Atheists Prompt Investigation Into History Teacher for ‘Preaching’ Christianity in Class

GSU Richard ChambersSTATESBORO, Ga. — Two self-identified atheist activist organizations have prompted an investigation into a university history teacher in Georgia in the heart of the Bible Belt who they accuse of allegedly preaching Christianity and Creationism in his classroom.

The Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) and the Washington, D.C.-based Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science recently sent a joint letter to the president of Georgia Southern University alleging that Prof. Emerson T. McMullen (“Tom”) is unlawfully promoting religion to his students.

“McMullen appears to use at least some of his class to preach religion instead of teach history,” the letter reads. “Our reports and information indicate that McMullen (1) is known for injecting religion into his classes, (2) gives extra credit to students willing to endure and describe additional proselytizing, and (3) uses his position at a public university to promote religious beliefs like creationism, while undermining legitimate sciences, like biology.”

It contends that because McMullen allegedly speaks positively on Christianity in the classroom, and refutes evolution, that he is violating the U.S. Constitution.

“McMullen not only lowers the reputation and standards of this university, but has created serious constitutional problems,” the groups wrote. “As a public university, GSU is subject to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which separates state and church. … Creationism cannot be taught as scientific fact in public schools.”

The letter further asserts that the professor’s “preaching threatens the integrity of a GSU degree,” and asks that McMullen be investigated and consequently ordered to “cease and desist.”

McMullen, who has been teaching for 24 years and became a Christian many years ago while working as a scientist, teaches courses at Georgia Southern University that include “The Scientific Revolution” and “Science and Religion,” as well as World History. But the professor told the Statesboro Herald that while he is unashamed about his Christian beliefs, he denies that he attempts to evangelize students in class.

  • Connect with Christian News

 

“I don’t try to convert anybody,” he told the outlet. “In some of my classes, like for instance, World History I, we’re doing Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and then Christianity, and then later Islam, and also, I might add Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism.”

Links on the university website include talks that McMullen has presented at various outlets, including a 2001 speech at the Annual Meeting of the Georgia Academy of Science on “The Biblical Basis of Modern Science,” as well as book and movie reviews, such as “Why the Spokane Indians Converted to Christianity.” McMullen also includes text to sermons he has delivered in the past, such as “Curing a Sick Society,” preached to Liberty Presbyterian Church over a decade ago.

He acknowledges that he recently offered students extra credit for writing about a scene in the film “God’s Not Dead,” where a student and his professor debate the existence of God, but says that he also offered another option, and often covers a variety of scientists and philosophers.

“So we cover a lot of topics that could be interpreted as me preaching in the classroom,” McMullen said. “I don’t preach creationism. … [Students] can disagree. That’s what the whole thing about academia is, you know, that there’s a freedom of thought to examine different issues.”

The university states that it is now investigating McMullen, who is an “A” rated professor among students.

Photo: Richard Chambers


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Neiman

    And they say there is no war on Christianity – nonsense.

    They invoke the Establishment clause to essentially say you cannot refute or debate Evolution, which is the official state religion, if you mention or allow discussions of alternative explanations like Creation Science, you are proselytizing and are guilty of a crime against the State. Creation Science is science, it is just not their interpretation of the scientific data. They destroy careers, refuse tenure and publications of their work if they do no submit totally to the godless and unproven theory of evolution. They live in fear of the Truth and like bullies it is either submit or die professionally.

    What he teaches or lectures on or publishes outside the university is none of their business and unless they can prove he makes an altar call to get people to convert, he is not violating the Constitution as it includes a free exercise clause which clause all anti-Christs hate.

    • Ralph Spoilsport

      And they say there is no war on Christianity – nonsense.

      There isn’t. Government employees can’t misuse their position to push their religion. It usually goes against Christians in this country, simply because Christians are usually the only ones boorish enough to do this.

      Creation Science is science,

      No, it isn’t. You can’t just put “science” in a name and pretend it’s scientific. US court opinions like Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District have stated that it’s religion, not science.

      • Neiman

        The 1st Amendment not only does not say faith must stop at the school, courthouse or government door; it forbids the Congress from ever passing any such law and any court that rules otherwise is legislating from the bench.

        Science is science, the data is all the same, it is the interpretation of that data that is different and that should be the object of science, explore every alternative explanation of the data. The courts have declared atheism, and secular humanism a religion and evolution is the disreputable science of atheism and secular humanism. So that religion is okay in our schools, but not Christianity and that because the Liberal courts hate Christ and the Church.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          The 1st Amendment not only does not say faith must stop at the school,

          I never said otherwise. However, the first amendment (and the courts) HAVE said that government officials can’t push religion when they’re acting in their official capacity.

          Science is science, the data is all the same

          Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District still found that creationism and intelligent design were not science.

          • Neiman

            The 1st Amendment does NOT say that government officials may not share their religious faith even on the job, in their official capacity; the establishment clause only prevents the Federal Government from establishing a National Church/Denomination.

            I don’t care what some liberal court has decided, they are wrong. It is the same scientific data, exactly the same, so how can it be good data when evolutionists use it and not good data when Christians use it? The difference is the interpretation of that data and the court decided that atheist scientific interpretations were superior to Christian scientific interpretations, they took sides, they chose the religion of atheism as the official national religion and they violated the Constitution. Our national religion is atheism!

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The 1st Amendment does NOT say that government officials may not share their religious faith even on the job, in their official capacity; the establishment clause only prevents the Federal Government from establishing a National Church/Denomination.

            The courts don’t agree with your interpretation.

            I don’t care what some liberal court has decided, they are wrong.

            You may continue to ignore reality.

          • Neiman

            A lie is still a lie! I don’t care if the Supreme Court and the whole world conspires to promote a lie, it remains a lie.

            Isn’t it strange that from the Pilgrims, through the Founding Fathers and until that anti-Christ pig Justice Hugo Black, our federal government NEVER made that interpretation? Isn’t it strange that his wholly false decision was based on a single line, from a single letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he was trying to assure them that if elected President he had no plans to name a National Christian denomination as our Federal Church?

            The reality is that the Founding Fathers, those people designing the Bill of Rights, never intended the kind of separation that Hugo Black and the damnable Warren Court has forced upon this once mostly Christian nation. It is you that ignores reality, that denies the truth.

            Lastly, the Supreme Court has done exactly that, they have made atheism, something they called a religion, as our National Religion, our Federal mandated Church.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            A lie is still a lie!

            Well, you might try reading what Madison wrote about the first amendment.

            I don’t care if the Supreme Court and the whole world conspires to promote a lie, it remains a lie.

            You still need to deal with the real world, where their opinion holds and yours does not.

            Isn’t it strange that from the Pilgrims, through the Founding Fathers and until that anti-Christ pig Justice Hugo Black, our federal government NEVER made that interpretation?

            Not really. Before the 14th amendment incorporated the first amendment against state goverments, there really weren’t a lot of cases, since it would need to involved the federal government. Before then, states could have official state religions (MA did until 1833).

            The reality is that the Founding Fathers, those people designing the Bill of Rights, never intended the kind of separation that Hugo Black and the damnable Warren Court has forced upon this once mostly Christian nation.

            Too bad for you, I guess.

            Lastly, the Supreme Court has done exactly that, they have made atheism, something they called a religion, as our National Religion, our Federal mandated Church.

            No, they haven’t. Now you’re just delusional.

          • Neiman

            You selectively choose any quotes which seem, to support your atheist view of the United States. You ignore those by other founding fathers that declared this country be a union of 13 Christian colonies. Your ignore those quotes by the Founding Fathers that said this country was founded upon Christian principles. I don’t want to play dueling quotations, but here are just a couple from John Adams that you might find interesting:

            The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.
            – John Adams

            The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
            – John Adams

            There is nothing in the Constitution or the First Amendment, which gives the federal government the right to impose its will on the states as it impacts their religious preferences.

            No, the lie of Separation of Church and State is not too bad just for me, it is bad for the nation. Once we turned our back on God and said he was persona non grata in all of our public affairs, He removed his divine protection from our land. Since that time our country has been waging an out and out war against the Christian faith and only the Christian faith. Since 1962, we had the sexual revolution, the rise of the drug culture, riots, assassinations, the most unpopular war in United States history and we gave birth, pardon the pun, to the worst baby Holocaust in human history. Our country has suffered economically, militarily and politically to the place where we are no longer the strongest or the biggest economy in the world, we are no longer the strongest military power and our influence in the world has faded away until it, for all intent and purposes, no longer exists. Too bad for me? No too bad for America as it descends into the abyss and becomes a Third World nation plagued by poverty, violence and has become a culture of death.

            Atheism and secular humanism have been declared religions, they, through their godless liberal allies, have forced virtually any mention of the Christian faith out of the public square, out of our public buildings, out of our institutions and have replaced that faith with godless evolution and atheism. Thus the United States Supreme Court has changed the United States into a de facto atheist state, the religion of atheism is now the official State Religion of the United States.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You selectively choose any quotes which seem, to support your atheist view of the United States.

            No, that’s what you just did.

            The courts agree with me and not with you. I suggest you deal with it.

            Atheism and secular humanism have been declared religions, they, through their godless liberal allies, have forced virtually any mention of the Christian faith out of the public square, out of our public buildings, out of our institutions and have replaced that faith with godless evolution and atheism. Thus the United States Supreme Court has changed the United States into a de facto atheist state, the religion of atheism is now the official State Religion of the United States.

            Like I said, you’re delusional.

          • Neiman

            Game, set, match! Thanks for playing our game, there are no booby prizes, but better luck next time

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Giving up I see.

          • Neiman

            You lost sport!

          • Pax Humana

            Yes, you are delusional, Ralphie boy. Thank you for admitting that you are insane, so go get some ACTUAL professional help, okay? Thank you.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I’m delusional because I don’t believe that “the United States Supreme Court has changed the United States into a de facto atheist state”?

          • syllyn

            Yes, as you note, we’ve done a really great job! You should be down on your knees thanking us.

          • Shelley Jansen Kenow

            Science continually points to intelligent design, evolution has never been proven conclusively therefore it is a theory just as creationism is a theory. Why is science so worried about kids being taught other theories? Is it because when one further researches evolution rather than just believe what a teacher tells them they find many holes and lots of inconsistencies and changes to the idea? It takes just as much if not more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than the theory of creationism. If you properly do your research you will see that evolutionism is a theory but at some point scientists started “forgetting” to add the theory and began touting it as fact.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Science continually points to intelligent design, evolution has never been proven conclusively therefore it is a theory just as creationism is a theory.

            Evolution is a theory, just like the theory of gravity, and theories like the germ theory of disease. Creationism isn’t a theory, because it doesn’t make testable claims.

            Why is science so worried about kids being taught other theories?

            Why not teach the flat earth theory? Why not teach the geocetric theory? There are creationists who believe the sun goes around the earth, should we teach kids the controversy?

            It takes just as much if not more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than the theory of creationism.

            Evolution has been observed.

          • Shelley Jansen Kenow

            Evolution has been observed…by you or a bunch of people you don’t know who say that evolution has been observed?

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Evolution has been observed…by you or a bunch of people you don’t know who say that evolution has been observed?

            By a bunch of people I don’t know. Are you proposing a world-wide, centuries-long conspiracy?

