he'd reach under the counter and pull out his well-thumbed Bible, open it to relevant dog-eared pages and start reading aloud about piss and dung, about God showing his bacckside to Moses, about Lot prostituting his daughters and on and on. All that in a loud voice so that the entire library audience could hear the monolog.
The final score? Librarian and obscenity 1. The censor and censorship 0.
So, maybe the right questions asked by students in those Bible classes--especially when accompanied by the appropriate portions of the Bible--could be very instructive for everybody.
Posted by: tsg | August 17, 2009 1:07 PM
#47
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/ed.toc.htm
Specifically, section 28.011
For clarification, the students are not required to take it, but the school is required to offer it unless fewer than 15 students sign up for it.
Posted by: RamziD | August 17, 2009 1:07 PM
Edit for clarification (#49):
It's wrong (the bill) either way, but you should at least cover the story accurately.
Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | August 17, 2009 1:08 PM
Which Bible? There are a bunch of different ones. It will be interesting when Texas selects The One True Bible.
Posted by: Miles Tougeaux | August 17, 2009 1:08 PM
Then again if high school kids actually read it, maybe more would realize how laughable and inane it is.
Posted by: Lowell | August 17, 2009 1:10 PM
The statute requires the commissioner of education to promulgate standards for the instruction teachers are supposed to complete to be qualified to teach the course, but I couldn't find anything more than this bare-bones proposed curriculum: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/sboe/schedule/2008/july/instruction/attachments/1_bible_a2.pdf
Notably, it requires that students in the Bible class "use critical-thinking skills to locate, organize, analyze, and use data collected from a variety of sources."
Sounds good in theory. In practice, I agree the potential for abuse is overwhelming.
Posted by: God Retardant | August 17, 2009 1:10 PM
I would love to see how the teachers explain these bible verses.
2 KINGS 18:27
EZEKIEL 23:20
LEVITICUS 20:16
PSALM 137:9
MALACHI 2:3
Posted by: Rasputin | August 17, 2009 1:12 PM
It's almost like a bunch of lawyers got together to pass a law to generate more work for lawyers.
Posted by: Newfie | August 17, 2009 1:13 PM
I saw a fundie at one of those town halls on tv last week, complaining that, "This is not the America I grew up with... I want my country back." .. all the while clutching the One True Word - New American Version, of course.
Posted by: Chayanov | August 17, 2009 1:14 PM
Unfortunately all too true.
Posted by: Inti | August 17, 2009 1:14 PM
I also want an optional Popol Vuh course. Or I'll call religious intolerance.
Posted by: Lauri | August 17, 2009 1:20 PM
This in the same year that Texas removed requirements for classes on Health and Technology.
Why do I live here!?!
Posted by: Lowell | August 17, 2009 1:21 PM
The statute actually addresses that issue in subparagaph (c):
Again, of course, that sounds fine on paper, but you get a zealous teacher and you're on your way to full-on indoctrination into KJV land.
Posted by: mothwentbad | August 17, 2009 1:21 PM
I can has Bart Ehrman textbook?
Posted by: Alexis | August 17, 2009 1:23 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong here but I thought the schools are being required to teach it, but the students aren't required to take it. Didn't the last article you posted on it say if more than 15 students in a school want it the school has to offer it? That doesn't make it a required course for every student. It's still lame that it's being legislated that schools have to offer it but it's NOt the same as requiring students to take it. The article you linked to only said schools must teach it, nothing about students having to take it. I still am not in favor of it, but its a BIG difference.
Posted by: CJColucci | August 17, 2009 1:24 PM
Rasputin, you beat me to it.
That statute, as written, is probably constitutional. The implementation, however, is certain to be a clusterfuck. How many secondary schoolteachers in Texas are competent to teach the sorts of things covered in the commissioner's regulations, assuming they honestly want to? And how many honestly want to? Full employment for Texas lawyers! I'm re-locating.
Posted by: MatthewScience
|
August 17, 2009 1:25 PM
I don't think Texas would require students to take such a course. They would not want to contend with the lawsuits that would follow. It's fine if this is optional, but I still am interested in monitoring the progress of this particular program. Will there be abuse?
Posted by: not a gator | August 17, 2009 1:25 PM
@9
If it were in New York state, I bet it would work well, except in a few of the smaller towns.
In my Eastern Mass. town we had a 10th grade English unit treating Bible as literature. We spent most of the time on Job, but also did a bit on Matthew, which was interesting for the largely Jewish class who weren't really familiar with it. (Sure, they'd heard of Christmas, but didn't know the beatitudes. There were a lot of "oh, so THAT's where that came from!" moments.)
It's a valuable exercise because so much Western literature draws on the babble in one way or another.
The teacher had to walk a fine line, not because she was held back from preachin' the Troof! but because doing a literary analysis of some Bible chapters does not imply, in a very real and legally binding way (wink, wink), that the public school system was endorsing or discouraging any particular religion, or that we were somehow mocking* anyone's beliefs.
*-I think this is why we stuck to Job, rather than the sillier bits, although Job is also a bit silly. I mean, what's up with killing his kids to punish him? Don't they have rights?
Btw, we were well-versed on the church-state separation things as kids. In 4th grade our teacher was going through a nasty divorce and was very disorganized. One day she was reading us some folk tales and one of them happened to be one of those wacky Catholic folk tales with the Virgin Mary (she turns a girl's finger orange as a carrot for some made-up offense). We gave her hella crap for that and threatened to report her.
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 1:26 PM
This is something truly good, giving them the Holy Spirit when they are young before the schools attempt to destroy their faith in the Lord by evolution indoctrination.
It is a good step in the right direction. No doubt you atheist dont like it, afraid that your religion finally being questioned? Scry scary isn't it. We been oppressed for centuries and now we defend ourselfs, I hope the rest of the country follow suit.
Posted by: Justin Chase | August 17, 2009 1:28 PM
They should be able to have bible classes in texas... as long as they're able to teach it truthfully. The classes should describe the history of the bible and Christianity honestly. Just like any other subject of history. It should be held with the same regard as ancient Roman mythology.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 17, 2009 1:31 PM
#69 is a proper example of Poe's Law. Just no way of knowing.
Posted by: Newfie | August 17, 2009 1:32 PM
Sarah #69
http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/
Saul of Tarsus did some good cobbling to preach to Messianic Jews, huh?
Posted by: MatthewScience
|
August 17, 2009 1:32 PM
Sara: Was that supposed to be a theist parody? There's no way someone with an IQ over 50 could believe that atheism (which constitutes a rejection of supernatural claims and promotes a more skeptical approach to life) is a religious belief (which, imo, are the most unchallenged systems in society).
Oppression, eh? Now that's worth a chuckle or two. I suppose that's the old theist way: indoctrinate the children while they are young, and tell them that they must not challenge what the darling theists say. Fabulous.
What I find scary is the possibility that you are a genuine theist, and not some regular on this blog.
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 17, 2009 1:33 PM
Now they need to require courses in the Qu'ran, Book of Mormon, The Vedas, The Avesta, The Urantia Book, and thousands more. If they don't then the government is favoring one religion over another.
Posted by: Erica | August 17, 2009 1:33 PM
Didn't the two or three Mormon and Catholic families in Texas file lawsuit forbidding teacher led prayers in school? Or was that another state? If it is I sense another lawsuit coming. Actually, I'm praying for one. LOL ;-)
Posted by: not a gator | August 17, 2009 1:36 PM
@58 Rasputin
Nominated for thread winner. Can I get a second?
Posted by: amphiox | August 17, 2009 1:38 PM
If they teach it as literature, then I'm not in disagreement with offering these courses. The bible is one of the foundational pillars of Western literature, after all.
And if attending such a course gets more children to actually read the bible for themselves, rather than simply accept what some authority figure says about it, that would also be a pretty good thing. It seems few things undermine blind faith in the bible more than actually reading it yourself.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 17, 2009 1:41 PM
Kristine (@6):
Not to rain on perfectly good snark, but the error you point to is no doubt attributable to some underpaid (if not unpaid) intern at the TV station who transcribed the aired story to web text, rather than to the person being quoted.
Blake (@30):
But we do have instruction in Greco-Roman mythology in public schools; it's just usually buried within the English Literature or Language Arts curriculum... the difference, of course, is that it's taught as mythology. If the Bible were taught as cultural "source material," equivalent to Greco-Roman or Norse mythology, that would be unobjectionable. Ahhh, but in the oh-so-Christian Republic of Texas, it's hard to imagine the subject being taught — or received, for that matter — in that light, isn't it?
I think it's much easier to teach religious texts as fodder for art and culture when, as is the case with Greco-Roman and Norse religious texts, the mythology in question is not the basis for any currently active religion1. Any attempt to teach the Bible (or the Koran or the Torah), no matter how scrupulously neutrally intended, can't avoid becoming religious/political advocacy.
And, of course, in a place like Texas, it's impossible to believe there's truly any such intention of neutrality in the first place.
Chris (@45):
IANAL, either (would that be IANALE?), but I thought the language was somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, the bill states that districts may offer courses, suggesting that they are not required to. OTOH, the may clause is followed by two options conjoined with or, which suggests that the discretion may be limited to which option to pick, rather than whether one option or the other must be picked. On the gripping hand, language later in the bill specifies the conditions under which a district is not required to offer the course... strongly suggesting that the course is required in all other cases.
Based on the news story, it's clearly being interpreted by districts as mandatory... and it seems likely that was the legislative intent... but I wonder how the lawyers will parse it out.
I can't help wondering whether this vagueness in the language is just bad legal craftsmanship, or if it's a deliberate attempt to build in a constitutional get-out-of-jail-free card: A bill that school boards and superintendents will read as mandatory, but which can be defended in the courts as merely providing districts with an option. All stereotypes about the intelligence of wingnuts aside, I wouldn't put that tactical approach past them.
1 You kids with your hands up, waiting to tell me about this obscure group of Wotanists or that remote batch of Zeusites can just hold your water: They're not currently active religions by any globally reasonable meaning of the term.
Posted by: Nangleator | August 17, 2009 1:42 PM
@#69...
Oppressed... heh. Is that what you call not satisfying your need to oppress others?
Is this a Christian nation? With mostly Christian people? Or are you the oppressed minority? Which is it?
Posted by: raven | August 17, 2009 1:44 PM
This wouldn't even be remotely legal.
As others have noted, it seems they must offer this as an elective course.
Don't think my high school offered anything like this. They did have a world's religions history thereof or some such. Never knew anyone who took it.
I suspect this bible course will be mostly sunday school type propaganda rather than the bible as literature. Meaning they will skip all the OT where children are sold as sex slaves or stoned to death and the Canaanites and Amelakites genocided.
Posted by: crs | August 17, 2009 1:45 PM
If Texas must teach a Babble course too bad it couldn't use the Yale Introduction to the Hebrew Bible as a sort of telecourse. It's still the Babble, but at least it provides cultural context and scholarly interpretation. That alone would probably rule it out.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 17, 2009 1:46 PM
Sara you fucking slut, our religion is science, not atheism.
Posted by: Nangleator | August 17, 2009 1:47 PM
@#80,
I suspect they intend it as Sunday School, as well. Can you imagine the trouble you'd get into for quoting the bible at your bible teacher? Or... for shit's sake... explaining what some of the passages mean to the class?
Posted by: Eric Houg | August 17, 2009 1:47 PM
OK, now I am a little irritated at Dr. Meyers. After a bit of searching it turns out that this is not a requirement but rather an elective and even then the schools don't have to offer it even if there are more than 15 kids that want to take it.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/curriculum/BibleLiteracyFAQ1008.pdf
It doesn't help to blindly fall for the prattlings of half assed journalists.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 17, 2009 1:53 PM
Bill Dauphin, OM:
Back in Alabama, my high school had a dedicated class on Greco-Roman myth and legend; I think it was mostly taken by the students who'd been in the advanced English track but dropped out of it before taking AP English senior year. That was in addition to the scraps of the Odyssey and whatnot we read in English class, and the lessons from Edith Hamilton's book we did in Latin I.
Very.
Posted by: Trish | August 17, 2009 1:54 PM
I hate this. If they did this in my community, I'd take a bunch of pamphlets and hang out in front of the local churches. Keep the religion out of the school and I'll stay out of your church. If not, I'm banging down your stain glassed door. End of story.
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 17, 2009 1:56 PM
ROFL at #69,
Yeah, you've been oppressed to the point that every religious President of the USA has been a Christian (and that potentially all of them were religious, though there are a small number who may simply have been deist or even agnostic - alleging that a person is athiest or of a religion other than a christian one is a tactic that has been used throughout the USA's history to attempt to malign presidential candidates), that 7 of 9 justices of the Supreme Court are Christian, and that christian holidays are national holidays.
You poor, pathetic, whinging little gobshite.
Oh, and add one more to the tally of atheists supporting education in religion. Took university courses in the old testament and new testament. Nothing like a good course on the bible as literature, it's very helpful when you debate the deluded to know their texts well.
Posted by: CJO | August 17, 2009 1:57 PM
I can has Bart Ehrman textbook?
Meh. I've just read his book on the Gospel of Judas, and while I respect his "journey" from frothing fundy to responsible scholar, he is still way too credulous about the degree to which the canonical New Testament texts reflect any actual history at all. If ever there was an invented character, it is surely Judas Iscariot, but Ehrman doesn't even give a nod in that direction; instead, he goes on at length about "the historical Judas" and what he imagines we can know about the life and times of a literary device.
I find it frustrating: an excellent writer and communicator about the state of NT scholarship, a scrupulous scholar... but only as far as it goes.
Posted by: Akiko | August 17, 2009 1:59 PM
I wonder how many millions of doallrs they will waste in court defending this stupid idea. You know hundreds of parents and students will be fighting this. My daughters would stand up in class and annouce it was all bulshit. But then I was sure to raise them without their heads of their asses.
Posted by: Michael Dickens | August 17, 2009 2:00 PM
Lucky for me, I go to a private school.
Posted by: MikeM | August 17, 2009 2:02 PM
You know, most of the people who sign up for this elective class are probably thumpers who figure since they study the Bible every Sunday anyway, this is a good way to get some credits for stuff they already know.
So, fine, use something other than KJV, and use the Skeptics Annotated Bible website to form a course outline. You'll be able to hear 'em say, "The Bible doesn't say that!" from three counties over.
Oh yes it does, class.
Pastor doesn't point out these parts, does he?
Doesn't matter, though: The US Courts will toss this law pretty quickly.
If they don't, I wonder if students of these classes will be required to post 10 items on websites hostile to Christianity, totalling 2,000 words.
Posted by: Freidenker | August 17, 2009 2:02 PM
Oh, now now, bible study has been a part of the Israeli curriculum (in every school, public or otherwise) ever since this country was founded in 1948. I wouldn't want them to abolish it - for secular Jews like me, it was the perfect time to relax during the day and an extremely easy way to improve my GPA :-)
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 2:03 PM
Newfie, Did you even read the link you provided? The guy says HIMSELF there is no way to know and that atheists probably would deny it to be true.
And then two false anti-Christian movies was provided, one paranoia crazy movie called zeitgeist or something, and irreligious with that disgusting guy hating everything religious.
Have thought, that maybe, just maybe, these "Jesus like characters" ae made up after the event? That Buddhism is trying to get some momentum by make it up as Christianity is the biggest religion in the world (a mere coincidence I know, the truth is never the majority, right?).
And you also seem to ignore the fact that it hardly comes from reliable sources, most of these are from heathens and not worth a damn, and then you have the Truth of the Lord, The Holy Bible... Yeah, just watch your movies and live in your fantasy worlds.
I just dont understand why you do not want to live a good life and accept jesus. You want to have sex with everything, use drugs and be homosexual BECAUSE it is against Gods will, you are like defiant children, GROW UP and take RESPONSIBILITY and accept Jesus Christ in your hearts, else you will burn in Hell, do you really want that? Are you so stupid and ignorant you prefer being a pathetic nobody using drugs spread STDs and killing people, communism, nazism, you name it, it does not matter because Life means NOTHING, we are as worth as a MONKEY or SHEEP, no difference.
You guys bring death to the world, you sadden me.
Posted by: The Pint | August 17, 2009 2:05 PM
#34 has a good point at how familiarity with the Bible can help students learn how to spot Biblical references in works of art/literature/music, which in turn helps students to look at such art pieces in a different/wider context. Theoretically, if study of the Bible was undertaken to look at it as a cultural artifact that has impacted aspects of the development of Western civilization, and/or examined in comparison to other major religions (as in an introduction to world religions course), it could be beneficial. As other comments have pointed out, there are few things that can spur people who consider themselves Christian to take a second look at their religion more than actually reading and studying the Bible up close, rather than having it interpreted for them by authority figures. Not to mention, studying Christianity as well as other religions tends to wear off the shine of "uniqueness" of belief once you realize that there are A LOT of commonalities between Christianity and other belief systems. I remember as a child who read mythology voraciously I was surprised to realize how pervasive the whole savior-death-resurrection story was, and reading lots of Joseph Campbell in high school & college clinched my being an agnostic who looked at Christianity as just one expression of universal mythological themes as filtered through cultural and societal norms. Worshiping an invisible capricious Sky-Daddy somehow becomes a lot less imperative when you look at religion as a means of explaining the unknown.
I'd like to think that taking a course on the Bible/religion would open other public school students in Texas to looking at Christianity as something other than "the Truth" but this being Texas, the odds are pretty slim to none. More likely, enforcement of this rule is going to lead to the fundamentalists jumping down the throat of every student who dares to voice doubts/questions. As it's been pointed out, there's a fine line between teaching the Bible as literature/cultural artifact and teaching theology. I had 4 years of theology at the Catholic high school I attended (which after a solid 10 years at a school that pushed students to develop critical thinking skills and independent thought was something of a shock) and it was an odd experience, as the nun & priest I had in freshman & sophomore years were actually encouraging of critical thought & discourse regarding church doctrine (even if you disagreed with them, they didn't penalize you as long as your argument was solid & thought out), while my junior year teacher, a failed nun, was the worst when it came to questioning Catholic (much less Christian) doctrines. So a lot is going to depend on the teachers running these Bible courses. Personally, I had a lot more respect for that nun & priest who engaged with their questioning students rather than falling back on the easy path of condemning them as unbelievers than I had for that teacher who seemed to cling to her belief like a frightened child. I hope those students in Texas end up with more teachers like the former than the latter.
Posted by: tsg | August 17, 2009 2:07 PM
Do I really have to wait for one more Sara post before ripping into her? Hasn't she used up her allotment of stupid in these two?
Posted by: CJO | August 17, 2009 2:07 PM
You guys bring death to the world, you sadden me.
Way to deny the doctrine of original sin, lackwit.
Posted by: Monica | August 17, 2009 2:07 PM
Wow, just wow. This atheist (me), is quite ashamed of her Texas upbringing from time to time. This is one of those times. I understand that the course will be offered as an elective, but why is public funding going toward teaching the Bible? And it's not just any religious text - it's the Bible. Let's not mince words here, this law is a horribly insidious tool for putting religion back into the schools.
If Texas schools must offer such a course, they need to include all other religious texts as well. I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but, this road is looking a bit "wet".
When I went to public school in Texas, from 1986-2000, I was taught the theory of evolution, no word was mentioned about "intelligent design", and the study of religion was relegated to whatever chapter we were on in our World History texts. Those were the days.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 2:08 PM
Jesus Christ! Sara, did you even graduate fourth grade? Here, I'll write so you can understand it: "Did yew evan gragiate forth grade?"Go crawl back under that rock of ignorance where you came from Sara, you'll be much happier there.
I get more and more humiliated by my fellow Texans every god damned day.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 17, 2009 2:09 PM
Come on Sara, you forgot that we cook babies and sell the meat, if we don't eat it first.
We also started communism, and, just because we hate everybody, we invented nazism to attack it as well.
We also put all of the "marks of evolution" in life, and buried the transitional fossils.
Christ, you're not even an adequate troll, if you don't include those things.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 17, 2009 2:09 PM
Tommy (@82):
Back on your meds pronto, dude! I carry no water for Sara's POV (if it is indeed her POV, and not parody foiled by Poe's Law), but you need only read the several other responses to understand the non-rabid way to respond. Like the Founder of Our Feast®, I am not shy about strong language when it adds to the discussion; yours was just a random ejaculation of gratuitous profanity to no purpose1.
Can't you find a space policy forum in which to preach the Gospel of Hydrogen™, and just leave us alone?
PS to the rest of Pharyngulaland: If my reaction seems over the top, it's because I have previous experience of Mr. Elifritz in a BBS long, long ago and far, far away: When he's around, it can get crazy out really quickly.
Eric (@84):
No doubt he's a "little irritated" at you for misspelling his name... or would be, if he hadn't seen it so often, usually from drive-by kneejerk critics.
Oh, BTW, Your link doesn't actually support your irritation: In each case where the FAQ you link to says that schools are not required to offer "the course," it also says they are required to offer some instruction in religious literature... and in Texas, how do you imagine "religious literature" will be interpreted. It's a good bet that Texican public schools won't be offering classes in the Bhagavad Gita... at least, not outside of Austin!
1 And don't protest that it was a pop-culture allusion: That would have had to be "...you ignorant slut...."
Posted by: MatthewScience
|
August 17, 2009 2:09 PM
I'm sorry, but I cannot respond to Sara's inanity. Her projections are far too overwhelming, and they only deserve a small wink and a chuckle. When I say, "Hi, I'm not religious", it's astounding that theists claim, "Since you do not embrace my religious beliefs, you MUST be ___, ____, and ___!"
I think you're the immature one in this situation, Sara. You are the one who deeply saddens me. Could you substantiate your claim that non-Christians want to have "sex with everything"? Since I lack religious convictions, are you able to tell me who I am as an individual? I hold myself accountable to my fellow human beings and my community. Incidentally, I'm also a community volunteer, a worker at our local shelter, and a proud citizen. I am also an atheist, I will have you know.
I believe that life is something. However, I also believe that there is nothing after death. Therefore, we must wisely spend our time on Earth, do what is necessary, and leave a mortal legacy behind for future generations.
Posted by: Bobber | August 17, 2009 2:11 PM
...and these are bad things because?
Posted by: Bobber | August 17, 2009 2:13 PM
Or, to put it another way... what have you got against someone having a really good weekend?
Posted by: MatthewScience
|
August 17, 2009 2:13 PM
Because Sara's religious beliefs must remain unchallenged, of course. Those darn atheists must be responsible for every ill in society. There was never an Inquisition, religion has never held back reason, and there were no witch burnings held due to religious bigotry.
Posted by: speedwell | August 17, 2009 2:16 PM
I'm sick and tired of living in Texas, since this is what it's becoming. I work in IT in the oil business. For two cents I'd move to Scotland. Consider this a "networking" request. Anybody feeling helpful today? :D
Posted by: KI | August 17, 2009 2:16 PM
I don't think Sara is a poe, her stupidity is too obvious. Hey dimwit, Buddha lived 600 years before Jesus (if Jesus ever lived at all). I like your use of "ourselfs", though, very lolspeak.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 17, 2009 2:17 PM
Well, no...
The sex is 'cos it's fun, the homosexuality is just 'cos that's the only porn that pays, and the drugs are...
Well, okay. She got me... The drugs are 'cos it's against 'God's'* will. But not that other stuff.
I mean, man, some deities. It's like everything is all about them...
*Well, technically it's actually about both Yahweh's and Zeuss' will... But not Apollo's... truth is, sometimes, he'll do a few lines with me... Helps 'em unwind, he says... And I think he might have a few unresolved issues with the old man, too, honestly...
(/Yeah, I may have just broken the three post rule. But technically, as noted, I figure the quoted sentence counted fer two and a half on its own. And I figure she just might make three by the time this one goes out anyway...)
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | August 17, 2009 2:18 PM
One year, my highschool actually offered an elective course on the Bible. It was offered as a history course and it covered Joshua and part or Judges. I don't think the teacher was a Christian but I am not sure.
Anyway, when we got to the part where God told Joshsua to kill every many woman and child it raised a few eye browes. So I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about a Bible study class.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 17, 2009 2:19 PM
Sara
Accepting Jesus does not make you a good person. As I recall, the crusaders accepted Jesus and proceeded to kill in his name.
With that said, there is plenty of people who do good without Jesus.
Where exactly do you get your information from? It seems to me you are more paranoid than you claim us to be.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 2:20 PM
Shhhhhhhhhhhh! Ix-nay on the un-Fay. (Don't confirm her suspicions about the orgies, baby killings/barbecues and the hot & cold running opium at our conclaves & world summits - she'll want in)Posted by: Nangleator | August 17, 2009 2:20 PM
"You want to have sex with everything, use drugs and be homosexual... "
And here we see that Sara is only held back from doing those things by the fear of an omniscient, omnipotent being. And, no doubt, help from him.
Probably a good thing she has religion.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 17, 2009 2:23 PM
Now, now, my fellow child of God. The book of Leviticus only says, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (20:13). This is only an injunction against those men who lie with men as they lie with women. So, as long as one man does not insert his penis into another man's vagina, we're all cool.
And as for the drug business, did the Good Lord not say, "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat" (Gen. 1:29)? What part of "every herb bearing seed" do you deny as the Holy Word of God?
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 17, 2009 2:25 PM
Hee heeee...
