Southern Baptists want an ‘Exit Strategy’ from public schools.

Apparently upset that Public Schools have this bad habit of educating their kids, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention are asking the group to come up with an exit strategy for yanking their kids out of school:

Delegates at last year’s annual meeting passed a resolution urging parents and churches to “to exercise their rights to investigate diligently the curricula, textbooks, and programs in our community schools.”

“We are commanded biblically to train our children in the nurture of the Lord,” said Roger Moran of Troy, Mo., who sits on the executive committee and offered the proposal with Texas author Bruce Shortt. “The public schools are no longer allowed … to even acknowledge the God of the Bible.”

Moran, who owns a company that makes construction supplies, is a father of nine children, ages 18 months to 18 years. All have been home-schooled or attended Christian schools, he said.

“Everything that I believe as a Bible-believing Christian is not allowed to be taught in the public schools,” he said.

Because we all know that Belief trumps Fact any day of the week. Their slogan should be: We’re Southern Baptists and we’re working hard to keep our kids stupid by any means possible!

111 thoughts on “Southern Baptists want an ‘Exit Strategy’ from public schools.

  1. el: Abandoning kids into an environment of religious nutjob indoctrination doesn’t fill my heart with joy.

    Buzz: Oh yeah, and all the children who would be brainwashed without much hope of ever seeing any alternative to their parents’ beliefs, that would be worse than a hit to tourism.

    So now we are concerned about the children? Sounds a lot like arguments I hear from Christians who oppose homosexual adoption. But of course those arguments don’t work if they don’t support YOUR ideologies or beliefs, do they? So kids must NECESSARILY suffer if they are home-schooled, their parents are nut-jobs who will brainwash their offspring, and have no hope of ever thinking for themselves. And all of this must be true, because they don’t think like you. Okay, I’ll give you that if you admit that homosexual couples must NECESSARILY do the same. Let’s outlaw both. Let freedom ring.

    jeff: My cousin, who’s an extreme born-again, home-schooled her 5 kids… I distinctly remember my cousin telling the first born when he was 4 or so, when he asked for a piece of candy, “No you cannot have a piece of candy.  Candy is bad… Do you want to burn in hell for having the bad candy?”

    Or, you can send your kids to public school, where they will not be permitted to buy a carbonated beverage on campus, but can get free, confidential advice on how to obtain an abortion. I love picking my brother up from high school and watching him eat a freaking tofu bar because they took all the snickers out of the candy machines. Cavities bad, abortion good. hum.

    Buzz: I would think that since there are so many of them that think the rest of society is so terrible, they really would all band together and live seperate from the rest of us.

    I agree. I’ve tried that one on the militant heterophobes and nut-chopping lesbians, but they get real mad at me. First, we have to find out who “the rest of us” are, and then deport the leftovers. Let’s vote on it, maybe put it on the ballot next year. The losers get deported. I wonder who would find themselves in exile after that one…

    Semper Fi

  2. Ed – You’re a bizarre little shite, aren’t ya? Is any of this stuff intended to be serious or are you just having us on?

    Tell you what, give us New England. All of us sane and rational people will move to New England and you crazed fuckers can have the rest of the country. Do whatever the hell you want, believe whatever fairy story you want, just leave us the hell out of it.

    Within a generation you’ll all be back in the fucking stone age, cause everyone with a brain capable of advancing science and medicine will be with us.

    Enjoy your inevitable collapse.

  3. That was almost a substantive reply, even though a very selective one. And tame – can’t you try to be more amusing? If Les doesn’t get his share of laughs, we’ll have to ask you to leave.

    So now we are concerned about the children?

    Of course. We are always concerned about children and the parenting skills and intentions of their caregivers.

    Sounds a lot like arguments I hear from Christians who oppose homosexual adoption.

    They have actual arguments? I’m not asking you to tell us, because then they’d have to kill you.

    But of course those arguments don’t work if they don’t support YOUR ideologies or beliefs, do they? So kids must NECESSARILY suffer if they are home-schooled, their parents are nut-jobs who will brainwash their offspring, and have no hope of ever thinking for themselves.

