T1B

I don't get how he violated the first amendment. If that is the case everyone on this message board is guilty.

Talk abouit judicial activisim!

Since when does a teacher expressing their view on religion prohibit a student from engaging in their own religious beliefs? Unless Farnan can prove that Corbett's actions inhibited his ability to practice his own religious beliefs the case should be thrown out.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Talk abouit judicial activisim!

Since when does a teacher expressing their view on religion prohibit a student from engaging in their own religious beliefs? Unless Farnan can prove that Corbett's actions inhibited his ability to practice his own religious beliefs the case should be thrown out.

Agree. He's guilty of being a pompous ass but that's about it.

trev wrote:I don't get how he violated the first amendment. If that is the case everyone on this message board is guilty.

Flunk 10th grade Gov class much?

R-Jack wrote: Opinions about religion have no place in a history classroom, one way or another.

So religion, which means to link back or to bind back, has no place in a History class? I know you're not too smart what with the horse fucking and wasting all the rest of your spare time molesting your kid, but geeze. Religion has EVERY place in a History class. The Gov has no place in K-12.

trev wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Talk abouit judicial activisim!

Since when does a teacher expressing their view on religion prohibit a student from engaging in their own religious beliefs? Unless Farnan can prove that Corbett's actions inhibited his ability to practice his own religious beliefs the case should be thrown out.

Agree. He's guilty of being a pompous ass but that's about it.

Of course you would say that. You know that if a negative statement about "creation science" is considered an inappropriate introduction of religion in the classroom that conversely a positive view of "creation science" would also be equally inappropriate. That this suit was brought forth by an alleged supporter of "creation science" is even funnier.

Bye bye fundamentalist nut jobs.

TBO wrote:Religion has EVERY place in a History class. The Gov has no place in K-12.

Agreed, and agreed.

The government needs to take that one extra step, however, and get out of the religion business completely.

BSmack wrote:

trev wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Talk abouit judicial activisim!

Since when does a teacher expressing their view on religion prohibit a student from engaging in their own religious beliefs? Unless Farnan can prove that Corbett's actions inhibited his ability to practice his own religious beliefs the case should be thrown out.

Agree. He's guilty of being a pompous ass but that's about it.

Of course you would say that. You know that if a negative statement about "creation science" is considered an inappropriate introduction of religion in the classroom that conversely a positive view of "creation science" would also be equally inappropriate. That this suit was brought forth by an alleged supporter of "creation science" is even funnier.

Bye bye fundamentalist nut jobs.

Bsmack, when you grow up and have kids of your own, you won't be such one sided poli-tard. It's not about fundamentalist nut jobs, it's about being in a classroom and feeling comfortable that some asshole teacher isn't going to penalize you gradewise because you don't share an extreme teachers view. This teacher sounds like he had an obsession against religion. Public school teachers should be sensitve to all different people and what they believe or don't believe. Do I think this teacher should get sued? No. I do think his district should counsel him to stick with what he is supposed to be teaching and leave his opinion out of it. At some point all teachers are going to convey their opinions and you teach your kids to take it with a grain of salt. This teacher was offensive enough and someone called him out on it.

Moving Sale wrote:So religion, which means to link back or to bind back.

Way to go obscure and widely debated Latin etymology of the word, douche.

Neoplatonic 4th century rhetoric much? Not surprising, though. Most of your posts are archaic and not very relevant to any board discussions.

.
.
.

Carry on, oh *pedantic one.



*No -- not that one. This definition: one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge.

At least mvscal didn't call the kid a straight up dumbfuck.

trev wrote:
Public school teachers should be sensitve to all different people and what they believe or don't believe. Do I think this teacher should get sued? No. I do think his district should counsel him to stick with what he is supposed to be teaching and leave his opinion out of it. At some point all teachers are going to convey their opinions and you teach your kids to take it with a grain of salt. This teacher was offensive enough and someone called him out on it.

Right.....so I am on a local Forestry Commission where we sponsor an essay writing contest for 5th grade students to write an essay about trees. They are judged and win various donated items from local business's.

So the essays come in from one class and as a group we read all of them and pick the best five essays form each class.