That's right, babe. If you're not high right now, you are in a state of sin!
(/Pounds pulpit emphatically...)
Posted by: SeagalJ | August 17, 2009 2:25 PM
Speedwell, so why dont you MOVE?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, your american, one american dollar equals.. nothing.. hehehe. Sorry, just so funny. Seriously, GO ON A PLANE AND LEAVE THE COUNTRY, if you are allowed to get a passport? I know its hard for americans, it takes me about, oh, 2 days and we got the most advanced shit on the planet, biometric, retina you name it, crazy stuff, If I want to go somewhere, I jump on a plane and go. Its not expensive to manage anywhere. Your an american, you would get a working Visa rather easily, the European nations are the most advanced on the planet, they welcome other people, give it a try.
Australia and New Zealand also got plenty of programs for people wanting to work there, and the UK, my Lord you got work and a good life, not as the third world country you live in, JUST GET A PASSPORT (if you can) and JUMP ON A PLANE, dont be afraid man. The fear is years of indoctrination and living in a isolated nation wanting to keep its people in the borders, they manage to make you afraid of other countries, cultures and make you believe its more dangerous to be in Canada then Los Angeles, one of the most dangerous cities in the world. JUMP ON A PLANE!!!
Dont be afraid Dude, just do it, welcome to a first world country, nothing to worry about, healthcare and technology, you cant even imagine it. Hell, you need a job in the UK or Ireland, I GET YOU ONE, I promise, no problem at all, with accomodation and all, easy as.. Well easy.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 17, 2009 2:26 PM
Addendum:
It's true that a man can receive oral sex from a man just as well as from a woman, but the Good Lord said man should not "lie with mankind". It's fine if you're sitting up.
Posted by: Keith | August 17, 2009 2:30 PM
This is a fantastic idea. Nothing turns kids off a subject like being forced to study it. For every 1 child who "gets" religion in the class, there will be 1000 who, after the class is over, will never give the Bible or religion another thought. It'll be like math class or spelling lessons.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | August 17, 2009 2:31 PM
Sara, come on, you only need eight more posts and 1658 more words. What does Bob the Builder say? Isn't it something like "Yes we can"?
Posted by: tsg | August 17, 2009 2:32 PM
No, no, no. Clearly this is an injunction against lying to men, as opposed to lying to women. Because, god knows, lying to women to get them in bed is man's divine right. But if you want to get another man in bed, you have to be honest with him.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 2:33 PM
Adam: (long toke)"'ere"... (tries to keep from coughing up smoke) "God was right, this is really some good shit!" "Got anything to eat? I'm starving."Eve: "I just happen to have this fruit..."
(both start laughing uncontrollably)
Posted by: Bobber | August 17, 2009 2:34 PM
I myself prefer the champagne-and-blood of the religious fountains and the chocolate Jesus and Mary Magdalenes with exaggerated sexual organs they give away at the door. But that's just a personal thing.
What? Too much?
Posted by: TheBear | August 17, 2009 2:34 PM
This really made my day. Totally clueless fundies are allways kind of fun (for one who really likes his prejudices)
Posted by: Dave | August 17, 2009 2:35 PM
I'd /love/ to see mandatory comparative religion courses from an early age. What better way to show that religious belief is pretty arbitrary than showing how many different belief systems there are--each "right"?!
Plus it's really interesting from a sociological standpoint, and anything that provides people with a different way to look at things is always good.
I've always taken away important lessons from studying how, and what, people believe, even though I don't believe in any deities.
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 2:35 PM
Which Bible?
Since it says "Hebrew scriptures", does that include the bits the Christians leave out?
What about the Apocrypha?
Which version?
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 2:37 PM
would any of you even question what you been indoctrinated? Is atheism the only thing? Can you truly not go further and think for yourselfs?
Try to think about it, however awkward it feels amongst your atheist friends, THINK about what you believe, is it really reasonable? Dont be afraid to question. Yes, you can lose your job or be humiliated for accepting the truth instead of the darwinian gospel, but imagine living a life in TRUTH instead of darkness?
i hope i can reach out to some souls here. I pray
Posted by: pdferguson | August 17, 2009 2:37 PM
Sara proselytized:
Huh? Do you really not understand the Bible is a fantasy world, every bit as fictional as a Harry Potter movie? Do you not know that, child?
What does accepting jesus have to do with living a good life? Do you really not understand that living a good life has nothing whatsoever to do with being religious?
Calm down, child. You're going to give yourself the vapors. Look, we've heard this sort of emotional rant countless times before, the whole "burning in hell" nonsense. It really only speaks about the mental state of the person writing it, and it's not a pretty picture.
Take a deep breath and think about why you are consumed by rage. It's not healthy. Your religion has pushed you towards a blinding anger that will do nothing but destroy you. We are not the problem, we are not the enemy. It is your religion that has planted this cancerous seed of hatred in your mind. The sooner you wake up to that, the more likely you will someday be able to lead a healthy, happy life.
Atheists bring death to the world? Tell that to the families of the people who died on 9/11...
Posted by: Shawn Smith | August 17, 2009 2:41 PM
Sara, you're down to 7 posts and 1566 words. Keep it up!
Posted by: tsg | August 17, 2009 2:43 PM
Every day.
Obviously not.
Every day.
Perfectly.
I do. It's called reality. Try opening your eyes.
Please do. Just do it somewhere else, because you're in the way.
Posted by: bcoppola | August 17, 2009 2:44 PM
@#4
Sing along now, children: "Shiva loves me, this I know. For the Gitas tell me so." :)
(Been waiting for a chance to use that).
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 17, 2009 2:45 PM
Sara
Let me reverse this on you...
You said:
Try to think about it, however awkward it feels amongst your
atheistChristian friends, THINK about what you believe, is it really reasonable? Dont be afraid to question. Yes, you can lose your job or be humiliated for accepting the truth instead of thedarwinianChristian gospel, but imagine living a life in TRUTH instead of darkness?Now to answer your question:
Yes, what I believe is resonable. Better to be born from apes than two dimwits who can't say no to a snake when they are supposed to be perfect. No, living without the bible doesn't plunge me into darkness. In fact, I see the world all too clear now.
Posted by: Lowell | August 17, 2009 2:46 PM
Sara, do as your god commanded and keep your prayers to yourself:
Matthew 6:5-6.
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 2:46 PM
Atheists bring death to the world? Tell that to the families of the people who died on 9/11...
MUSLIMS DID THAT YOU IDIOT!!!
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 2:46 PM
Guess what, Sara? An awful lot of us here are ex-believers. We got that way by thinking about what it was we believed, and exploring and examining it, and finding it to be full of nothing but smoke and mirrors. Don't be afraid to question your beliefs, Sara. Imagine living your life in truth instead of religious lies.
Posted by: 386sx | August 17, 2009 2:47 PM
would any of you even question what you been indoctrinated?
I don't like Firefox web browser.
Is atheism the only thing?
I know I'm supposed to like it, but I don't
Can you truly not go further and think for yourselfs?
I don't like it.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 17, 2009 2:48 PM
I'm pretty sure that if I had kids in school in Texas, I'd use parental authority to exempt them such a course unless it was a comparative religion course with a well-documented cirriculum.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 17, 2009 2:49 PM
And were these Muslim not doing it for God? Cleary, they are not atheist. Try to get it straight.
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 17, 2009 2:49 PM
Most here were raised religious. Atheists don't tend to indoctrinate. Thinking for yourself leads to atheism.
Umm, that's why people become atheist? Because the alternative makes no sense?
In what world? You can certainly get in trouble stating that you are atheist, as Christians aren't actually full of love.
Don't waste your time. There's no such thing as a soul, and praying is just something religious people do to make themselves feel better while doing absolutely nothing of use.
Posted by: daveau | August 17, 2009 2:49 PM
Sara@124
Many of us were indoctrinated... in christianity. It is precisely because we know how to question that we find ourselves here after a long path of discovery.
Posted by: pdferguson | August 17, 2009 2:49 PM
Sara screamed:
Yes they did, and their last words before crashing into the Twin Towers undoubtedly were "God is great"...
Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers.
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 2:49 PM
MUSLIMS DID THAT YOU IDIOT!!!
Oh lord. Sara, you do realize that Muslims are not atheists, yes? That they worship the same God you do? Please tell me you're not that ignorant of your own religion's history.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 17, 2009 2:50 PM
Like I said earlier, I grew up in Alabama. Think about that for a moment. If I had been indoctrinated, I'd be a Southern Baptist right now.
There's no such thing as "the darwinian gospel". Scientists are not prophets, saviours or evangelists, just plain folks who dedicate their lives to figuring out how the world works.
And you know, if I quit my job to become a dishonest hack spouting creationist nonsense, I could quite probably make more money than I am doing right now.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 17, 2009 2:54 PM
OT, except that it offers a positive counterpoint in the battle of reason againts fundie wignuts, this story is a cause for Hope@reg;. For all the "he's not doing _______ fast enough" talk, I strongly suspect that by the end of Obama's first term, we'll see that a lot of progressive goals have been met or at least advanced, including the end of both DOMA and DADT. That said, folks showing up at Obama appearances with guns strapped to their legs is a skosh troubling.
Blake (@115):
Does your clarification not imply that teh buttsecks is A-OK, too, as long as you do it standing up? Unless you're Baptist, of course, because... [wait for it]... it might lead to homosexual dancing!
Also, to everybody who's riffing on this quote:
...does it not seem that the etymology of homosexual pretty much precludes "hav[ing] sex with everything" and "be[ing] homosexual"? Is it possible to simultaneously be omnisexual and homosexual? Jus' wondrin'....
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 2:55 PM
Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers.
You're gonna make a few bucks with that T-shirt. :p
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 2:57 PM
Is it possible to simultaneously be omnisexual and homosexual? Jus' wondrin'....
I believe we can look to Captain Jack Harkness for a good example of that. :)
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 2:58 PM
you guys are tragic, muslims are crazy people that kills innocent, that has nothing to do with a loving god. THEY ARE SICK, and if you want to equate the Lord with that, well it shows how twisted you are. atheist and muslims are the same, killing and murder, communism says anything? nazism? well, no, thats history, lets not deal with that.
if you are that ignorant, so be it, have a fun life. but GOD is waiting for you. WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION, thats why we are the best in the world, the envy of the planet, MUSLIMS live in poverty and ignorance killing innocent people, SEE THE DIFFERENCE? morons.
Posted by: TheBear | August 17, 2009 3:00 PM
@Carlie:
Her previous posts clearly shows that she is.
She does not know what a magi is for one thing...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 17, 2009 3:00 PM
Yep, was raised in a Christian household. Decided to think for myself and am no longer a Christian because of that free thought.
What the hell does this even mean?
See answer #1. And "yourselfs"? Really?
Yes it is the epitome of reasonable. There is no evidence for any other position other than atheism. Your religion is about being unreasonable. Faith is unreasonable. Period. How about you try and think for yourself? It appears you are incapable.
My irony meter is smoking, please try to tone down the stupidity. The reason I am where I am is because I questioned.
Is TRUTH different from Truth or truth?
Please keep praying. Pray all day and night. Don't do anything but pray.
If you do at least you'll only be talking to yourself and won't be actually accomplishing anything. Which is a good place for you as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: raven | August 17, 2009 3:01 PM
Sara, most of the commenters on this blog are ex-xians. Many of us dropped xianity because the lies, hatred, and ignorance of the fundie cults made us look closely at the religion.
And BTW, most xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution and science. Half of all biologists including some prominent evolutionary biologists call themselves....Xians. You don't speak for all xians, just for yourself and your cult.
Posted by: The Pint | August 17, 2009 3:03 PM
@ MatthewScience #101: "I believe that life is something. However, I also believe that there is nothing after death. Therefore, we must wisely spend our time on Earth, do what is necessary, and leave a mortal legacy behind for future generations."
Seconded! Although personally I'd amend that sentiment to read "However I also believe that there may not be something after death - but since I don't know for sure, I'm going to live as if there isn't and do the best I can while I know for sure that I have the chance to do so." But that's just my particular spin on it. Nicely said.
Sara - Assuming your post isn't a joke (and in poor taste and bad grammar and spelling, I might add), it's attitudes like yours that have turned off more people than I can count from Christianity in particular and religion in general. If you think that self-righteous browbeating and threats of eternal damnation against those who hold different beliefs from you will entice anyone to convert to your particular brand of Christianity, let me suggest that you take a second look at your sales pitch and do some serious editing. And for the record, there's nothing about being Christian that guarantees a person will automatically live a life that benefits his or her community in both the present and future - may I refer you to events such as the Salem witch burnings, child abuse perpetrated by priests & nuns, the Spanish Inquisition, the systematic eradication of the "heathen" native populations of both North & South America by Christian settlers, just to name a few? When you're willing to admit that a lack of belief in your Christian god does not equate a life of rape, murder, theft and oppression, then perhaps there will be room for discussion. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: formosus
|
August 17, 2009 3:03 PM
The idea of a "Bible as literature" class is not a bad one at all. The biblical stories have had a tremendous impact on western literature and culture. Knowing the stories can be very helpful in understanding allegories. I remember in my high school AP Lit class we had a unit on the Bible as literature, and it was very well done. The people and gods in the bible stories were treated like what they really are: characters in a book. No one talked about the truth or fiction of any of it.
The problem, though, is that these classes will not be "Bible as literature" classes. As has been mentioned numerous times: the bill is poorly worded. There is no state curricula yet. So while there will be some who teach this class properly, there will be plenty who use it as an excuse to preach to students on the taxpayer's dollar. The interviewee's comments are especially telling "they took prayer out of schools, and see where we wound up". She clearly views this as a religious class. Which it will be.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 17, 2009 3:05 PM
MUSLIMS live in poverty
You've clearly never been to the UAE or Brunei.
nazism
Didn't that start in a nation that was predominately Lutheran or Catholic?
THEY ARE SICK, and if you want to equate the Lord with that, well it shows how twisted you are
If I'm not mistaken, Islam revered Jesus to be the beloved of God. If I am not mistaken agian, The LORD'S Resistance army is terrorizing people in Uganda constantly, in modern times.
Posted by: Cut and Paste | August 17, 2009 3:05 PM
#131
Pissed myself laughing.
Poe is a beautiful thing
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 3:06 PM
Please, for the love of all that we find sacred (nazism, communism, killing, baby-eating, and bestiality), please stop responding to 12-year-old sara... we don't want her discovering our secret lair beneath Evil Muslim Skull Mountain and interrupting our sacred eucharist-piercing ceremonies and getting back to the Pope!
MWAAAAA-hahahahahahahaaaaa.
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 3:06 PM
Plus, why is the state legislature getting involved in school curriculum? That seems to be way overstepping its boundaries. For a party that claims that smaller government is better, that's a pretty big land grab.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 17, 2009 3:06 PM
Which is worse: Sara's ignorance of the body count her own God racks up in her own holy book, or her frothing bigotry against an entire people?
Posted by: GMacs | August 17, 2009 3:07 PM
WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION, thats why we are the best in the world, the envy of the planet,
Speaking as one who has spent much time outside our country, I can assure you that we are not.
MUSLIMS live in poverty and ignorance killing innocent people, SEE THE DIFFERENCE? morons.
So are Christians when they allow theocracy. Muslims nations were the most advanced and richest in the world before they all went fundamentalist. Your refusal to look at history puts you among the many who make me feel ashamed to be an American.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 17, 2009 3:07 PM
I know it was obvious before that Sara isn't playing with a full deck, but she's also historically ignorant as well.
How old are you Sara?
Take a long look in the mirror Sara.
I plan on it
And porky pig is waiting for you
You are an ignoramus.
You obviously don't keep up with current events.
Oh I can see something alight.
Posted by: raven | August 17, 2009 3:08 PM
Religious fanatics are all about the same. The difference between Xian and Moslem fanatics is.....nothing really. We in the West just don't let ours run around loose with armies and heavy weapons anymore.
When we did we ended up with the Reformation wars, crusades, genocides, witch hunts, and Inquisitions. People got tired of the blood and piles of bodies.
Posted by: Newfie | August 17, 2009 3:09 PM
Sarah #93
No, some simple research will give you dates of these other "Gods" that humanity has worshiped at one time or another. I've provided you with 10 historical religious characters, there are thousands more.
Not knowing something is ignorance, refusing to learn is blind willful stupidity.
Do us all a favour, and instead of taking up space at a hospital when you get sick... stay at home, pray, fire up a burnt offering and let the Lord's will take its course, mmmkay? You wouldn't want any of that Atheistic Modern Medicine that uses Science to foul up your soul now, would you? Practice your harp skills to ease your suffering before death.. and pray even harder.
Amen
Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | August 17, 2009 3:10 PM
In the Bizarro universe, angry Texas are disrupting town hall meetings and yelling slogans in opposition to "socialized religion" and evil government "baptism panels". Oh well.
Really, though, one of the easiest ways I can think of to make someone begin to doubt the bible is to have them actually read it from cover to cover. It makes less sense than Dianetics, and that's saying something.
Posted by: Lynna | August 17, 2009 3:11 PM
@34
I've encountered this attitude within Great Rift Writers, an informal group that holds workshops, etc.. Some members of the group are religious, while others are not. Most of the time we get along well. Religion is seldom an issue. But, when one writer included a verse from the bible that didn't really make much sense, and I pointed out the problem with the way the verse was worded, all hell broke loose. "I'm not going to sit here and listen to a critique of the Bible!" In other words, yes, the bible is held up as an exemplar of literary perfection, and of Truth. You cannot question it on any level. The appropriate attitude is supposed to be Standing in Awe.
Posted by: The Pint | August 17, 2009 3:11 PM
@ Celtic_Evolution #153: The HQ is at Skull Mountain now? I thought it was at Snake Mountain. Someone needs to edit the lair's listing in the Yellow Pages.
Posted by: Ubi Dubium | August 17, 2009 3:12 PM
Seems like Sara could do with a comparative religion class! And I do hope she gets back on her medication soon, poor dear.Posted by: KI | August 17, 2009 3:12 PM
I'm pretty sure at this point that Sara is, in reality, an lolcat. "I can haz jeezburger"?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 17, 2009 3:13 PM
alight = all right
Posted by: Desert Son | August 17, 2009 3:13 PM
"Mama always said TypePad is like a box of chocolates: you never know when it's gonna let you sign in."
Ahem.
From Texas:
Deep and profound apologies. Some days I feel like an ancient Greek pushing a giant boulder up a hill, only to find the rock rumbling back down again from the summit.
Wonder if they'll give equal time to . . . ? Naw. As tsg observes,
Once more unto the separation of church and state breach, dear friends . . .
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: CJO | August 17, 2009 3:14 PM
Have thought, that maybe, just maybe, these "Jesus like characters" ae made up after the event?
Have even thought, just maybe, that the "Jesus like character" commonly known as Jesus was made up after the non-event.
Have thought?
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 3:15 PM
We wondered about the Poeosity of Molly in the video posted earlier? Here's her real-life equivalent, Sara.
Posted by: tsg | August 17, 2009 3:15 PM
Sara, your caps lock key is broken.
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 3:18 PM
Are we a Christian nation, or have Christians "been oppressed for centuries and now we defend ourselfs"? You can't have it both ways, sweetie.
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 17, 2009 3:19 PM
Wait... Skull Mountain? And I've been waiting for the rest of you with some love-addled megalomaniac at Skullcrusher Mountain!? Great. Just great.
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 3:19 PM
I USE SHIFT, NEVER CAPS LOCK
looser
Posted by: speedwell | August 17, 2009 3:21 PM
SeagalJ, my friend: What a great pep talk, larded well by your tongue in your cheek. Could I be the first case of atheo-political refugeeship? Actually... somehow I doubt it! How I wish I could just jump and let the Silver City catch me; something tells me she would. I'll take your post as a dare, hah!
Oh, and I'm a chick, a doll, a babe... but "dude" is fine too... :)
My username at hotmail will reach me, if you want. (I'm not afraid of spam there.)
Posted by: Smidgy | August 17, 2009 3:21 PM
Sara #144:
And many fundamentalist Muslims are saying, right now, that Christians are crazy people who kill innocent people under the guise of 'protecting freedom'.
Read your Bible. The 'loving god' you worship has no problem with exterminating entire civilizations, if they happen to choose to live on the wrong piece of ground. I see no difference between that and the Islamic extremists who kill folk for similarly stupid reasons, except for the fact the Islamic extremists actually do it, whereas your God's actions are only depicted in a book of fairy tales.
Oh, and, by the way, you forgot to capitalize God's name. This makes you a blasphemer, and thus, according to the Bible you presumably revere, you should be stoned to death.
Posted by: GeekGoddess | August 17, 2009 3:21 PM
PZ's story, this time, is so far off it's not even wrong. It is NOT a requirement to teach bible class. Schools are requested to teach some sort of class about bible as literature, comparative religion, and so on. Most of them were already doing so. I contact the Texas Freedom Network, who closely follows all of these stories and writes a daily report. They were very involved in speaking to the legislature about this issue. They have said they will email Dr. Myers and get him to (hopefully) write a clarification/correction. We get enough bad press about the whole ID thing without making stuff up.
Posted by: Lynna | August 17, 2009 3:21 PM
@68
The cool thing about killing all Job's kids is that god eventually replaced all ten of them with brand spanking new kids. And the moral is that any ten kids are equal to any other ten kids, so parents should not get too attached.
Posted by: overburden | August 17, 2009 3:21 PM
Sara, it's 'loser'.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 17, 2009 3:22 PM
Carlie:
Thank Google! Having never seen Torchwood (and having not watched Dr. Who regularly since I was an undergraduate, way too many years ago), my first thought was that you meant to be referring to Captain Jack Sparrow, and I was going to say he only seems gay.
But I fact-checked myself and avoided an embarrassing error. That said... according to his wiki, Captain Jack Harkness is bisexual, and from a strictly etymological (which is to say, obnoxiously pedantic... but hopefully endearingly so!) point of view, homosexual and bisexual are mutually exclusive terms, notwithstanding the potentially large overlap in specific behaviors.
PS: I hope everyone realizes this is just a bit of harmless wordplay on my part, and not some invidious blindness to the solidarity of the LGBT community. (As an aside, it's not for nothin' that the B is in that acronym separately.) My only point in mentioning it is the linguistic evidence of Sara's (literal) thoughtlessness... presented with what is hopefully a dash of good cheer.
PPS: Is is just me, or is anyone else's mind sufficiently free-associational to have wondered if Sara[h] might be Plain and Tall?
Posted by: Blinn | August 17, 2009 3:22 PM
The bill has two relevant sections. The first, as has been noted, requires that every school offer an elective course on the bible. The second, though, adds the following to the list of areas of "required curriculum":
"(H) religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature."
The question yet to be answered is how, quite apart from the elective courses, this requirement will be fulfilled.
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 3:23 PM
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE CHRISTIAN, SO THE NATION IS CHRISTIAN. that we have some few atheist and morons is normal, especially in a nation that ALLOWS you to be around.
But it is BECAUSE OF US we are the greatest. SPACE RCOKETS, COMPUTERS, PHONES, THE INTERNET, do I need to say more? I dont know of any atheist starting any nice nations SOVIET UNION? CHINA? hahahahahah
live in your dream and deny all the facts but judgement will come and you will cry out and understand your ignorance. The fool said in his heart, there is no god.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 3:23 PM
Dammit Pint, don't you know a ruse when you see one?
Now we'll HAVE to move the lair from Snake Mountain... I'm not carrying the chest of fake fossils this time.
I wonder if there are any caves under Mt. Offensive?
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 3:25 PM
overburden, check the dictionary moron, we got other words as well you idiot
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 3:26 PM
Schools are requested to teach some sort of class about bible as literature, comparative religion, and so on.
Again, what flying fucking business does the legislature have even introducing this as a bill in the first place? You're talking about using legislature time on this, time that should be spent addressing issues that really matter to Texans. You're talking about the legislature engaging in the topic of religion at all, which is a separation of church and state issue. You're talking about the legislature telling the state Board of Education what to do, telling each county Board of Education what to do, telling each school district Board of Education what to do. This is an incredibly egregious overstepping of numerous boundaries for no reasonable secular reason whatsoever. It needs to be opposed, and vociferously so.
Posted by: Joel Jacobson | August 17, 2009 3:26 PM
"The purpose of the course shall be to accommodate the rights and desires of those teachers and students who wish to teach and study the Old Testament and to familiarize students with the contents of the Old Testament ...."
Even calling the Hebrew Scriptures the "Old Testament" displays a totally Christian bias. That, in itself, is unconstitutional.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 3:27 PM
Lynna #160,
In addition many people think if you use a verse from the Bible that it has power to convert. Others seem to think that if you read the Bible with the proper mindset you will be converted as well, all that is missing is the proper way to read it.
Posted by: overburden | August 17, 2009 3:27 PM
#174
Seems very clear to me that the bible is part of Texas public school curriculum. That's a travesty. No clarification necessary.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 3:28 PM
Sara is the bright shining example of the public school
educationedumacation levels in the US.Aren't we proud?
Born too loose. *snort*
TSTKSS
Posted by: JustinB | August 17, 2009 3:28 PM
Atheists - Threat or Menace? The answer may shock you!
And on a related note: Sara - Poe or Troll?