    This thread is predicated on parents homeschooling children to prevent exposure to thought that contradicts their accepted religious dogma. In this case, the parents are indeed nutjobs who want to brainwash their offspring and it’s more probable, if by no means a certainty, that these kids will not learn to think for themselves.

    It’s not a matter whether or not I personally agree with these parents (I don’t), but a matter of having a favorable opinion concerning the indoctrination of children to protect a fragile and incoherent belief system.

    And all of this must be true, because they don’t think like you.

    Aren’t you confusing premises with conclusions?

  4. Ed: Let’s outlaw both. Let freedom ring.

    Who said anything about outlawing what these fundie parents are wanting to do? I certainly didn’t. I just feel sorry for their kids.

  5. Tell you what, give us New England. All of us sane and rational people will move to New England and you crazed fuckers can have the rest of the country.

    What- no Porn?

    Semper Fi

    Tells us all we need to know. An defrocked USMC. People who end things with this seem to think that anyone else must be wrong on basis you don’t agree with him.  Not worth replying to this nut job- he won’t bother reading you properly.  You’ll just get poorly constructed arguments he’s copied off others.

  6. Oh Ed, how right you are!  Man, I have seen the light!  All those years of compassion and desire to see everyone free and happy, man those were a total waste!  Where do I sign up for your absolutely, 100% pure, total and complete real truth? 

    Sorry everyone else, this is a total BS response, and I know responding to him is only gonna bring on fresh wounds, but I had to say something, and it had to be brief and pointless, or else I was gonna have to write a book here and cause massive, catastrophic thread drift.

  7. but I had to say something, and it had to be brief and pointless

    Why not exchange recipes? I can bake a mean sourdough rye bread. And another bread that makes the yeast die so happily that you may not pass a breathalizer test if you eat half a fresh loaf.

  8. Sweet, I’d be interested.  However, I have a terrible history of not being able to bake so much as a cake from a mix, so I might not be able to reproduce your results elwed.

  9. From this thread, on “children of the fundies” :

    Sadie: Who said anything about outlawing what these fundie parents are wanting to do? I certainly didn’t. I just feel sorry for their kids.

    From the “battlecry” thread, on the topic of premarital sex:

    Sadie: By the way, what the hell is the deal with the fundies’ obsession with babies and children? It’s as though they can’t make any kind of point without pulling “the children

  10. Ed, that is so profoud.  All I can say is:

    Sweet, so you think that my old church, which was a die hard fundamentalist, the rapture could happen at anytime, everybody but us is wrong church would accept me back because I display a little intolerance for absoulte intolerance? 

    Awesome, I’ll give you their phone number if you put in a good word for me, I think I forgot a pair of sunglasses there one time, and I’d really like them back, but i don’t want to get into an argument with anyone to do it.

  11. However, I have a terrible history of not being able to bake so much as a cake from a mix, so I might not be able to reproduce your results

    Unless you turn a loaf of bread to ash, the worst of what you bake yourself will be better than anything you can buy. Once you feel adventurous, try Challah and instead of braiding it, shape it into rolls with cheese and herbs inside.

  12. I don’t have access to an oven in my current apartment, but I will be moving soon and buying an oven for that place, so I might just have to try some more baking.  I’ll definitely give it a try.

  13. Ed: Seems to me that out-of-wedlock births, STD’s, and certainly abortion are greater threats to the health and well-being of children than home schooling.

    STDs are certainly a “bad thing.” That’s why people should use protection when they have sex.  The case against out-of-wedlock birth is less clear-cut; as long as the parents are capable and loving, I fail to see how their marital state affects their children. And as far as abortion goes, I don’t consider fetuses children, so that example arises no sympathy in me.

    But for heaven’s sake, lets all pop out a tit for the suffering masses of children who won’t be able to buy crack from a classmate since their parents decided to home school them.

    You’re certainly one for hyperbole, aren’t you? I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of kids in public schools don’t become crackheads.

    And I’d pop out a tit, but not for you, as you’re clearly not my type.