One entire class wrote about global warming, how it was bad to cut trees, or use wood products from trees. 23 fucking essays all about the same thing. We shit canned every one of them. Those kids were fed a line of shit by their teacher who was trying to impress her views on them and look what it got them..fucking essays shit canned. Nice work kids..glad you tried but your teacher is such a whack job, we feel you all need to pay the price for her captive preaching..was that fair to the kids...no..but fuck the liberal greenies teacher. Keep you own personal politics to yourself and stop brain washing 5th graders.

My closing comment to the group was a hearty ..EARTH FIRST.!!!.. We will log the other planets later.

Derron wrote:Right.....so I am on a local Forestry Commission where we sponsor an essay writing contest for 5th grade students to write an essay about trees. They are judged and win various donated items from local business's.

So the essays come in from one class and as a group we read all of them and pick the best five essays form each class.

Based upon the content of your posts, I'd say you're not qualified to be judging 5th grade essays. I bet even they would label you a tard.

trev wrote:Bsmack, when you grow up and have kids of your own, you won't be such one sided poli-tard. It's not about fundamentalist nut jobs, it's about being in a classroom and feeling comfortable that some asshole teacher isn't going to penalize you gradewise because you don't share an extreme teachers view. This teacher sounds like he had an obsession against religion. Public school teachers should be sensitve to all different people and what they believe or don't believe. Do I think this teacher should get sued? No. I do think his district should counsel him to stick with what he is supposed to be teaching and leave his opinion out of it. At some point all teachers are going to convey their opinions and you teach your kids to take it with a grain of salt. This teacher was offensive enough and someone called him out on it.

Whatever Trev. The end result is that the Establishment Clause is strengthened, not weakened. Props to the "prayer in school" folks for helping to guarantee their inevitable failure.

The teacher should be free to give his opinion on creation, santa claus, etc. He should also let his students know that it is his opinion. If it can be shown that he is marking students down for expressing differing opinions, he should be shitcanned on the spot.

Whatever happens here, the fed gubmint has about as much bidness meddling with it as they do meddling with college football.

So, I guess we know what that means.

Can somebody just nuke dc right now?

Ya can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater whilst wrapping yourself in the flag. The constitution can't be all things to everyone.

trev wrote:I don't get how he violated the first amendment. If that is the case everyone on this message board is guilty.

The comparison to this board is meaningless. There's a public forum/private forum distinction.

That having been said, I see neither a violation of the Establishment Clause nor of the Free Exercise Clause.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote: Way to go obscure and widely debated Latin etymology of the word, douche.

Ah grammersmack fuckpillow can't see the forest for his dick in his hand.

This definition: one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge.

Projection much? You take the one part of the post that is least important (the post was not saying that *because* religion means X then Y is true) and emphasize it. What a fucking dumbfuck.
~~~

R-Jack wrote:Are you too much in a rush to look like a gibbering douche to respond to what I actually said?

What the fuck is up with you projecting fuckholes? You said Opinion about Religion has no place in the classroom. I said it did. You can read right?

This isn't 2+3. The Opinion of the teacher is important which is why the Gov should have no place governing what said teacher says and does. Maybe you should spend less time fucking horses and molesting their offspring and more time... well in a classroom learning... something.

Moving Sale wrote:You take the one part of the post that is least important.

You mean your posts actually begin to develop importance after wide left attempts at Latin etymology and horse fucking smack? Sorry, but I find this to be highly unlikely. Perhaps I should go back and re-read your drivel beyond its 2nd sentence. Promise me I won't be disappointed... okay?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:
Way to go obscure and widely debated Latin etymology of the word, douche.

Neoplatonic 4th century rhetoric much? Not surprising, though. archaic and not very relevant to any board discussions.

*pedantic one.

* definition: one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge.

Talk to the wall much ??

We should start calling you the Professor or the Dictionary Tard ...after all your clever use of many of the terms above, both in words and sentence structure, which you no doubt spent hours compiling, and then posting to make the clones think you are some kind of educated jerk off clearly shows you have game well beyond what is usually posted here.

Neoplatonic .....archaic...pendantic....minutiae....blah,blah,blah,blah..

And having to post a definition to make sure the tards understand it clearly screams SCOREBOARD!! like no other method seen before. I mean if they have to go Websters before they can reply to your smack, that is bode...

I clearly concede any smack to your

Terry in Crapchester wrote:That having been said, I see neither a violation of the Establishment Clause nor of the Free Exercise Clause.

And if he would have stated that creationism rational and viable, you would be cool with that too?

mvscal wrote:

First Amendment's establishment clause.

...has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.

US courts need to stop "interpreting" meanings which are not even remotely suggested by the plain language of the amendment.

Opining that Creatinionism is ignorant rubbish does not prohibt or even inhibit the free exercise of religion.

How about opining that Darwinism is ignorant rubbish?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote: Perhaps I should go back and re-read your drivel beyond its 2nd sentence.

You are going to read something before you spout your fucking drivel? The devil you say.
~~~