          • Shelley Jansen Kenow

            No, I’m asking because the people who believe in the theory of creationism also believe it because “a bunch of people they don’t know” have done research as well, as well as there is the whole Book thing that documented how the world began that hasn’t changed ever, unlike the scientific study of the theory of evolution which is constantly changing

          • Guest

            I thought I had responded to your comment a few days ago, but the thread is telling me there is no reply. Please forgive me if you are getting this reply twice.
            I asked the question because you personally have not observed evolution yet you believe it to be 100% true because you have read about it in a book and you were taught the theory in school. The same is true for those who believe in the theory of creationism. However, there is a slight difference. The Bible has not changed it’s story at all, but the theory of evolution keeps changing to fit the “new” findings.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I asked the question because you personally have not observed evolution yet you believe it to be 100% true because you have read about it in a book and you were taught the theory in school.

            Wrong. You shouldn’t try a career as a mindreader.

            The Bible has not changed it’s story at all, but the theory of evolution keeps changing to fit the “new” findings.

            One of the big strengths that science has over all religions is its ability to correct mistakes; religions claim they had everything right from day one — but that doesn’t explain why slavery used to be considered moral by many religions, but no longer is.

            Are you really trying to argue that error correction is a FAULT?

      • jmichael39

        The mistake here is in assuming that teaching ID is the same as teaching that the “Designer” is the God of the Bible. There is NOTHING in the ID curriculum that proclaims that the Designer of the Universe is the God of the Bible. ID is purely based upon science. The absolute only reason it is rejected is because the personal religion of most of the scientific community (especially those in positions of power) is Secular Humanism. They simply have to reject any scientific conclusion that refutes their fundamental religious dogma. There is no choice but to reject the science that led to the ID conclusion or to fundamentally alter their own religious conclusions.

        That is the basic argument of ID advocates against the choice to teach evolution (both micro evolution which ID scientists access and macro evolution which has conflicting theories even among evolutionists) to the exclusion of other scientific conclusions. Why should the religious advocates of secular humanism be afforded a special place in our schools to the exclusion of other scientific studies which are only rejected because they don’t lead to the same religions conclusions of the secular humanists?

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          There is NOTHING in the ID curriculum that proclaims that the Designer of the Universe is the God of the Bible.

          It’s pretty obvious that that’s what it’s pushing, though.

          In any case, it still isn’t science, regardless of your protests to the contrary.

          • jmichael39

            You don’t have a stinking clue what you’re talking about. You’ve probably never even read an ID paper or book before, have you? Didn’t think so.

            It doesn’t matter what you or anyone else thinks is “pretty obvious” about the conclusions of ID. They NEVER make those assumptions nor do they present that as such. Again, its pretty clear you’ve never even read an ID paper or book.

            Be well…return when you can actually engage in an informed debate.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You mean “Of Pandas and People” that contained the cut & paste typo of “cdesign proponentsists” that made it obvious it was originally about “creationism” and just changed a few words to make it about “intelligent design”?

          • jmichael39

            Ah you found something pathetic on a google search and use that to argue…what? that you haven’t read anything but can pretend like you did?

            Try reading Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer or Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology by William Dembsky and Michael Behe or Discovering Intelligent Design: A Journey in Scientific Evidence by Gary and Hallie Kemper

            Or the Discovering Intelligent Design Textbook by Gary and Hallie Kemper and Casey Luskin. Epistemology & Science Education: Understanding the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Controversy by Roger Taylor and Michael Farrari

            You know, REAL books.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Ah you found something pathetic on a google search and use that to argue…what?

            No, I knew about it off the top of my head. It’s a very well-known Creationist blunder that made it obvious that intelligent design was the same as creationism.

            Try reading the Dover decision. You know, REAL legal verdicts on whether intelligent design is science. It isn’t.

          • jmichael39

            The court cases will begin to change now that Secular Humanism and its atheistic dogma has been, again, declared a religion in American Humanist Association v. United States. Secular Humanists will soon or later no longer be allowed to set the standard for what represents science and what doesn’t based upon the anti-theistic dogma.

            Your accusations about the alterations to the textbook are as absurd as the ruling in that case. Textbooks revise all the time. The content to the Pandas textbook were removed several years before the edition of the book being used by Dover at the time of the case. The entirety of Jones’ ruling was based off one line in that edition that had not been properly removed (like all the rest of the references to Creationism) from the prior editions.

            Even that was foolishly interpreted as meaning the book was advocating Creationism, when the context of it was purely in reference to Creationism. That would not make the book or its advocates any more proponents of Creationism than a textbook referencing Hitler would make the authors or readers advocates of Nazism.

            A skeptic or critic of ID could argue the very reasonable point that if instances of “creation” can easily be changed out by substituting the term, “intelligent design,” then this is a problem for ID. If the two terms are interchangeable in that the meaning of the text is not altered, then one should be able to conclude ID and creationism are synonymous.

            My response to this would be that this situation does not exist today. The word processing glitch occurred in 1987. The 1987 edition of the text was in error. ID Theory is much different than it was in 1987. By the time of the Dover trial in 2005, ID had already advanced beyond obsolete creation terminology. The Of Pandas and People textbook version being used in Dover had been corrected, with all creationism content removed from the book.

            The predecessor of the textbook was a biology textbook under the title, Creation Biology Textbook Supplements. Although the book employed the term “creationism,” there was actually no creationism in the original or subsequent editions of the text. The book attempted to remove any bias toward any particular view, including creationism. In fact, that was how the book was marketed, it was advertised specifically to be an unbiased textbook. This is all decades ago now. The authors of the original text believe it was only fair to ACKNOWLEDGE creationism, since it is impossible to discuss the controversy without actually reference the terms “creation” and “evolution.”

            There really was no creationism content in the textbook to begin with. Aside from the infamous paragraph that references fish appearing fully formed with fins, and birds fully formed with feathers, beaks, and wings, another sentence in the text reads as follows:

            “The basic metabolic pathways of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

            These are the strongest examples of creationism that can be found in the text. Although this references creationism, there is no attempt to instruct creationism, any philosophical aspect of creationism, or indoctrinate any philosophical contemplation whatsoever. It merely acknowledges that there is an alternate viewpoint, much like an anthropology textbook might mention various superstitutions held by an American Indian tribe somewhere, or aborigines in Australia.

            See – http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/contrasting-biblical-creationism-to-id-theory/

            http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697
            I would especially read the latter paper by Michael Behe. Of course, I did notice that you conveniently ignored the rest of my previous post. Thus I am making this statement at the very end of this post to see if you’re just one of those people who read everything their opponents post and just choose to ignore anything that they can’t argue against. Or if you’re one of those type who read only as you need to in order to say something against some element of your opponent’s post. Either way…sad. Try responding in total next time. It makes you look less foolish.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The court cases will begin to change now that Secular Humanism and its atheistic dogma has been, again, declared a religion in American Humanist Association v. United States.

            No, it won’t. Public schools don’t promote atheism.

            Your accusations about the alterations to the textbook are as absurd as the ruling in that case.

            The ruling still stands. ID isn’t science.

            Thus I am making this statement at the very end of this post to see if you’re just one of those people who read everything their opponents post and just choose to ignore anything that they can’t argue against.

            No, it’s just that I have much better things to do with my time.

            Your assertions are idiotic.

          • Guest

            “No, it won’t. Public schools don’t promote atheism.” – Sure they do. They allow virtually no other dogma to be taught there.

            “The ruling still stands. ID isn’t science.” – You obviously didn’t really read the case, did you. The Court only attempted to define “sc

            As Michael Behe said, “The Court finds that intelligent design (ID) is not science. In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: “science” is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word “science” belongs to that
            community and to no one else. Thus, in the Court’s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science. Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood.

            “On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: “science” is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science.”

            But who are the people behind these “prominent scientific organizations”? Or more succinctly, who are the people behind these prominent organizations? I would bet big that the vast majority, if not the entire, leadership core of every one of these organizations are secular humanists. Oops…not the same religious organization with an atheistic dogma? Wow… At this point, it seems pretty clear to me that there is only one reason why these organizations reject ID as the science it is…they cannot separate the ‘implications’ of the ID theories from the theory itself. Which, of course, does seem to be your problem as well…otherwise you wouldn’t be clinging so precariously to court rulings rather than real science.

            “No, it’s just that I have much better things to do with my time.” – sure, keep telling yourself that. You’re the idiot, if you honestly think anyone would believe that BS. You wouldn’t come to sites like this to troll you obscenely illogical beliefs if you “have better to do”. LMAO

            Your entire argument relies upon a judge to tell you what ‘science’ is….lmao. That’s almost as quaint as living your life based upon the negative existential truth claim that there is no god…as if you could possibly ever prove that or know that with absolute certainty. You live under a self-refuting world view and are thrilled that some judge affirmed that worldview?! LOL. That’s honestly hilarious.
            Read the link I shared with Behe’s analysis of the court decision…which he personally testified in.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            “No, it won’t. Public schools don’t promote atheism.” – Sure they do. They allow virtually no other dogma to be taught there.

            They don’t teach that gods don’t exist, either. Not teaching anything about gods (which is what US public schools are supposed to do) isn’t teaching atheism. It’s being neutral about gods.

          • jmichael39

            “No, it won’t. Public schools don’t promote atheism.” – Sure they do. They allow virtually no other dogma to be taught there.

            “The ruling still stands. ID isn’t science.” – You obviously didn’t really read the case, did you. As Michael Behe said, “The Court finds that intelligent design (ID) is not science. In its legal analysis, the Court takes what I would call a restricted sociological view of science: “science” is what the consensus of the community of practicing scientists declares it to be. The word “science” belongs to that community and to no one else. Thus, in the Court’s reasoning, since prominent science organizations have declared intelligent design to not be science, it is not science. Although at first blush that may seem reasonable, the restricted sociological view of science risks conflating the presumptions and prejudices of the current group of practitioners with the way physical reality must be understood.”

            “On the other hand, like myself most of the public takes a broader view: “science” is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence. By those lights, intelligent design is indeed science.”

            But who are the people behind these “prominent scientific organizations”? Or more succinctly, who are the people behind these prominent organizations? I would bet big that the vast majority, if not the entire, leadership core of every one of these organizations are secular humanists. Oops…not the same religious organization with an atheistic dogma? Wow… At this point, it seems pretty clear to me that there is only one reason why these organizations reject ID as the science it is…they cannot separate the ‘implications’ of the ID theories from the theory itself. Which, of course, does seem to be your problem as well…otherwise you wouldn’t be clinging so precariously to court rulings rather than real science.

            “No, it’s just that I have much better things to do with my time.” – sure, keep telling yourself that. You’re the idiot, if you honestly think anyone would believe that BS. You wouldn’t come to sites like this to troll you obscenely illogical beliefs if you “have better to do”. LMAO

            Your entire argument relies upon a judge to tell you what ‘science’ is….lmao. That’s almost as quaint as living your life based upon the negative existential truth claim that there is no god…as if you could possibly ever prove that or know that with absolute certainty. You live under a self-refuting world view and are thrilled that some judge affirmed that worldview?! LOL. That’s honestly hilarious.
            Read the link I shared with Behe’s analysis of the court decision…which he personally testified in.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            “No, it won’t. Public schools don’t promote atheism.” – Sure they do. They allow virtually no other dogma to be taught there.