  14. That’s why people should use protection when they have sex.

    Here’s a topological problem. One guy, three prostitutes, two condoms. How does the guy get to bang all three prostitutes while keeping all four safe from STDs?

  15. Elwed: How does the guy get to bang all three prostitutes while keeping all four safe from STDs?

    I could answer that, but it would probably belong on a different website.  smile

  16. Here’s a topological problem. One guy, three prostitutes, two condoms. How does the guy get to bang all three prostitutes while keeping all four safe from STDs?

    Okay, I’ll bite. Let’s see. Condom one, first pros. Remove and set aside. Condom 2, 2nd pros. Leave on when done. turn 1st condom inside out and place over condom 2 for 3rd pros. Assuming he is clean and the risk comes from the three prostitutes, that should do it. If he’s contagious, though, pros 3 is out of luck.

  17. KPG: Sadie, it figures that, of all people, the two of us would both end up posting on this topic at about the same time…

    It’s said that there’s predictability in unpredictability.  LOL

    Anyway, those other forums (or is that fora?) I mentioned just happen to be down at the moment, so it looks like I’ll have to post my explanation here. Hope you guys manage.  wink

    1. The man wears a condom while banging prostitute #1. She’s riding him, while prostitute #2 sits on the man’s face and tells him that she loves him. Prostitute #3 is in the bathroom.
    2. Once he’s finished, the guy doffs his condom and puts on another. He commences fucking prostitute #2.
    3. Prostitute #3, however, has always had a preference for the fairer sex, so she is content to be fucked by prostitute #2, who is at this point adorned with a strap-on dildo. When questioned why prostitute #3 visited a man in the first place, she answered that she goes wherever her friends go.
    4. Prostitute #1, meanwhile, is fellating the man.

  18. I see just about every major logical fallacy represented in the comments that preceded mine, and no one said jack about it.

    Well, that would be -your- responsibility, if you’re taking up the opposing perspective.  And you should rejoice in it, because this is a board where people are at least familiar with what a fallacy is.  If you’ve got what it takes, you could hand out a major spanking, and they’re actually smart enough to know that they’re getting spanked.

    (although I have to admit, I’m not going to be putting any money on you)

    I see just about every major logical fallacy

    You do not, however, quote those fallacies, or give examples.  This, therefore, is an unsupported assertion, or argument by assertion.  But you already know that, because no one who throws around the word syllogism is unfamiliar with the basic principles of logic.  At least, not usually.

    Seems to me . . . 

    “seems to me” has never been a compelling argument.  ‘Seems’ is shorthand for ‘that’s what it looks like if you don’t focus on it too hard, think about it, or insist on measuring anything.’

    Seems.  Pshaw.

    But “enlightened

  19. How does the guy get to bang all three prostitutes while keeping all four safe from STDs?

    False premises.  Either none of them have STDs, in which case they’re all safe no matter what they do, or one or more have STDs, in which case “all four” cannot be kept safe, since one or more have an STD already. LOL

  20. Ed- I’m still waiting with bated breath for a reply to my post here, but a substantive reply to elwed’s or nowiser’s posts in this thread would do just as well- we’re all in the same coven, after all.

    Nowiser: nicely put.  I like your sign off- here’s another good one:

    Disce quasi semper victurus; vive quasi cras moriturus. (learn as if you were going to live forever, live as if you were going to die tomorrow)

  21. Eddy (as in tide in-out-in-out): SEMPER FIDELIS

    First off I gotta say that your Alta (as opposed to Alto)-ego TED is the same word as a cUnt in Oz … extrapolate that as you will, Ted – or is that wilted?
    And, why upper case this time? Wasn’t Semper Fi enough – don’t ya think ya got your POINT across? LOL
    You’re wanker mate.

    Sadie: … it looks like I’ll have to post my explanation here. Hope you guys manage.

    I knew you’d have to come. Well done, birthday girl. LOL

    Nowiser: Are you concerned that we won’t treat you as well if we don’t know that you’re ex military?