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
August 17, 2009 3:29 PM
Constitution fail.
Do you know how many of the scientists and engineers responsible for those developments were and are atheists? Care to do a little library research and report back?
"And I commend enjoyment, for man hath no better thing under the sun than to eat, to drink and to be merry."
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 17, 2009 3:29 PM
Also spell checkers. Don't forget those. Those are awesome...
And the caps lock key...
(/U! S! A! U! S! A!...)
Posted by: Desert Son | August 17, 2009 3:30 PM
Ok, I suck at picking these things out ("On the Internet, no one can hear you sarcasm!"), but this,
isn't real, right?
I mean, I understand that there are a not insignificant number of people out there whose synapses fire mightily in service of this kind of thinking, but . . .
c'mon . . . right . . . ?
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 3:30 PM
Bill - the joke on Torchwood is that Capt. Jack is not just bisexual but enjoys spending, er, "quality time" with aliens of many species whose gender designations don't exactly match up with those of humans, so is truly pan/omnisexual. :)
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 3:30 PM
Oh, well that makes you SHIFT-M SHIFT-U SHIFT-C SHIFT-H (see what I did there?) more coherent.
As you were.
Every frickin' crackpot knows how to quote that one. They all seem to forget about Matt. 7:1 and 25:40.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 17, 2009 3:32 PM
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE CHRISTIAN, SO THE NATION IS CHRISTIAN
Lol. You do realize that more Americans are moving out of Christianity.
I don't know about you, but the last time I visited China, the people were quite gracious. Isn't rather hasty and ethnocentric of you to readily classify an entire people as being not nice?
No sweetie, I cannot believe in a God so vain and jealous that he demands we give him attention all the time. Your God sounds like a wicked devil to me.
Posted by: overburden | August 17, 2009 3:32 PM
Sara, forgive me. I didn't realize you were referring to a degree of tightness.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 3:33 PM
I'm an American and I am not Christian, therefore America is not a Christian nation.
Posted by: daveau | August 17, 2009 3:33 PM
GMacs@155
A passport would help you immensely, Sara, if you are serious about thinking for yourself.
Sara@171
Ironic FAIL!
Posted by: raven | August 17, 2009 3:34 PM
Vaguely worded.
They usually do that for a reason. Having an elective bible as literature course is probably legal.
Requiring it is illegal.
And why should schools teach something like this anyway. The bible certainly has had an impact on history. The Reformation wars, crusades, witch hunts, Taiping Rebelllion, and so on. Somehow I doubt that this is what the Texas legislature meant.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 3:36 PM
#194... WIN!
Posted by: overburden | August 17, 2009 3:36 PM
Sara, I admire your spunk, but you should realize this wolves den is no place for a 'lamb of god.'
Posted by: Blinn | August 17, 2009 3:38 PM
Believe it or not, the inclusion of elective Bible courses in Texas public schools has been a hot topic here for a while. There have been two main players, the Bible Literacy Project and the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. Mark Chancey, a Professor in the Religious Studies program at SMU, has done much good work assessing (and unsurprisingly, criticizing) the curricula on offer by both institutions. Much moreso the Council's proposed text, which were not only very sectarian, but had managed to plagiarize large swaths of fundie web content--usually simply cutting and pasting onto their "text".
Chancey's put together a very helpful list of links to his and related works about these attempts to bring Bibles back to school. They can be found here:
http://faculty.smu.edu/mchancey/public_schools.htm
Chancey gives a very useful (medium-sized) summary of the recent history here:
http://faculty.smu.edu/mchancey/pdfs/Chancey-Bible_Bills.pdf
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 17, 2009 3:38 PM
Sara screamed:
I believe he was giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking perhaps that you weren't as illiterate as you appear by your use of all caps.
Clearly illiterate. Loser. Looser would be comparative, denoting a greater "looseness."
For example, "Your mother was looser after she did the nasty with Eeyore, the well-hung donkey at the local petting zoo," or, "thanks to thermal expansion, the lid of the jar was looser after application of hot water."
Compare with proper use of the word loser, "Sara, you are a loser." Unfortunately, there is no accepted superlative, so I'll have to indulge in a neologism, and state that you are quite possibly the loosingest commenter we've seen in a while.
Posted by: daveau | August 17, 2009 3:39 PM
Because CAPS LOCK is the tool of Satan?
(@196 double blockquotes backwards)
Posted by: speedwell | August 17, 2009 3:40 PM
Sara is delusional, just like my mother who thought she could pray her way into a miraculous breast cancer cure, and my best friend, who "intends" the "highest good" as spoken by a lunatic woman pretending to "channel" the utterly banal "Lemurian warrior" Lee Ching. Delusional. It's not like she reasoned her way into her nonsense, so why do we think she can be reasoned out of it?
Let her say one, just ONE, rational thing, and maybe we'll have a foothold. But so long as she carefully avoids the slightest taint of reason, we won't have any more effect on her than trying to grow flowers on a rock.
Posted by: tsg | August 17, 2009 3:40 PM
Your fingers wouldn't be so tired if you did.
Than what?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 17, 2009 3:41 PM
JustinB (@187):
Ahh, I see I wasn't the only one with the rhythm of that title rattling around in the back of my head, after all.
To answer your question, Comment 171 (et seq.), wrangling over the spelling of loser, settled it once and for all for me: Definite Poe.
Posted by: The Pint | August 17, 2009 3:41 PM
Celtic_Evolution, don't look at me - any notice of that particular ruse was left out of my orientation packet.
I'm not carrying the damn chest this time either, those fake fossils are heavy (all the better to fool those silly people who drank the evolution Kool-Aid). Why not have the interns do it - that's what they're here for, right?
Mt. Offensive may not have any vacancies this season, but I did hear there's room for rent in a lovely area of the Fright Zone.
Posted by: overburden | August 17, 2009 3:42 PM
Sara,
los⋅er
/ˈluzər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [loo-zer]
–noun
1. a person, team, nation, etc., that loses: The visiting team was the loser in the series.
Posted by: Roameo | August 17, 2009 3:43 PM
sarah:
best advice you've given all day.
Posted by: Anti.theist317 | August 17, 2009 3:43 PM
It is about time someone forced children to take a critical look at the bible without a major focus on Christianity.
I am very excited.
Posted by: Anti.Theist | August 17, 2009 3:47 PM
High School students are not children - they would lynch me for that. However, I believe everyone caught my drift, ya dig?
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 17, 2009 3:48 PM
I love how insecure these people are. It is not enough to be allowed to have churches, to be able to home school your children and force pablum into them, to be able to hand out propaganda on city streets, to have God's name on money and the Pledge of Allegiance, and to have every president feel the need to give lip service to God whether they believe or not, but they need to get their shit into schools, too. How much coddling does their all-knowing, all-powerful overlord need? It seems like he's pretty helpless, to me!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 3:48 PM
If truly presented as an historical review of the bible, its contents, and its effects on the modern world... well, then all I can say is:
I for one look forward to greeting the inevitable hoard of atheists that will soon be streaming out of the Texas Public School system... yeeeeeee-haw!
Posted by: tsg | August 17, 2009 3:50 PM
*checks off "Christian Nation"*
*checks off "atheists are commies"*
*checks off "projection"*
*checks off "quoting Bible as if it means something"*
BINGO!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 17, 2009 3:52 PM
Anti.theist317 (@209):
If you think anyone in Texas (again, outside of Austin) is going to "force[] children to take a critical look at the bible without a major focus on Christianity," you're livin' in your own private Idaho!
As I said earlier, familiarity with religious literature can certainly improve one's understanding of art and culture... but it's awfully hard to teach the literature of an active major religion without lapsing into advocacy (one way or the other). That's true even in the most secular communities and with the best of intentions, and neither of those stipulations comes close to applying to Texas in 2009.
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 17, 2009 3:55 PM
Sara: may I ask, are you deaf?
Posted by: Roameo | August 17, 2009 3:59 PM
Sara
looser
Really? I recommend you give it a shot, you'll be spewing poorly capitalised vitriol at twice the pace.
... actually, scratch that, stick to typing one handed. Preferably without the keyboard plugged in.
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 4:03 PM
Anyone that seriously feel that they want to see the light, contact me. You can e-mail me and talk in private so you do not feel the pressure of keeping up the atheist persona. I will try to guide you as good as I can. And please, no lyers or spammers, just honest folk who really want to change their destructive lives.
(my mail is sara.paskilini@gmail.com, but no spam please. I would love to help somoene to have a good life).
Posted by: Bobber | August 17, 2009 4:04 PM
Hmmm. It is similar to the deaf english I've read from some friends. If only there was a tell-tale "SKSKSK" at the end to go by!
Posted by: Kyle | August 17, 2009 4:06 PM
Sara will be in for a rude awakening in ~2025 when China's GDP approaches that of America's.
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 17, 2009 4:07 PM
Yes, Bobber, that's why I asked: I have a fundie coworker who writes in a similar style to Sara, and he's deaf. She's a little more intelligible, but not much.
Posted by: Coragyps | August 17, 2009 4:08 PM
Lynchings around October? More like "before Labor Day."
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 4:09 PM
dammit... I thought for sure that email address was going to be a ".palin"...
oh well... fare thee well, Sara... you are going to have a tough time in the real world with your head stuck so far up your...
Oh wait... NOW I know what she meant when she said "looser"...
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 17, 2009 4:09 PM
Sara, I see the light perfectly. It's a rather sunny day where I am with no cloud coverage. And I'm not keeping up any other persona except for my own.
And it's not wise to post your e-mail like that. Don't you know that any random person or machine could look at this blog, pick up that address and use it for their gains?
Posted by: overburden | August 17, 2009 4:09 PM
By merely including the bible in the curriculum is advocating benefits attributed to the understanding of the content.
Posted by: tsg | August 17, 2009 4:11 PM
Yeah, all you atheists are only pretending to be in a hated minority just so you can fit in!!!!11!1!eleven!
She'll guide you much goodly.
Yeah, because spammers will stop if you just ask them to.
Shiny, shiny mirror.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but my life will be significantly better once you stop spouting bullshit about an imaginary magic sky fairy.
Posted by: overburden | August 17, 2009 4:12 PM
"pressure of keeping up the atheist persona"
Sara, you are one delusional young woman.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 17, 2009 4:17 PM
mikecbraun (@215):
I wonder why you ask. If you're referring to her spelling of loser as looser, I think you may be off base: Stipulating that she's not a Poe (@205 you can see I think she is), what she's doing is "spelling it like it sounds" (at least based on the vowel sound), which is not something you'd logically expect a profoundly deaf person to do.
I'm not claiming to be an expert, and I know full well that data is not the plural of anecdote, but my sister-in-law is profoundly deaf, and her spelling is generally excellent. OTOH, I was an English teacher in a past life, and I observed that students who didn't (or couldn't) read much tended to make spelling errors based on how words sounded in commmon speech: could of instead of could've, are when they meant our, etc. To deaf people (in my admittely very limited experience), words are distinct visual symbols, uncomplicated by the irregular overlappings of pronunciation; Sara's error (if it's really that and not a joke) is of the sort that points more to illiteracy than to unfamiliarity with how words sound.
Carlie (@191):
Thanks for the clarification. So you're saying Harkness practices rishathra, eh?
Posted by: Cactus Wren
|
August 17, 2009 4:19 PM
Ah, of course it's going to be a completely neutral course in the Bible as literature, or on the Bible in history.
That's what they said a few years ago in Florida too. In short order, Florida's high school students were taking "Bible history" classes with such test questions as "Where is a prophecy in the Old Testament about the birth of Jesus?", "If you had a Jewish friend who wanted to know whether Jesus was really the Messiah, which one of the Gospels would you give him?", and "Why is it so hard for a non-Christian to understand things about God?"
http://67.192.238.59/multimedia/pdf/Reports/goodbooktaughtwrong.pdf
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 17, 2009 4:21 PM
@ Bill Dauphin, OM:
Bill, my only experience with deaf people writing is, like I said, my fundie coworker sending me emails. I can produce evidence, if you wish. He is deaf and uneducated, and the word usage, typos, and just plain poor grammar are similar to Sara's. I was not trying to imply that all deaf people are similarly poor communicators when it comes to writing, nor was I going to use it as an ad hominem. I was genuinely curious. Plus, I thought she might even be my coworker's wife!
Posted by: Bobber | August 17, 2009 4:23 PM
Bill Dauphin, OM:
Regarding the possibility of Sara being deaf, it's not just the spelling; there's a way that I've seen some deaf people form sentences that is similar to Sara. I'm no expert, of course; I've spent years in the deaf community, and there I would say that deaf people often have better grammar than their hearing counterparts!
Posted by: overburden | August 17, 2009 4:23 PM
It's individuals like Sara that innervate and frustrate. Her blissful ignorance her shield, her belief, as pathetic and pathological as it is, her armor, denial, derision, hypocrisy and hate, her sword.
Posted by: Coragyps | August 17, 2009 4:24 PM
From #56 - 'Notably, it requires that students in the Bible class "use critical-thinking skills to locate, organize, analyze, and use data collected from a variety of sources."'
Funny, but they seem to mean something almost completely the opposite of that when they apply that same qualification to biology.
Posted by: Smoggy OMBatzrubble | August 17, 2009 4:26 PM
Dear Sister Sara Paskilini aka "Sara PALINskii"
This is a serious blog. It has no time or space for people adopting stupid names and fake personas.
Grow up!
Yours authentically
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 17, 2009 4:27 PM
Silly Sara said:
"Life means NOTHING, we are as worth as a MONKEY or SHEEP, no difference."
And here is one thing I can never understand.
Fundies claim that if we are just part of the animal kingdom, then our life has no special weight and we're justified to murder anybody.
Is it the way they would behave with animals?
Do they believe that, for instance, if they torture and murder their own dog, it is an act of no consequence?
Do they deny that a cat or a dog has a heart (the closest word I can find to their meaningless "soul"), not to mention apes, dolphins and others?
Why do they hate animals so much?
Posted by: Hank | August 17, 2009 4:28 PM
When I taught high school English, I often mentioned the Bible and/or religion in class. And I'm an atheist. How can you not when so much literature, art and music (and its attendant history) was written by Christians or contains Biblical subject matter or allusions? But a course specifically on the Bible (as mandated by the Texas state BOE)is simply a veiled attempt to proselytize. Any extended discussion on the Bible itself belongs in the unit on mythology.
Posted by: Newfie | August 17, 2009 4:28 PM
One more for Sara:
A believer prays for rain for his crops. An Atheist irrigates.
Posted by: Freidenker | August 17, 2009 4:29 PM
Bobber, I'm a hearing offspring of Deaf adults myself (Israeli) - and I would say you are correct, but only in writing! The grammar of spoken ISL is so utterly different than that of modern Hebrew, I can't blame native deaf signers for having botched grammer slipping into their voiced speech!
Anyway, as for Sara, I'm sure she's just a nitwit, not deaf.
Posted by: chgo_liz | August 17, 2009 4:29 PM
Bill @ #177:
Capt. Jack Harkness has had his share of aliens (non-Earthlings), so he very much is an omnisexual.
Posted by: pdferguson | August 17, 2009 4:31 PM
Sara spittled:
Lemme get this straight. You come here, screaming and spitting, typing in all caps, ignorant about religion, history, even spelling, and you think you have something to offer other people? Do you really not understand that everyone else here looks on you with a combination of bemusement and pity? Who exactly do you think you can help? You can't even help yourself.
Well, you're too late about the spam. I guess you don't know about email harvesters, do you? Of course, when your spam goes through the roof, you'll blame us evil atheists, never realizing how you brought it on yourself.
As for helping someone to have a good life, your life sure doesn't sound like a model anyone should follow. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but believe me when I say we've seen your type here countless times before. Cocksure, uneducated, and drunk on the bible. Full of rage and hatred brewing inside you since Sunday school. A poster child for everything that's wrong with religion.
Angry, dumb, and religious is no way to go through life, child...
Posted by: WRMartin | August 17, 2009 4:34 PM
Sara, if you aren't a Poe then please answer this for us:
I now live ____ miles from where I was born.
A. 0 - 5
B. 6 - 50
C. 51 - 500
D. 501 - 5,000
E. more than 5,000
F. Moron, the word is 'borned'.
Posted by: not a gator | August 17, 2009 4:35 PM
@ Crazy Sara
Posted by: Newfie | August 17, 2009 4:36 PM
But Sara would use the verses in her bible to justify killing me and stealing my crops, methinks... since I'm evil, and mocked her god by doing my own watering.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 17, 2009 4:36 PM
These people are great, because they are so open-minded that they've both read parts of the Bible (a few read the whole mind-numbing thing, it's true), and books about the Bible--though only those which claim the Bible is completely true through and through.
We, of course, are so close-minded that we've read the Bible (I've read either the whole, or nearly the whole), books in favor of the Bible, and books critical of the Bible in the same way that normal scholarship is critical of ancient texts. Oh, I took courses going both ways, too.
Why, oh why, can't we be open-minded enough to read only one side, like virtually all creationists/bibliocrats do? I mean, if you're too open-minded to question your bigoted beliefs, like Sara is, you'll never be troubled by thinking.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 4:36 PM
But Sara how will we be saved if you leave? We haven't had a True Christian show up for weeks. *sniffle*
Posted by: Bobber | August 17, 2009 4:37 PM
Same as ASL. I find it easier to just mouth words, not voice them, when I sign, because the word order and selection, to my "proper English" mind, seems choppy, mixed up, and incomprehensible at times. And yet, if you want to illustrate a story, sign language is infinitely more descriptive than the spoken word...
Most likely.
OT: You know, I "heard" the dirtiest jokes from a deaf/blind woman, many years ago; it's bad enough to hear something nasty, but to picture it so graphically... man, she was a laugh riot.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 17, 2009 4:40 PM
*Pointing and gawking at sara. Too dumbfounded to know what to think*
Posted by: chgo_liz | August 17, 2009 4:41 PM
Ah, I see Carlie has already explained.
Posted by: MikeM | August 17, 2009 4:41 PM
Oh, sure. People never do that sort of thing, do they.
Well, almost never.
Posted by: overburden | August 17, 2009 4:42 PM
The question is how the Texan bible study will be framed within the curriculum. Will it be a critical review of its relevancy in contemporary society, or possibly, understanding its historical importance during specific periods in the arts, or maybe detailing the distinctive influences of its transcribers during the long arduous compilation.
The answer, the 'word of god'.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 17, 2009 4:44 PM
See, Sara, we know you are Christian by your love.
We're all put to shame by your reasoned and intelligent approach to religious matters, and your agape love. You know, Christ told his followers to love their enemies, and though we have done nothing ill to you (prior to your ranting hatred, at least) and should not be counted your enemy, why, you've shown your love to all here.
Yes, Christianity does what it says (puts a loving heart within you, for one), you have proved it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: not a gator | August 17, 2009 4:46 PM
@SeagalJ
Is that a general invite to all Pharyngulites, or just Speedwell?
I was under the impression that EU countries hire other EU citizens first. I have special skills, but not REALLY special skills. I only know one US citizen who just waltzed over to EU and got a job, and he was working under the table. And my father (who DOES have special skills) tried to get a job in Canada for YEARS without success.
I always got the impression that IQ over 150 plus super-high grades and accolades were necessary to get 'hired away' to somewhere cushy like Scandinavia ... all the 'top profs' were talking about it after Bush became prez. It was all "so long, suckers" because not everybody can graduate Columbia summa cum...
Posted by: Smoggy OMBatzrubble | August 17, 2009 4:47 PM
Dear Sister Patricia OM @244
Fear not. I will save you!
I'll even shave you if that's your thing (or Floyd can).
Yours in divine depilation
Smoggy
Posted by: cureholder | August 17, 2009 4:49 PM
As a former fundamentalist (child victim), I am always amused by the theist assertion that if we don't believe in (their) god, then life ceases to matter. The truth is, if we don't believe in a god, then this life is ALL that matters!
And, in my experience, parents who instill fundie religion in their children thereby diminish the value of this life. My mother told me explicitly, many times, that what mattered was not my happiness, but whether I pleased Jesus. She was (and is) perfectly happy to have me miserable in this life as long as I was secure in the (nonexistent) next one.
Posted by: not a gator | August 17, 2009 4:49 PM
@124
s/atheism/christianity
There. Fixed it for you.
(PS: How does somebody misspell "yourselves" but spell "atheist" correctly? I smell a poe.)
Posted by: blueelm | August 17, 2009 4:53 PM
I'm amazed. Does coming from a deaf family turn you atheist or something? Or maybe there's just a lot of people on this blog. The former comment was made sarcastically, btw.
Having somewhat recently come out of the Texas public education system I don't know that it even matters. The schools here are a joke anyway. I'm sorry to be so cynical, but they really are abysmally bad (yes it could just be my district, I know). I never, for instance, saw a percent sign in a math problem until the 7th grade. Our science teachers routinely got fired, or didn't teach science (yay extra lunch time). I never had to take algebra and graduated "with honors" by the time I was 16 although I hung around the extra year because of extra-curricular stuffs.
We had morning prayer (elective) but still what it was, and some one was fond of posting these weird religious tracts in the bathroom stalls which was really nasty because some one else was fond of defiling them. A handful of my freinds had their first child before graduation, a couple others are dead from drugs, some more are just fine and happily living their lives having caught up at some point in college I assume. I know I did.
Posted by: Momentarily Anonymous | August 17, 2009 4:56 PM
South Carolina has a "Release Time Christian Education Program" where students are allowed to leave school grounds to be taught bible classes for credit-- here's a item I found while researching the concept recently, where the presenter explicitly listed the number of participants who "made a decision for Christ." Look around 2/3rds down this page:
http://www.williamstonjournal.com/front5007.htm
Posted by: Newfie | August 17, 2009 4:57 PM
hear! hear!
Posted by: Stretch | August 17, 2009 4:57 PM
Snark aside, there is some practical use to having a vague knowledge of some bible quotes and personalities. Doing business in much of the south gets a *whole* lot easier if you pepper your talk gently with a few generic quotes and use a little allegory in talking to customers.
Hell, it even helps with truly evil bastards: My health insurance was giving me some grief. The lady I was talking to had a thick Arkansas-ish accent, but didn't sound mainstream baptist, so I tried throwing in something about being confused by the forms, and how it was "much easier some days to speak in tongues than to understand them". Immediately, I was her best friend and the problem was solved, claim processed.
Nobody likes bullshit, but try thinking of it as fertilizer, and for practice, wrap that into some biblical non-quote about the wisdom of sowing seeds in fertile ground.
Posted by: not a gator | August 17, 2009 5:00 PM
And if you sacrifice a LIVE chicken, under a FULL moon...
Btw, I'm still waiting for Mithras to show up with his Army of Light. The Vorlons won't answer my calls either.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 17, 2009 5:01 PM
"SPACE RCOKETS"
Our "space rcokets" are the product of Nazi Germany. The space race was "ran" by the Nazi scientists captured by the US against the Nazi scientists captured by the USSR.
Posted by: Dianne | August 17, 2009 5:02 PM
My (private) high school in Texas used the Bible as one of the texts for English in my junior year. The teacher was a cynical atheist. It was amusing. Particularly since one of the more obnoxious students in the class turned out to be something of a fundamentalist...it was a bit of a Bambi versus Godzilla contest, except with an evil Bambi.
Posted by: Colin Wright | August 17, 2009 5:02 PM
This might not be as bad as people assume.
My wife is an evangelical (she turned to God after marrying me -- make of that what you will).
Anyway, her Church certainly fills her head with a lot of nonsense about what the Bible says. I'm either a definite agnostic or a wavering atheist, but I've wound up pulling down the Good Book myself a few times just to head off some of the more arrant nonsense she's come back from Church with.
If these kids got a class that taught them what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS, a lot of them would be better off than they are now.
After all, if the class is an elective, we can assume that those forcing their kids to sign up for it will be evangelicals. I think we'd come out ahead. Christianity as it is actually laid out in the Bible is a distinct improvement over Christianity as it is preached in some quarters.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 17, 2009 5:03 PM
Blinn (#200):
Thanks. Them's good readin'.
Posted by: daveau | August 17, 2009 5:04 PM
WRMartin@240
The first time, or where she was born again? (Sure, I grant you, they are probably one in the same, and the answer is 0-5, but still...)
Posted by: pieceofdebri
|
August 17, 2009 5:08 PM
Texas needs to get it's shit together! I'm tired of the rest of the country thinking we're all batshit crazy. And as for the bible class, I think it's an awful idea. The only thing in there that's worth reading is Ecclesiastes, the rest of it is shit. Why wastes childrens time teaching them nonsense. Let em play, burn some calories, or do something productive.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 5:09 PM
Dear Brother SmoggyOM,
Come near me with a razor you fiend, and I will fork 12 pounds of chicken manure down the front or your poorly filled trouser.
Yours in True Christian charity,
Patricia
Posted by: MadScientist | August 17, 2009 5:09 PM
As long as the bible is the Koran, that's OK by me. The xian bible can be discussed at home or in sunday school.
Posted by: Lynna | August 17, 2009 5:09 PM
@256
Schools in Idaho and Utah have something similar, but is for teaching Mormon children. Seminary is a class about the Book of Mormon or Bible for teens that is during the week. It is typically before school and called early morning seminary. Schools with many Mormons have release time Seminary in a building near the school. They leave school for a class period to attend Seminary. Technically, this is legal because other students also have release time during which they can go to study hall.