R-Jack wrote: Yeah, I know.........

Nice white flag you horse fucking dolt.

Diogenes wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:That having been said, I see neither a violation of the Establishment Clause nor of the Free Exercise Clause.

And if he would have stated that creationism rational and viable, you would be cool with that too?

Sorta reminds me of the old Doonesbury cartoon where the college professor stated, "Jefferson was the anti-Christ" just to try to spur one of his students to debate him, and they all took notes dutifully.

If he said it within a similar context to that, I'd be cool with it. If he said it because he believed it, I'd say he's too stupid to be teaching kids.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:That having been said, I see neither a violation of the Establishment Clause nor of the Free Exercise Clause.

And if he would have stated that creationism rational and viable, you would be cool with that too?

Sorta reminds me of the old Doonesbury cartoon where the college professor stated, "Jefferson was the anti-Christ" just to try to spur one of his students to debate him, and they all took notes dutifully.

If he said it within a similar context to that, I'd be cool with it. If he said it because he believed it, I'd say he's too stupid to be teaching kids.

So whether speech is legally protected depends on whether it fits in with your particular prejudices?

Good to know, counselor. I think Obama's got a job for you.

Diogenes wrote:So whether speech is legally protected depends on whether it fits in with your particular prejudices?

Good to know, counselor.

I never said there was a Constitutional issue with such a statement. I said that making such a statement calls into question his intellectual fitness to teach. That's another issue entirely.

I think Obama's got a job for you.

And I'm pretty sure Bush had one for you. Why didn't you take it?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Diogenes wrote:So whether speech is legally protected depends on whether it fits in with your particular prejudices?

Good to know, counselor.

I never said there was a Constitutional issue with such a statement. I said that making such a statement calls into question his intellectual fitness to teach. That's another issue entirely.

Actually what you said was...

Terry in Crapchester wrote:That having been said, I see neither a violation of the Establishment Clause nor of the Free Exercise Clause.

So are the open-minded allowed the same legal protections as the dogmaticly intolerant?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

I think Obama's got a job for you.

And I'm pretty sure Bush had one for you. Why didn't you take it?

You're deluded. That guy was way too much of a divider, not enough of a divider. If he would have offered me a job, his polls would have been way better.

Diogenes wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Diogenes wrote:So whether speech is legally protected depends on whether it fits in with your particular prejudices?

Good to know, counselor.

I never said there was a Constitutional issue with such a statement. I said that making such a statement calls into question his intellectual fitness to teach. That's another issue entirely.

Actually what you said was...

Terry in Crapchester wrote:That having been said, I see neither a violation of the Establishment Clause nor of the Free Exercise Clause.

So are the open-minded allowed the same legal protections as the dogmaticly intolerant?

Like I said, whether there's a Constitutional issue with a teacher saying that creationism is rational is a moot point. The more obvious issue raised by such a statement is that, unless the teacher made that statement within the context of an effort to teach his students to think critically, along the lines of "Jefferson was the anti-Christ," then such a statement calls into serious question his intellectual ability to teach.

That issue can, and indeed must, be addressed immediately. A Constitutional challenge to a teacher's in-class statement via the Courts, by contrast, takes years to resolve.