    He’s not ex-military – he’s a wanker. He just likes association with the the SF thingamy.
    He’s another would-be if he could-be – just never has the balls to go outside the square and commit. Just another gutless conservative xian. LOL

    Nowiser: I might introduce doubt or nuance.  Of course, I think those are -good- things, which a child is essentially robbed of when their parents attempt to insulate them from alternative schools of thought.

    Jeez, mate I wish I hadda had you as a teacher. Most of mine were NOT inspiring …. but I did love school.

    Zilch: Disce quasi semper victurus; vive quasi cras moriturus. (learn as if you were going to live forever, live as if you were going to die tomorrow)

    Or, live as if you’re already dead.
    Then there are NO wukkin furries at all, at all. LOL

  22. Since professional prostitutes in places where their work is legal, seldom get STD’s, we need not assume that any of them has an STD. But like any smart worker, (s)he will insist on the proper safety equipment.

    Condoms can be carefully cleaned, checked, and re-rolled, but this is not advisable.  In my case, however, increasingly during the last 20 years, there would be plenty of time between prostitutes one, two, and three to go out and buy more condoms. 

    Now on to home schooling: I respect the tremendous effort that parents who homeschool must exert.  In many cases, it works out quite well for the students involved.  I thought the public schools here were often on either side of the acceptable/unacceptable line.  But I doubt my kids would have stood for home schooling.  There are a lot of factors that play into the feasibility of homeschooling.

    Interesting discussion of public schools going on right now at First Year Teacher, starting with her resignation letter.

    My sister is ex-Marine/20yr.  As she tells it, some Marines are smarter than others.

  23. So here’s the solution:

    #1: Two condoms, one on top of the other

    #2: remove outer condom, leave inner condom in place

    #3: turn the outer one from #1 inside out and put on top of the rubber that the guy had on all along.

  24. Interesting discussion of public schools going on right now at First Year Teacher, starting with her resignation letter.

    I read that letter.  That’s pretty much a horror story.  And what a kick in the ass that this particular teacher is clearly good at what she does, and yet she’s going to leave.  Not because she’s being fired, but because she’s simply not willing to work at a place where students are treated as subhumans. 

    This is one of the problems that I have with public schools.  It’s really difficult to fire teachers.  That should change.  But it should also be possible to oust indifferent and ineffective administrators.  It pains me to talk about firing teachers, because I personally know how demanding the job is, and that it does not pay well when compared to many other professions.  And frequently, I believe, we as a society like to point the finger at teachers for failings which can hardly be attributed to them.  So it makes me uncomfortable to talk about firing teachers, because I can imagine it happening to me.

    Every time I point that out, though, my wife laughs at me like I’ve gone completely insane “That’ll never happen.”

    But burnout happens.  I’ve seen it, and worked right next to it.  And while those teachers weren’t evil, they really should have been teaching lighter loads, so that they could give their students the attention they deserved.  If I, as a coworker, wasn’t sure that the students were being well-served in those situations, how could I possibly blame a parent for wanting to take their students out of that class?  I can’t.

    But I’ve also encountered ‘home-schooled’ children that weren’t actually being schooled.  And that’s a scary, scary thing, because those students are not only being deprived of certain social interactions, they’re also not learning much.

    OK.  I’m going back over to that blog, since teaching is becoming one of my new main interests now.  Thanks for the linkey DoF.

    If you get a chance, take a look at “Missed opportunities: how we keep high-quality teachers out of urban classrooms.”  Google gives multiple hits to the findings of this study.

  25. Thanks back for pointing out that study!  As it happens, I have the day off tomorrow.  (loads scrap paper into printer…)

    It is scary that some home-schooled kids are not really being schooled, but I wouldn’t want to try to make a dichotomy out of it.  After all, the same is true of many kids in public school as many have pointed out. 

    But it should also be possible to oust indifferent and ineffective administrators.