Both boys and girls attend seminary. Here's an example of a lesson from a girl's class:
Posted by: EdW | August 17, 2009 5:11 PM
There's no better way to make an atheist than to have highschoolers read the bible. I just wish it wasn't "Bible" class, instead of a "religion" class. The bible isn't the only influential religious screed, ya know.
Posted by: Lynna | August 17, 2009 5:12 PM
Smoggy @252
I've been thinking of trimming my bushes. Is Floyd willing to branch out?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 5:13 PM
or = of. Godless chimp cooties!
Posted by: SeagalJ | August 17, 2009 5:13 PM
not a gator
Haha, no it is quite easy. The European Union is, seen legaly workingwise, One nation, a french going to england is the same as a cali gall going over to florida, no legal issues, all the same. Certain areas (countries) might demand that you register for the social services so you are covered for medical care and all, which is a hassle, have to write some papers and go to some offices, very annoying, other then that it is fine.
As as an America (and Canadians) there are Various programs you can use. If you are a young individual, under 31 or so, you can get a working visa for one year which is also possible to extend depending on circumstance after that year. The most easy nation to get this from, as an american, would probably be one of the commonwealth regions (Australia and NZ is very popular).
Now, if you happen to be on the older side, say, above 31 or so, you can find a decent employeer, maybe a friend to a friend, or somesuch, and he would hire you and you would gain the working visa that way, easy and no problems with the only limiation being that you can only work for him or her. The U.S have a similar program which have the visa, if I remember correct (could be wrong about the name, apologize for thus) "J1 visa".
Now if you want a job in the Scandinavian nations, which are the safest most advanced societies on the planet, well, it gets a bit harder. Swedes may not hire you because you do not speak Swedish (for general work) even when everyone speaks fluent english.. And german and French.. Its a cultural thing I guess. In Norway you should have no problems getting a job but the question is if they would bother hiring you when there is tons of others, especially Swedes and Danish doing the job without any hassle with visas. Denmark is similar to Norway workwise but may be slightly off because of the language as well, policy thing there. Iceland with its recently crashed economy would be a nice choice, and even if it much more money then you would get in the United States (the U.S dollar is not worth anything), it would not even be close to what you "should" get before the crisis, so it may not feel worth it, even if it is a quite nice country.
A good point is, whatever job you get, and where ever you get it, you can travel and live anywhere in the European Union. France, UK, Germany all have alot of money to be earned for even the most basic jobs if that is important, the most money exist, obviously, in Scandinavia but it is harder to get a job there for none native speakers, I would claim Norway could probably be a gold mine for you if you take your time, you should be able to find something.
Mmmm, what more.. Well, thats the general :)
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 5:21 PM
Snark aside, there is some practical use to having a vague knowledge of some bible quotes and personalities.
then there is no fucking reason to waste time teaching it in a secondary school classroom, when there is this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/
directed at those who claim this innocuous because students aren't "required" to take it...
No, this legislation is most definitely government sponsoring a specific view of religion (otherwise, the requirement would be to offer comparative religion, or basically just cultural anthropology).
It doesn't matter if the students are required to take it or not. It still amounts to government sponsoring a specific religion. It's clear as water.
In fact, I think it's so clearly unconstitutional, it was designed to be a test case.
Posted by: Smoggy OMBatzrubble | August 17, 2009 5:22 PM
Dear Sister Patricia,
You like chicken manure games as well? We have so much in common. Want to join my harem?
Smoggy
Posted by: SeagalJ | August 17, 2009 5:26 PM
ADDED:
Because you are americans (sorry, you are), I want to correct/make something clear. Australia and New Zealand is part of the British commonwealth, IT IS NOT EUROPEAN, it is in OCEANIA so you do not think OZ and NZ is part of the EU, I am well aware of american knowledge about geography.. Completely Lacking :)
I referred to OZ and NZ as popular amongst the commonwealth. In the European Union Great Britian is most likely the easiest choice, that is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Irelanf, yes, thats the UK, Britain, I know I know, they didn't tell you anything about this in school, but thats how it is living in the dark ages :)
So, any questions feel free to ask :P
Posted by: Pteryxx | August 17, 2009 5:28 PM
Well whatever was "blocking" me from reading this entry gave up on the ... tenth try. That said, I haven't read *all* the comments yet, but most folks here seem to be underestimating the danger.
Schools are REQUIRED to offer this "elective" course. That little word "elective" means nothing down here in the Belt when it comes to Christianity. In the vast majority of the public schools, any student who says they'd rather not take a Bible course is going to be ostracized and probably beat up. Any parents who support keeping their offspring out of this "elective" course will get snubbed by the community.
As for hopes that actually reading the Bible will help turn students away from fundamentalism: Critical reading will not happen in these courses. The teachers have to deal with this community too, and they'll assuredly be teaching the party line. It'll be just like Sunday school, but at public expense.
Schools here are not going to defend the lone teacher who examines the actual words of the Bible, the one student who doesn't want to sit through Bible class, or the one family who doesn't want their kid graded on their Sunday school performance.
Yes I'm taking it personally, since I *was* that kid.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 17, 2009 5:30 PM
SeagalJ,
Worth noting that Norway and Iceland are not in the EU. Iceland is likely to apply if it hasn't yet done so (the Icelandic Parliament just voted to do so) and could join in a few years, Norway is unlikely to in the next decade.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 17, 2009 5:30 PM
@GMacs #155:
"Muslims nations were the most advanced and richest in the world before they all went fundamentalist."
That's not true. The "golden age" of islam was during the period referred to as the "dark ages" in Europe (and strangely enough, the muslims had a lot to do with educating Europe and moving on). You can hardly say that the Arabian tribes were not fundamentalist; people in many regions were converted or exiled or murdered. What is important is that a succession of warlords had great power and were able to maintain peace in the region for a few hundred years. Without the constant and numerous large wars which were being experienced in Europe at the time, the Arabs were able to spend time on other things such as education, historical research, and so on. As the muslims moved north of Africa and into Grenada, Spain, Italy, France and so on the tradition of conversion/exile/execution continued in many of the occupied territories. The claim is often made that sharia law was responsible for the peace and order, and that may be one of the reasons that so many backward muslim countries want to establish sharia law - they believe that it will make things better and bring them a "golden age" - it's reminiscent of the cargo cult and its rituals.
Posted by: Dianne | August 17, 2009 5:30 PM
In the European Union Great Britian is most likely the easiest choice, that is England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,
I've never been to the UK, but from the jokes made on the continent, I'd say it's probably best to simply learn another language rather than risk the UK.
Q: What does a person who moves from the UK to Australia miss most about the UK?
A: France.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 5:33 PM
Dear Brother Smoggy,
Thank you, no. My position as ships Strumpet takes all of my time.
As to the chicken manure, I'm working on a special blend of Australorp/Mustang that I hope to market as alternative Vegemite. Hence only 12 pounds to spare for your trouser.
May god help you,
Patricia
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 5:35 PM
Wait... Skull Mountain? And I've been waiting for the rest of you with some love-addled megalomaniac at Skullcrusher Mountain!? Great. Just great.
That's Ok.
We won't kill you...
yet.
;)
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | August 17, 2009 5:35 PM
There is value in knowing the bible, particularly for an understanding of its deep cultural significance and, in my field, because it's a serious handicap to the study of English Literature if you don't know it. As an unbeliever, it's also useful to be able to correct those who misquote scripture to advance a religious agenda.
However, there is no place for compulsory Bible learning. That is simply coercion, and it will almost inevitably be accompanied by proselytizing of various degrees of unsubtlety. It is almost a certainty that the whole bible will never be taught, only the safe, familiar, non-contradictory passages. If any form of government in a democratic society with separation between church and state wishes to legislate the teaching of a holy book, then they should teach all the holy books equally in a 'Religious Studies' context. Anything less makes a mockery of the rhetoric of freedom, republicanism and nationhood.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 17, 2009 5:36 PM
mikecbraun, Bobber, et al. (@various):
I was focusing on the loser/looser confusion, and didn't see 'til after I posted y'all's discussion of the broader indicators. I bow to your greater experience (with no presenting of evidence required; this is friendly conversation, not court). My SiL is very bright, and thus not representative of the median of any population, deaf of hearing.
BTW, Smoggy OM? I was away from pretty much all keyboards for more than a week, so I must've missed a Molly thread. To the archives for me!!
BTW, this is why I wasn't around here.
Posted by: Smoggy OMBatzrubble | August 17, 2009 5:44 PM
Dear Sister Lynna,
Floyd says he'll be glad to give you a trim and tidy. His new specialty is coloring and shaping. His scarlet "A" design is proving tremendously popular.
Just email: pluckedbyfloyd@burningbushes.com.
God be with you and your private places
Smoggy
PS Floyd also offers an intimate piercing service. Take my advice and avoid that one. I'm pretty sure he uses one of his gold incisors to pierce with.
Posted by: Pteryxx | August 17, 2009 5:46 PM
It occurs to me this bill also creates more courseload for teachers who are able to pr- pardon, TEACH the Sunday school course in the way the local community expects. That should make up for their educational failings in, say, science, math, history, or English.
Posted by: SeagalJ | August 17, 2009 5:48 PM
Knockgoats, thats no issue, Norway is only not part of the EU by name, most legal papyrus is the same as part Scandinavia, they would welcome you with ease.
Dianne
Hahhaha, I never heard that one. OZ is very similar to the UK excluding the weather.. Obviously. It is the same working culture, unlimited work (almost impossible to be willingly unemployed in either UK or Australia) and the money is generally good, OZ have much lower salaries (calculating with prices as well) but if you like the weather, but UK gives you EUROPE, and thats hard to say no too :)
Hey, I just live close to France, can take the boat over...
Posted by: Newfie | August 17, 2009 5:53 PM
Colin #262
The Bible is a tool box to draw from, to build what you want, according to your intent... and Texas
Posted by: Coragyps | August 17, 2009 5:54 PM
Ichthyic: "In fact, I think it's so clearly unconstitutional, it was designed to be a test case."
You ain't from these (Texan) parts, are ya? I'll bet a cool Pilsner Urquell that the bill was written by a Good Christian Panderer-for-votes that doesn't realize that the US Constitution applies inside the Lone Star State.
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 5:59 PM
I'd really like to know how this fits in with NCLB. Every school in every state I know of is cutting non-mandated courses left and right: music, arts, foreign languages. States are requiring more PE under the misguided thought that an extra 60 minutes of dodgeball a week will make all of America's children have a lower BMI, they require all students to be like Wobegoners and be above average, and there is no time left for anything else. What's going to be cut to make room for the Bible class????
Posted by: Ray | August 17, 2009 6:01 PM
Sara, meet killfile. That is all.
Cheers,
Ray
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 17, 2009 6:02 PM
Bill Dauphin, #283.
No fear. I was actually hoping you'd want to see this guy's e-mails. They are quite striking. But, like I said, I don't hold any misconceptions that the entire deaf community is like him. I just saw a mild similarity in his writing and Sara's. Nice pictures, by the way. It looks like you were busy!
Posted by: SeagalJ | August 17, 2009 6:06 PM
Can I ask you guys something?
I find it really strange that you americans always mention your Constitution. You always speak of FREEDOM and RIGHTS and yada yada yada, and it is interesting because in European eyes, you got far less freedom then any of us, We have the freedom to live a safe good life, with good education, safe streets, no religion trying to destroy our schools.
The ones that are the loudest, screaming they are the BEST, they are the "Most Free' usually are the complete opposite, and I am curious, as most of you are educated and clearly intelligent (for americans), How do you relate to that? The constant 'Constitution' reference?
I have never heard a French, a Brit or Swede mention their Constitution, and they live happy, good and free lives. If they do not like something, they amend their laws (Constitutions), they never speak of it. Why do americans always refer to their Constitution as it is some sort of Holy Text? I mean, you got the right to have WEAPONS in it, combine that with fear and you got one of the most dangerou nations on the planet, and RATTLE SNACK... WE DO!!! Which I guess you guys are proud of... Okay I know you are secular so most likely you are against this stupid law, but as an example.
Im just curious, whats your deal with this Constitution thing?
Posted by: SeagalJ | August 17, 2009 6:08 PM
Can I ask you guys something?
I find it really strange that you americans always mention your Constitution. You always speak of FREEDOM and RIGHTS and yada yada yada, and it is interesting because in European eyes, you got far less freedom then any of us, We have the freedom to live a safe good life, with good education, safe streets, no religion trying to destroy our schools.
The ones that are the loudest, screaming they are the BEST, they are the "Most Free' usually are the complete opposite, and I am curious, as most of you are educated and clearly intelligent (for americans), How do you relate to that? The constant 'Constitution' reference?
I have never heard a French, a Brit or Swede mention their Constitution, and they live happy, good and free lives. If they do not like something, they amend their laws (Constitutions), they never speak of it. Why do americans always refer to their Constitution as it is some sort of Holy Text? I mean, you got the right to have WEAPONS in it, combine that with fear and you got one of the most dangerou nations on the planet, and RATTLESNAKE... WE DO!!! Which I guess you guys are proud of... Okay I know you are secular so most likely you are against this stupid law, but as an example.
Im just curious, whats your deal with this Constitution thing?
Posted by: Sir Eccles | August 17, 2009 6:17 PM
You can't really appreciate the bible until you've read it in the original Klingon.
Yes yes, I know Genesis Planet forbidden!
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 17, 2009 6:24 PM
I'm just curious, whats your deal with this Constitution thing?
I think the Revolutionary and Civil wars had something to do with it. More recently it was the Vietnam and the Iraq wars.
We need to keep testing it, because clearly it is a faulty document. You'll be the first to know when we get all of the bugs worked out of it.
Posted by: bootsy | August 17, 2009 6:25 PM
@SeagalJ: I think you'll find that the Americans who bandy about the Constitution the most are the sort of right-wingers who rally around the flag and the bible, as well. I don't really think it's an american thing, tho.
All fascists and dictators seem to need/use fetish objects with a certain amount of history as something to rally around. Mussolini used the literal fasces and other symbols of Ancient Rome; Hitler used the swastika, art, and historical typefaces of all things. I have a hunch that there are far-right parties in even modern Europe who do the same thing.
Posted by: bootsy | August 17, 2009 6:28 PM
Oh, forgot to add that the Constitution, for its time, seems like a mostly freedom-expanding document. (Keep in mind that the right to bear arms thing was only meant for civil militias.) So people in the left and center in the U.S. may mention the Constitution as well, but do not use it as a frozen magical symbol; they are more likely to look at what it actually says and it's actual intent.
Posted by: fact3r | August 17, 2009 6:31 PM
This may be a wonderful thing, actually. Please keep in mind that there are tons of Southern Baptists, mostly whites, and tons of Catholics, mostly the immigrant Hispanics, and the two forms of "Christians" hate each other. This may be the field study to get some of these fundies to back off as they realize if they try to bring their god into schools, others will bring theres and likely "endanger" their kids to more information than they are comfortable with.
Posted by: DominEditrix | August 17, 2009 6:32 PM
The secular study of comparative religious myths would be valuable for English Lit - after all, "classical" [read Greco-Roman] allusions abound. Clearly, this is not a concern of Texans. But then, I'd be surprised if Texas allowed actual literature to be taught. I mean, after all, Shelley was sent down from university for being an atheist. And Blake suggested free love. And Keats, with all that dirty talk. [Can't teach no Romantic poets, nope...] And then there's Shakespeare who wrote that gay sonnet and James Joyce whom they simply cannot understand.
When I was a grad school TA, back in the early 80s, I was appalled to discover that only one student in my two sections knew that "Vulcan" did not only mean "home of Mr Spock".
Not, of course, that the Texas course is really designed to help students understand English Lit. I would be surprised if [most of] their parents hadn't already subjected them to years of Sunday school and Bible classes; they ought to already be informed enough to recognise, say "the snitch had three bucks in dimes in his pocket" as a biblical allusion. [Well, OK, bad example - I just checked out maths scores for Texan students...]
Posted by: SeagalJ | August 17, 2009 6:34 PM
Interesting, a right-wing fascist thingy then? But I seen alot, and I mean alot of americans taking it very very seriously, I got the IMPRESSON that it is the general consensus when in the U.S, east or west, same thing.
The symbolic comment is very interesting, I would claim, without hesitation, that people defined as 'evil' by us, the 'winners', seem to have a much better esthetical highground then us.
I mean, look at the Swastika and the rest of Nazi Germanies symbolism, they are gorgeous, Soviet Unions flag is a lovely piece of Art, and then compare that to the American flag, a ugly joke, an esthetical insult, or Germanies post war flag, just like the U.S and U.K, an esthetical insult.
I claim esthetical high ground for the evil folks here, and as some commented, symbolism seem related to it, very interesting stuff... Dont you agree?
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 17, 2009 6:34 PM
@ SegalJ:
The fact that you hear about the Constitution so much proves its efficacy, in a way. The assholes who are always spouting off about their Constitutional rights and this and that are the same jerks who would probably have a sock shoved (justly) down their throats in most sane countries, and they would definitely disappear in more strict countries, such as Iran or China.
Bootsy is right: the flag-waving, "Support Our Troops" sticker-having, Obama-is-a-Muslim, America-is-a-Christian-nation crowd are the ones moaning about their Constitutional rights the most, whilst simultaneously attempting to take those very same rights away from others who do not agree with them--see how testy they get when an uppity atheist attempts to block the Ten Commandments from being displayed on a courthouse. We are an odd nation, and the loudest voices are those of the paranoid and delusional. Just try to ignore them--I know it's hard.
Posted by: TheBear | August 17, 2009 6:34 PM
@bootsy:
I think you will find a rather fatal bug in the code if you examine the "right to carry assault rifles and rpgs"-bit...
Posted by: Petzl
|
August 17, 2009 6:34 PM
"By the end of the year, what they begin to realize is that it is pervasive. You can't get away from it. The kids came back and were like 'It's everywhere,'" said John Keeling, the social studies chair at Whitehouse High School. Whitehouse already offers a Bible elective. "The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it, per se, it is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government."
This is a teacher saying this? So he's admitting that the purpose is to make his religion the "standard." I pity the student that has this guy instructing (or rather, inculcating) him.
I like how he says "it isn't even really to get the kids to believe it, per se"-- that is, "hey, it'd be OK if that happened, but, uh, that's not our primary intention."
I took a course in the Bible as Literature in high school in Long Island, NY, and it was taught properly, without proselytization, by (as I look back on it) a non-believer. But, could a Christian teacher in Texas teach the Bible without lapsing into preaching? I somehow doubt this.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 17, 2009 6:35 PM
SeagalJ:
Perhaps this is the difference between very old societies and one that rather deliberately invented itself within relatively recent memory? I dunno about the French or the Swedes, but the Brits don't even have a written Constitution to mention if they wanted to.
For comparison, you don't hear Westerners bragging about the roman alphabet much, but Koreans do brag about their writing system, Hangul, and they celebrate it with a national holiday. The difference? Hangul was deliberately invented, by order of the king, ca. 1500 (IIRC), for the specific purpose of making life better for Koreans by making literacy more achievable (Korean had previously been written using Chinese characters, despite being an entirely distinct language). That doesn't make Hangul a better alphabet, but maybe it does make it a skosh more worthy of bragging about, or at least recognizing as a specific good.
Similarly, I'd be careful about suggesting the U.S. Constitution was better than the governing laws of our peer nations (though I admit I am rather partial to it)... but the fact that it was made, deliberately and for noble purpose, by people not lost in the mists of history, is perhaps worth the occasional celebratory note.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 6:35 PM
SegalJ I always enjoy talking with an effete pretentious pseudo-intellectual from Europe. The Constitution is a written document that lists the rights of citizens and enumerates the powers of government. Surely you must at this late date have a constitution for your government and the EU?
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 17, 2009 6:37 PM
...And I wouldn't call the American flag ugly, for the sheer fact that it can be made into the sexiest of bikinis.
Posted by: jimvj | August 17, 2009 6:37 PM
Maybe Texas rationalists should insist that they
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!
Include books by Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Israel Finkelstein, Tim Callahan, etc.
Goose the gander!
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 17, 2009 6:38 PM
I thought PZ had banned me because I didn't wait until the third post to slam Sara, and get a little slam in there on science, religion and atheism as well. I'm not proud.
It went on to become a humorous thread, which Bill felt the need to dominate. Hey Bill, you want crazy? I posted links for you but the automatic moderation caught them. Hopefully PZ will ignore them. Possibly they might show up here.
Ignoring the bible retards, they can't change anything, but someone like you, Bill, you really have no excuses at all.
Crazy : human population, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, United States debt and educational decline and species extinction. So what we have here is a species, and society and a nation hell bent on suicidal destruction.
And you're complaining to us about me promoting hydrogen, alternative energy, condensed matter physics and space.
Damn, that's crazy.
Posted by: bcoppola | August 17, 2009 6:41 PM
Carlie #289: You beat me to it. Quite aside from the questionable rationale behind the Bible course (even if it's elective), there are only so many hours in a school day, and with the valuable, non-mandated and allegedly "non-essential" courses such as those you listed are already under the knife, this class seems like a waste of time and money. Any competent teacher could and should explain Biblical allusions and influences as they come up in existing literature and history classes. Same with the plentiful allusions in the Western canon to Greek and Roman mythology, etc.
Posted by: bcoppola | August 17, 2009 6:47 PM
DominEditrix #299
And whoops, there goes the Song of Solomon from the Old Testament!
Posted by: Desert Son | August 17, 2009 6:52 PM
It's an important document historically, and socio-politically. Further, The Constitution acts as a written, legal document establishing conditions of rights in the United States. It comes from a time when conditions of such rights were not guaranteed, not certain, and often violated by the institution supposedly invested with the nation's interests (the government).
Think of it as a document simultaneously independent of both government and people, yet written by government and people in the interest of both. Should the government fail to uphold it, the government can be held accountable. Should people fail to uphold it, the people can be held accountable (that government and/or people are held accountable is not always guaranteed, of course; this is somewhat more complicated by the fact that, in a democratic republic, the people are the government). Further, the document itself makes some provision for a certain amount of its own malleability should the will of the people dictate that it should change.
Is it holy? Of course not! It's importance lies not in the reverence (or lack thereof) in which it is held; it's importance lies in the power of a nation's citizens to direct the course of their nation's interests and to stand protected against factions, governmental and/or civil, that might stand inimical to the United States and its citizens.
Is it perfect? Of course not! It's never going to be perfect, anymore than a system of government is going to be perfect, or a system of laws is going to be perfect. That very fact is an integral part of what the writers of The Constitution understood; they included that understanding in the preamble to the document itself: ". . . in order to form a more perfect Union . . . ." A "more perfect" endeavor is an anachronistic way of saying "trying to do better." The authors invoked a mode of language to illustrate the dynamic nature of politics and striving for the betterment of a nation.
That its significance has entered into some aspects of the national psyche as a kind of totem is not in dispute. As such, it is often invoked like a character in a novel presenting a crucifix to a vampire. As with any legal document, the vehemence with which it is invoked sometimes exceeds the level of understanding the invoker has of the actual text and it's applicability.
The document is extremely important, but most assuredly not holy. If some in this country portray The Constitution thus, they do the document and the law as much disservice as those who deem it unworthy of regard whatsoever.
But don't take my word for it! Do some reading on U.S. Constitutional law, and the history of the document!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Desert Son | August 17, 2009 6:58 PM
Gaaaahhhh!
"its applicability" not "it's applicability."
*storms off in a stream of vulgar invective to write "possessive case, not a contraction" on the chalkboard 100 times*
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 17, 2009 7:04 PM
Hey Sara #69
If you think that you've been oppressed, try being an atheist in Arkansas.
Posted by: SeagalJ | August 17, 2009 7:04 PM
Bill Dauphin
Ah, I am aware of the Hangul alphabet since I lived there, I knew only some of the history and never uite understood the celebrations in which I happily joined :)
I think your analyzes could be right on the money, an historical psychological reason and looking at other societies with similar (but different) rituals seem to make this clear.
Of course, we got other reasons as well, the U.S being a nation that seems to be in need of making itself 'feel good', I seen americans who belive they "saved the world" (as a nation) during WWII having no knowledge about either Soviet Unions participants in the European war nor that they where the ones dealing with the Japanese gerilla as well. I met people who claimed they 'saved' Vietnamn and 'helped' people in Guatemala, with no idea of the atrocities they did.
It seems to be some sort of need for delusional masturbation where reality seem not to be related. I would not say anything if it was positive, but looking at the U.S, it is worrying seeing people celebrate a piece of paper or Pray to a flag clearly believing they are above others when the evidence shows the complete difference. It is scary stuff.
I mean, I am aware of the atrocities that my native country have done, and I see objectively the history, I do not pretend anything, I learn from it, what worries me is that the americans I know, even the highly intelligent ones, seem to have been so deeply indoctrinated that they still somehow, believe their nation is above others, and instead of loving the world, they love their nation or flag, and this is Christian, Atheist or Muslim, it seems the nationalistic/patriotic view is so ingrained no education can fix it.