            No, they don’t. Cite any public school in the US that explicitly teaches that gods don’t exist. There aren’t any.

            As Michael Behe said, “The Court finds that intelligent design (ID) is not science.

            Which agrees with what I’ve been saying. ID isn’t science.

            Your entire argument relies upon a judge to tell you what ‘science’ is….lmao.

            Wrong. But I like to deal with reality, and ID can’t be taught in US public schools because the courts have found that teaching ID is teaching religion. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s science.

            Read the link I shared with Behe’s analysis of the court decision…which he personally testified in.

            His side lost.

          • jmichael39

            “No, they don’t. Cite any public school in the US that explicitly teaches that gods don’t exist. There aren’t any.” – You’re either incredibly naïve or blatantly trying to be deceptive. The arrogant rejection of any god but “no god” is all the proof one needs that your religion is the religion of our schools. That was NEVER that way for the first 175 years of this country. Nor did the Founders ever intend it to be that way. If the Founders honestly viewed “separation of church and state” to mean that our schools should be void of God altogether they would have made sure such was the case in our early schools. No, its only been since the late 40s and more dramatically, since the late 50s and beyond that atheists have successfully forced all religions but their religion of no god on to our kids. And that is best seen in our science classes where any theory but the theories that reject the notion of a designer which can be implied to extend to the notion of a god.

            “Which agrees with what I’ve been saying. ID isn’t science.” – that’s all you got out of what I quoted from Behe or from the link to his rebuttal on the court decision? How sickeningly pathetic.

            “Wrong. But I like to deal with reality, and ID can’t be taught in US public schools because the courts have found that teaching ID is teaching religion. It doesn’t matter if you think it’s science.” – sounding like Obama at that joint meeting they had over Obamacare when he essentially flipped the bird to McCain and said, “I won, you lost…so screw you”. Yeah, you hide behind the court’s ruling. Its a lovely thing how the courts have completely re-written the Constitution through judicial activism. As recently as the mid-seventies, as many as a third of the science teachers in America were still teaching Creation alongside or even in place of evolution.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            “No, they don’t. Cite any public school in the US that explicitly teaches that gods don’t exist. There aren’t any.”

            You’re either incredibly naïve or blatantly trying to be deceptive.

            No.

            You are deliberately lying.

            The arrogant rejection of any god but “no god” is all the proof one needs that your religion is the religion of our schools.

            So GIVE ME AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE. Give me the NAME of a school, and cite how they have been teaching that gods don’t exist.

            You’re lying, because there aren’t any. I’m sure you will continue to dodge the question and never name a specific school because you’re just lying.

            And that is best seen in our science classes where any theory but the theories that reject the notion of a designer which can be implied to extend to the notion of a god.

            Look, idiot, teaching without mentioning gods isn’t teaching atheism. Saying “2+2=4” doesn’t mention gods, but it isn’t teaching atheism, either.

          • jmichael39

            “So GIVE ME AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE. Give me the NAME of a school, and cite how they have been teaching that gods don’t exist.

            “You’re lying, because there aren’t any. I’m sure you will continue to dodge the question and never name a specific school because you’re just lying.”

            You honestly are lying or are belligerently trying to be deceptive. I don’t have to show you anything. You show me a single public school that ALLOWS for a teacher to teach about the existence of God. There are none. They’re not allowed because the only religion permitted in the schools is the religion of atheism. There was even an instance recently where one student was taken from his seat in the cafeteria and reprimanded for praying over his lunch. And you tell me I’m wrong about how God was permitted into the schools for the first 175 years (+/-) in this country’s history. So now, suddenly, without a single change to the Constitution that was interpreted to permit that for 175 years, our Constitution DOESN’T permit it? You keep ignoring that fact…how do you explain that?

            “Look, idiot, teaching without mentioning gods isn’t teaching atheism. Saying “2+2=4″ doesn’t mention gods, but it isn’t teaching atheism, either.” – That’s a lovely little straw man there, but you and I both know that’s a completely fallacious argument.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You honestly are lying or are belligerently trying to be deceptive. I don’t have to show you anything.

            You CAN’T show me anything, because you’re lying.

            There is no US public school that teaches that gods don’t exist.

            You show me a single public school that ALLOWS for a teacher to teach about the existence of God.

            There aren’t any, at least none that do it legally. Some teachers do so, but once the ACLU or the FFRF hears about it, they get shut down, because public schools have to stay neutral on religion.

            But that only shows how you’re lying. You have to move the goalposts to even come up with a reply.

          • jmichael39

            You can make obscene accusations against me all you want, moron. But its contingent upon you to prove your idiotic accusations. Show me a single public school that allows its teachers to even speak of God or Jesus or the Bible. Show me where any science teacher is permitted to speak of any theory of the origins of life that can even imply the existence of what can be called God. Your religion has forced out any religion but your own. Prove me wrong.

            “There aren’t any, at least none that do it legally. Some teachers do so, but once the ACLU or the FFRF hears about it, they get shut down, because public schools have to stay neutral on religion.” – and thus you finally admit I am right. You and your religion have successfully forced yourselves into our schools and government as the unofficial official state religion and push any alternative religion out. Proud of yourself? I’m sure you are.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You can make obscene accusations against me all you want, moron. But its contingent upon you to prove your idiotic accusations.

            You haven’t yet shown any public school that teaches gods don’t exist.

            Show me a single public school that allows its teachers to even speak of God or Jesus or the Bible.

            There aren’t any. It’s illegal. Public schools do NOT have the authority to teach religion, as that infringes on the religious rights of both the students and their parents.

            Why do you hate religious freedom?

            Show me where any science teacher is permitted to speak of any theory of the origins of life that can even imply the existence of what can be called God.

            There aren’t any, because public schools can’t teach religion.

            and thus you finally admit I am right.

            No, you’re an idiot. You can’t even understand the issues at stake.

          • jmichael39

            And you haven’t shown any school that permits a teacher to teach there IS a God. If fact, you brag about the fact that they aren’t allowed to by law. Thus, proving my point that only the concept of no-god is permitted in the schools by default.
            And yet, here you are accusing ME of being against religious freedom, when you advocate for the rejection of all religions but your own from the schools. What a sickening display of hypocrisy. If you’re so tolerant of other religions, why is that the only scientific theories allowed in science classes are ones the implicitly reject the possibility of a Designer?

            Oh, right, cause those theories are not based upon real science.
            Who says?
            Judge Jones.
            What are Judge Jones’ credentials to decide what is “real” science?
            He doesn’t have any. He relied on real scientists to tell him what “real science” and what it is not.
            And who are these ‘real scientists’? And what is their personal religion?
            “Real scientists” are those who reject any science that leads to a conclusion that they don’t like. And the religion of most of them is Secular Humanism/atheism.
            Well that makes perfect sense. Of course they would only call science that agrees with their life views to be considered “real science” .
            So, essentially, you argument against allowing God in the classrooms is that its illegal, but it wasn’t illegal for 175+ years of this country’s history. And even though no amendment has altered the Constitution to change that, because some activist judges decided that 175 years of interpreting the Constitution was wrong. Considering the level of illogic and hypocrisy that comes from people like you…I can certainly understand how you came to your conclusions.
            Have a nice Thanksgiving. God bless you.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            And you haven’t shown any school that permits a teacher to teach there IS a God.

            As I KEEP TELLING YOU, AND YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND, there IS NO SUCH SCHOOL BECAUSE IT’S ILLEGAL.

            Until you can understand what I write, it’s pointless to go on. You’re a complete moron.

          • jmichael39

            You’re such an ignorant hypocrite. And for the first 175+ years of this country nothing like that was illegal. So what’s changed? I keep asking you that and you keep conveniently ignoring it. I suppose I can understand why. When an activist judge rewrites the Constitution to suit your worldview, its foolish to ask why that’s okay. I suppose you’ll actually care when and if a judge does the same unconstitutional act against your worldview.

            But THANKS SO MUCH FOR YELLING AND SCREAMING LIKE A F_____G IDIOT.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            And for the first 175+ years of this country nothing like that was illegal. So what’s changed?

            The 14th amendment applied the first amendment to the states.

            I keep asking you that and you keep conveniently ignoring it.

            No, I’ve answered you many times. You’re just stupid.

          • jmichael39

            What the heck does the ‘incorporation’ argument concerning the 14amendment have to do with the application of the Establishment Clause on the inclusion of God and Religion in schools for the first 175+ years of this country. The 14th amendment didn’t change any of that. Even if you could argue that, absent the Blaine Amendment attempt, the 14th Amendment incorporated the Establishment Clause to the states, nothing in that argument suspends the intended and longstanding accepting meaning of the Establishment Clause.

            On March 6, 1799, President John Adams issued a proclamation “Recommending a National Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer”–for “thanksgiving to the Author of All Good.”

            Among the things Adams wished Americans would ask God on this day was to make American schools teach not only sound science but also sound morals and religion.

            Americans, Adams said, should ask God to “smile on our colleges, academies, schools, and seminaries of learning, and make them nurseries of sound science, morals, and religion.”

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            What the heck does the ‘incorporation’ argument concerning the 14amendment have to do with the application of the Establishment Clause on the inclusion of God and Religion in schools for the first 175+ years of this country.

            Besides everything?

            Before the 14th amendment was applied against the states, states could pass pretty much any legislation on religion. They could have an official state religion supported by tax money — Massachusetts did until 1833. Public schools were run by the states, and states could use public schools to teach whatever religion they voted in.

            They can’t do that now, because the first amendment now applies to state laws, too.

            Why do you oppose religious freedom, anyway?

            You do realize that having public schools teach religion is taking away parents’ rights to teach THEIR religion to their own children, and instead you want the GOVERNMENT to teach some official government religion to schoolchildren, don’t you? And that genuine religious freedom means that parents get to decide what religion(s) to teach their own children?

            Why do you want an official government religion? It probably won’t be yours.

          • jmichael39

            “Before the 14th amendment was applied against the states, states could pass pretty much any legislation on religion…They can’t do that now, because the first amendment now applies to state laws, too.” – SO WHAT? That doesn’t change the meaning of the Establishment Clause, which, before somewhere around 1947 or so, had NEVER been ruled to mean that religion or God could not be taught in the schools. In fact, just the opposite was true for the entirety of the United States until that time.

            The only thing your argument answers is why the states could inject religion and God into schools before 1868. You still haven’t explained why anyone would suddenly think that the Establishment Clause meant that God and Religion should no longer be allowed in schools. It was NEVER interpreted to mean that under any condition (schools or otherwise) until the late 1940s and there was no amendment to the Constitution that would warrant re-interpreting the Establishment Clause.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            SO WHAT?

            That’s why public schools could teach religion in the past.

            That doesn’t change the meaning of the Establishment Clause, which, before somewhere around 1947 or so, had NEVER been ruled to mean that religion or God could not be taught in the schools.

            Because public schools were state-run.

            You still haven’t explained why anyone would suddenly think that the Establishment Clause meant that God and Religion should no longer be allowed in schools.

            That isn’t what I’ve been saying. I’ve said before that students can promote their own religious views. And public schools can, for example, teach a class on comparative religion. Your statement is way too broad to be correct.