    …and some parents.  And school-board superintendents and members…

  26. Dearest Teddy

    Yes I agree that my comment without explaination appears lazy.  I did not give full background as to my prejudice, on the assumption that others here would have shared experience.  My experience is that people who use the phase SF outside an USMC setting tend to be aggressive with bulling language, and little regard to the views of others, including times when the evidence goes against the SF person.  At the moment this is merely a hypothesis, based on 0nly 3-4 experiences, however if enough others here come in with their experience we will have either 1) enough data to form a theory or 2) my hypothesis will be shown to be in error. 

    Now pay attention, because this is the clever bit, methodology like this is how we arrived at evolution.  It’s not ridiculous, it’s not a religeon.  If a scientist has solid data that shows a part of evolution is wrong, other evolutionist don’t say ‘Darwin made it look that way’.  Instead, once the data has been proven correct, they review the position, and come up with a modified theory that fits all known facts.  AT NO POINT DO THEY SAY – “It’s different to what is in this book and therefore wrong”.

    Oh and there was (and still is) out of wedlock births throughout time in cultures with very strong religeon.  Your Hypothesis Public School causes pregnancy does not fit observed facts.

  27. My experience is that people who use the phase SF outside an USMC setting tend to be…

    We have some regulars here with a very distinguished military career. My universal experience is that people that really achieved something don’t have to advertise it.

  28. We have some regulars here with a very distinguished military career. My universal experience is that people that really achieved something don’t have to advertise it.

    I agree. Over the years I have had a number of freinds in the military. One who I used to fence with was a combat engineer, with both a Green (Royal Marines) and Red (Paratroop) Berets- would be one of the first into any attack.  One of the nicest men I knew- good laugh, intelligent etc. Never boasted. Life expectancy in case of major war – 20 mins.  People who use SF on the net come across as the sort of people who would wear uniform instead of civvies to make sure you knew. Now out new freind Teddy may well be highly decorated, very brave soldier, who has the highest of honours.  However none of that lends any weight on a discussion of evolution. The cry of SF is meaningless, but instead conveys to me ‘I am right due to my military unit’.

  29. Oh spare me. You know what’s odd to me? I have read through a lot of these threads, and all I see are a bunch of atheists slapping each other on the asses in these discussions. Just like all the rest. If I thought that it might be possible to evlevate your discussions to something that might even resemble real dialogue, then I certainly would do that. But these kinds of forums do not exist for the purpose of discussion. They exist to reinforce a faith. And as many who frequent this site point out, faith can be difficult to penetrate with reason.

    I started collecting many comments from these threads that demonstrate the serious inconsistencies in atheistic thought that are so prevalent and are so very nicely preserved in print here for thinking people to see for themselves. Many of your positions on various sub-topics mutate or completely transform depending on what approach fits best to reinforce your belief system on any given major topic. Please don’t mistake this for “critical thinking.” But I think I would do better to show them to real, living people I actually know as opposed to strangers who probably come here to feel good about themselves. Dealing with people face-to-face has a way of eliminating a majority of the nonsense that qualifies as dialogue on blogs. It also has a way of inspiring people to watch their mouths.

    Maybe I’ll come back some time to see if you have evolved.

    SEMPER FI

  30. Ed: Oh spare me.

    And spoil the rod?

    But these kinds of forums do not exist for the purpose of discussion. They exist to reinforce a faith. And as many who frequent this site point out, faith can be difficult to penetrate with reason.

    Tell me about it! Have you ever seen the message boards at Free Republic?

    Maybe I’ll come back some time to see if you have evolved.

    Why don’t you stay? Can’t you handle the heat? I would have thought that you Marines could tolerate this easily.

  31. Oh (T)eddy, don’t be a tease.

    Frankly, just like I don’t give a shit whether you home-school all your indoctrinated little brats, or what you talk about in your church, or whether or not you were USMC, I don’t give a shit about whether you post here or not (sorry, Les).  If you feel your bland snotty bullshit goes over better in person then by all means go find someone to bore.  Maybe our society would be better if people were as willing to argue as strenuously in person as online.  I know, as a Southerner, than there is a social rule against talking religion or politics to people you don’t know.  This seems to surprise people from up North or in other countries, I understand.  I think it is because we know that otherwise quite likeable people can have religious or political opinions that are completely idiotic, but it’d be a shame to lose them as a friend because of it.  One other Southern phenomenon is the complete 180 on “sinning”.  I’ve known some far out fun people who got religion overnight, became sad-ass stick in the mud Christians.  Far more common down here is “Saturday night sinner, Sunday morning saint”.  Although I’ve never understood how you could sing all those hymns with a hangover…

    Many of your positions on various sub-topics mutate or completely transform depending on what approach fits best to reinforce your belief system on any given major topic. Please don’t mistake this for “critical thinking.