I remember watching the Hiroshima documentary years ago, talking to the ones dropping the bombs, and they where sitting there, these two disgusting human beings, and gloating, being proud of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, 'japs' I think they called them, they where below him, because his 'american race' was above 'does people', It was truly disgusting to see. And today I met many many americans who know nothing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they dont even know the horrible history, and when they do, they shrug there shoulder in complete apathy, they dont care...
That scares me.
For the record, I do alot of business with americans (and in it) and travel both to Calif and Florida regularly, I can just not stand it when I see the horrible ignorance and hatred combined with that, people that do not care. Thats why I enjoy talkin to educated and/or intelligent americans here, it is rare to see them as you are not easy to find when im there, a country where intellectuals are frowned upon in my view.
Posted by: Desert Son | August 17, 2009 7:06 PM
SegalJ at #300 wrote:
And now you lost me.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Desert Son | August 17, 2009 7:13 PM
Totally off-topic aside, but congratulations to Usain Bolt and Jamaica for a new world record in the men's 100 meters yesterday in Berlin:
9.58 seconds.
For hominids operating under their own power, I believe the technical term for that is "hauling ass."
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Caine | August 17, 2009 7:24 PM
Sara @ whatever:
Not quite. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to have sex with you.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 17, 2009 7:30 PM
I would like to think that the course will be a thoughtful analysis of Christian religion and the biblical text as part of a larger study of comparative religion and the significance of faith as a socio-cultural phenomenon. An accurate and impartial study of religion's impact on world history would doubtless be fascinating and would help expand the horizons of the young. Such a course would be of immeasurable help in equipping young Texans with the analytical tools they need to view the faith they were most likely brought up with in a critical, intellectual fashion.
Needless to say, such a course doesn't have a snowball's chance in the fictional hell trope of actually coming to pass. A genuinely academic, critical analysis of the bible in schools? Somehow I don't see the more devout parents groups and local faith activists accepting any such course without a fight. Their idea of any course on religion involves the class shouting "Praise the Lord!" in unison at least half a dozen times per session. They probably look on with eny at those Madrassas where 'education' involves rocking backwards and forwards while reciting the Koran in a droning monotone for hours on end. With indoctrination like that, they could production-line hordes of brainwashed little godbots . . . er, I mean proper little Christians.
It does not seem complex to me. An institution that indoctrinates cannot educate. You cannot seek to impart knowledge and reason and the scientific method in the same place where you seek to inculcate blind, unreasoning faith. Schools are, or at least should be, centres of learning not churches in disguise. Religion has no place there. Faith, or the lack thereof, should be left to the individual as a matter of personal conscience that they decide when they are old and educated enough to make an informed decision on their own terms. To use schools as a vector to forcefeed fundamentalist religion to the young is an abomination. A degradation of the importance of education, an abuse of the trust placed in the school system by society and a personal abuse of power by the teachers involved. It should be illegal, but I can think of few legislatures even in the supposedly 'enlightened' western world with the tersticular (or, for that matter, ovarian) fortitude to pass such a law.
Posted by: Marc Abian | August 17, 2009 7:38 PM
Sara,
before we thrust into it and I get your juices flowing with some good, hard penetrative questions about God I just wanna know, compared to other christian women, are you tighter or looser?
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 7:38 PM
i havent had time for a bit so im going to try respond to most of you in one go :)
Caine
you can dream i will only have sex ith my future HUSBAND as the Lord intended thankyouverymuch.
Darren Garrison
AMERICA was FOUNDED on CHRISTIAN values. whatever you want t accept this or not is up to you, we are the greatest nation the world has ever seen and sure, maybe its not ONLY our religion but it certainly helped to have a GUIDE to help you (the BIBLE), look at NAZI GERMANY, SOVIET UNION, CHINA, CUBA and the list goes on, communism and atheism seem not to lead anywhere compared to GODS HOLY WORD.
Glen Davidson
i do not understand your comment, you do not ask anything just talking about love, and Yes I love Jesus and I try to spread love so they do not have to live in HELL.
it seems not to many asked any questions actually, just rantings, funny that.
Posted by: TalkingSnakeBite
|
August 17, 2009 7:41 PM
More lying for Jeebus it would seem.
Ask any state rep who affixed their name to this shabby legislation and you'll get the canned response: we must understand our cultural roots, morality, etc.
To a person, each one of them is happy simply to wedge the good book in anyway, anyhow.
Frustrated in Austin...
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 7:41 PM
whatever you want t accept this or not is up to you
"...at least until I grow up and become a politician."
then, of course, revisionist history will be mandatory.
...and we'll have always been at war with Eurasia.
Posted by: Newfie | August 17, 2009 7:42 PM
Jeebus loves the smarmy children, all the smarmy children of the world....
Posted by: CrackaLee | August 17, 2009 7:43 PM
When I was in high school, I took a course that taught about the major religions of the world (christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism, buddhism, and eastern philosophies like taoism), it really opened my eyes to how similar and ridiculous religions were, and I think, started me on my journey from jeebus-lubbin evangelical to loud and proud atheist. A class about religions, taught from a secular non-biased view would be a good thing for all students. As would actually reading the bible, which also helped me shake off my superstitions.
Posted by: James Lindley | August 17, 2009 7:46 PM
No problem teaching the Bible.
In literature, it's fiction.
In history, it's fraud.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 17, 2009 7:51 PM
Sarah:
I find your post to be clearer and more lucid when ran through this translator:
http://www.translationparty.com/#1643818
http://www.translationparty.com/#1642777
http://www.translationparty.com/#1644057
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 17, 2009 7:53 PM
Dear Brother Batzrubble,
Good News! The Bible(Tm) you sent me has worked! My chair is free of the sponge demon! Though my chair has gone to the great office in the sky, its soul has doubtless been saved.
However Brother, I come bearing a warning. The hellspawn was most wrathful upon expulsion from the furnishings. Before disappearing in a puff of sulpherous smoke, it made dire threats of seeking to possess Pastor Tom Estes! Quickly, Brother Batzrubble, you must warn the pastor lest the beast smite down his Hard Truth with most lamentable and unfoseen softness! I hear tell it can happen at the most inopportune moments!
Unless, unless the horror has already come to pass? Could it be that this 'Sara' is in fact the good pastor laid low in a state of most dire sub-tumesence? Surely it cannot be! Act quickly brother, lest the Hard Truth should soften forever!
Yours in Christian concern;
Brother Greenwood.
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 7:53 PM
So you're saying Harkness practices rishathra, eh?
Exactly!
BTW, this is why I wasn't around here. (from way earlier)
Very nice! And the weirdo who just tried to friend you on facebook is me. :)
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 7:55 PM
it seems not to many asked any questions actually, just rantings, funny that.
Reading incomprehension ftw.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 7:59 PM
Ringworld!
Posted by: Caine | August 17, 2009 8:05 PM
Sara @ 320:
Going for those future God threesomes, are ya? Kinky. Personally, I find being bisexual provides a wonderfully diverse playground. Oh, in anticipation of the next little godly poe-round, I'm one of those terribly uppity atheists who has been married for 30 years. Sometimes, you do get it all, with no help needed from a god at all.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 17, 2009 8:09 PM
Australia is a young nation, and has a written constitution, and yet we think it's insanely boring and don't celebrate it. And it is boring, really, being more of a legalistic separation from the UK than a human rights thing.
Also, Capt Jack Harkness is omnisexual, while John Barrowman is homosexual. So you can be both at once :)
Posted by: Sara | August 17, 2009 8:11 PM
Caine
then you can let her know you wanted to cheat her and who knows how many times in does 30 years you been doing that, considering you want to with a complete stranger on the internet its clear you probably cheated her numerous times as you are an atheist and in your heart, well, most likely others are the only ones you have and pornoraphy and everything and anything.
you disgust me, you showed your colors
Posted by: Ethan K | August 17, 2009 8:13 PM
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like schools are being required to OFFER the course. My high school did: Bible as Literature. (Personally, I would have rather read the Quran or a Buddhist or Hindu holy text--if demand is high enough, those should undeniable by offered alongside the Christian bible)
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 8:14 PM
Go read the Treaty of Tripoli and explain how it made it past Congress *WITHOUT DEBATE* on a section that says something completely different.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 17, 2009 8:17 PM
Dear Sister Sara,
Thank you for your brave witness on this hellish blog. May I say, however, in a spirit of Christian love, that I fear you haven't been listening too carefully to Jesus lately or you would know that He appointed me to be His missionary to the atheists that cluster here. While I appreciate your assistance, I am worried that your efforts will confuse people. Beneath their veneers of sophistication and intellect, atheists are really quite simple creatures. I have only just managed to convince them that Christians know how to spell, punctuate and write coherently, and they were beginning to trust me, when you turn up disproving all of my work in one fell post.
If you wish to persist in witnessing here, Dear Sister Sara, would you accede to a little Christian instruction from an elder brother in the Lord? If yes, I will send Brother Floyd Rubber to pray with you. Do not be alarmed by his terrifying appearance, Jesus has saved Floyd and forgiven him for the murders, sodomy and violence he committed in his previous life of evil. And, Dear Sara, if you open your heart to the Spirit of Instruction, I truly believe you will find your general coherence and grammar improve remarkably. God may want us to be fools for him; but that doesn't mean we have to be literally as thick as a dung pile.
I hope we can work together to turn these misguided atheists to the One True Catholic Church.
Yours in Joint Witness
Smoggy Batzrubble (voted Outstanding Missionary)
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 8:23 PM
then you can let her know you wanted to cheat her and who knows how many times in does 30 years you been doing that, considering you want to with a complete stranger on the internet its clear you probably cheated her numerous times as you are an atheist and in your heart, well, most likely others are the only ones you have and pornoraphy and everything and anything
wow.
stream of consciousness much?
Posted by: Randallphobia | August 17, 2009 8:25 PM
I'm not reading through 334 messages, so please accept my apologies if I repeat something that's been said 3 dozen times.
Since the approach is supposed to be literary, I don't have the biggest issue with the IDEA.
I can't stand religion, but I didn't have a problem with having to pick & read 3 books of the Old Testament & 3 books of the New Testament in a Western Literature class in college. Our teacher admitted to being an ex-hippie & an atheist, so he didn't approach it from a religious point of view. He did make us look at the historic impact of the Bible.
My problem is that many teachers &/or schools will take this as an opportunity to preach. I'm pretty sure that the English teacher next door to me (who is one of 2 main sponsors for our Fellowship Christian Athletes club) wouldn't try to convert anyone because she has said many times that religion does not belong in the classroom, but there are a lot of teachers with no where near that kind of integrity. (Yes, I'm a history teacher in Texas.)
This makes me wish that I had a child old enough to be subjected to this law because I would so get a lawyer the instant that a teacher tried to preach to my child. Notice that the law hasn't really been enforced yet because there are gray areas that make schools nervous.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 8:26 PM
But Smoggy, she disapproves of drugs despite God giving dominion over all herbs, so how can you be joint witnesses?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 17, 2009 8:26 PM
bcoppola (#309):
True dat. Saying "all these proverbs and such came from the Bible" is an argument for a page-a-day trivia calendar, not a high-school class.
DominEditrix (#299):
Only because I hate it when they charge.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week!
Posted by: Randallphobia | August 17, 2009 8:30 PM
If this were an elective, it wouldn't even be on my radar, but schools should also have the option of offering classes on other religions. I've had students ask if we could have a secular humanist club. Since there were only 2 kids interested in it (I'm at a junior high so most kids don't understand the phrase), I told them that it probably wouldn't be feasible, but they might be able to get a group together in HS.
Posted by: frozen_midwest | August 17, 2009 8:39 PM
OT - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfoQfL8vJXQ
Note the first image with the address.
Posted by: HarmlessEccentric | August 17, 2009 8:40 PM
I'd love to teach Bible in my school. Some people might not like the way I would teach it, though.
Posted by: hall monitor | August 17, 2009 8:47 PM
This story made http://detentionslip.org ! Check it out for all the crazy headlines from our schools.
Posted by: Morgan MacLaren | August 17, 2009 8:50 PM
If they are only offering courses on the Christian Bible I think there is something wrong with that because it's a biased view. If they want to offer any religious courses there should be the option to study all the religions as a whole.
A course specifically on how Christianity has shaped American politics isn't such a bad thing, but teaching Christianity to the exclusion of other religions has an obvious agenda!
When I was at school we had Christian Bible classes that were compulsory. I did not grow up in a Christian family and neither did most of my class mates so I think it was wrong we were taught this since it was not a course about Christianity, it was just preaching like we were in church. I think anyone who supports the Texan idea should substitute "Christian Bible" for "Satanic Bible" and see if they are still keen on the idea of people being taught one religious view.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 17, 2009 8:54 PM
Texas school board just made Olbermann's Worst Person in the World. Well deserved.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 17, 2009 9:12 PM
Yeah... 'cept me, I could really only pick out the 'stream' part...
Anyway, in related news, I'm developing this concept for a game show. Working title: Satire or Psycho?...
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 9:13 PM
Desert Son:
Many people argue that one reason why Nazism was so successful was that the art direction was so brilliant. Everything was through-designed. The Art Deco and Bauhaus movements influenced the look (although the Nazi's shut down van der Rohe and the Bauhaus of the Weimar Republic) and Leni Riefenstahl documented it in glorious(now horrific) detail.
It was all calculated to portray a cinematic ready regime as fashionable and heroic as has ever been orchestrated - Architecture, typography, Militaria, etc. It was immensely fashionable form a purely aesthetic design point of view but the ideology and the eugenics *shudder* it is tragic that some iconography will forever be tainted as nazi symbols.Evil sometimes comes in a very pretty package.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 9:16 PM
Glen:
Sara:
Wow, what a shocker.
Sara, it is the fantasies produced by your own maggot-infested brain that disgust you.
Posted by: anti.theist
|
August 17, 2009 9:16 PM
@ #345
All we can do is take the course at its word. It will teach students how to look at the bible critically in absence of christianity.
There simply is no better way to demonstrate the ignorance of christianity than critically looking at the book it hinges its entire case upon.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 9:19 PM
All we can do is take the course at its word.
Uh, no.
There simply is no better way to demonstrate the ignorance of christianity than critically looking at the book it hinges its entire case upon.
Perhaps, but that's not what will happen in these courses (and it certainly isn't what was intended by the Texas legislators who voted for it, regardless of what the bill says).
Posted by: funda62 | August 17, 2009 9:22 PM
And some people think I'm crazy for homeschooling in order to keep religious assault away from my kids?
No way will this stand in the supreme court. Just going to take a family with the guts to bring it to court.
Posted by: anti.theist
|
August 17, 2009 9:29 PM
@ #351
Well, if they do it is a clean violation of the constitution. I can think no similar instance which has held up in court.
Until either truth is demonstrated I hope they teach the bible in my daughters school here in Indiana.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 9:29 PM
Many people argue that one reason why Nazism was so successful was that the art direction was so brilliant.
And "many people argue that" the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
That "many people argue" something is not a valid form of support for that thing and should not be put forward as such in rational discussion.
Posted by: wrpd | August 17, 2009 9:30 PM
In an interview John Barrowman said that Captain Jack Harkness would sleep with anything with a postal code.
He said this after he sang the theme for Dr Who.
Posted by: Lynna | August 17, 2009 9:34 PM
Smoggy @284: Oh, goodie. Please tell Floyd to sign me for the letter "A" bush styling -- and I'll take the coloring service as well.
As for the intimate piercing done with a gold incisor, not this time. Maybe later.
I will fly my new colors at every opportunity.
Posted by: Anri | August 17, 2009 9:34 PM
Ok, I'll bite.
Sara sez:
"AMERICA was FOUNDED on CHRISTIAN values."
Right, Sara, bible quiz time.
Please list for us the places in the bible where it says that we have the basic right to life.
That would mean that those that take life from us because they are unhappy with us, even if they are more powerful, or consider themselves more wise, are wrong to do so.
Does the bible say that?
Please let us know where in the bible it says that the power to command people comes from, and only from, the people themselves. That's what our entire form of government was founded on - we don't ask god who should be president, we ask the people.
Does the bible say that we should ask for guidence from the people around us?
Or from another source?
And, lastly, US history time.
Please describe for us the Treaty of Tripoli, and how to relate that to your assertion that the US is a christian nation.
I'm pretty sure you'll ignore or dodge these questions, but I dunno, I might be pleasantly surprised.
Thank in advance.
Posted by: speedwell | August 17, 2009 9:34 PM
SeagalJ, the Constitution is a product of the most advanced-for-the-time Enlightenment philosophical ideals, put into practice by a club of wealthy men of leisure who all had the best possible intentions. Take for a typical example one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, who was reportedly a Bermuda hurricane with a flair for counting beans, a temperamental bastard (literally), a terrible workaholic, and out for Number One... provided Number One was wearing a skirt.
Like everything that seemed like an excellent idea over a glass of ratafia, it has not worn as well from friction with the real world as the Founders had hoped. Those authority-worshipping types who thought it was a holy document never to be breathed upon got hold of one end, and those antinomian types who refuse to be told what to do got hold of the other, and the middle is getting pretty damn tired of being sat on by the good old American work ethic, also known as every-man-for-himselfism. It's both too long and not long enough. It allows America to pretend it has a set of house rules, while America pays a set of canny lawyers to prove different. Thank Thomas Jefferson for that, who seems to have been clever enough to produce a document clearly designed to set the commoners against each other so the aristocracy could run things in comparative peace.
(Hey, what was that noise? I think... yes, it must be... my Libertarian credentials jumping out the nearest window and landing splat on the concrete.)
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 9:34 PM
I don't believe I was addressing you cowboy. I'm aware that "many people argue" is a bandwagon fallacy when used in a formal argument, thanks. This was simply an aside to Desert Son. Your concern and pedantry are noted.Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 9:36 PM
Well, if they do it is a clean violation of the constitution.
Non sequitur. But FWIW, the bill is prima facie a violation of the Constitution.
I can think no similar instance which has held up in court.
Sorry for you.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 9:43 PM
I don't believe I was addressing you cowboy.
That's not a requirement for responding to you, anus breath.
I'm aware that "many people argue" is a bandwagon fallacy when used in a formal argument, thanks.
So glad we're in agreement. But it's fallacy period. I doubt that you would argue that it's ok for politicians, right wingers, fundies, etc. to employ fallacies as long as they aren't making formal arguments, and accuse those who point out such fallacies of pedantry ... that only applies when it serves your intellectual cowardice.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 9:46 PM
P.S.
This was simply an aside to Desert Son.
No, it wasn't, liar; it was your lead, an intellectually dishonest method of adding authority to your unsupported claim.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 17, 2009 9:48 PM
Bobber:
"Or, to put it another way... what have you got against someone having a really good weekend?"
WIN.
Sara:
"AMERICA was FOUNDED on CHRISTIAN values."
Please name a few.
Posted by: djfav | August 17, 2009 9:51 PM
In Odessa, TX the school board tried using a curriculum endorsed by none other than Chuck Norris. IIRC, the fundies lost that time. I'm surprised there haven't been more brush fires as a result of HB 1287. They didn't specify which curriculum, and who would ever doubt Walker Texas Ranger? A dead man, that's who.
Posted by: speedwell | August 17, 2009 9:51 PM
What else is the Constitution? It's some of the ideas that the Cherokee and Iroquois Nations came up with to try to govern their fiercely independent, diverse, widely scattered peoples, some of the efforts of the ancient Celts to do the same, and much of the plagiarized nonsense that the Romans plundered from the Greeks, but I repeat myself three times. Like the idea that English grammar should be borrowed wholesale from Latin, it doesn't quite survive contact with living, breathing reality.
Nothing that involves human interactions is remotely simple enough to be decided ahead of time in a document short enough to memorize.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 10:01 PM
Look again you piss swilling felcher:
Many people argue that one reason why Nazism was so successful was that the art direction was so brilliant
You festering shitbucket of biliruben swill, don't ever call me a liar unless your willing to back it up. Dare you squinny at me, I'll part you nave to chops. (& I will too)
Posted by: anti.theist
|
August 17, 2009 10:05 PM
Sara's name came up no less than 100 times. Each time it came up it was not a unique post. However, I believe my point will still remain valid.
The problem with atheists seems to be most atheists have no desire to do anything other than argue with theists on PZs blog or similar forums.
Imagine if 40-60% of the atheists gave $10-20 to each of the top 10 biggest anti-theist, atheist or pro-science/logic organizations in the USA. Honestly, really stop to think for a sec, you would not go to a mental institution and attempt to have meaningful discussion or debate with the majority there about their delusions - would you?
How much are you worth an hour? Go to the park with your children rather than debate theism, like you normally do. For 1-2 hours 8 times this month. Pay yourself your standard hourly wage for each hour of play. Consider it your personal vacation from debating stupidity.
Take that money and donate it.
-AT
Posted by: raven | August 17, 2009 10:12 PM
Sarah is most likely a poe or pretending. The near illiteracy, random shift lock, and continual ranting and raving without engaging anyone seems a bit over the top.
But who knows really? I'm sure there are fundies that crazy out there.
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 10:30 PM
anti.theist #367 wrote:
I'd be careful with the generalizations: there's a good chance that some of the people who post here -- maybe even most of them -- also do other things. There is also a chance that some atheists don't read blogs, not even Pharyngula (yes, I know, but we have to consider it!)
One of the benefits of debating theists on line -- and watching such debates -- is that it provides practice for discussing religious topics off-line. Which, I suspect, sometimes happens, when we eventually venture to go off-line, to parks and other 3-dimensional places.
Posted by: kamaka | August 17, 2009 10:40 PM
Yah, said by "anonymous". Post by handle, or STFU, coward.
SeagalJ: The Constitution was designed to throw off the monarchies...it created a system of governence unique for it's time. For that reason alone, it is an important document.
By the way, while many others might disagree with me, I believe the intent of allowing an armed populace was to assure the people could never be enslaved by army or government. A hallmark of the USA is the peaceful transition of power. No coups here. Who would dare?
On topic: Oh, please, this is a thinly veiled attempt to introduce jesus lessons in the public schools. Anyone who doubts that this is intended to be religious indoctrination (in the public forum) is fooling themselves.
Posted by: Desert Son | August 17, 2009 10:43 PM
Anonymous,
If E.V. and I agree to have an irrational discussion, would it be o.k. if E.V. and I chatted then?
E.V., thanks for the follow up. I think my own psychology has so long associated horrific things with certain iconography that I hadn't considered there might be some sort of aesthetic to that same iconography (whatever role it might or might not have played in "selling" the ideology). Regardless, I still shudder at the iconography in question, and hence was confused, which you perceived. Thanks for clarifying.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: RamziD | August 17, 2009 10:50 PM
Get your Poe-detectors serviced, people. Sara is clearly a Poe. All Caps. "It was the Muslims!". "Looser". Dead give-aways. I don't know who's the most pathetic type: the real bible-thumping troll, or the person (with the maturity of a 5 year old) pretending to be a bible-thumper on the net.
Posted by: Anri | August 17, 2009 10:52 PM
anti.theist sez:
"The problem with atheists seems to be most atheists have no desire to do anything other than argue with theists on PZs blog or similar forums."
Poking around almost any atheist blog, one will see many, many variants of 'one of the things that helped me shuck my faith was the books/resources/general argumentation you guys had here. Thanks.' That's a way to make new atheists.
Incidentally, another thing you often see is something like 'Hunh. I still have my faith, and I'm glad that I do, but I see now that atheists aren't baby-eating terrorists. Thanks for the insight.' That's a way to make a better world for atheists.
I am of the opinion that those are both good uses of my time. You may not agree, of course.
and:
"Imagine if 40-60% of the atheists gave $10-20 to each of the top 10 biggest anti-theist, atheist or pro-science/logic organizations in the USA."
Imagine if we managed to increase the number of atheists in this country until they were no longer a minority that could be ignored. This is one venue to do just that.
"Honestly, really stop to think for a sec, you would not go to a mental institution and attempt to have meaningful discussion or debate with the majority there about their delusions - would you?"
I might, if it was my brother or sister.
And I might just have a wider definition of brother or sister than you do.
Really you're not wrong, and many here, myself included, could be accused of preaching to the choir.
But that's what they say about preaching to the choir - it's how you make them stand up and sing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 10:53 PM
"anonymous" sounds familiar...
Is that you, Truth Machine?
Posted by: Bobber | August 17, 2009 10:59 PM
Clean-up for my keyboard, please!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 11:04 PM
Look again you piss swilling felcher:
I'm looking, and I'm seeing that you're being a fool, since what you quoted doesn't challenge my statement.
don't ever call me a liar unless your willing to back it up.
My willing to back it up and me did.
Dare you squinny at me, I'll part you nave to chops. (& I will too)
They're just words, silly. As a seminal Molly-winning curser on this blog, I know what power they do and don't have, and yours have none for me.
Yah, said by "anonymous". Post by handle, or STFU, coward.
Snort. I love the tu quoque ad hominem. FWIW, the truly intelligent people here know who I am. In any case, I'll post as I please.
If E.V. and I agree to have an irrational discussion, would it be o.k. if E.V. and I chatted then?
Non sequitur. I have no say in whether you chat or of what sort and never said I did or even addressed the subject. (P.S. FWIW, I've admired the great majority of what you've written here at P -- this seems as good a time as any to say so.)
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 11:07 PM
"The truly intelligent ..."