          • jmichael39

            “That’s why public schools could teach religion in the past.” – again SO WHAT? Even if you could argue that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Establishment Clause to the states, the Establishment Clause was NEVER interpreted to mean that anything run by the government must therefore exclude any religion or reference to God…not until the Courts ruled otherwise in 1947. So AGAIN, I ask, what changed in the Constitution that made it so that the Court in 1947 felt they should suddenly start interpreting the Establishment Clause to mean that God and Religion should be forbade from anything run by the government?

            “That isn’t what I’ve been saying. I’ve said before that students can promote their own religious views.” Nothing in the Establishment clause was ever interpreted to ever forbid even publicly paid employees from promoting their own religious views either. So AGAIN, what changed to make it so that suddenly come 1947 that the Courts felt they could or should interpret the Establish Clause to mean that public officials cannot express their religious views?

            Oh, and since I missed a couple of your earlier points:

            “You do realize that having public schools teach religion is taking away parents’ rights to teach THEIR religion to their own children” – that a hogwash false dichotomy. It is not an either or issue and you know it.

            ” instead you want the GOVERNMENT to teach some official government religion to schoolchildren” – Another false dichotomy. Don’t you grow tired of being so illogical. I have never remotely suggested any one religion being taught over another. In fact, I’m arguing AGAINST that since the only REAL religion that seemingly allowed into our schools now is that of the Atheist religion. By refusing to allow even the discussion of theistic religions in classrooms it, by default, advocates the a-theistic religion. I’m demanding that theistic viewpoints be allowed in the schools…even presented by teachers.

            “Why do you want an official government religion? It probably won’t be yours.” – more logical fallacies….I have NOT promoted a government sponsored religion. I have, as I just said, rejected that notion and stand against the religion of atheism to be the only religion promoted in our schools.

          • jmichael39

            “No, I’ve answered you many times. You’re just stupid.” – really? Show me where you answered this part of my posts “many times”. You can’t. Cause you didn’t. You’re nothing but a pathological liar.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Show me where you answered this part of my posts “many times”.

            Here:

            “There aren’t any, at least none that do it legally. ”

            “As I KEEP TELLING YOU, AND YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND, there IS NO SUCH SCHOOL BECAUSE IT’S ILLEGAL.”

          • jmichael39

            You are so insanely STUPID. I have been asking you this entire time to explain one thing to me regarding your LEGAL argument. HOW has the Constitution suddenly, after 175+ years of never interpreting the Establishment Clause to mean the exclusion of religion or God in schools, been changed to mean the exact opposite. And your ONLY response to that was to bring in the 14th Amendment…which did NOTHING to alter the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

            Now answer the question or go back to kindergarten where your education level seems to have been stunted.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            And your ONLY response to that was to bring in the 14th Amendment…which did NOTHING to alter the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

            It applied it to state governments. Before that, states could have official state religions, teach it in their public schools, etc.

            I keep telling you this.

          • jmichael39

            That DOESN’T answer the question, you moron. The Establish Clause was NEVER interpreted to mean that God and religion should be excluded from government, schools or any public arena prior to 1947….and no amendment to the Constitution changed that.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The Establish Clause was NEVER interpreted to mean that God and religion should be excluded from government, schools or any public arena prior to 1947

            You might want to read what Madison wrote about it.

          • jmichael39

            I’ve read his Detached Memorandum. And as is typical of people with your argument, you view his statements there from the perspective of a false dichotomy. You think that Madison’s views on having a single denomination as the state church and his observations of corruption when that happens must therefore mean he means that religion has no place in government or in the public arenas. But a closer view of ALL his writings on the subject, not just the memorandum, reveals that while he was against giving favor to one denomination over another, he was, by far, in favor of religion being infused into the political process.

            “I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.”

            And btw, this is Madison’s original wording for the Establishment Clause…”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any NATIONAL religion be established.” Nothing to do with keeping religion out of the public arena.

            And despite his views on paid chaplains as written in the memorandum, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains in 1789.

            In 1812, he signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.

            And throughout his presidency he endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.

            There are some who aren’t even sure that Madison wrote that memorandum since it was not found until 1946, conveniently just before the first cases I mentioned earlier, and there is nothing in any other writings or public statements or actions of his that reflect the views on religion expressed in the Memorandum.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            And btw, this is Madison’s original wording for the Establishment Clause…”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any NATIONAL religion be established.”

            You omitted this part: “, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.”

            Instead you ended it with a period, instead of a comma, as if that was the whole amendment.

            And despite his views on paid chaplains as written in the memorandum, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains in 1789.

            He changed his mind, as he wrote in M&R.

            Anyway, it’s just too bad for you that the courts don’t agree with your position.

          • jmichael39

            And too bad dipweeds like you actually think activist courts are a good thing. Oh well, I guess that kid who was harassed by the VP of the school for saying a prayer over his lunch should get ready to live in a country where morons like you successfully turn this country from one where we have freedom OF religion into one where were have only one religion…the religion of atheism.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            And too bad dipweeds like you actually think activist courts are a good thing.

            I think religious freedom is better than having government-imposed religion like you’ve been advocating.

            Oh well, I guess that kid who was harassed by the VP of the school for saying a prayer over his lunch should get ready to live in a country where morons like you successfully turn this country from one where we have freedom OF religion into one where were have only one religion…the religion of atheism.

            Now you’re just lying about my position. I’ve already stated numerous times that students have religious freedom in public schools.

            Stop being dishonest.

            Thanks for finally admitting you have no answer.

            I haven’t. You’re being dishonest again.

          • jmichael39

            “Now you’re just lying about my position.” – that’s hysterical…considering blatantly dishonest you’ve persistently been about mine. Congratulations on a new level of hypocrisy.

            “I’ve already stated numerous times that students have religious freedom in public schools” – not according to the boy I mentioned or the other young man who was threatened with expulsion for passing out literature to people during free time. Or the young people who are stifled their freedom of speech as well-deserved valedictorians for their classes. You’re living in a fantasy world if you think our kids have the freedom to religious expression in our schools.

            I’m not being dishonest…you’ve provided no answer to the question…just repeated the “victory dance” that somehow now the law opposes religious expression in our schools by teachers and administrators (and even now by students).

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            “Now you’re just lying about my position.” – that’s hysterical…considering blatantly dishonest you’ve persistently been about mine.

            You’ve stated things about me that are directly the opposite of what I’ve stated in this thread.

            “I’ve already stated numerous times that students have religious freedom in public schools” – not according to the boy I mentioned or the other young man who was threatened with expulsion for passing out literature to people during free time.

            This shows how much of an idiot you are.

            Your argument is like this:

            me: murder is illegal

            you: but some guy got shot and killed yesterday! That shows murder IS legal!

            First, you’ve indicated a couple of incidents where school officials apparently BROKE THE LAW. That does NOT mean that it’s illegal for students to do such things, it means that sometimes people BREAK THE LAW.

            Second, you’ve given no cites for the incidents, just vague descriptions – “the boy”, “young man”.

            I’m not being dishonest…you’ve provided no answer to the question.

            Yes, you’re being dishonest. Before the 14th amendment was incorporated against state governments, public schools could do many things they can’t do now.

            And by the way, you never went into any detail about what kind of god-teaching public schools should do. You denied that they should teach a specific religion, so what DO you think they should teach? Whatever the teacher’s religion is? Should they teach that all gods exist? What?

          • jmichael39

            “You’ve stated things about me that are directly the opposite of what I’ve stated in this thread.” – HYPOCRITE…you’ve been doing that the entire.

            “First, you’ve indicated a couple of incidents where school officials apparently BROKE THE LAW. That does NOT mean that it’s illegal for students to do such things, it means that sometimes people BREAK THE LAW.” – What do you care? The courts have violated the law (the Constitution) by rewriting the Constitution to mean things it didn’t mean the first 175+ years…something they no authority to do. The president just violated the law by rewriting it outside the authority of the Constitution. And the propaganda machines have convince village idiots like you to actually think its okay for these things to happen.

            “And by the way, you never went into any detail about what kind of god-teaching public schools should do. You denied that they should teach a specific religion, so what DO you think they should teach?” – I gave you a prudent example of what can be done…ID is based upon scientific facts. You may not agree with the conclusion ID scientists make from those facts, but they are facts nonetheless and it should be allowed for science teachers to teach those theories as equally as evolution and Darwinism…if they choose.

            If social studies teachers want to teach about the biblical backgrounds of the pilgrims, they should be allowed to. If English teachers wish to use the Bible or the Quran or the any other religious book for the students, they should be allowed to. If a student wants to say “bless you” in a class room, they should be allowed to without being sent to the principle’s office. If a teacher is asked to participate in a private prayer with a few Christian students, they should be able to without fear for their jobs. Students who earn the right to be called the valedictorian for their class should be permitted to speak of their faith, no matter what their faith, in the speech they’ve earned the right to give. If a student comes to a teacher for advice on a problem and the teacher knows that student is also a Christian, that teacher should be able to offer some comforting words from the Bible or a prayer without feeling like they might get fired or sued. And if an atheist student doesn’t want to participate in a coach led prayer before a football game, he should be allowed to step away for a moment without fear of retribution. THAT is freedom of religion. Not this BS we have now where only the atheists get their way.

            And yes, morals should be taught in our schools again, like John Adams prayed for 215 years ago. And it shouldn’t matter where those moral values come from…even the bible…so long as they teach morals which will help our young people commitment to our society as a whole. Instead of mocking things like the 10 commandments because of where they came from, perhaps it might serve our country better to encourage those principles…that it IS good not to steal or murder or lie, and that it IS good not to covet or the honor our parents. Maybe there’s a reason why 50+ years ago our teachers were more concerned with students running in the halls, chewing gum in class, and talking during class, while today our teachers are more concerned with drugs and teen pregnancy and violence. Maybe there’s a reason why the timing of our country’s decline in academic achievement began in the late 50s and early 60s, right around the time when our schools first starting kicking God out of the classrooms…and why the explosion of private schools and homeschools in the early 70s began the incline of test scores for private school students (the vast majority of which were Christian or other religious based)

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            “You’ve stated things about me that are directly the opposite of what I’ve stated in this thread.” – HYPOCRITE…you’ve been doing that the entire.

            I can quote myself directly in this thread where I’ve said students can pray, etc, in public school, yet you’ve lied and stated I’m against that.

            What examples do you have of me doing similar things with what you’ve written?

            “First, you’ve indicated a couple of incidents where school officials apparently BROKE THE LAW. That does NOT mean that it’s illegal for students to do such things, it means that sometimes people BREAK THE LAW.” – What do you care?

            Because I’ve been talking about WHAT’S LEGAL, you idiot.

            I gave you a prudent example of what can be done…ID is based upon scientific facts.

            And the courts stated in the Dover decision that ID is religious, not scientific.

          • Neiman

            I would like someone to explain to me how from the Pilgrims, through the Founding Fathers, the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, until 1962, the most free expression of the Christian faith was permitted in all our public schools without any restrictions, it is now completely outlawed and even made into a criminal, unconstitutional offense.

            Why didn’t the people that wrote our Constitution and the Bill of Rights have any problem with it and yet now it is said, while they did not object then, that they really did object.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I would like someone to explain to me how from the Pilgrims, through the Founding Fathers, the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, until 1962, the most free expression of the Christian faith was permitted in all our public schools without any restrictions, it is now completely outlawed and even made into a criminal, unconstitutional offense.