  32. I know it’s probably an exercise in futility, but I’ll make one last attempt to engage you in a dialogue, ed:

    I have read through a lot of these threads, and all I see are a bunch of atheists slapping each other on the asses in these discussions. Just like all the rest.

    Sure, we spend some time slapping each other on the ass.  Why not?  I’ve visited lots of forums, and seen Christians, Liberals, Conservatives, and Muslims slapping each other’s asses too.  It’s good harmless fun, and helps to build community.

    But if that’s all you’ve seen here, you haven’t been looking very closely.  Between ass-slapping, there’s a lot of serious reasoning and dialogue- and not just among the atheists here.  For instance, as much as I disagree with Looking4truth, he at least answers questions, and is civil, so there’s an exchange of ideas.  So far, all you’ve been is a troll- calling names, accusing us of all kinds of things, but not answering direct questions or justifying your accusations.  Therefore, it shouldn’t be surprising to you if we start treating you accordingly.

    If I thought that it might be possible to evlevate your discussions to something that might even resemble real dialogue, then I certainly would do that.

    Do it, then.  I’m ready for a real dialogue, and I bet everyone else is too.  Your move.

    But these kinds of forums do not exist for the purpose of discussion.

    No?  Try us.

    Dealing with people face-to-face has a way of eliminating a majority of the nonsense that qualifies as dialogue on blogs.

    If you’re ever in Vienna, or around San Francisco, that can be arranged.  Just send me an e-mail.

    Maybe I’ll come back some time to see if you have evolved.

    Please do.  I for one would like an answer to my question, where you said

    If Christianity IS oppressive (not saying that it is) then it helps the human race according to Darwin.

    and I asked: where does Darwin say this?  A simple question, which you did not deign to answer.

    But I won’t hold my breath, because I think you’ve turned tail and run.  Prove me wrong.

  33. Ted: Maybe I’ll come back some time to see if you have evolved.

    Into what?

    Ted: … that demonstrate the serious inconsistencies in atheistic thought

    I wonder why that is.
    Could it be that we think how we want and if it’s the same as what someone else thinks, that’s good and if not, that’s good?
    Could it be that each of us is free to think how and what we want to?

    NeonCat: Semper Incertus

    Always.
    Buddha said (paraphrased): A wise man gives up some certainty every day.
    There is a Sufi story that goes: A man went to the well one day and a genie told him that if he drank from the well he’d become mad. He didn’t drink and told others as they came to drink but they drank from the well anyway. Soon the whole town was mad. Our man lasted a few weeks before he became so lonely that he drank from the well too and, became mad.

    I have on occasion envied xians in their certainty but, I refuse to drink from the well and give up my sanity. smile

  34. (T)ed: Maybe I’ll come back some time to see if you have evolved.

    You will come back back as long as folks let themselves be provoked by you. Neoncat’s got it right:

    I don’t give a shit about whether you post here or not

  35. LJ, that’s a great story.  I can’t drink from the well.  It isn’t unwillingness, I certainly gave it a good try, but the cup always had holes in it.

    Jesus said; “If any man is thirsty, let him come to me…” but it seems not every one can drink.