Is that you, Truth Machine?
And perhaps even some others. :-)
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 11:09 PM
They're just words, silly. As a seminal Molly-winning curser on this blog, I know what power they do and don't have, and yours have none for me.
*bing*
you do have a recognizable tone to your posts.
:)
why are you posting as anonymous? If it's a problem with typkey, you don't need to log in any more.
the old way works fine.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 11:17 PM
Wow... Sara's back... and in a moment of cosmic irony, the quote on "Family Guy" being spoken just as I'm reading another of Sara's silly mental doodles:
"We don't use the term 'crazy'... we prefer 'mentally hilarious'.
Perfect.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 11:17 PM
The problem with atheists seems to be most atheists have no desire to do anything other than argue with theists on PZs blog or similar forums.
Sastra responded politely but pointedly, as she is wont to do. I'll go a bit further: that's a starkly moronic statement that not even the most rabid accomodationist could be stupid enough to actually believe. Beware that that sort of radical hyperbole destroys credibility.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave | August 17, 2009 11:19 PM
PZ, have you written a textbook yet? This sounds like a great opportunity!
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 17, 2009 11:21 PM
Wrong. The USA is NOT a Christian nation. Never was, and hopefully, never will be. Whether or not the USA is the best in the world is debatable on many fronts, but suffice it to say that the USA is a pretty good place... but that has been despite Christian yahoos' attempts to make it backward, fundamentalist Christian theocracy. I can assure you, however, that NOBODY on the planet envies the US for it's population of Jesus sycophants. I'll remind you that most people on the planet are not, in fact, Christian and have no intention of becoming Christian.
The Sultan of Brunei, and the sheiks of Arabia, Kuwait, et al. would probably disagree strongly with that statement, as would the millions of Muslims living in more civilized countries who get along just fine. However, that said, most Christians live in poverty and ignorance too, or have you not been to anywhere in North America outside of Canada/USA ? In Ireland different flavours of Christian kill EACH OTHER simply for not toadying to Jesus the "right" way. The Catholic church goes OUT OF ITS WAY to ensure that Africans stay in poverty and despair by shunning birth control on that continent, while bleeding what it can to fill the coffers back in Rome.
So, to quote an old TV commercial that's very applicable here... "I can't tell the difference. Can you tell the difference?"
If there was a Jesus who could look at what his "followers" have done with his alleged teachings, he'd lower his head in shame and weep.
Posted by: anti.theist
|
August 17, 2009 11:21 PM
@ #369
It is absolute nonsense to consider the top-notch atheists are not here; I will not consider such heresy. However look at some of Sara's or the majority of other irrational arguments here. Then I would ask you to consider what you just told me about this being a place to learn.
Do you truly believe any new theist arguments have surfaced here? I bet it has been 100 years since a new meaningful theist argument(ever?) was concocted. Even Mike Behe whose argument I felt compelling (for the first a 1-2 seconds) is just, "My god, not that one, fills the gaps you can not disprove it! Nay Nay Boo Boo". This of course can be shown as BS; providing the person is not 'sick'.(earlier institution reference).
I am not sure I see any value in debating stupid ideas. I can not recall the last time a nazi skinhead was invited to a conference on race relations. I only speculate but the reason for this: a jackass like that is not worthy of respect - regardless of their well meaning or education.
If your motivation is to know how to address current religious arguments INRL - call them stupid and walk away. With a membership of 14million, more souls are not necessary to crush the last 3(or 6) remaining religions.
(I am confident your/my money is)
If you are still inclined to understand the more intellectual arguments of this sickness I'd suggest reading a book.
I will not waste more blog space here discussing this. I have my own blog with a single post which addresses it.
-AT
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 11:24 PM
If it's a problem with typkey
It's not. And if you'll recall, I previously changed my id from TM to NS ... for reasons I won't go into (but I'll note that I'm defeating them by chitchatting about myself, so I'll stop).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 11:24 PM
If he doesn't have writer's block, he should be working on one.Posted by: anti.theist
|
August 17, 2009 11:29 PM
@ #380
I am sorry you feel that way.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 17, 2009 11:29 PM
Umm, actually, "space rockets" were pretty much aced by the atheist Soviets years before the USA mastered them. The Russian space program is still more advanced that the US program despite being hobbled by poor funding.
One of the ways you can see how the Soviets were advanced relative to the US in lunar exploration is to look at the lunar landing sites in the 60's and 70's. The US landed near the equator - all in a nice little plane. Russian landings were all over the place. The Russian version is much more difficult and expensive. The US may have rushed a man to the moon and got there first, but the Russians have done it better from the get-go.
Sara, dear, please read some history.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 11:29 PM
anti.theist
Then don't. Now... if you're quite finished admonishing us for wasting your... OOPS... I meant, OUR time on what you consider to be trivial pursuits...
Thank you for your visit.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 17, 2009 11:36 PM
Thomas (@308):
Yah, right. My handful of posts (spanning several different subthreads of the conversation) have been an attempt to "dominate" a 308-post (at the time of your writing, and approaching 400 posts as I type this) conversation. You've made me positively giddy over my enormous influence!
No (you ignorant slut), I'm complaining about the way you used to promote those things (all of which I agree with in principle... with the possible exception of "condensed matter physics," as I could never figure out what the fuck you were getting at with that one) in a manner that invariably made them sound like the ravings of a madman, and thereby worked to discredit fundamentally good ideas.
Sadly, it often was. But that was, as I said, long ago and far away (I'm actually quite shocked that, in the vastness of teh intertoobz, I actually bumped into someone I knew from such a distant, unrelated board): Maybe you've changed, and in any case, I'm not the sort to damn people for past sins. That said, though, my memory is that your conversations often started out with perfectly rational comments and then wandered off into flamewars of great and confounding weirdness, sucking in people who really didn't "come here looking for an argument," and I had some thought to spare my new friends here that experience.
It's a pity your links didn't make it through moderation; my memory is that your site had a fairly high Time Cube quotient, which some here might have found amusing.
And at this point, I've had my say on this, and won't bother you further. Forewarned is forearmed, Pharyngulites.
Posted by: kamaka | August 17, 2009 11:36 PM
Snort...nice intelligent sounding post, what with the Latin and all, but you avoided the point: don't call coward when posting anonymous, coward.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 11:38 PM
I am sorry you feel that way.
That I feel which way? That Sastra was polite? That you couldn't possibly be as stupid as the statement you made? As for the credibility-robbing nature of absurd hyperbole like "most atheists have no desire to do anything other than argue with theists on PZs blog or similar forums", be sorry for yourself ... see #388 above, and you will surely get more of the same if you continue in that vein.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 11:40 PM
Snort...nice intelligent sounding post, what with the Latin and all, but you avoided the point: don't call coward when posting anonymous, coward.
I addressed all of your points; too bad you're too fucking stupid to have understood. Again, I will do as I please.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 17, 2009 11:41 PM
"Sara is clearly a Poe. All Caps. "It was the Muslims!". "Looser". Dead give-aways."
No, they're not. They're all very common tropes in online communication.
The "SPACE RCOKETS" thing is a little closer.
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 17, 2009 11:44 PM
Sara,
You have indeed walked into a den of vipers...but I call them all my friends as they make me laugh, out-loud, repeatedly throughout the day...and they are, without doubt, some of the nicest and brightest folks you'll ever meet...really!
So as a good atheist, let me politely help you understand just a little terminology which we use to describe the cognitive abilities of nice people we meet here like you.
The first term is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Go ahead, give it a click.
We have other such terms as well and here's a second term that may be applicable to you as a result of the above term...
cognitive dissonance...as in, you may be suffering from it.
And finally, one last term which describes how you've come to believe what you do and which helps cause those two terms above. This is known as a meme.
I'm not posting these three terms to be mean, Sara...only fair and to, perhaps, help remind others that we all were, more or less, where Sara is at today. But somehow we pulled our heads out of god's arse and figured some shit out...and most of us did so with some caring and sharing from folks who didn't verbally beat the shit out of us.
Furthermore, for my xtian deprogramming to be accomplished thouroughly, I met or read a number of people; namely Dr. PZ Myers, Dr. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Dr. Scott Lanyon, Dr. Mike Osterholm, Dr. Susan Blackmore, Dr. Phil Plait and many others who have mentored me toward a much, much broader understanding of science, history, religion, archeology, palentology, astronomy, etc...and they did so with much thoughtfulness and with full understanding of those three terms I've listed above. Much luck, Sara. -R
PS...this is a meme but a useful one: you get more with honey than you do with vinegar.
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 11:53 PM
anti.theist #383 wrote:
Not technically, no. But I run into ones that are new to me.
It probably depends on where you live, but, in general, I think the theist arguments which surface here on Pharyngula are a bit better than what we're likely to encounter in 'real life' from the average person. There's more preparation, on their part, at least mentally. They're coming in to argue/debate, and have some sort of point worked out in advance. Compared to what I've encountered, that's a huge step.
Well, I suppose that's one approach. It won't be persuasive, but it might be effective, depending on your goal.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2009 11:53 PM
The "SPACE RCOKETS" thing is a little closer.
Not much; google yields 24,600 hits, as well as 58,400 hits for pcoket, 28,700 for scoket, etc.
The claim that "Sara is clearly a Poe" appears to be a case of cognitive dissonance (see #394). It's not only xtians who are prone to such, nor to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 17, 2009 11:57 PM
flamewars of great and confounding weirdness
Wow, Bill, that sounds a lot like ... reality!
You should get out of the cubicle more and try it.
Condensed Matter Physics
How fucking hard was that, Bill? It's so easy, even a home schooler could do it! And probably I sound stark raving mad because I am Bill, but only because I know it bugs you.
I'm an irreverent angry troll, Bill, but knowing how to do things the hard way, makes the easy way so much more easier.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 12:00 AM
it might be effective, depending on your goal
The same goes for bending over and spreading your cheeks. Generally, though, we have found -- as argued by PZ, Jerry Coyne, et. al. -- that the "just ignore them" form of accomodationism has not been effective.
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 18, 2009 12:03 AM
Smoggy @336,
You may yet convert me...someday.
Best, -R
(--kindest genuflect--)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 12:08 AM
This is partly because too often fundamentalists equate silence with agreement.
I can think of little more important than making sure that such confusion does not occur within earshot of my voice, at any rate.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 18, 2009 12:10 AM
Thomas:
<sigh>
I didn't say I didn't believe it existed, as a field of study, nor did I ever imagine there wasn't a wikipedia page for it; I said I couldn't figure out what you were getting at in "supporting" it as if it were some sort of learned-out technological solution for something. It's sort of like saying "I support space-based solar power, sustainable organic farming, and quantum electrodynamics." Not to be all Sesame Street here, but "one of these things is not like the others; one of these things doesn't belong."
Ah, but now I have to go do some things the hard way... so 'night all!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 12:14 AM
Not much; google yields 24,600 hits
To be clear, that's for "rcoket"; "space rcokets" gets 5 hits. The point is that transposition errors are common and are certainly not evidence of a Poe.
The whole point of Poe's Law is that "it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane". Thus, declaring that something is "clearly a Poe" contradicts the law.
Posted by: kamaka | August 18, 2009 12:19 AM
No, anonymous, you keep avoiding the point. You called someone a coward while posting anonymously. Give a consistant, identifiable handle, or spare us the projection. Y'know, like identifying you is somehow correlated with intelligence.
Posted by: Dan W | August 18, 2009 12:23 AM
So, along with teaching the Bible in Texas public schools, will there be requirements to teach the Koran, the Torah, Hindu religious texts, Buddhist religious texts, and the religious texts of any other religions? If not, then this requirement is unconstitutional and should be removed.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 12:25 AM
@kamaka
Speaking of Dunning-Kruger effect ...
Ok, I'll say it again, more slowly. T u q u o q u e a d h o m i n e m That spells "fallacy", which is what you're committing. Whether or not it is cowardly to post as "anonymous" has no bearing on whether a charge of intellectual cowardice is accurate -- which addresses your "point", moron.
Posted by: Caine | August 18, 2009 12:32 AM
Sara @ 333:
Interesting projection, Sara. This isn't some sort of seduction serenade on my part - you aren't the least bit attractive. Earlier I said I wouldn't want to have sex with you - in response to your statement that atheists want to have sex with everything. I happen to be a woman, and I have never cheated on my husband. That would require ethics more akin to the religious - you know, a willingness to lie, deceive, etc.
Posted by: GMacs | August 18, 2009 12:35 AM
Is, qui sine nomine est, sane hunc uenit ut suam effigium pro uobis manus turbaret.
Gratias agate!
Posted by: kamaka | August 18, 2009 12:37 AM
Ummm, name-calling without giving a name...seems cowardly to me...
Posted by: Dan W | August 18, 2009 12:38 AM
Dang, seems I missed another troll. Sara sure is an ignorant moron. On a related note, I decided to check the killfile and was highly amused to see Tom Estes there.
Posted by: GMacs | August 18, 2009 12:38 AM
I make no apologies for butchering a language I haven't studied for 2 years.
Posted by: kamaka | August 18, 2009 12:42 AM
Speaking of Dunning-Kruger effect
Project much?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 12:42 AM
Ummm, name-calling without giving a name...seems cowardly to me...
Which, again, is irrelevant to the validity of my statement about intellectual cowardice in #361, you fucking cretin.
Posted by: penguinsaur | August 18, 2009 12:48 AM
#404 all other religion classes are up to the local school board, the poorly funded local school boards that would be assraped by millionaire megachurches and bussed in protesters if they offered a class on Islam. All schools must have an elective on the bible, but only if 15 students sign up, just another BS way to weasel out of accusations of endorsing religion.
Afew things I haven't been able to get an answer to anywhere, how do the following not endorse a religion:
Using the fucking Bible as a textbook
Requiring all schools to have a christian course but leaving other religions optional
Using the fucking Bible as a textbook
Offering a course credit that Christian students have an enormous advantage in while not giving any such opportunity to other faiths
Using the fucking Bible as a textbook
And I also can't get anyone defending this to acknowledge, much less explain how this case from 1948 doesn't apply here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_v._Board_of_Education
Because its eerily similar.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 12:50 AM
Project much?
That's the second time you have misused that concept in the form of a tu quoque fallacy, idiot. See #406 for a valid example. Both of the cases that you've called projection were actually instances in which I backed up my claim.
But I'm sure you will continue to follow the same idiotic groove ... consider my previous posts to be my response for your future posts.
Posted by: kamaka | August 18, 2009 1:12 AM
I repeat, nameless one, all the insulting name-calling is easy when you're hiding.
Project much?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 1:16 AM
I repeat
Like I said.
Posted by: Desert Son | August 18, 2009 1:23 AM
Anonymous,
Production of which stands among my chief skills! For additional confirmation, I refer you to, well, every woman I've ever dated.
Thank you for the kind words about some measure of my posts. For myself, I look to your contributions for logical and intellectual rigor in hopes that, when making my own formal arguments, I might buttress them as sturdily. I freely acknowledge that in that regard I have, as a poet once said, "miles to go before I sleep."
That said, I violated a rule I had set for myself by invoking one of your posts, and wish now that I had not done so. So as to prevent my own further consternation, I'll close.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Globoboss
|
August 18, 2009 1:30 AM
An honest question here (yes, I am new to this site and I do respect the scientific process) as I am trying to understand evolution, so I hope someone will give me an honest answer that I have not been able to find elsewhere.
We are taught by evolution that the age of mammals began about 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs where killed off.
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec03/b65lec03.htm
At that time, we are also taught that all of the early mammals were fairly small and rodent like, at least for the first 10,000,000 years or so.
My question, then, is how many genetic mutations would it require to go from a small rodent-like animal to a fully-functioning modern human?
If somebody can answer that question, and then show how that number of mutations could take place over a 65-million-year period, I might be able to get my head around this whole evolution thing.
Even better, can somebody point out a site which shows in diagram format how each of these creatures looked after each genetic mutation took place?
I understand the above would have to be largely hypothetical, but at least with 1.) a ball-park number of mutations to work from 2.) a timeline of said mutations and 3.) a diagram of what the animal may have looked like after each said mutation, I would have a starting point to begin to understand this process. Thank you.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 18, 2009 1:35 AM
I said I couldn't figure out what you were getting at in "supporting" it as if it were some sort of learned-out technological solution for something.
That's because you don't think there is a problem to be solved, Bill, dare I say you are not willing to 'evolve'?
Not only that, you are afraid to even investigate 'evolution', and you speak out against those who dare to in public forums.
Evolution isn't just biological, Bill, but pretty much everything is condensed matter physics at biological scales.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 18, 2009 1:46 AM
in general, I think the theist arguments which surface here on Pharyngula are a bit better than what we're likely to encounter in 'real life' from the average person.
good thing you qualified that...
*looks over at Sara's inane ramblings*
Posted by: raven | August 18, 2009 2:04 AM
Mutations aren't rare or rate limiting. The average human has 150 mutations compared to their two parents. Obviously, most have little or no effect on phenotype.
We generally work backwards from humans when considering human evolution. This is because more recent ancestors leave more fossils. There are a vast number of hominid family trees, H. erectus, H. habilis, Australopithecines etc. Just google it. After 5 million years BP, things get hazy because we don't know yet.
Someone did a calculation of how many significant mutations separate us from the last common ancestor of us and chimps. I don't remember the number but it was surprisingly small, maybe 200 in key morphological and developmental genes.
Evolution can occur very fast sometimes. Dogs are descended from wolves and within the last 10,000 years or so. Some taxonomists classify them as wolves because they can interbreed. Does a chihuahua or St. Bernard look like a wolf?
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 18, 2009 2:12 AM
Re: 418:
Also, explain the universe and give two examples.
Posted by: Carlie | August 18, 2009 3:03 AM
Globoboss (and anyone else interested): The University of Cal. Berkeley has a wonderful site with a very detailed primer on evolution. It doesn't have exactly the specifics you're looking for, but it will give you a very good grounding in the basics of evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Globoboss
|
August 18, 2009 3:22 AM
Thank you Raven. It is a start and led me to learn a few new things as I researched your reply.
If the DNA data is correct at this link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html
and humans and chimp lineages evolutionarily diverged from one another between five and six million years ago, that would give us an average of one mutation every 30,000 years (6,000,000 years / 200 mutations = 30,000 years per mutation) understanding that said mutations would not necessarily be rate limiting and/or evenly spread out.
Going back to my original question and also considering the more recent experience with dogs/wolves, then a ball-park figure might be one mutation every 20,000 years or so (understanding that this number might be much higher/lower).
So, to get from a rodent to a human might be somewhere on the order of 65,000,000 years / 20,000 years per mutation = 3,250 mutations to get from a rodent to a human.
If the above logic is flawed, how many "steps" would it take to be able to show this in a plausible diagram format, as we could then reverse engineer the number of mutations needed and see if that were a reasonable number given the 65,000,000 year time frame we have to work with?
At the very least, this would make for an interesting "artistic" exercise. Would it be possible to get from a rodent to a human in diagram format in about 3,250 steps in a plausible manner?
We are all familiar with the famous ape to man illustration found here:
http://www.planetwisdom.com/seanmcdowell/images/3questions/ape-man-line-up.jpg
All I am proposing is something about 600 times more detailed that that. Has it already been done?
To be honest, I do not know the answer to the above questions but would be interested in hearing others' opinions?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 3:35 AM
An honest question here
Why do you feel it is necessary to state that it is honest?
I hope someone will give me an honest answer that I have not been able to find elsewhere.
Did you ask elsewhere and get dishonest answers? If so, what were they?
We are taught by evolution that the age of mammals began about 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs where killed off.
No, we are informed by the evidence that the dinosaurs were killed off about 65 million years ago. It is likely that the primary cause was a meteor, possibly an asteroid or a chunk of one, striking the Yucatan Peninsula: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater
According to your link, "The period between the extinction of the dinosaurs and the present day (the last 65 million years) is called the Age of Mammals or Cenozoic". Note "is called" -- it's just a name. It also says "Mammals appeared on the earth long before the extinction of the dinosaurs; in fact, they originated in the early Jurassic about 200 million years ago." If you want to be honest, don't misrepresent what is said and don't drop significant capitalization.
It isn't "evolution" that teaches us that the period of the last 65 million years is called the Age of Mammals -- the online text you cited does that. And it isn't "evolution" that "teaches" us that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago and the mammals became the dominant large animals -- fossil and other evidence demonstrates it. These are facts that are quite independent of the theory of evolution.
At that time, we are also taught that all of the early mammals were fairly small and rodent like, at least for the first 10,000,000 years or so.
We observe that they were, by examining their fossils.
My question, then, is how many genetic mutations would it require to go from a small rodent-like animal to a fully-functioning modern human?
"then"? How does this question flow from the facts that you mention?
In any case, the answer is that it took 65 million years worth, but fewer were "required" -- for the minimal case it could have taken much fewer than actually occurred.
If somebody can answer that question, and then show how that number of mutations could take place over a 65-million-year period
This is like asking to show how 65 million -- or far fewer -- years could have passed during a 65-million year period. What's to show? What possible reason do you have to think that the number of mutations that occurred between small rodent-like mammals and modern humans couldn't have taken place within 65 million years?
I might be able to get my head around this whole evolution thing.
Why would it take that to get your head around it? There's much more to "this whole evolution thing" and considerably harder matters to grasp than that a lot of mutations could have taken place over a very long time.
Even better, can somebody point out a site which shows in diagram format how each of these creatures looked after each genetic mutation took place?
No, of course not. But I can tell you that each creature looked a lot like its parents, just as you look a lot like yours.
I understand the above would have to be largely hypothetical, but at least with 1.) a ball-park number of mutations to work from 2.) a timeline of said mutations and 3.) a diagram of what the animal may have looked like after each said mutation, I would have a starting point to begin to understand this process.
No, you wouldn't. A real starting point to begin to understand this process is a course or text on the subject. You might want to try http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 3:58 AM
Would it be possible to get from a rodent to a human in diagram format in about 3,250 steps in a plausible manner?
You have wildly extrapolated this number from Raven's "maybe 200 in key morphological and developmental genes" and you're asking us if it's plausible? Did you already forget that you wrote "understanding that this number might be much higher/lower"? And that Raven wrote "The average human has 150 mutations compared to their two parents"? 150 per generation is a whole lot higher than 1 every 20,000 years, so why would it matter whether 3,250 over 65,000,000 years is plausible?
All I am proposing is something about 600 times more detailed that that.
That would be absurd enough, but you're making a much greater demand than that. Try to get your head around how many organisms descended from all of the rodent-like small mammals that existed 65 million years ago. Then try to get your head around picking out precisely which ones are ancestors of modern humans -- even if we had the fossils for every single one, which of course we don't.
Posted by: Globoboss
|
August 18, 2009 4:08 AM
TO: Anonymous
It is my understanding that some people who come to this site get blocked because the moderator deems them to not be honest. I was just trying to assure other readers that I am primarily looking for answers here, not trying to necessarily advance an agenda (although I understand it can be argued that we all have an agenda).
I agree with you on the dinosaur and rodent issues that the evidence shows us the facts. Perhaps we are thinking the same thing but expressing it differently.
You ask, "How does this question flow from the facts that you mention?"
Well, it seems obvious from the evidence that we got from rodents to humans in about 65,000,000 years.
I am just curious to how and if our current understanding of this process is correct.
I strongly feel that it would be helpful to know a sequence and timeline of mutations, as it seems to me you are suggesting that the "details" of the situation are not what is important, only the fact of the "reality" is what matters most.
You also ask, "What possible reason do you have to think that the number of mutations that occurred between small rodent-like mammals and modern humans couldn't have taken place within 65 million years?"
To me, 65,000,000 years does not sound like a lot of time to get from rodents to humans. We have to go back almost 6,000,000 years to get from humans to our first branch with chimps, which is almost 90% of the total available time in the rodent to human saga. I was hoping that it would be easier to understand if I could visualize it and grasp the details, not just accept a vague explanation that it just happened and to question further is pointless.
I will of course study the sites you and others have offered and appreciate the chance to exchange dialogue and better understand.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 4:46 AM
It is my understanding that some people who come to this site get blocked because the moderator deems them to not be honest.
One of several of your misunderstandings. See http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php for the reasons that people get banned; dishonesty isn't listed. And PZ isn't "the moderator", he's the author of this blog.
Well, it seems obvious from the evidence that we got from rodents to humans in about 65,000,000 years.
It's good that you honor the evidence and aren't some YEC loon. But you seem rather intellectually sloppy and that sloppiness leads to misunderstanding; "rodents" and "rodent-like mammals" are two quite different things. Both modern rodents and modern humans descended from the "rodent-like" mammals that lived 65 million years ago.
I am just curious to how and if our current understanding of this process is correct.
But you don't have the knowledge, and perhaps not the skill, to make that determination. It's really rather arrogant to think that someone like yourself who knows virtually nothing about evolution can come to an evolution blog and pose questions that would reveal whether our current understanding of the process of evolution is correct, as if no evolutionary biologist had ever thought to pose questions as good as yours.
To me, 65,000,000 years does not sound like a lot of time to get from rodents to humans.
a) So what? You know nothing about the subject. b) That's no answer. As I just noted, that's like saying that 65,000,000 years does not sound like a lot of time for 65,000,000 years to pass. Heck, just last post you were willing to accept that a mere 3,250 mutations could be sufficient -- why isn't 65,000,000 years long enough for that to happen?