            Since your statement is false, no explanation will be forthcoming.

          • Neiman

            Glad to hear you cannot defend your claim it is false.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I didn’t claim that. Again, you can’t understand what I wrote.

          • Neiman

            “Since your statement is false, no explanation will be forthcoming.”

            Okay, got me. I read it again and it still says to me that you are saying my statement, which you pasted, was false. You must be writing in a different language that looks like English and it still claims that what I wrote was false to me. Language barrier I guess.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Okay, got me. I read it again and it still says to me that you are saying my statement, which you pasted, was false.

            Yes. This part:
            “the most free expression of the Christian faith was permitted in all our public schools without any restrictions, it is now completely outlawed and even made into a criminal, unconstitutional offense.”

            1) students can express their Christian faith (or any other religious views) in public schools. That makes your statement false.

            2) A school official violating students’ first amendment rights by pushing Christianity would not be charged with a criminal offense. That also makes your statement false.

          • Neiman

            Ah, that is why we read so many stories in the daily news about students being suspended and teachers losing their jobs for expressing their faith in school? I get it now! That is why schools are charged with violating the Constitution for allowing such speech. Got it!

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Ah, that is why we read so many stories in the daily news about students being suspended and teachers losing their jobs for expressing their faith in school?

            Students? I’d like some actual cites for that.

            Teachers can be suspended. Find some charged with CRIMES, as you claimed it’s a criminal matter.

      • Lupe

        The THEORY of evolution is a religion. It is a belief system. It has not scientific basis. It is all based on BELIEF.
        Doesn’t meet scientific criterea: Observable, testable, repeatable.
        (Third or fourth grade science if I remember correctly).

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          The THEORY of evolution is a religion.

          No, it’s a scientific theory.

          It has not scientific basis. It is all based on BELIEF.

          No, evolution has been observed.

          Doesn’t meet scientific criterea: Observable, testable, repeatable.

          Yes, it does. There are plenty of examples. Here’s a good one:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

          (Third or fourth grade science if I remember correctly).

          Get your money back.

          • John_33

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

            Just because evolution is called a scientific theory doesn’t mean that it is scientific or proven. After all, take a look at the first discarded theory in the rather long list: spontaneous generation. The funny thing is that evolutionists still teach that spontaneous generation occurred once long ago and spawned all life here on earth, yet for some reason, we cannot reproduce the results of this event, yet they still claim that it happened without a shred of proof.

            As for the E. coli experiment, the test started with E. coli and still continues to this day as E. coli 50,000 generations later. It’s a great test, but all it shows is that there is a fair amount of adaptation built into life forms. Considering how complex cells are, this is not surprising in the least, but the test doesn’t prove that new E. coli strains will eventually evolve into other life forms after enough generations are produced. That is false, and the sad part is that although this test disproves macro evolution, many scientists will keep extending the time that it allegedly took for E. coli to evolve into other life forms. They can run this test for the next thousand years. All they will get is E. coli.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Just because evolution is called a scientific theory doesn’t mean that it is scientific or proven.

            Ignorant fools saying it isn’t doesn’t change that.

            As for the E. coli experiment, the test started with E. coli and still continues to this day 50,000 generations later as E. coli.

            Case in point. You obviously don’t even know what “evolution” means, as this experiment demonstrated it quite effectively.

          • John_33

            I presented you numerous examples where scientific theories have been disproven. Evolution is no more special than the rest of them – especially when it continues to teach a dead theory such as spontaneous generation.

            As for the E. coli test, your thinking is tragically flawed. Just because the E. coli is adapting to its environment doesn’t mean that it must be evolving into endless variations. The former does not infer the latter.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I presented you numerous examples where scientific theories have been disproven.

            So what?

            Evolution is no more special than the rest of them

            Correct, but it’s been observed countless times. If it’s ever abandoned, it will be replaced by something very similar.

            especially when it continues to teach a dead theory such as spontaneous generation.

            It doesn’t teach that. You don’t know what “evolution” means.

            Just because the E. coli is adapting to its environment doesn’t mean that it must be evolving into endless variations.

            You don’t know what “evolution” means.

            One strain of bacteria evolved the ability to grow on citrate. That IS evolution.

            The former does not infer the latter.

            It’s evolution. It evolved. You don’t know what “evolution” means.

          • John_33

            If spontaneous generation is not true, then there is no working theory that exists aside from God creating life. Evolution rests on spontaneous generation since it presupposes that life evolved from simple to complex life forms.

            I’m sorry to say it, but you don’t understand what is going on with the experiment. E. coli found growing on citrate is a good example of an adaptation to its environment. It proves that E. coli can adapt to grow on citrate. You are trying to infer from that adaptation that there are no limitations in its ability to adapt. That is not demonstrated in the experiment. That is your assumption being read into the process.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            If spontaneous generation (chemical evolution) is false, then there is no working theory that explains the start of life aside from the one that God created it.

            You have no understanding of science or evolution. You are babbling complete nonsense at this point.

            I’m sorry to say it, but you don’t understand what is going on with the experiment.

            You’re the idiot denying that it’s an example of evolution. Real scientists call it evolution. What an ignoramus like yourself calls it isn’t relevant.

          • John_33

            Okay, if you wish to resort to name-calling, by all means, but don’t pretend that you are defending science.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You aren’t defending science, either. You might have noticed that real, live scientists call the e. coli experiment an example of evolution.

            That’s because they know what the word means. You do not. But you insist on babbling about it in ignorance.

          • John_33

            “Real” scientists once defended spontaneous generation, yet that has been disproven. In fact, “real” scientists propagated all of the disproven scientific theories I gave you. If we wish to break free from ignorance, then we need to go beyond blindly accepting what scientists tell us. We need to observe and evaluate all claims. That’s real science.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            “Real” scientists once defended spontaneous generation, yet that has been disproven.

            So go right ahead and disprove evolution. It’s going to be difficult for you, since you don’t even know what the word means.

          • John_33

            I didn’t, but Louis Pasteur did when he disproved spontaneous generation in 1859. Without it, the theory of Evolution cannot exist without God to create life. Now, evolutionists today wish to argue that spontaneous generation happened only once, but they have absolutely no proof of that — not one shred of evidence that this has occurred, Quite honestly, the burden of proof is on evolutionists to prove that living things come from nonliving things. Without it, evolution is a fantasy.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I didn’t, but Louis Pasteur did when he disproved spontaneous generation.

            No, you didn’t. As I explained, you don’t understand what “evolution” means. Pasteur didn’t disprove it, because you don’t know what “evolution” means.

          • John_33

            You can’t have evolution without establishing the origin of life. That’s why evolution is tied to spontaneous generation. I’ve explained this already now numerous times.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You can’t have evolution without establishing the origin of life.

            Wrong. Evolution isn’t about the origin of life.

            That’s why evolution is tied to spontaneous generation.

            No, it isn’t.

            I’ve explained this already now numerous times.

            And I keep telling you you’re wrong. You’re wrong.

          • Lupe

            The wikipedia article speaks of MICRO not MACRO evolution.

            I have yet to see a cow give birth to an elephant or a pig give birth to a horse.

            So, nope, the theory of evolution does not meet the observable, testable, repeatable criteria.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The wikipedia article speaks of MICRO not MACRO evolution.

            So what? It’s still evolution.

            If you want examples of speciation, those exist too.

            I have yet to see a cow give birth to an elephant or a pig give birth to a horse.

            Because you are pig-ignorant about evolution. That’s not what evolution says, but since you’re too ignorant to even know that, you aren’t even aware of how stupid your statement sounds.

            So, nope, the theory of evolution does not meet the observable, testable, repeatable criteria.

            Wrong.

          • Nancy Janzen

            Show me the fossils that prove the link between man and the apes. You can’t because they have not been found. Now I believe in a form of evolution but I also believe in the scientific method. In the scientific method all proposals remain theory until fully proven. When you have every fossil then you may call evolution a scientific law instead of a scientific theory.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Show me the fossils that prove the link between man and the apes.

            You don’t even know enough science to understand an explanation. Here’s why:

            1) Science doesn’t deal in “proof”, it deals in evidence and models.

            2) There’s no need to find a link between humans and apes; humans ARE apes.

            In the scientific method all proposals remain theory until fully proven.

            Completely wrong. In science, a theory is as good as it ever gets. Theories are never proven.

            When you have every fossil

            Setting impossible standards is intellectually dishonest.

    • BeWhoYouAre

      There is no war on Christianity. Only some of the things SOME Christians do.

      • Neiman

        Well said by one of the soldiers in the war against bible all believing Christians, it is the practical atheists like yourself that will make that war successful. Pretending to be Christians while hating anyone that really loves Christ and hold to His Word.

        • BeWhoYouAre

          My only “war” is against ignorant, hateful fundamentalism. Peaceful Christians want no part of your imaginary war. If there’s any war YOU are fighting it’s the one against reason, logic, science and human rights.

          • Neiman

            Peace? More proof that you are not a Christian:

            Matthew 10: “34”Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35″For
            I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;…”

            You elevate logic, science, a false sense of human rights, political correctness, homosexuality and Satan upon God’s Throne in your hate filled heart.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            That’s precisely why your style of Christianity is coming under fire from every other organization in the world, including other Christians. Because you actively COMBAT human rights, homosexuality, science and logic. You are a menace to society.

          • Neiman

            That is exactly what Jesus told us would happen at this hour in history, apostate Christianity (people like you) would hate Him and His children. You would pretend to wear the cloak of a Christian, while opposing Him at every turn.

            God hates homosexual conduct, as he does all sexual immorality, should I His child do any less? Why does He hate homosexual conduct and all sexual immorality? Because unless such people repent and turn to Him for His salvation, they will be separated from Him forever with unending, conscious torment. he loves them and wants them to come to a knowledge of the Truth and be saved, while fake Christians like you, your atheist fellow travelers and most liberals actually hate homosexuals, you would rather they go to hell than to have anyone speak against their sins and call them to repentance and salvation in Christ. You hate bible believing Christians and the lost.

            I am not against science, I am against false science that is leading souls away from Christ. I am not against logic and reason based on Truth.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            So tell me, are you pulling a Westboro Baptist Church then, trying to create as much negative and unwanted attention for yourself so that you can say that you’re living proof of Matthew 5:11, “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me”?

            The fact is you haven’t got a CLUE about what “God hates” but it wouldn’t be homosexuals, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for Him to create them and hate them. You aren’t God and you have no right to speak on His behalf, even though that’s what you do constantly.

            Hate is NOT a family value – this is why YOU are the false Christian. Not me. You are in effect asking homosexuals to form attractions that are impossible for them, and if that doesn’t work, to abstain from all human contact completely. You’re insisting they live loveless and sexless lives, which is about the cruelest and nastiest thing you could possibly do, and you’re doing it in Jesus’ name.

            You are EVIL. There is no other word for you.

          • Neiman

            You don’t deserve an answer.

            You are not only filled with hate, but a most vicious lies. I stand on God’s Word and you do not – it is that simple. I love the Lord and you hate Him and you hate homosexuals and you hate Christ and Christians.

            I hope that your will find God and His Salvation before it is too late.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Vicious lies?

            You’re the one saying homosexuals prey on children and “recruit”! You’re insane!

            Lying for Jesus is still LYING!

