Support for Louisiana repeal effort

Last I checked, there weren't. Has someone repealed the First Amendment while I wasn't looking? Tsk.

(NB: Not an actual quotation.) No. Occasionally one will hear creationists whining about this, but this is not what the controversy is largely about. Do you suppose that creationists would largely stop complaining about science if from now on no-one ever used the word "evolution" to include the concept of common descent? If so, they could take the first step --- currently they themselves seem to use "evolution" in the sense of anything whatsoever in science that they object to. If you are "never" capable of identifying its meaning, on what basis could you possibly say that it "can switch definitions within one sentence"?P.S: Can you quote a real example of such a sentence? If that meant anything in particular it would probably be wrong Apart from the First Amendment. You don't need a law against promoting atheism, precisely because the promotion of atheism would violate the constitution. The requisite law is right there at the start of the Bill of Rights.This, however, has nothing to do with anti-evolution laws. * sigh *If someone were to say that creationism in the science classroom "will lead to all sorts of cheapening of science, of establishment of religion", this would not be a slippery slope argument. It would not be "will lead to" in the sense of "the use of marijuana will lead to the use of heroin". It would be "will lead to" in the sense of "painting something red will lead to it being covered in red paint". It's a logical concomitant.However, I suspect that this, too, is not a real quote. Let me give you an actual statement by a real partisan of science (me), which you may quote to your heart's content: Creationism in the science classroom is cheapening of science and establishment of religion. Not will lead to, but is. Now let's identify the side with more political clout. This may be more interesting than your complaints about the double standards of the imaginary people who live in your head.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

A plaintiff suing the government in a civil rights case and winning is allowed to recover the legal costs. So in a sense the plaintiffs' lawyers in Kitzmiller v. Dover did end up being paid with public money. And this will continue so long as creationists continue to get governmental bodies to fight their losing battles for them.

"Could be used"? Can you produce a case where we can substitute "is being used"? I'd suppose that if a body used public funds to (for example) pay for a pro-evolution advertising campaign, that would exceed their remit. On the other hand, I guess it's OK for them to issue public statements to be picked up by the press or read by policy makers, which costs virtually nothing.Would you seriously not see a problem with the former? Or private pro-religious money, since many religious people are in favor of the First Amendment. 'Cos many religious people are not mind-bogglingly stupid.In the challenge to creationist laws in Arkansas (McClean v. Arkansas), the plaintiffs included:* Reverend William McLean, a United Methodist minister.
* Bishop Kenneth Hick, of the Arkansas Conferences of the United Methodist Church
* The Right Reverend Herbert A. Donovan of the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas
* The Most Reverend Andrew Joseph McDonald, Catholic Bishop of Little Rock
* Bishop Frederick C. James of the African Methodist Episcopal Church or Arkansas
* The Reverend Nathan Porter
* The Reverend George W. Gunn, minister of the Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church in Little Rock
* Dr. Richard B. Hardie, Jr., minister of the Westover Hills Presbyterian Church in Little Rock
* The Reverend Earl B. Carter, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the North Arkansas Conference of the United Methodist Church
* The Reverend George Panner, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the Little Rock Conference of the United Methodist church.
* Dr. John P. Miles, minister of St. James United Methodist Church in Little Rock and vice-chair of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Arkansas.
* Rev. Jerry Canada, minister of the United Methodist Church and editor of The Arkansas Methodist Before I answer that, I'd like to talk it over with my minister at the First Reformed Not-Church of Not-God, who will tell me how to interpret the canonical texts of the Not-Bible in the light of the decrees of the Not-Pope. Which is why atheism is treated as a religion for First Amendment purposes. But the same is not true of science, which is actually something different. You are a funny little man. Pray tell us, how did you come to know what evolutionists have been doing "privately"? Have you bugged their secret laboratories?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yeah, it can even convince religious people to be in favor of freedom of religion. Will wonders never cease! That's like persuading people with guns to be in favor of the Second Amendment. And the person who explained this ... how did he know what evolutionists are doing "privately"?Or did he, perhaps, have access to their publications? The word "obviously" is no substitute for evidence, reasoning, or telling the truth for once in your misbegotten life.

Like Cornell University, apparently. They teach biology there, y'know. Atheistic satanic biology.See, you're making the common mistake of thinking that atheism means not believing in God. Whereas what it actually means is being better-educated than marc9000.

I found a couple of sentences in there that were actually true. You may wish to rewrite them. For example, it is a fact that C.S. Lewis converted from atheism to Christianity; perhaps you were unaware of this when you wrote it. I suggest that you replace this statement with the sentence "Flamenco-dancing anteaters are gnawing at my hat" to maintain your otherwise impeccable standard of bizarre, surreal inaccuracy.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That would be Theodosius Dobzhansky the biologist and Christian, right? And not another man of the same name? If you weren't lying, you'd have a good point. The answer is, of course, "no", as you'd know if you were possessed of the slightest rudiments of sense. We are only too painfully aware that you do not actually believe the stuff you come out with. It's one of your more disgusting characteristics. Amazing how you lie to dwise1 about what he wrote as though you think you have the faintest hope of decieving him or anyone else on this subject.Really, what is it with you? Did you actually think that this dumb lie would be convincing, or do you just hate the truth so much that you lie regardless of the inevitability of your exposure? Don't you blush just a little bit when you use the word "lie"? Or throw up a little in your mouth? Especially when you use it, as in this case, in the course of driveling out stupid lies? ID must be hauled into federal court because teaching it in public schools breaks federal laws.Perhaps you could explain your ravings about "conspiracy theories". ID proponents exist, and their existence and activities are in no way a secret. You do want ID to be integrated into science, yes? Have I missed something? A single standard. The facts. A zillion halfwits asserting and liars pretending that something is "blatantly atheistic" will not make it so. If you are too lazy or stupid to follow a link, that would be your problem. Jesus wept. Perhaps you could supply an actual quotation, or perhaps you find it easier to make stuff up in your head. Actually, for it to be "believed to be happening" would not be sufficient. Culpability would require actual events; imaginary ones are not sufficient. Perhaps you could try to argue for this dumb assertion; but you might actually make yourself less ridiculous if you don't try to support it That is not what he claimed, as you can tell by the fact that that is not what he claimed. Again I wonder who it is you hope to deceive.What he pointed out is that creationists, and you in particular, tell stupid drooling lies about the meaning of the word "evolution"; which is clearly the case.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edumacation, Louisiana style.