We have to go back almost 6,000,000 years to get from humans to our first branch with chimps, which is almost 90% of the total available time in the rodent to human saga.
Uh, 6 is only about 9% of 65. So this is all a matter of your arithmetic incompetence?
I was hoping that it would be easier to understand if I could visualize it and grasp the details, not just accept a vague explanation that it just happened and to question further is pointless.
Your dishonest strawman is noted. No one told you to accept a vague explanation that it just happened -- you yourself just said that it's obvious from the evidence that it did happen. What you should want to understand is how it happened, which the theory of evolution explains -- and once you understand the theory, and the wealth of evidence it is based on, it will not seem so vague. Nor did anyone say that it is pointless to question further. The problem is that your questions stem from ignorance -- you've got the cart before the horse, and you need a better understanding in order to ask useful questions.
I will of course study the sites you and others have offered
Good.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
August 18, 2009 4:53 AM
@ Globoboss said:
No offense Globoboss, but using the numbers you list it's 9.23% of the total time, not 90% of the time (that was probably a typo on your part). Another thing to keep in mind is that smaller mammals tend to have much shorter life cycles, and therefore have more generations during the same time frame than humans do.
Also, please keep in mind that the recently discovered Ida (an early primate) was dated to be about 47 million years old. That means that primates go back to at least 47 million years, as far as we know at the present time.
Suddenly it seems a lot more likely doesn't it?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 18, 2009 5:05 AM
I think it's perfectly legitimate for people like Globoboss to come and ask questions about stuff they don't understand. I think that (once it's made clear that they're really asking for answers) nobody has the right to slap them in the face with such comments as "you're an ignorant" and "you don't have the right to ask questions about things you know nothing about" (not literally what was said, but that's what it meant).
People have a right to
- not know
- not understand
- ask stupid questions
That would have been precisely my case if I had come on this site a few years ago, after a few high school lessons on evolution (in philosophy class!). I think I would have asked lots of questions amounting to "I don't understand how this works". And I would have written many stupid comments because, on some points, I thought I understood.
We can also remember that some people come here with a creationist culture (sorry for that word) and really want to learn something. They're bound to have difficulties and go throught the same points several times. Does that deserve a bashing?
Posted by: Globoboss
|
August 18, 2009 5:06 AM
TO: Anonymous
I am not a trained scientist and never claimed to be one.
I had read interesting things about this site and thought it would be a chance to get some of my questions answered. No more no less.
So, please allow me to re-phrase my question one more time based on the feedback you have shared and see if it makes any more sense.
The rodent-like mammal to human saga has taken about 65 million years, the most recent branch of which occurred for humans about 6 million years ago.
That leaves about 59 million years left.
So, my question is how many branches happened in the remaining 59 million years, and can we diagram that?
Even if branches were happening much faster in the past, it seems like the total number of branches should be something manageable.
I apologize in advance if this is an ignorant question, but I have looked elsewhere and cannot really seem to find a clear answer to this question. I thought a site such as this with so many experts would be a good place for a layman such as myself to find an answer?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 5:13 AM
not 90% of the time (that was probably a typo on your part)
No, probably not; "from humans to our first branch with chimps, which is almost 9% of the total available time in the rodent to human saga" shouldn't be surprising.
Another thing to keep in mind is that smaller mammals tend to have much shorter life cycles, and therefore have more generations during the same time frame than humans do.
The variability is even greater than that; see http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/060914DeWoodyVole.html
for reasons why his questions and extrapolations are so wrongheaded.
Suddenly it seems a lot more likely doesn't it?
Probably not to him, since that means only 18 million years to get from "rodents" to early primates, but 47 million years to get from early primates to modern humans.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 5:22 AM
I think it's perfectly legitimate for people like Globoboss to come and ask questions about stuff they don't understand.
Boring pathetic strawman.
nobody has the right
Actually, they do.
to slap them in the face with such comments as "you're an ignorant" and "you don't have the right to ask questions about things you know nothing about" (not literally what was said, but that's what it meant).
Stupid pathetic lie.
Posted by: woodstein312 | August 18, 2009 5:30 AM
Hmm.. I have no initial objection to students learning about the god damned bible. But I'd feel better if we could see a sample syllabus for the course.
If we're talking about the bible objectively, in the same way we treat other works of literature, I think that's acceptable.
But somehow, I doubt that's what is going to happen.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
August 18, 2009 5:33 AM
@ Globoboss:
Please keep in mind that the farther back into the past you go, the more gaps there tends to be in the fossil record. Also, that there are other factors that effect the rate of fossilization. As I earlier pointed out though, we know that primates go back at least 47 million years.
Ultimately though it really doesn't matter if we find every single branch along the path to the evolution of humans (and other modern primates), what matters is that we can definitively show a link between humans and the other primates. From there it's just a matter of reconstructing as much of the path to the earlier primates, and then the early mammals, as we can. That link from primates to early mammals is one of the reasons Ida is considered to be an important find.
What's important isn't trying to account for every individual mutation, but rather to find the evidence showing the common ancestry. Trying to account for every single mutation is unnecessary to provide evidence of evolution.
@ Anonymous:
I may be giving Globoss the benefit of the doubt (assuming that he/she made a typo rather than an math error), but it's my style of conversation. I'm simply being polite until given what I perceive as a reason to start being rude.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 5:49 AM
I am not a trained scientist and never claimed to be one.
I don't see how that's relevant to anything.
So, my question is how many branches happened in the remaining 59 million years
You seem fixated on these sorts of questions, but again they aren't useful questions ... not for understanding evolution or whether we have the correct understanding of the process.
If "branches" is something other than generations, I don't know what you mean by it. And if it is generations, we can't say because, as noted by Zetetic, the time between generations vary among species -- and we don't have detailed knowledge of the entire chain of organisms that are our ancestors. And, as noted, in the article about voles, the rate of evolution can vary highly among species, so the sorts of extrapolations from time periods to number of mutations required that you want can't be made.
and can we diagram that?
No. How could we, without a time machine? We have a fossil record, but it is quite incomplete and, because we don't have genomes for those fossils, our ability to determine how they are related is very limited.
But none of that casts any doubt on the theory of evolution, because it doesn't depend on a diagram of organism-by-organism descent for its validity.
I thought a site such as this with so many experts would be a good place for a layman such as myself to find an answer?
Very few people here have responded to you, and you yet did get an answer ... the answer is NO, there is no such diagram. So you need to find some other tree to bark up.
Posted by: Globoboss | August 18, 2009 5:52 AM
Thanks Zetetic, Christophe and others who made constructive comments. If this site was filled with folks like Anonymous only, it would get old fast. I will study more before taking any more of your time and really do appreciate the good people here willing to take some time to help a stranger better understand the topic at hand. I didn't really have a starting point before today's conversation, but now I feel as if I have some things to consider and learn. Thanks again.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
August 18, 2009 6:06 AM
@ Globoboss:
No problem.
If you would like to learn more about the subject there are plenty of useful websites devoted to the subject.
There are also as some good books out there to help inform you more on the subject of evolution. Some examples (off the top of my head) are...
Why Evolution Is True by Jerry A. Coyne
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin (one of the discovers of Tiktaalik
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R. Prothero
Those books are meant as an introduction to the general public, not the last word on the subject, to get you started. Just steer clear of anything by I.D./Creationists if you want to learn anything truthful about evolution.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2009 6:09 AM
I may be giving Globoss the benefit of the doubt (assuming that he/she made a typo rather than an math error), but it's my style of conversation. I'm simply being polite until given what I perceive as a reason to start being rude.
I don't see how attributing an arithmetic error to someone is any more rude than attributing a typo, especially when the evidence strongly suggests that it was an arithmetic error, because if it was a typo then he wrote something very silly, and I assumed he didn't.
Thanks Zetetic, Christophe and others who made constructive comments. If this site was filled with folks like Anonymous only, it would get old fast. I will study more before taking any more of your time and really do appreciate the good people here
I provided more time and information than anyone, you ungrateful jerk, and there was nothing at all constructive or useful in Christophe's post. Just think how old it would get if it was filled only with folks like him and his pompous, substance-free blather about who has what rights.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 18, 2009 6:12 AM
And if we're talking books, there's this guy named Carl Zimmer. One of the best current writers of popular science, in my opinion. He's got a blog (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/) and a site with his articles (http://carlzimmer.com/). And I'd definitely recommend his book "Evolution: the triumph of an idea".
Posted by: Zetetic
|
August 18, 2009 6:30 AM
@ Anonymous:
Hmmm... Apparently I did leave that phrase open to be misinterpreted. I wasn't complaining about you, I was simply explaining why I was attributing the error to a typo. I apologize for not being more clear on that.
Well, good night for now.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 18, 2009 7:18 AM
Zetetic wrote:
This doesn't completely change the point of your comment in this case, but as a general caution:
This commonly spouted idea that there is a one-to-one relationship between increasing geological age, and an increasing number of "gaps in the fossil record" is false. It's a misconception (which of course isn't restricted to just non-scientists...) and it's simply wrong. Those nebulous "other factors affecting the rate of fossilization" that you referred to are those which actually control fossil density. And I can say this without really knowing which "other factors" you meant--because rock age by itself isn't one.
If we think of earth history as a column of rocks (yuck), with the oldest ones at the base and the youngest ones at the top, then the only reasons that a lower position within the column should correlate with more "gaps in the fossil record" is that 1., there are fewer organisms in the lower sections of the column with hard parts (and this really only matters if you're looking at the "column" as a whole) and 2., more rock in the lower sections of the column has been recycled through tectonics or metamorphosed to the point where fossils are destroyed (i.e., we've lost more fossils to tectonic processes in the lower parts of the column than we have in those rocks closer to the top).
Ignoring these factors, then it's the "other factors" that matter (paleoenvironment, taxon, things like that) and if you look at the "column" more closely, you'll see that this oft touted general trend of increasing gaps isn't real.
Posted by: KI | August 18, 2009 8:36 AM
What is your fucking problem "anonymous"? Is total assholery your normal state or are you just a name-calling jerk? Can't you answer a simple question without total dickheadedness? Geez...
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 8:51 AM
If you are new here, as globoboss clearly is, one can quite easily misconstrue Anonymous's tone in his reply to globoboss's questions as rude, impatient and brutish.
To those of us who've been here a while, we understand the reason to a degree (although many of us may choose to approach it differently). Your question, globoboss, (although I will give you the initial benefit of the doubt and say it was unintentionally so) carried some of the more commonly seen traits of a creationist bait attempt, where fairly nebulous, poorly reasoned and fallacious misconceptions about evolution are posed as questions in the hopes of finding a "gotcha" moment in the answer. It's annoying as all hell, and many of us have a bit of an itchy trigger finger where that is concerned.
Generally speaking, this site more than most contains numerous people, some amateur and some professional, with an extremely high level of knowledge regarding biology in general and evolution specifically. However we also get more than our fair share of creationist trolls with no other agenda than to tweak us and spill their complete lack of understanding of science in general all over the place. It's a mess to clean up and has left many of us weary of the task Again, not to imply that you are acting in this way.. just trying to give you some understanding as to why you might have triggered the tone you did. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's how it is.
And while most of us certainly have no problem answering questions you have regarding evolution (or anything else you want to really understand, for that matter), we also appreciate the person who will come in, look around, and take the time to find some answers for themselves right here on this site. A search on some of the keywords in your questions on this site will turn up several excellent posts, along with discussions that can answer many of your questions. And coming to us armed with a bit more basic understanding and fewer common misconceptions will certainly help us separate the genuinely curious from the deceitfully mischievous.
So while you may not care for his tone, I would try to look past it to the substance of his answers... as he pointed out, he did take the time to respond to your queries. So, if you are genuinely looking for a basic understanding of evolution, you were given some good links and materials to read over... they should give you a sound foundation... there are also sites you can go to listed in the "blogroll" above that will educate you further. Take the time to look them over... evolution is pretty cool shit, and while most people simply don't realize it, the evidence behind it is simply staggering. However, if you are merely another disingenuous troll, I have another post prepared for you with some excellent demonstrations of vulgar linguistic acrobatics. Just let us know...
CE
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 18, 2009 8:58 AM
Globoboss,
You may wish to check out the following sites for additional answers to your questions, too.
http://www.talkorigins.org/ contains a wealth of solid evolution information forthwith.
Additionally, I urge you to check out: http://pandasthumb.org/ which has a nice search option and more solid evolutionary information.
Also, don't be afraid to stop back here to continue asking questions...but be aware that many here are quite sensitive to trools who pose as the "uninformed" who are simply attempting to push their creotard agendas. We have little time for them.
BTW, YEC = Young Earth Creationist ...from Anonymous post above.
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 8:59 AM
Bobber:
Clean-up for my keyboard, please!
Actually, the insults are a hangover from my improv days, We had a group that performed faux gameshows Make Me Puke! and Smackdown!!. It makes the prigs and prudes clutch pearl strands and everyone else laughs because it's so obviously over the top. Add "Dare you Squinny at me" from King Lear and "nave to chops" from Macbeth and you've got a WTF?!! moment.
Desert Son:
Before I knew what swashtickas symbolized, I drew them and iron crosses as a very young kid after seeing them in comic books in the mid to late sixties. When I was of an age to understand what the Nazis represented I developed a revulsion to the swashticka and those symbols that were associated with that horrific regime. (I have a problem now with the Rebel flag, but that's another story) It's funny how six line segments can go from appealing to garnering so much baggage.
I remember being shocked and awed when I walked into an antique shop in Gruene, TX about 18 years ago and saw two huge Nazi banners in red with black swashtickas on white circles, IIRC. They must have been brought home as souvenirs from WW II. That they were for sale was dumbfounding but imagining who would buy them was chilling. I left the store very quickly. It may have been my imagination run amok but I got a KKK vibe from everyone in that damned shop.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 9:05 AM
As a follow on... Anonymous... while I'm hardly one to act as the arbiter of tone on the threads, you might recall PZ's suggestion of the three post rule.
I generally appreciate your vitriol... I'm just sayin...
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 9:08 AM
Misconstrue? Truth Machine IIRC, was asked by PZ to leave if he did not tone it down. Ah yes... So he comes back as Anonymous. Take that as you will.Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 9:11 AM
E.V. #448
I was trying to be... ummm... diplomatically ironic. ;>
Posted by: Sara | August 18, 2009 9:23 AM
you guys are so cute, somoene asks for evidence for evolution and you tell them its to 'hard' and not possible to just explain or give the ma diagram, they should study it..
interesting way of not taking responsibility, all Christians I know can explain the bible and its truth, they do not claim something randomly and refer to someone else. maybe its time to take a look at what you really believe and that maybe others beliefs could be correct, and yours could be wrong?
HORROR i know, not worth even thinking about.
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 9:29 AM
I would expect nothing less from a gentleman such as you.Truth be told, I once looked forward to TM's posts and even admired him but I began to see there might be a personality disorder involved. Now that I know TM is Anonymous, I can kill file him (or just ignore him). He is incredibly smart(way above my head) but humorless and exceedingly argumentative; he is definitely among my list of toxic people.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 18, 2009 9:35 AM
I dont mind.Rather have him comment more.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 9:36 AM
Sara, you took no time whatsoever to read the actual context of the replies, have spent exactly ZERO time looking at any of the links actually provided or reading the materials listed (which are MORE than adequate responses to globoboss's mis-conceptions of how evolution works).
You are way past the three posts rule... so either go take a reading comprehension course, quit your job at DQ and get that GED, or simply fuck off...
Sorry... that wasn't very gentlemanly of me...
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 9:42 AM
Does it help if I was being facetious when I called you a gentleman? ;D(Don't feed the troll - it's probably T. Estes or his baby sitter, maybe it's Barb's daughter. This troll is stupid enough to be Barb's daughter.)
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 18, 2009 9:50 AM
Sara said: "all Christians I know can explain the bible and its truth"
Doesn't surprise me. Most fiction books are not so hard to sum up and explain. But a whole scientific field, that's another matter.
Are we supposed to think that "simple and basic" = "true" ?
Posted by: Josh | August 18, 2009 9:57 AM
One little pellet of food...
Really? Well, if that is true, and since you assert that you're a Christian, then you should be able to:
explain to me why god erased all evidence of his great flood. What would be the point of doing that? Can you explain that "bible truth" to me?
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 18, 2009 9:59 AM
I would love to hear all of sara's friends explain the Bible and its truth, that'd be good for a laugh. I'm guessing not one of them would be able to put it in the context of the historical period and the culture of the people who wrote it and the subsequent generations of people that edited it. I'd love to hear them explain that wonderful passage in 2 Kings about Elijah having those kids mauled by bears.
(cue sarcastic tirade from heddle: "ohhhh I've never heard THAT one from atheists before ohhhhh you really got me there!")
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 18, 2009 10:03 AM
"Most fiction books are not so hard to sum up and explain. "
The Holy Bible: God WUVS us!
(Except when he's raining death and suffering, or just siccing his preachy son at us)
I'd only be impressed if Sara or any of her friends could explain any other holy book. That would actually show that they've devoted some thought to the subject. But isn't that the great thing about Christianity? No thought required!
(I better go to work now, I'm on a bit of a tear)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 10:05 AM
Nah... i knew you knew better.
Posted by: fromclouds | August 18, 2009 10:11 AM
Didn't Ken Ham commission a study that said that Sunday School was the largest engine driving people away from the church? In light of this, I can't help but think that this might be a blessing in disguise :-P.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 18, 2009 10:20 AM
Also:
Sara knows Christians who can explain the Bible and its truths.
I know non-Christians who can explain the Bible and its absurdities.
I know scientists who can explain evolutionary theory and its truths*.
I guess Sara knows non-scientists who think they can explain its absurdities. But I'm ready to bet it's always the same old tired handful of misunderstandings, childish errors and mere lies that creationists have been peddling since ages. If it's not the case: bring them on!!!
*Those who would ask "which ones?" might as well go and read some Pharyngula archives, and come back after that.
Posted by: raven | August 18, 2009 10:23 AM
A bit confused here. Humans and chimpanzees differ by roughly 30 million base pairs. Most of that is noise. Two humans can differ by up to 15 million base pairs.
The number of mutations that really matter in evolutionary terms is a tiny fraction of that 30 million or so. Mutations in genes that control morphology, development, and neurology. One estimate is maybe 200.
If you are looking for anything like a manual of how to evolve humans base pair by base pari forget it. This is an active area of investigation. Right now it is equivalent to asking for a census of life forms on the 1,000 extrasolar planets we have discovered. A valid question but until the interstellar probes get out there, we aren't going to know.
Posted by: raven | August 18, 2009 10:39 AM
Oh really? Then why are their 38,000 different xian sects, all claiming to be the One True Denomination.
Why did Xians fight bloody wars among themselves that killed tens of millions and resulted in genocides of some groups?
Why do Xians in the USA hate each other. The Catholics hate the Protestants and vice versa, the fundies hate everyone, everyone hates them back, and the Mormons and Jay Dubs get in a few punches here and there.
Why do Xians all claim to the Real Xians(tm) and call other groups Fake Xians(tim).
Sara is either extremely dishonest, mentally disturbed, or a fake poe pretending to be a dumb fundie. Either way, it is getting to be a waste of time reading her babbling. I doubt she is even reading this thread, just posting some crap every now and then.
Posted by: clatham | August 18, 2009 10:56 AM
I live about 30 minutes from Tyler, Tx (where this news station is located) and I am very worried about this. East Texas is so deep-rooted spiritually, and I can attest that there were no "outed" atheist teachers in schools when I was attending (class '96.) They would have been fired or ostracized. This subject will not be taught neutrally. It will be aggressively pushed on the kids and taught like a sunday school class. They will present it as fact and the kids that opt out of it (yes, they will encourage this at schedule creation) will be looked down upon by teachers and their peers. I remember teacher-led "see you at the pole" meetings and my coaches led prayers with the team before every game (yes, the coaches) and no one said anything about it. I hear stories from my nephew in the same vein from his 2nd grade class with the "moment of silence" every morning. Religion is King here and I am afraid this is going to put science in Texas schools back in the dark ages.
Posted by: Mark Chancey | August 18, 2009 11:09 AM
Texas Freedom Network got it right. No district is required to offer a course on the Bible. Schools are required to incorporate data about the Bible somewhere in their curricula, but they can do so by working it into other courses. Some may offer elective Bible courses, but none is required to. The state does not plan to monitor implementation of the law.
See the clarifications offered by the Texas Education Agency:
http://www5.esc13.net/cc/docs/meeting/11062008/hb1287_faq.pdf
Mark A. Chancey
Chair, Department of Religious Studies
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275
Posted by: Carlie | August 18, 2009 11:25 AM
No district is required to offer a course on the Bible. Schools are required to incorporate data about the Bible somewhere in their curricula, but they can do so by working it into other courses.
Once again, how is this any better???? Clear line between church and state, crossed. Clear line between legislature and curriculum, crossed. Clear line on emphasizing on one religion over and above all others, crossed.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 18, 2009 11:27 AM
Posted by: pdferguson | August 18, 2009 11:32 AM
Sanctimonious Sara complained:
What responsibility? It's not our fuckin' responsibility to fill in the gigantic gaps in your education. Where the fuck did you get that idea? Where is your responsibility for your own education?
As for "the bible and its truth", well, we've read that claim so many times it just goes in one eye and out the other. It's a phrase perfected by those whose livelihood depends on making people believe it, as you apparently have. That doesn't mean it's anything but what it is: advertising, or more specifically, false advertising. You bought it, we didn't.
What makes you think we don't approach this with an open mind? Do you really think you're the first Christard to come in here, blathering on about god's love and eternal damnation? Do you think we haven't heard your nonsense before and found it as childish as every time before? Are you really so clueless about how you sound?
Don't flatter yourself, child. Your ideas really are not worth spending much time thinking about. Heaven, hell, Noah's ark, the garden of Eden. A dreamy father figure nailed to a cross. They're all just fairy tales, no different than Harry Potter or Aesop's fables. They are warm and comforting stories, but that's all they are. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you will be on the road to becoming a mature adult. Right now, you suffer from the arrested development of religion. It really is that simple.
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 18, 2009 11:44 AM
Raven @ #463
...couldn't have said it better myself.
Sara,
many, if not most of the folks who post here are former xtians as is myself. Most of us have read the bible multiple times in academic and informal settings...and found it lacking in the face of empirical data to support its wild claims. We then ventured forth from the myths and superstitious beliefs contained in the bible due to that lack of evidence and found a refreshing oasis of rational thought and solid evidence of evolution.
I (--patiently--) encourage you to check out the links I posted above to Globoboss at pandasthumb and talkorigins before spewing any more of your obvious bias
crapbeliefs we've heard a million times (sarcasm) around here.(--scratching head...where's Smoggy when you need him?--)
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 11:49 AM
Evolving squid:
I should be clear and emphasize that I did not want them destroyed. Whitewashing history is unacceptable. I'm sure there are collectors who have a dispassionate view of Naziism in a larger sense of WWII archiving and therefore I have no objections to their owning such items. The particular part of Texas I was in is largely populated by nice, lovely descendants of German immigrants, yet a few of them still harbor a not so hidden admiration for Hitler's proposed final solution.
You can readily find artifacts of racism in New Braunfels & Gruene. My favorite was a hotel placard barring undesirables of the day (Ca 1900): "Negroes" were at the top but "actors" and "Chinese" were listed as well. The final listing - "No Irish".
*the Texan of Irish/Welsh descent laughs*
Posted by: R. Schauer | August 18, 2009 11:52 AM
pdferguson said,
...and some of us call that by a term known as: creotardation. It's almost as bad as being a fucktard...but generally we reserve that word for PhDs who should know better but still spew creotard crap.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 18, 2009 11:55 AM
With all due respect pdferguson at #468, I think that statement is not quite accurate. The "fall", the flood, both heaven and hell, IMO are far from warm and comforting.
Posted by: Richard Smith | August 18, 2009 12:38 PM
So spake saviour Sarah:
Which Christians? Catholic? Protestant? Baptist? Pentecostal? Lutheran? Presbyterian? They're all following the bible and its truth, which "all Christians" can explain, so why so many splinters? How can the One Truth have so many possible interpretations?
All this fuss and, for all we know, the hats were supposed to be blue.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 18, 2009 12:45 PM
E.V.:
I know exactly what you're talking about: Back in my plastic-model-building days (mostly middle school), my friends and I really liked the Germans because they had all the coolest airplanes (P-51 and Spitfire notwithstanding). We knew, of course, that they were the bad guys, in the sense of being the opponents in the war, but the realization that the Nazis were something more comprehensively more awful than merely "the other side" was shamefully slow in coming, and I was suitably mortified when I finally got it.
In retrospect, I think it is possible to admire the airplanes as airplanes, without validating Nazi ideology or excusing Nazi atrocities... but when it comes to art, film, architecture, etc., it's much tougher, since those things intentionally speak to the emotions of the people: The works of Willy Messerschmidt supported the German war effort; the works of Leni Riefenstahl and Albert Speer (et al.) supported the Nazi cause.