          • Pax Humana

            The concept of heterophobia (homosexuality) is hate speech by default, and thus you have absolutely NO room whatsoever to talk about people being bigots when you are one yourself in your OWN life. YOU are also the one that lacks a clue on how things REALLY work, but then again, I would expect nothing less from someone that only wants money and power in the end. You clearly are a servant of Lucifer, and a false “Christian,” that is IF you ever WERE one in the first place, yourself in your life, period, full stop.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Typical desperate fundie attack tactic, you’re losing the war against common sense, therefore Lucifer. Always so much easier to cry satan rather than use logic and facts. Why don’t you read a science book sometime to see how homosexuality really occurs.

        • James Grimes

          There is no getting away from it – BeWhoYouAre hates Christianity, Christians, and everything that they stand for. His arrogance in stalking this site is beyond decency.

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Not exactly. I just hate fatheaded, ignorant fundamentalists who think they know better than everyone else what they need.

          • Pax Humana

            Yes, you ARE a fat head, thank you very much. Do you want to argue against me again, you Lucifer worshiping troll?

          • BeWhoYouAre

            I will argue against hate and vicious lies and bigotry as long as I draw breath. If there’s anyone worshiping Lucifer here it’s you – I’ve never seen such total hatred and scumbaggery in my life.

          • Pax Humana

            Do you really mean that you will argue FOR vicious lies, bigotry, and hatred for as long as you draw breath? Yes, you are totally full of hatred, you are indeed a scumbag (not to mention that you are also totally stepping on the game of Don King with inventing new words from out of nowhere, but we will talk about that one another time), and that you do indeed serve Lucifer. Like I said, if you want it, come get it in REAL life, you mighty keyboard warrior, otherwise you will be exposed as the no social life having evil, vile, deviant, perverted, and sick servant of Lucifer that you REALLY are as well as the gutless coward that you really are in your life, but then again, you just absolutely LOVE to have the false strength that you falsely purport to have behind your computer screen now, am I right?

          • BeWhoYouAre

            It’s not me wanting to see gay people roast for an eternity in hell, it’s you. You want to tell me that your paranoid revenge fantasy of watching gay people burn for an eternity in a lake of fire is “LOVING”? Is it kind, is it helpful? Or is it HATE?

            When you get your white sheet and hood back from the laundromat, why don’t you tell me a little more about your loving and kind faith, this very humanitarian faith you practice?

            And if you STILL think I’m a deviant sick servant of Lucifer, here’s a little reality check:

            Number of people I want to see God burn to death: 0
            Number of people you want to see God burn to death: At least ten percent of the population.

            Aren’t you a fine example of God’s love and mercy!

          • pastoredsmith

            The fool maketh up fairy tales again. And, you judge. But, why shouldn’t you? You have no basis for any morality at all. No reason to tell the truth. No reason to have any integrity and character. You are a perfect example of an atheist who lives life the way YOU want to. You should really judge yourself instead of Christians. Perhaps then you will realize you are truly lost and without the God you deny. Let go of your hatred. It only shows the world you are a fool (Psalms 14:1)

          • BeWhoYouAre

            Telling you not to be judgemental (for God’s sake) is not judging you. It’s pointing out that you’re doing what Jesus tells you not to do. As a Christian I would think that would be important to you. My basis for morality involves not hurting people who aren’t hurting others, and that’s done very well for me over the years. Also, I’m not an atheist. It’s really funny how many times people on this forum have insisted I am, but I think I know better than other people what I believe, thank you very much. As for being lost, and full of hate, I suspect you are projecting. You don’t like it when others prove themselves to be more Christ-like than you, do you?

          • pastoredsmith

            Too bad you don’t know the true source of hate and vicious lies. They are spouted from atheists against the God you hate.

          • Mark Gordon

            Says someone called Pax Humana – oh the irony.

          • pastoredsmith

            The only ignorant people on this thread are atheists. Fairy tales about man’s existence. Lies about “science” of big bangs and explosions that “create” all the order of the universe. Complete idiocy.

          • Neiman

            It is always amazing to me when people like him claim to be Christians and yet 100% refuse to trust God’s Word. When you show them what God has said, the very words of Christ, they totally ignore them and argue for a saccharine sweet, worldly love that never opposes sin and yet hates any Christian that stands on God’s Word.

            When we had the story of the young evangelist that was screamed at by a young girl under the influence of a demon spirit that hated Jesus, he has passionately defended the girl that raged against Jesus and even more passionately expressed hatred for the Christian minister, even wanting him to be shut up by the police, arrested and jailed for preaching during dinner. That is what happens every time, he always sides with sinners and the world and always against bible believing Christians, excusing his hatred by calling them in the most hate filled terms – fundamentalists.

            I don’t want to offend anyone, but you cannot reason with him, he is filled with hate for Jesus and all bible believing Christians.

          • James Grimes

            All he knows is hatred. Today it is Christians; tomorrow it will be someone else. His life must be totally pathetic; he has nothing going for him except for his hatred. Please don’t give him any credibility. He doesn’t deserve any. Have a blessed Thanksgiving tomorrow.

          • Neiman

            Yes, you have a most blessed Thanksgiving as well.

          • Pax Humana

            I CAN reason with him, namely in a dark alley and a good old fashioned fight because that is what he and his evil kind want and that is the ONLY way that you can reason with barbarians that have their consciences that are sealed in the end. When you mock, ridicule, blaspheme, desecrate, dishonor, disrespect, expose, and destroy everything that they hold dear in their lives, they will either simultaneously serve as both a good example AND as a horrible warning of what NOT to do against REAL Christians and Jews, or they will learn to use their heads besides being hat racks and they will get it through their thick skulls, period, full stop. Finally, as Ted DiBiase once said, “Everybody has got a price.”

      • pastoredsmith

        You are offended by the God you deny? You are a true paradox.

        • BeWhoYouAre

          God? No, I’m not offended by God. I’m offended and outraged by people who twist His word into hate and intolerance, all the things Jesus was against.

    • BarkingDawg

      Creationism is not a science. it is a faith.

      • Neiman

        I am amazed at how you people can twist the truth. Now try and get someone to help you read this: It is all the exact same scientific data, it is the identical data. So how can you with a straight face say it is not science? It is only the interpretation of that data and the underlying life model to which it is assigned that differ, neither can be absolutely, empirically proven, in the final analysis both require faith to close the gap between what the data is and their underlying life. They are both faith based religions, one with God as its Author and the other godless atheists determined to put themselves on God’s Throne.

        • BarkingDawg

          So, you accept evolution, then?

          That is what the data and evidence points to.

          • Neiman

            No it does not! I accept scientific data, not the nonsense of evolutionary interpretations.

          • BarkingDawg

            So, you are not really a scientist, are you?

          • Neiman

            I have worked in medical science for most of my life and did research at Stanford Research Institute on Cobalt irradiation experiments and post hematology studies. But, no, not by strict definition. Still, I have studied enough to know that complex design cannot ever occur without a preexisting designer greater than the things designed.

            “. . .,’creation’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly
            conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former
            period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its
            appearance in six days . . . in consequence of the volition of some
            Pre-Existing Being.” Sir Thomas Henry Huxley.

            Eminent British Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle reminds us of the
            well known mathematical fact that “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup” the chances of producing the basic enzymes of life by random proceses without Intelligent Design would be approximately one in 10 with 40,000 zeros after it. In other words, [b]it couldn’t happen ever[/b].

          • BarkingDawg

            I have studied enough to know that complex design cannot ever occur without a preexisting designer greater than the things designed.

            that is so wonderfully circular.

    • Artimus Clyde

      It’s not science, this has been proven. It’s actually been proven in the courtroom (Dover, PA). You cannot redefine science to fit your needs.

      • Neiman

        Both creationists and evolutionists believe in and accept the exact same scientific data, it is the interpretation of that data and the underlying life model that are different. They are both faith based systems. So creationists are not redefining science at all, they simply oppose your interpretation of the data and disagree with your life model.

        The courts have no jurisdiction over science and they certainly have no jurisdiction over religion. Our courts are atheist, hostile to the Christian faith and they have by judicial fiat overturned the 1st Amendment. They are against the Constitution.

        • Artimus Clyde

          No it’s not faith based, it’s evidence based. Creationists do not believe the same scientific data. Scientific data shows overwhelming evidence for evolution (in so many different disciplines too) and the earths old age.

          The constitution says nothing about Christianity and Jesus. The government cannot sponsor a religion. Hostile to the Christian faith? Hmmmm, interesting since the judge was a devout Christian. Sorry, we are not a theocracy. The creationists in the trial clearly acknowledged that if they teach creationism then they would also have to teach Alchemy and Flat Earth “theories”.

          • Neiman

            Until and unless evolution can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, it demands faith to believe that the data supports evolutionary theory. It is a religion! No science does not offer overwhelming evidence of an old earth, that is what the scientists interpret that data to mean as that is what fits into their life model and when the data is proven faulty, they simply develop a new theory.

            It does not say the government may not sponsor or support a religion, it says they may not “establish” a national religion that applies to everyone. It also says and I know you hate this, the state is prohibited from passing any laws that in any way, shape, manner or form infringes of freedom of religious expression and it does not limit that freedom to places outside the public square only.

            I do not care about this case your liberal court decided or the alleged profession of a Christian faith by the judge. He can call himself a Chrysler New Yorker if he wants, his decision was both unconstitutional and anti-Christian.

          • Artimus Clyde

            Again, we don’t live in a theocracy. I would absolutely LOVE to hear your justification for calling his decision unconstitutional. Please enlighten me with your creationist mental gymnastics.

            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

            There you have it.

            Free exercise of religion does not mean shoving your beliefs down public school childrens throat. I really don’t care if you “care” or not. Facts are facts and it’s entirely expected that you ignore them.

            “It also says and I know you hate this, the state is prohibited from passing any laws that in any way, shape, manner or form infringes of freedom of religious expression and it does not limit that freedom to places outside the public square only.”

            — You realize that logic would allow sharia law right? You also realize that it would allow the teaching of any religions creation nonsense in public schools. I hope you realize that the wall between church and state protects one religion having priority over another.

            That being said. I’m not going to argue with yet another creationist who warps reality and facts to fit their worldview. Denialism is a powerful thing. Scientists 95%+ in agreement on both evolution and the age of the earth. The evidence is there, the papers are there. The PEER REVIEWED papers. All of which creationists won’t do as they know that their “facts and evidence” aren’t facts and evidence at all. I encourage you to lobby your creation scientists to submit peer reviewed papers and see what happens. Again, convince yourself of whatever your mind allows you to. The rest of us will continue on with proper education. Creationists have shown again and again and again that they will lie and distort to project their beliefs onto others. The Dover case is just one of those examples and of course, as expected, you sweep him under the rug because of your bias and lack of understanding of what the constitution stands for and this country in general.

          • Neiman

            No one said we have a theocracy nor is anyone, except your Muslim pals, interested in having a theocracy until Christ returns to rule. Don’t worry, you won;’be here, you will be suffering in Perdition.

            It actually reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . .” The court ignores and violates the second clause when they demand a public employee must keep silent about their faith, it infringes on the free exercise clause.

            Christians have the right and are increasingly exercising the right to take their children out of public schools, which are increasingly liberal, anti-Christ indoctrination centers. If they teach Islam or other creation theories, any real Christian would remove their children to private schools or home schooling.