  36. Hello all. I’m new here. My name is George. My partner and I live in rural middle Tennessee, and we are homeschooling our daughter, who will be 5 soon. Why? Well, partly to keep her away from all the freekin christians!  LOL
    OK, that is a bit of an oversimplification, but I just wanted to point out that not all homeschooling is done for the same reason.
    In our case, the public shools in our area just plain suck, and show no signs of improving. At this point, most teaching is geared toward the new battery of standardised tests to ensure that no child is left behind. As to the socialisatin issue, well, for a child of non-religious parents in a heavily christian community, that becomes a bit of a non-issue anyway. I’m sure we can alienate her just as well here at home. smirk

  37. Ed, if you are still here and not off face to facing it with some hapless non-believer, please give me a definition of “critical thinking” so i too might be able to participate in your enlightened society.  All I am asking is what your definition of it is and how I can do it.

  38. NC writes…

    I don’t give a shit about whether you post here or not (sorry, Les)

    No need to apologize to me. It’s not like Ted/Ed has contributed anything to the discussion so if he leaves it’s no skin off my nose. Sure I’d like folks to comment, but not if they’re just going to troll.

    Orgmorg writes…

    but I just wanted to point out that not all homeschooling is done for the same reason

    OK I should probably point out something that may not have been particularly clear in the original entry. I’m not necessarily against home schooling. I’ve known a few home schooled people in my time and they had amazingly resourceful parents who gave them a pretty good education comparable, and sometimes better, than what they would’ve gotten in public schools. So it’s not that I don’t think home schooled gets can get as good an education.

    It was the reasons behind the home schooling I was railing against in the original entry. These people want to home school their kids because they don’t want them to be exposed to specific ideas that they don’t agree with. For example, whether you accept the Theory of Evolution or not it’s still the cornerstone of modern biology. Keeping your kids ignorant of the theory doesn’t help them in any real way.

  39. OK I should probably point out something that may not have been particularly clear in the original entry. I’m not necessarily against home schooling.

    Oh, I didn’t take it that way at all, Les.
    I just thought I’d throw in a cute bit of irony.
    grin

  40. It was the reasons behind the home schooling I was railing against in the original entry. These people want to home school their kids because they don’t want them to be exposed to specific ideas that they don’t agree with.

    A point ignored by the troll. Whatever.

    I would homeschool my kids, too, if the alternative was to send them to a school full of kids of batshit crazy True Believers. Exposure to specific ideas we do not entertain are not an issue in that scenario, but exposure to a hostile environment would be a major concern. Kids are cruel enough already without religious bullshit to egg them on.

  41. This might be an appropriate place to post this: Fundamentalists!  Could your church use some money?  Boing Boing is willing to pay a cool $1,000,000 to any individual if they can produce empirical evidence which proves that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Now’s your chance!

  42. Dealing with people face-to-face has a way of eliminating a majority of the nonsense that qualifies as dialogue on blogs.

    I’m a teacher.  I deal with hundreds, face to face, on a daily basis.  I’ve never found that people become more articulate, or their arguments more well reasoned, just because they’ve adopted an oral format that doesn’t allow them to examine opposing perspectives at length, or structure their own responses in a targeted fashion.

    I have known a few marines who will move closer and closer to you, as you disassemble their arguments.  At the time, I thought they were ‘engaging.’  Perhaps they were actually preparing to ‘eliminate the nonsense.’  Hmmm.

    Oh well.  It’s a shame you won’t stay and chat, Ted. 

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds

    (Just thought I’d throw in a little Emerson to hold hands with Whitman)

  43. Sorry if this is off topic, but Zilch’s link got me fired up.
    Here’s my thought on the ID vs. Evol debate.  Well first… HOW THE FUCK IS THERE STILL A DEBATE?  Also, if ID supporters really wanted to get scientific support for their theories, they would go to the scientific community and debate them.  But instead what your seeing is a flux of ID people rushing to politicians and court rooms, and they are forcing their beliefs into the school systems.  All the ID people need to do is debate the scientific community. 

    I remember back in the 70’s (Even though I wasn’t born yet) there was a man in Australia I believe who was trying to tell people that ulsers can be caused by stress as well as other factors.  No one believed him, and for years he presented data and information he collected from studies, till eventually the scientific community accepted his theory.  Why can’t ID do this?  If there are any ID supporters that read this I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you think ID should fight the way they currently are to get ID support.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.