Btw, I've read this statement at least three times, and I still can't figure out what you were trying to say:

Diogenes wrote:That guy was way too much of a divider, not enough of a divider.

Is that something along the lines of TVO's famous gem?

Any tard who this they are the same is an iodiot.

accidental double post, etc

ditto

Derron wrote:

trev wrote:


Right.....so I am on a local Forestry Commission where we...(wear panties and bras)



My closing comment to the group was a hearty ..EARTH FIRST.!!!.. We will log the other planets later.

Pssst...Derron...Roger wants to "log" you this evening, are you free?


Avi, Darwinism is basically shorthand for non-spontaneous creation of species variety, etc. "Intelligent Design," or Creationism, on the other hand, basically comes down to spontaneous creation or establishment of all the variety somehow at once. All the other religious doctrine or gaps in the fossil records are just filler.

Don't think I've ever seen a triple post before.

There he is, Triple Post Nick, calling something else "filler."

:doh:

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Considering that even saying Darwinism is unproven will get said teacher fired

Link?

Diogenes wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Considering that even saying Darwinism is unproven will get said teacher fired

Link?

Life was so much better when I thought you were dead.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Darwinism is basically shorthand for non-spontaneous creation of species variety, etc. "Intelligent Design," or Creationism, on the other hand, basically comes down to spontaneous creation or establishment of all the variety somehow at once. All the other religious doctrine or gaps in the fossil records are just filler.

there is no such thing as "Darwinism" (it's evolutionary theory) any more so than there is "Einsteinianism" in discussing the theory or relativity, or "Newtonianism" when describing the theory of gravity

Felix wrote:there is no such thing as "Darwinism"

Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin.[1][2][3] The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term.[4]

The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860,[5] and was used to describe evolutionary concepts, including earlier concepts such as Malthusianism and Spencerism. In the late 19th century it came to mean the concept that natural selection was the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism, then around 1900 it was eclipsed by Mendelism until the modern evolutionary synthesis unified Darwin's and Gregor Mendel's ideas. As modern evolutionary theory has developed, the term has been associated at times with specific ideas.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

I guess there's no such thing as "agnosticism" either, since Huxley coined that term as well.

Diogenes wrote:

Felix wrote:there is no such thing as "Darwinism"

Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin.[1][2][3] The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term.[4]

The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860,[5] and was used to describe evolutionary concepts, including earlier concepts such as Malthusianism and Spencerism. In the late 19th century it came to mean the concept that natural selection was the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism, then around 1900 it was eclipsed by Mendelism until the modern evolutionary synthesis unified Darwin's and Gregor Mendel's ideas. As modern evolutionary theory has developed, the term has been associated at times with specific ideas.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

I guess there's no such thing as "agnosticism" either, since Huxley coined that term as well.

I don't care if you found some bullshit definition on wikipedia or not, there's no such thing as Darwinism-it's evolutionary theory plain and simple....

are you a Newtonionist? are you a Keplarist?

Felix wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

Felix wrote:there is no such thing as "Darwinism"

Darwinism is a term used for various movements or concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin.[1][2][3] The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term.[4]

The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860,[5] and was used to describe evolutionary concepts, including earlier concepts such as Malthusianism and Spencerism. In the late 19th century it came to mean the concept that natural selection was the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism, then around 1900 it was eclipsed by Mendelism until the modern evolutionary synthesis unified Darwin's and Gregor Mendel's ideas. As modern evolutionary theory has developed, the term has been associated at times with specific ideas.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

I guess there's no such thing as "agnosticism" either, since Huxley coined that term as well.

...there's no such thing as Darwinism-it's evolutionary theory plain and simple....

Wrong. It is a particular branch of evolutionary theory that has been made into canon by secularist academics in spite of it's absolute lack of evidence, namely the spontaneous genesis of species by the process of viable mutation. Other aspects of evolutionary theory such as natural selection pre-date Darwin and are not called into question.

But as to the actual subject of the thread...

Do you find this case objectionable? And would you feel the same about a teacher who raised legitimate questions about your particular brand of evolutionary theory for the sake of discussion?

A good test of one's hypocricy here.