            No scientist can ever get peer review of their research if it violates liberal, evolutionary dogma and they know their careers will be destroyed if they try. Just look at human caused global warming, careers have been destroyed and no articles challenging liberal orthodoxy ever get peer reviewed or published.

          • Artimus Clyde

            Hahahahahah OK Neiman. Once again, if it doesn’t agree with your creationist assertions then it must be a conspiracy against creationists.

            I really really wouldn’t mind if fundamentalists pulled their kids from public schools. In fact, I encourage it!!!! Go ahead!! You are only hurting the kids! That way all the smart kids won’t be held back by the brainwashed kids.

            It’s funny that you have the american flag as your icon when in fact you are very very un-american. Really, people like you would take a red marker to the constitution or crumple it up and throw it away because in your arrogant, ignorant mind you think the country was built for your pleasure. You seem to think that “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means that you can do whatever it is your little heart desires. Let’s get one thing clear. You are free to exercise your religion as you see fit, it does not mean that you can implement laws and standards with it. You anti-science, anti-critical thinking knuckleheads have done enough damage already.

            “When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross”

            How fitting of a description.

            You think that Christianity has a privilege in this country that seems to trump other peoples rights. I’m here, the government is here, and most normal sane people are here, to tell you that it doesn’t have that privilege. It never will. THANK GOD!

            And i’m sure I will be burning in narnia or whatever fictitious nonsense you nutjobs believe. Judging by history, the most interesting and intelligent people will be there with me won’t they? Since they don’t subscribe to your fairy tales. At the same time, I’m sure you will be reunited with all your dead relatives (will they be old, young or just how you remember/want them to be?) on a fluffy cloud eating grapes and drinking wine.

  • Peter Leh

    does not sound like the prof is breaking the law. You can;t force religion on the students. it seems like there is a discussion. in fact enough of a discussion i am sure their are christians who may accuse the prof of being a “compromiser”

  • pastoredsmith

    This is typical of the bullying thugs at FFRF. They threaten, ridicule and even file lawsuits against anyone who dares to express their Christian faith in public. Then, they deny all of it. If you think about it, “religion free” means the same as “atheist zone.”

    Atheism teaches “there is no God,” and that “all government owned installations, especially public schools, should be ‘religion free zones.'” In other words, these installations should practice atheism. I, for one, have had enough of being bullied by these thugs. It is time to stand up to the FFRF and all the other atheist organizations that are trying to silence Christians (ever notice they don’t mess with Muslims?).

    I do not hate atheists at all; I could live side-by-side with them if they only “taught” their beliefs, but I am tired of their bullying and their trying to make us feel like a welcome mat and saying to them, “please wipe your feet on my face.” The First Amendment allows the Freedom OF Religion and never guaranteed “Freedom From Religion” at all. Ever.

    But, you can rest assured that atheists hate God and His people. They show it by their anger and trolling sites like this one. Just watch and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

    • Ralph Spoilsport

      They threaten, ridicule and even file lawsuits against anyone who dares to express their Christian faith in public.

      Only if there’s some unlawful government involvement, which there is in this case.

      Atheism teaches “there is no God,” and that “all government owned installations, especially public schools, should be ‘religion free zones.'” In other words, these installations should practice atheism.

      Nonsense. Saying “2+2=4” without mentioning gods is not promoting atheism, it’s being neutral.

      The First Amendment allows the Freedom OF Religion and never guaranteed “Freedom From Religion” at all.

      You don’t even know what the first amendment says. It doesn’t say “Freedom OF Religion” either.

      But, you can rest assured that atheists hate God and His people. They show it by their anger and trolling sites like this one. Just watch and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

      You appear to be the hateful one here.

      • pastoredsmith

        See, everybody! I told you. Hello atheist Spoilsport. I wondered how long it would take you to get here. This is one of the atheist trolls I mentioned.

        My response:

        There is no unlawful government involvement in allowing this Christian man to share his faith. He has done nothing wrong. Broken no law. Violated no statute. Yet, FFRF wants his silence. Bullying tactic.

        Your babbling is nonsense. Atheism is the absence of God. 2+2=4 and “no God” = atheism. Your religion teaches this. Your FFRF demands silence from anyone Christian in the public. Bullying tactic.

        I know exactly what the First Amendment says, and I also know that your ilk focuses on one part and even extends it to mean things it never was intended to mean. The “establishment clause” was denominational in nature and forbade government from formally establishing a religious organization. But, you wish to interpret any private expression by an individual as “government establishment of religion.” You babble nonsense. The First Amendment guarantees “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Religion.” Since you apparently haven’t read the First Amendment all the way through, here it is. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” .You will note the part I refer to. “….or prohibiting the free EXERCISE THEREOF…” You majorly missed the point, atheist. Get over it, and welcome to America where Freedom OF Religion is guaranteed.

        No hate here. Just tired of being run over by bullying atheists like you guys who love to troll Christian websites and spout your babbling nonsense. I pray you can find your way clear to let go of your hatred for Christians and the God we serve. Your hatred makes you look like a bully.

        • Ralph Spoilsport

          See, everybody! I told you. Hello atheist Spoilsport. I wondered how long it would take you to get here. This is one of the atheist trolls I mentioned.

          Uh, no. You don’t know what “troll” means. It doesn’t mean someone who has the audacity to disagree with you.

          There is no unlawful government involvement in allowing this Christian man to share his faith.

          My response is, yes there is.

          Yet, FFRF wants his silence. Bullying tactic.

          Wrong. The FFRF says he’s misusing his position at a government university, and the university is investigating.

          Atheism is the absence of God. 2+2=4 and “no God” = atheism.

          That isn’t what I said.

          I said “Saying “2+2=4″ without mentioning gods is not promoting atheism, it’s being neutral”, but you have to dishonestly change it by adding “no god”.

          And that’s because my original statement was correct, so you had to dishonestly create a straw man version to attack.

          The “establishment clause” was denominational in nature and forbade government from formally establishing a religious organization.

          Not according to the ones who wrote it. But in any case, the courts have ruled quite differently from what you think it says.

          No hate here. Just tired of being run over by bullying atheists like you

          Says the dishonest Christian who deliberately lies about what I wrote about 2+2=4 not promoting atheism.

          • pastoredsmith

            Hello atheist. You are babbling nonsense, as usual. I know exactly what a troll is. You are one.

            Your response to my statement is wrong, as usual. There is nothing in any US Constitutional document prohibiting a person from sharing their faith anywhere they choose. This is your problem. You prefer the religion of atheism (“no God” zones) be forced down the throats of Americans. Your efforts will fail.

            Yes, the FFRF is the largest bullying organization in the US, except maybe for ISIS which I hear is larger. The FFRF has no business trying to silence Christians. Bullies, all of you.

            There is no such thing as “neutral” people. The absence of God equals atheism. You teach that as your main precept of your twisted religion at your “mega churches.” You bully that from your pedestal of lawsuits. You demand atheism be the religion of the land. You are losers.

            You really should study American History. You obviously failed it.

            You call me dishonest. Yet, it is you who has no basis for morals because all morality came from God in the beginning. Man twisted it or eliminated it, as you idiots (fools Psalm 14:1) have done.

            A personal message for you, atheist. “The worst moment for an atheist is when he feels a profound sense of gratitude and has no one to thank.”
            -G.K. Chesterton

            Your idiocy must really shine at Thanksgiving Dinner with others in the family bowing their heads to God in whom you reject. You must live a lonely and purposeless life as an atheist. Give up your hatred of the God you deny. Denying God makes you a fool. And, that can change if you will only accept the truth about Him.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Hello atheist. You are babbling nonsense, as usual. I know exactly what a troll is. You are one.

            No, you don’t. Disagreeing with you is not the definition of a troll.

            There is nothing in any US Constitutional document prohibiting a person from sharing their faith anywhere they choose.

            Wrong. Public schoolteachers can’t do that while they are teaching.

            The FFRF has no business trying to silence Christians. Bullies, all of you.

            Whine harder. They win court cases, which means they’re in the right.

          • pastoredsmith

            Being on this site constantly arguing “there is no God” with Christians is being a troll. You can “disagree” with me all you wish. But, when you say “there is no God,” you become a fool. Psalms 14:1
            No, you are wrong. Free speech is free speech. Nobody is gagged when in public.
            Not whining. FFRF is also losing court cases. And, they are dead wrong. But, you know that.
            Atheism is a religion. Complete with churches, “clergy,” and a bona fide tax exemption. Your “religion” now comes under the same scrutiny as all others. So, teachers cannot say “there is no God” nor can they live as “neutral” when it comes to God. That is the exact same thing.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Being on this site constantly arguing “there is no God” with Christians is being a troll.

            Nope. A troll doesn’t actually argue.

            No, you are wrong. Free speech is free speech. Nobody is gagged when in public.

            Public schoolteachers aren’t “in public”. They are told what to teach, and they are told to stop pushing their religion if they do that in class.

            Check out e.g. Freshwater v. Mount Vernon Board of Education et al.

            Your “religion” now comes under the same scrutiny as all others.

            Atheism always has.

            So, teachers cannot say “there is no God”

            Which they don’t, and shouldn’t.

            nor can they live as “neutral” when it comes to God. That is the exact same thing.

            No, it isn’t. You just described them as two different things.

          • pastoredsmith

            So, you’re no troll? Just a fool (Psalms 14:1). And, who decides the definition of “troll” anyway? You? Haha. Tell me another one. You can’t even figure out that you were created and didn’t come into existence as a result of an explosion at your Mother’s house.
            Public school teachers are “in public” in the classroom. They are not puppets and are not forbidden from sharing anything they wish. It is not “pushing religion” to discuss one’s faith. It is pushing religion to sue public schools to stop freedom of speech and force the religion of atheism to be taught.
            Atheism has never come under any scrutiny at all. All schools are now required by government to be gagged, but some are now defying those orders. The religion of atheism is not only an idiotic religion, it is a bully pulpit.
            And, teaching a “religion neutral” zone is the exact same as “there is no God,” or “God is not welcome here.” Take your pick. It all boils down to the same thing in the end. Forcing God out is not American. It is against the First Amendment.
            Religion neutral and atheism are the same basic teaching. “There is no God” and “God is not welcome here” teach the same outcome based garbage to all students. Students, teachers and all school personnel have always been able to bring God to school until atheists started suing. Your heroine, Madelyn Murray O’Haire started the whole thing.
            Atheists: Bullies all. Hate mongers all.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            who decides the definition of “troll” anyway? You? Haha.

            No. You don’t either. But the original of “troll” re the internet is from trolling as in fishing — post something outrageous to get a reaction from lots of people, and then sit back and watch. It’s not about disagreeing with other people.

            Public school teachers are “in public” in the classroom.

            And they can’t push religion.

            Religion neutral and atheism are the same basic teaching. “There is no God” and “God is not welcome here” teach the same outcome based garbage to all students.

            Neither is an example of being religiously neutral.

            Atheists: Bullies all. Hate mongers all.

            Scapegoater. Trying to start a pogrom?

          • pastoredsmith

            Babbling nonsense. A troll takes on many other definitions. As the modern use of the word “gay” means “homosexual,” and it never did before, it is a common term on websites for those opposed who hang out with the common goal of creating disillusion to “troll” the website. You just babble on. You know exactly what I meant, and you apparently wish to bog this discussion down with meaningless babble. Not interested.