It's possible to imagine people interested in acquiring Nazi artifacts out of genuine, nonideological historical interest, but in Texas it seems just as likely that those banners ended up flying from the back of someone's pickup truck. And, as you know but others here may not, Gruene is smack in the heart of the part of Texas settled largely by German immigrants... which adds a whole 'nother layer of creepiness to the trade in Nazi memorabilia.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 18, 2009 12:56 PM
Sarah: there is a difference between "simple" and "simplistic." Yes, it is VERY easy for Christians to say "God did it" in response to complex questions. But to thinking people, complex questions have complex answers-- and the poorer the education of the asker, the more complex the answer must be because the answerer has to fill in the gaps in the asker's knowledge. Take for example the evolution of the eye-- the Creationist answer is very quick and simple-- "God did it." But a natural explanation requires an understanding of genetics, of embryological development, of optics, of statistics, of comparative anatomy, of fluid dynamics, of other fields that I haven't thought to mention.
You are confusing "providing an explanation" with "telling a story."
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 18, 2009 1:05 PM
Aaargh!!
In my comment (@474), feel free to mentally delete one or the other more from the phrase...
Another case of real-time self-editing gone horribly wrong!
Also, I meant to add to my last an anecdote that shows the flipside of attraction to Nazi memorabilia: Recently my daugher and a friend of hers were shopping for clothes in a military surplus store. Her friend found a double-breasted officer's jacket that they both agreed looked great on him, and was ridiculously inexpensive... but he ultimately declined to buy it because it was a German military item, and that made him uncomfortable.
It was a modern German military item. With no sensible connection to Naziism. But even so.... Go figure, eh?
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 1:11 PM
Well said, Bill Dauphin,OM.
(see post #470, for additional Gruene info))
Posted by: Gwenny | August 18, 2009 1:17 PM
Show of hands. How many of us here began our trip to atheism by actually reading the Bible? /raises hand And several of my friends say the same thing.
Aside from the fact that there are few easier ways to make a subject boring and uninteresting than to let a public school teach it, this is the only opportunity most kids will have to be exposed to, actually exposed to, what is arguably one of the strongest influences on our art, literature and history for nearly a millennia. And you all are opposed to this why?
And, besides, wouldn't it be fun to have little fundies going home quoting, "Your breasts are like twin fawns . . .your belly is like a heap of wheat . . I will eat the fruit of the garden of my little sister"?
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 18, 2009 1:19 PM
EV, I toured Natural Bridge Caverns about ten days ago. The tour guide pointed to various cave features and spoke in terms of them being millions of years ago. I asked him if anyone every challenged that timeline. Fortunately, he said no, nobody ever raised a protest.
Posted by: Epinephrine | August 18, 2009 1:20 PM
Sara opined:
Others have seized on this already, but I'll say this:
Explaining the bible and its "truth" is easy - the explanation is that (according to those who believe it) it's an infallible document. This vacuous answer doesn't explain anything, and the fact that it is a simple answer doesn't make it correct.
Explaining evolution isn't easy. Sure, the concept is simple (though it still gets muddled fairly often by those who only think that they understand it).
Providing a history of all the various branches of the tree (or web) of life isn't possible at present, and may never be. We certainly can learn a lot from the changes in skeletal structure and from genetic work, but we may never know which of several possible species fit where in the overall web of life.
The fact that the answer is harder to arrive at doesn't make it any less true.
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 1:38 PM
Ben: I haven't been in Natural Bridge Canyons in years. We went to Dinosaur Valley State Park a few years ago to see the dinosaur tracks exposed by the Paluxy River. The creationists have a "museum" with casts of tracks purported to be human along with dinos, fixed forever in the shale. Why no scientist has jumped onboard these claims of empirical proof is confounding - any Ph.D would have more money than God if it were true. How much do you think a real cohabitational human and dinosaur fossil would fetch on ebay? (and the creos wonder why we think their claims are idiotic)
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 18, 2009 1:47 PM
I am back, once more, in the good graces of TypePad. Like the Christian god it had punished me and refused me sign-in privileges, but now it allows me to post. Who can know TypePad's ways? It's ways are not our ways! Can I get a "Log In!"?
E.V., Evolving Squid, Bill Dauphin, OM
Thanks for your posts. I, too, am interested in World War II history (all kinds of history, really), though not in purchasing the memorabilia. As you've noted, I don't think the historical artifacts should be destroyed as they help us tell the story of what happened. The psychological effects of symbols, and the contexts in which we see them, remain fascinating.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 18, 2009 1:52 PM
Wow, I haven't thought about Dinosaur Valley in years! My father took me as a child - it was pretty amazing. Your post brought back many fond childhood memories. :)
*sad sigh*
Now that I'm back in the (relative) area, gonna have to try and convince the girlfriend to hop in the car and drive up there and see it again after all these years.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: daveau
|
August 18, 2009 1:59 PM
Robert-
Thanks for the heads up re: TypePad. I, too, am back in its good graces. I had given up.
I have a replica set of German ww2 pilots wings, but I also have US, British & Japanese. I periodically become re-fascinated by ww2 history, and aviation in particular. Amazing time period for technical advances. Pretty sickly applied, though.
Posted by: GregB | August 18, 2009 2:11 PM
Sara screamed
To which George Washington responded by wrting in the treaty of tripoli this sentence:
As the United States of American is in no way founded upon the Christian religion . . .
Sara: When you're done reading the treaty of Tripoli may I also suggest Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist.
You really need to stop getting your history lessons from Bill O'Reily.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
August 18, 2009 3:15 PM
Josh said at #442:
You are of course correct. I was trying to explain (rather poorly though upon reflection) why there will probably always be some "gaps" in the record. Your point about the older rocks being recycled, or for that matter just harder to get to if they are still deeply buried, is what I ultimately trying to explain in a (overly) simplified manner for Globoboss.
Thanks for correcting my own lack of clarity.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 18, 2009 3:27 PM
Josh:
Well, I would also have believed this falsehood (Greg Laden could put it in his list). Why is it an idea that is intuitively appealing? Many false ideas are in this case.
I think that it's because we transpose an analogy from human history. There, it is absolutely true that, the farther you go back in time, the less traces you can find. (And I'm fascinated by the fact that nowadays there are more traces and pictures from a single month in the life of many Western children, than there are from the whole life of great historical figures such as Alexander or Caesar).
So my opinion is that once again we take an analogy from our human life and model our intuitive view of the world on it. And then, bam, science comes and tells us we got it all wrong. I love it!
Posted by: Hurin | August 18, 2009 3:31 PM
As Dawkins pointed out in the God Delusion, there is nothing wrong with learning the bible in a literary context. It can be helpful in understanding classic literature, and western culture generally. It would obviously be a bad thing if these electives turned out to be evangelistic Sunday school type bible study, but being that they are electives, I have a hard time getting worked up over that possibility either.
Posted by: Hurin | August 18, 2009 3:48 PM
@ Sara : "No doubt you atheist dont like it, afraid that your religion finally being questioned? Scry scary isn't it. We been oppressed for centuries and now we defend ourselfs, I hope the rest of the country follow suit."
----------
LOL!!!!
Our religion is being questioned for the first time? Scary? You get a giant dunce cap.
The reason why we are atheists is that we question religion. Atheism and evolution (not the same things by the way - you should maybe read a little bit about both before you use them interchangeably) are well evidenced and stand up to questioning, which is why skeptics like me are fond of them.
But yes, I can understand why it might be scary to have your religion questioned if it were full of feel good fluff and scare tactics about eternal fire, and had no sound basis in anything. Have fun with that by the way.
Posted by: euterpe42 | August 18, 2009 4:03 PM
What I think is the problem here is that by requiring schools to offer a special course only on the Bible, Texas is elevating the Bible beyond all other works of literature--including religious works and classic secular works. While I have no problem with studying the Bible in the context of a literature or history course, devoting an entire year-long class to it in public high schools--while not offering the same options for any other works of literature, religious or otherwise--stinks of indoctrination.
I also find it suspicious that the first draft of the bill (it's on the Texas legislature website, just Google the bill number) is careful to reassure us that the classes will be completely unbiased, but by the final revision, all such clauses are completely erased.
Posted by: Josh | August 18, 2009 4:18 PM
In reading through my comment again, the tone kind of seems like I was solding you. That wasn't in any way intended. Merely trying to clarify. Appologies if it came across as a scold.
I think, in the rest of that comment, that you hit square on the head why it's intuitively appealing. This is one of the things that is so interestingly fruatrating about geology. There is a lot of stuff like that. Shit--you think Greg's list is long...
Posted by: Hurin | August 18, 2009 4:26 PM
you guys are so cute, somoene asks for evidence for evolution and you tell them its to 'hard' and not possible to just explain or give the ma diagram, they should study it..
interesting way of not taking responsibility, all Christians I know can explain the bible and its truth, they do not claim something randomly and refer to someone else. maybe its time to take a look at what you really believe and that maybe others beliefs could be correct, and yours could be wrong?
HORROR i know, not worth even thinking about
-----------------------------------------------
I know. One of the appeals of Christainity is that anyone can get a decent explanation from any Christian in 5 min, and it will be attractive and comforting. No need to spend any time thinking about hard concepts or testing anything. But if you think all Christians define Christanity the same way you should go to 2 or 3 churches other than your own and ask some of those people explain it.
You probably don't want actual evidence of evolution, but I'll briefly tell you about a few lines. All of our dating methods put the earth at about 4.5 Billion years old. We have fossils showing species changing over time (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/hello-beautiful.html). All animals use the same polymer (DNA) to code for proteins. There are visible similarities in the embryonic development of different animals.
These are a few lines of evidence.
If you want actual explanations rather than a hastily written shopping list, here you go:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
http://ncseweb.org/evolution/science/evolution-primers
Enjoy.
Posted by: Hurin | August 18, 2009 4:30 PM
In #492 the first paragraph is written by sara.
Posted by: Brine Jake | August 18, 2009 5:15 PM
Read HB 1287.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB1287
"(a) A school district may offer to students in grade nine or above:..."
It merely allows Texas high schools to offer an elective.
It neither requires the offering nor requires any student to enroll if offered. One who is sufficiently well-educated to comment on state policy in a public forum is presumably able to read or to find someone who can read to acquaint them with the object of their derision.
Here's a concept: Get your facts straight before you write commentary.
Posted by: Carlie | August 18, 2009 5:41 PM
Wow, Brine. You managed to quote it WRONG, and thereby change the ENTIRE MEANING of the bill. It does NOT say "A school district may offer", it says "A school district shall offer". Big difference. Huge difference. That means that the school board is compelled to offer the class as an elective, whether it wants to or not.
Here's a concept: Get your facts straight before you write commentary.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 18, 2009 5:44 PM
all Christians I know can explain the bible and its truth
explain why there are 38,000 sects of xianity, yet only a handful of Jewish sects.
Posted by: Carlie | August 18, 2009 5:46 PM
Checked them all, and it looks like there is a change from shall to will between versions of the bill. * was looking at the first version, as presumably the original article writers were, and it did change. So ok, they were able to soften the blow by changing it to being elective.
But that still doesn't address the question of what the hell the legislature was doing making bills that refer to teaching the Bible in public school in the first place.
Posted by: Carlie | August 18, 2009 5:48 PM
somoene asks for evidence for evolution and you tell them its to 'hard' and not possible to just explain or give them a diagram, they should study it.
Try reading this blog. Click on the evolution category. Ooo, look, evidence!
Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 18, 2009 5:58 PM
"all Christians I know can explain the bible and its truth"
Ever wonder why there are so many different Christian sects? There are thousands of different versions of the "truth" out there.
Posted by: Dania
|
August 18, 2009 7:26 PM
Sara @93 says:
You know, that's true. I've even heard stories of poor Weebles that...
Uh-oh.
*ducks from geologist's hammer coming in her direction for some reason*
*regrets comment*
Posted by: Josh
|
August 18, 2009 7:30 PM
You know...I didn't used to hate you. In fact, it was quite different from hate.
*ducks from geologist's hammer coming in her direction for some reason*
Hammer? Oh fuck no.
*looks around for M4*
Posted by: Dania
|
August 18, 2009 7:40 PM
*puppy eyes*
Does that mean... does that mean you do now?
*tears*
Posted by: Josh
|
August 18, 2009 7:43 PM
Sigh...
You know I have no defense against the fucking...PUPPY EYES!
*kicks at small pebble nearby that did nothing wrong*
Posted by: Dania
|
August 18, 2009 7:54 PM
*sigh of relief*
You know I couldn't stand the thought that you hated me...
*sweet innocent smile*
Posted by: Josh
|
August 18, 2009 7:57 PM
*heart thump*
*heart thump*
Not likely to happen.
Innocent...?
*raised eyebrow*
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 18, 2009 7:59 PM
Josh the weeble fuc... No, this is Be Nice to the Morally Handicapped Week, so I'll let temptation pass this time.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 18, 2009 8:01 PM
*fingers M4 trigger while looking over at 'Tis*
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 8:03 PM
Why do I feel I'm witnessing the script of a Nescafé advertisement? Which one of you is Anthony Head?
Posted by: Dania
|
August 18, 2009 8:05 PM
Well... I guess I could say it was an innocent joke. :P
Posted by: SC, OM | August 18, 2009 8:07 PM
8-week-old Golden Retriever mere feet away. Unfathomably cute.
Back to family rum...I mean fun... Well, both :)...
***
New posts up:
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com
Posted by: Josh
|
August 18, 2009 8:07 PM
There is some chance that I will buy that.
And I could comment about that tongue...
Posted by: Josh
|
August 18, 2009 8:09 PM
I had a baby golden almost pee on my feet today...weird.
Posted by: Dania
|
August 18, 2009 8:20 PM
I can guarantee it was just as innocent as the joke...
:)
Posted by: Josh
|
August 18, 2009 8:21 PM
*eyeroll*
Posted by: Dania
|
August 18, 2009 8:43 PM
OK, it was not completely innocent. But you already knew that...
Now, 1:40 AM sounds like it's time for me to go to bed...
'night.
Posted by: Josh
|
August 18, 2009 9:09 PM
Well yeah... I was being good*.
'night.
*Don't say it...
Posted by: Brine Jake | August 18, 2009 11:03 PM
Carlie,
I appreciate your attention and your courteous rejoinder. I'm sure I was a bit of a wiseguy.
The various versions are a bit tricky. I believe the enrolled version of HB 1287 is the final version. The others are preliminary. If you check again, I believe you will find that the enrolled version says "may offer". In effect, it makes Bible (heheh) a double elective. This means most of the news headlines overstate the case.
Folks with strong feelings one way or the other will still
have plenty to argue about; I think arguments are more fun when they are about what is rather than what is not.
(The final version was posted by Blake Stacey #14 above, and it can also be found on the "Enrolled Version" link on the legislature page I linked.)
Regards,
BJ
Posted by: Brine Jake | August 18, 2009 11:35 PM
Carlie, you wrote:
"So ok, they were able to soften the blow by changing it to being elective. But that still doesn't address the question of what the hell the legislature was doing making bills that refer to teaching the Bible in public school in the first place." Carlie
I guess what the hell the legislature was doing was merely making it un-illegal for Texas high schools who wish to offer courses in Bible to do so in order that students who are interested might learn something about it. Such courses are offered in public and private universities across the US and the world. Engineering students could prolly care less, but lit students, for example, would benefit from the prep. I'll bet this will all be debated until hell frees his over.
BJ
Posted by: SC, OM | August 19, 2009 12:36 AM
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 19, 2009 12:39 AM
Finally worked my way through all the comments in this monster thread; I'm glad I did, if for no other reason than to know The Artist Formerly Known as Truth Machine is still around and gracing1 us with his presence - I think I picked his distinctive, um, tone after only two posts.
I was a bit disappointed at the poor turnout of trolls, though. Something like this should have had more incoherent, mouth-frothing stupidity raised to defend it.
1I use the word gracing mostly because it wasn't me on the receiving end. Been there, done that.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 19, 2009 12:57 AM
Yeah, whatever.
was annoying. Stop avoiding the threads I'm on and times I'm around. If you want to have it out, tm/ns/Anonymous, we can do it. These allusions are really fucking beneath you.
(Don't mean to drag you into it, Wowbagger, but his manner of referencing the past on a recent thread made me angry.)
Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2009 4:20 AM
Stop avoiding the threads I'm on and times I'm around.
You're a sick person.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
August 19, 2009 4:22 AM
@ Josh #491:
No problem man, I didn't take any offense. I could have worded it better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not entirely sure that Sara isn't a Poe, but just in case "her" insanity is for real...
Sara (suffering from further mental diarrhea @ #450) spewed:
I don't expect either logic or accuracy from any one so stupid (or dishonest) as to declare the Nazis as an atheist regime. Sorry Sara, but they belong to your camp (religious whack jobs for the most part), just like the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, "witch" burnings, and so on throughout history. That the Nazis were mostly religious is a matter of historical record that anyone (but an ignorant religious fanatic) would know.
I'm not surprised that you couldn't understand the simple point that it's not necessary to trace every mutation to "prove" evolution, because the evidence already conclusively shows evolution. What Globoboss was requesting was filling in some steps to an irrelevant level of detail. (Watch her now try and conflate evolution with abiogenesis.) It's like a criminal case where there is genetic evidence, fingerprints, etc. and then asking how much change the suspect had in his pockets.
Globoboss had no trouble understanding the point we explained to him/her, but he/she was coming from the point of view of someone that didn't know that much about the subject, but was willing to learn about it. You on the other hand, come from the perspective of an utterly closed minded presuppositional dogmatist that can't even begin to comprehend something that isn't pre-approved by whatever religious authority figures who's boots you lick.
More of Sara's brain drippings:
You're projecting again Sara. We can provide plenty of evidence supporting evolution (the biggest problem is that there's just too much to list it all in detail), it's your side that has neither logic nor evidence. Most of us are quite open to being shown we're wrong, but you need to provide some credible evidence to show that. Credible evidence convinced us that evolution is correct and the Earth is old, it will take credible evidence to convince us otherwise. That's what your side always lacks though. You, on the other hand, obviously just accept your biblical myths without demanding credible evidence, since you have none to offer us. Also, it's your side that claims thing randomly, we explained to Globoboss the basics of why his/her request was unnecessary and referred him/her to sources for additional information. You just have a collection of bronze age myths that frequently contracts itself and is laughably wrong in many places (when taken literally).
Tell us Sara, do you really think that if you breed animals in front of striped sticks, that it would cause their offspring to be striped? Your infallible bible says so. Why don't you try it and find out?
Go on and prove the bible is correct.
Get back to us when your done, OK?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 19, 2009 4:37 AM
So he comes back as Anonymous. Take that as you will.
Since I first came back as Nothing's Sacred, you can take it as a misconstruction.
He is incredibly smart(way above my head)
That may apply more broadly than you realize; consider the Dunning-Kruger effect.
but humorless
No one who knows me personally would agree.
Posted by: Carlie | August 19, 2009 6:55 AM
Brine - it was totally my fault for only looking at the introduced version and not realizing it could have been changed in the other versions on the page, and I shouldn't have mouthed off before checking them all.
Still, though, I don't see the point of doing this. When was it ever illegal to use the Bible as a work of literature in schools anywhere in the US? When has that even been suggested? It hasn't, and the fact that the original version of the bill did say "shall" exposes that the reason the bill was introduced in the first place was religious indoctrination. It should have been shot down completely, not modified. As it is, it's just another way of waving the Christian flag around the state house.
Posted by: Brine Jake | August 19, 2009 7:54 AM
Carlie, you wrote,
"When was it ever illegal to use the Bible as a work of literature in schools anywhere in the US? When has that even been suggested? It hasn't,...." Carlie
Never suggested? Perhaps not. I dunno how many law suits or other types of constitutional challenges, if any, have been filed against schools/colleges for teaching Bible. I really haven't checked, although I'm a little surprised to see that this has never happened. Have you checked? (Yeah, I know that's not equivalent to making it illegal--I was being hyperbolic--but what do you call a practice that is prohibited by federal courts?) I was only making a guess, in reply to your Q, that some Texas legislators feared it and chose to head it off at the pass, making it legal, as it were.
I can see how some would view this Texas law as slippery slope legislation. I think we will find that the slopes on this issue are well-equipped not with speed bumps but with steel-reinforced brick walls.
I'm not really interested in the propaganda wars between
religionists and secularists. I almost forgot why I posted here in the first place; viz., just to set the fact straight after seeing that Professor Myers misstated the content of the legislation, quoting news articles which said Texas kids had to take Bible. I saw the headlines on the net and thought they looked fishy, so I checked it out, and whaddaya know. Is this merely incompetent, irresponsible, negligent reporting, or is it rabble-rousing activism? One might muse about their intent as well.
Thanx for the discussion.
BJ
Posted by: Brine Jake | August 19, 2009 8:18 AM
One other thing, Carlie. You wrote, of Tex HB 1287,
"It should have been shot down completely, not modified."
I assume you hold that view because you believe that it's
unconstitutional. In a representative democratic body like a state legislature, there are a number of legal ways to "shoot down" legislation which is favored by the majority. I'm sure the staunch secularists tried them all. If a majority still favors it after that, and it becomes law, the legal way to "shoot it down" is to challenge it in court. I'm sure someone will try that as well. My guess is that versions which were "shot down" were the ones which even proponents knew were unconstitutional. What is left is a version which is probably not unconstitutional. I guess we'll see. If it's not unconstitutional, what's wrong with it?
BJ
Posted by: Brine Jake | August 19, 2009 8:29 AM
Oops--one other other thing re HB 1287.
I'm a little foggy on my Texas civics. I guess it has to pass the Senate before it becomes law anyway, so it could still be "shot down completely" if unsupported by the majority. BJ
Posted by: SC, OM | August 19, 2009 9:17 AM
Right. I am. You're emotionally healthy. The evidence really bears that out. Especially your little references to me when you don't think I'm around to defend myself. Get over it, already.
Posted by: E.V. | August 20, 2009 7:21 PM
I think you and I should meet face to face and have a little heart to heart talk.
Posted by: Cheesis K | August 23, 2009 10:57 AM
I offer here a pop quiz question for Texas Bible class:
What unique historical individual fulfilled both of these prophecies?
Prophesy 1:
And when He was now getting near Jerusalem . . .
He came into full view of the city, He wept aloud over it,
and exclaimed,
For the time is coming upon thee when thy foes will
throw up around thee earthworks and a wall, investing thee
and hemming thee in on every side, and level you and your
children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon
another in you; because you did not know the time of your
visitation.
Luke 19:37-43
Prophesy 2:
Be on the alert therefore, for you do not know the day on
which your Lord is coming.
Therefore you also must be ready; for it is at a time
when you do not expect Him that the Son of Man will come.
Matt. 24:42-4
Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour
in which the Son of Man is coming.
Matt. 25:13
So you also, when you see all these signs, may be sure that
He is near—at your very door.
I tell you in solemn truth that the present generation
will certainly not pass away without all these things having
first taken place.
Matt. 24:33-34
Answer: Caesar Titus Flavius
Posted by: Rorschach | August 24, 2009 6:52 AM
E.V @ 530,
dont go there.It's between those 2.
Posted by: Stephan Brun | August 24, 2009 9:45 AM
Cheesis: Hehe. I thought it would be emperor Vespasian. Didn't Josephus write something about that too?
Posted by: Cheesis K | August 24, 2009 10:41 AM
Stephan, according to wikipedia, Vespasian returned from Judea to Rome in 69 CE and Titus led the seige of Jerusalem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_rebellion
War of the Jews by Josephus tells the story, but it pays to bear in mind that it's the official Roman story, as Josephus was under direct Roman employ and there is a dedication by Caesar Titus on the cover page.
You might be interested in reading Atwill's Caesar's Messiah, then. You can read some for free or buy it all for $5 here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16326821/Caesars-Messiah
or on Atwill's webpage. Also there are used copies and many reviews at amazon.
Posted by: Stephan Brun | August 24, 2009 11:53 AM
Ah, yes, I remember. Off to fight Vitellius, he was. Must admit, most of my attention has been focused on the struggle between the optimates and the populares that began two hundred years before.
Ooo, source material. Off to read...
Posted by: Stephan Brun
|
August 24, 2009 1:03 PM
Ah, I see where I went wrong. I usually think about Roman history from the Roman point of view, which would make Vespasian the overall commander, even though he was making a bid for the empire. Titus Flavius Vespasianus, the son, (who confusingly, had all his father's names) was left as the man in charge of ending the rebellion. Although he would be emperor later, for two years. I must admit I think of his reign as rather inconsequential, mostly because of its shortness. Note to self: do better.
From the Jewish point of view, Titus junior is the man who commanded the enemy legions for more than half the war, while Titus senior was away. Naturally, anyone in that region would focus on him.
Update: I see, your man Atwill advances the idea that the Romans forged the gospels in order to subdue the Jews. Interesting. I'm not completely on board with it yet, but I am intrigued. Probably will have to fork out the cash for the book.
Posted by: Mark | August 24, 2009 2:21 PM
I solidified my default position on being an atheist because I read the Bible and did some historical research on its claims.
I'm all for students reading the Bible for that alone. A small percentage of them will Come Out of Religion (TM) after thoughtful research.
Posted by: Pharmd895 | September 1, 2009 11:10 AM
Very nice site!
Posted by: Pharmg536 | September 2, 2009 7:25 AM
Very nice site!