            Talking about one’s religion to another is not “push(ing) religion” either. Forcing a gag rule is the opposite of freedom. That is what your bullies at FFRF are trying to impose. It won’t work now. The cat is out of the bag.

            Really? And do you know exactly what your bully-buddies at FFRF want and are trying to force on Americans through lawsuits and threatening letters? Silence. Religion zero. Christianity is at the very top of that list because you know we are the only ones telling the truth. It “offends” you for anyone to talk about Christ in public; your bully letters from FFRF say that very thing. How can you be offended by a God you don’t believe in? Oh, I get it. You hate people. Especially Christian people.

            You know nothing. You have no basis for telling the truth since you have no basis for morals other than your own imagination. You have no basis for truth since you openly reject the truth. A “pogrom?” That is what atheists do. Openly hate anything and anyone religious.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Babbling nonsense. A troll takes on many other definitions.

            Well, you’re using the word incorrectly.

            Talking about one’s religion to another is not “push(ing) religion” either.

            It is when it’s a teacher during classtime. Look up the Freshwater firing. He sued, and lost.

            And do you know exactly what your bully-buddies at FFRF want and are trying to force on Americans through lawsuits and threatening letters? Silence. Religion zero.

            Actually, I DO know. You don’t, you just lie about the FFRF.

            You have no basis for telling the truth since you have no basis for morals other than your own imagination.

            Like I said, you like scapegoating people, which is how pogroms start. Next you’ll be saying that people with no basis for morals need to be killed to protect all the “good” people.

          • pastoredsmith

            The more you spout, atheist, the more ignorant you demonstrate yourself to be. You use morals that originated with God when it benefits you; yet you cannot get it right. You have no basis for morals since your religion is man-made and imaginary. your fairy tales simply don’t hold up under scrutiny. As for your accusation that I’m inciting some sort of riot or killing, you are completely ignorant. Christians do not do that sort of thing. Atheists have no reason not to, however. As to your accusation that we would kill you as atheists, you have it backwards. Christians have reason for morality. It starts with the Ten Commandments; you know, the documents your bully buddies try to have removed from all public places.
            And, you can accuse and formulate theories all you like. Just like your religion, it is baseless and filled with your own hyperbole. You don’t know the truth from falsities, so it is you who hate Christians.
            Atheism is a religion for losers. You will lose your soul in the end. One day, you will cower before the God you mock and fight against. Saul saw Him and changed his Christian-murdering ways. You seem hell-bent to continue to hate Christians. Your right as an American.
            I don’t hate you. However, I am tired of your bullying and lying. Tell the truth. Your lies make you look like an imbecile.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Well, now you’re just flinging mindless insults, and aren’t even trying to defend a teacher breaking the law and pushing religion in class. Thanks for admitting defeat.

          • pastoredsmith

            The more you chatter, spoilsport atheist, the more you demonstrate that all I’ve said about atheists is absolutely true. You simply don’t know the truth when you are presented with it. I said that atheists were bullies. You accused me (and Christians everywhere, I assume) of trying to start some kind of pogrom and kill people we don’t agree with. False accusations all. You know nothing. You don’t even believe in God, so how can you know anything about His people? You can’t.
            You say the FFRF is not a group of bullies. Yet, you accuse law violations when there are none. Your buddies at FFRF sues schools. That is about the lowest thing you could do aside from stealing candy from babies. Leave the schools alone bully.
            You say that I admitted defeat. You are dreaming and you know it. Insults? I’d say that accusing me of starting a pogrom when it’s your group who incites anger when you threaten our religious freedoms. But, Christians don’t kill. Example: Chick-fil-a day was peaceful. We didn’t burn buildings. We didn’t kill anyone. It was all the most courteous people anywhere as we lined up to buy chicken when gays attacked them because of Chick-fil-a’s president’s personal views. FFRF does much the same. Sue schools. Sue governments. Sue. Sue. Sue. Bully, Bully. Bully.
            Incite anger. That’s what atheists do.
            Psalms 14:1. Yes, that’s the problem. You don’t believe in God and He calls you a fool. You just prove Him right.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            The more you chatter, spoilsport atheist, the more you demonstrate that all I’ve said about atheists is absolutely true.

            And an ad hominem fallacy as the cherry on top.

            You’re no longer arguing about the legality of a teacher pushing religion on students. You’ve given up.

          • pastoredsmith

            You’re arrogant and ignorant. And, stop putting words in my mouth. You have given up.
            This discussion has to start with the existence of God. If He exists, then it is logical that the teacher be able to speak of Him. You are an atheist and reject God. You are a fool (Psalms 14:1). You do not wish to speak of this.
            Your tactic is to skirt the real issue and declare victory whenever you wish. After all, you have no basis for morals, so why should you be honest in this or any other debate?
            Rejecting God is also rejecting morals. Something you people just decide what you want to keep and what you want to ignore. This teacher is a hero. He stands up for what he believes in. The class is above all blessed because they have a brave teacher.
            I had such a teacher in high school. A dedicated Christian woman who taught evolution and laid the textbook down and said, “That is what this book says. Now, I want to tell you what I believe.” She is (was) a heroine. She stood up for her beliefs.
            Atheists are cowards who simply hide behind lawsuits and bullying letters.
            No, I didn’t quit. You lose.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            You’re arrogant and ignorant.

            Says the guy who claims the creator of the universe is a personal friend of his.

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            If He exists, then it is logical that the teacher be able to speak of Him.

            No, that’s not relevant to the legal issues. You are dumber than a box of rocks.

          • pastoredsmith

            Actually, the Creator of the Universe is a personal friend. You should get to know Him. And, if you feel you must laugh, may I remind you of your future? One day, you will bow before Him and acknowledge Him as who He is. You won’t think it funny that day.
            Namecalling? You seem really good at that and false accusations.
            I pray you find Christ, atheist. Your hatred of Him really messes up your life.
            Have a nice day. Psalm 14:1

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Actually, the Creator of the Universe is a personal friend.

            That’s what I just said. And you call ME arrogant.

          • pastoredsmith

            When I was younger, I thought it harsh that God called those who don’t believe He exists “fools.” You demonstrate with every word of mockery why He does that. He lives. He is real. Scoff if you must. You will answer to Him, not me.
            I don’t call you a fool. God does.
            You are constantly complaining. That is what you do best. I gave you good arguments and you skirted them with your own foolishness and gobbledygook. You babble nonsense.
            I do pray you find Christ. Your life will finally be at peace. Have a nice day.

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            I don’t call you a fool. God does.

            Yeah, the usual Xian copout. If you thought your god told you to kill atheists, guess what you’d do and blame your god for?

          • pastoredsmith

            Once again, atheist, you demonstrate your stupidity and lack of knowledge about God. Good day!!!!

          • Ralph Spoilsport

            Once again, atheist, you demonstrate your stupidity and lack of knowledge about God.

            Sorry, not knowing about your imaginary god is like not knowing about a kid’s imaginary friend.

    • Katee Ripid

      All this time, I read comments on this type of page, I always notice the atheists NEVER MESS with other religions especially Islam and we all know how Islam is being preached in the name of history.. “There is no other God but Allah”.. “Islam prophets..etc…that clearly is preaching…
      Looks like these atheists are working hand in hand with tthose people against Christianity… I won’t be surprised next time Islam is included in your school curriculum but not the Bible/Christianity…
      So very sad

    • James Grimes

      Pastor Ed, I have seen what they do on our site. They are, by far, a pathetic people. I will not give them the time of day and have absolutely no tolerance for them.

  • Phipps Mike

    ” [Students] can disagree. That’s what the whole thing about academia is, you know, that there’s a freedom of thought to examine different issues.”

    exactly. I firmly believe that anybody with a NORMAL mind cannot be indoctrinated unless they WANT to be.

  • James Grimes

    The Useless are at it again. Here a noted professor who has received a high rating from his students is now in their rifle scope. The principle of academic freedom is only OK if The Useless agree with the content.

  • The Last Trump

    You can always tell when you’re on the right track. No shortage of idiots vehemently opposed to even allowing you to consider the other options. Amazing how these “civil” and “tolerant” individuals lose their freakin’ minds at the mention of God. Seems to me schools were supposed to be institutions for learning. For ALL religions and faiths and their impact on humanity. The organized effort to whitewash the history books and remove God from every theater today should be a red flag for all people. ALL ideas should be explored. If there is no evidence for God then there is absolutely no reason to be so afraid to look into it, now is there? Exactly. Be afraid, atheists. Be VERY afraid.

  • NNNNNNNNNNoooClintonplz

    atheists preach science and they don’t know if that is true. The Bible is true. WE have yet to find out what parts of science are true. Everything that is “fact” today is obsolete tomorrow.

  • prinefan

    All gods/religions (which embrace creationism) originate, are designed, refined by specifics= Time, Place, Culture, each one creates and makes them up based on and guided by those three factors, whether it’s the Katholic church, Kriztianity or a naked tribe in the Amazon rain forest, and it’s all made up nonsense and irrelevant.

  • James Grimes

    An apostate on this site has said “your style of Christianity is coming under fire from every other organization in the world…” In thinking about this absurd statement, I can only guess that those who live as the Bible tells us to, we will encounter opposition from those who do not understand what the Bible has determined. There are actions that are biblical and then there are actions that the Bible says are wrong. Personally, I would rather do what the Bible tells me to do. It is the inerrant, infallible, and absolute Word of God.

  • http://www.remnantofgod.org John1429dotorg

    Protect physical Israel yet the real Israel is getting persecuted daily…and here is more evidence of this fact…

  • Edsel Chan

    Atheist thought that fact is truth, but real is the truth is fact. God created the universe. The only thing that we must do is to intercede for the Christians in that university, and for those atheist who accuses Christianity. May God bless them.

  • Mark Terrill

    Christians unite and tell atheists to pound sand

  • CitizenVetUSA

    “The university states that it is now investigating McMullen, who is an “A” rated professor among students.”

    Seems similar to the brown shirt boys reporting non allegiance to the authorities of seventy five years ago….

  • Jim Zapapas

    Kudos to Prof. Emerson T. McMullen for teaching with an open mind!

  • kelly_1

    You know, for atheists to not believe in God, they sure do spend a lot of time worrying about him and teachings on him. This country was founded on the belief in God and the teachings of the Bible. The only thing I can come up with, as far as why they fear Christianity, is because there are so many proof positive examples of God in the Bible that they simply can not refute! All we can do is pray for you non-believers! God does have a way of leading people to the truth, in his own way and own time, regardless what the person says they believe! I certainly had rather live my life as if there is a God and find out in the end there isn’t, than to live my life as there is no God and find out there is. He gives us all free will. I have found over the years that most people who do not let God into their hearts are searching for something to complete their lives, but they do not know what that is. Without God there is an emptiness that can never be filled with anything or anyone else. Christians do not have to see or hear him to believe! Faith is stronger than anything!

  • Artimus Clyde

    Great, can’t wait for the Alchemist and the Flat Earther to teach in their classrooms and then see how that goes.

  • Nancy Janzen

    The FFRF would not understand the difference between Jansenism, Manacheasim and Orthodox Christianity