If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Christian groups sue to keep Kansas schools from teaching science as if it's true   (rawstory.com) divider line 56
    More: Fail, Kansas, Kansas schools, faith groups, orthodoxy, creationisms, standards, Pacific Justice Institute  
•       •       •

3627 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2013 at 12:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-27 12:22:55 PM  
15 votes:
These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.
2013-09-27 01:21:10 PM  
8 votes:

Nurglitch: FloydA: Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?

What if they each religious beliefs in church, and science in science classes?

Evolution happens.  Evolution has happened.  Evolution will continue to happen as long as there are organisms that reproduce.  If the creationists can't deal with that simple fact, that's their problem.

Well, we think it happens, and it kinda looks like it happened, and it's a really good, useful explanation for things happening, but calling it a 'fact' is kind of antithetical to the point of science.



Not really.  In the sciences, the word "fact" refers to something that we have observed.  We have observed evolution happening, so it is a fact.  There is no sense of the term "fact" that does not pertain to evolution.  Evolution is as much a "fact" as anything in the sciences can ever be.

You might argue that natural selection, drift, mutation, recombination, and migration are not "facts," and I'd be willing to accept  that argument.

Put it this way; the theory of universal gravitation explains why we see things falling down.  Things falling down are facts.  The theory explains why it happens.

The theory of evolution by means of natural selection explains why populations of organisms evolve the way that they do.  The evolution of gene pools is an observation that the theory attempts to explain.

Nobody teaches the theory as fact, because it's not.  A theory is an explanation of facts.  We do teach the facts as facts, because they are.  One generation's gene pool does not contain the same relative abundances of variant alleles as the next generation - this is a fact, and that is what "evolution" is.

What the creationists want is for us to teach something that is patently and obviously false as though it was equally reasonable as real things.  This is not a good idea.
2013-09-27 12:49:49 PM  
8 votes:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.

i105.photobucket.com

If you want to teach kids about your personal religious beliefs, do it in church. That way, everyone who wants to hear about your god can do so, and everyone who wants to hear about some other god can go to some other church.

I assure you, you don't want to require me to teach your kids about your creation myths; you would not like the results.  Let your priests and ministers do their jobs and let me do mine.
2013-09-27 12:58:15 PM  
7 votes:
proudtobeafilthyliberalscum.com
2013-09-27 12:58:09 PM  
6 votes:

parasol: truly frightening the quotes in tfa

reads like - my faith and parenting are weak - therefore, you may not expose my child to anything scientific I may have to explain - or anybody else's child because Jesus

also science fair projects invite the Devil's fire right up to the kitchen table - why else would so many of them feature Volcanos?


Not having to explain things you don't understand to your kids is like 99% of conservative social policy.
2013-09-27 12:36:12 PM  
6 votes:
FTFA: The suit alleges that the new standards will "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

On the contrary, teaching based on the science will not promote any religious beliefs at all.  Teaching creationism, on the other hand, would favor one religious view over others, as different religions have different creation stories.

Science class should be based on science.  If you want to teach creation stories, do it in Sunday School, or push for a comparative religions class where students can learn the history and beliefs of multiple faiths and how they've shaped society.
2013-09-27 12:26:41 PM  
6 votes:

Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.


And also really non-self-aware: FTFA:

"The statement went on to say that "teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true" is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped. "

And yet apparently teaching primary school children about religion is not dangerous at all.
2013-09-27 12:59:56 PM  
5 votes:
They've lost the battle to raise religion up to the level of science, so now they're trying to drag science down to the level of religion. Fascinating.
2013-09-27 02:33:27 PM  
3 votes:
scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-09-27 02:12:49 PM  
3 votes:
haolegirl:

So which "flavor" are they wanting taught in PUBLIC schools? Or do we let the wackos fight it out amongst themselves, and get back to us with the winner.

Each one of them sincerely believes that when they "make America a Christian country," it will be their own flavor of Christianity that is holding the reins.  They haven't thought that far ahead, to be honest.  If they had actually bothered to really think about the question, they would realize that the biggest religion in the US is the Catholic Church, with nearly five times as many members as the second largest church (SBC).  (In fact, there are nearly as many Catholics in the US as there are all other Christian denominations combined.) And the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution.

If they actually stopped to think logically about it, the creationists would work very hard to maintain the separation of church and state, because if any church takes over the state, it's not going to be theirs.   (Of course if they actually had any skill at thinking logically, they would not be creationists.)

 Also, will there be a way to opt out of the science classes for people of other/no religion?

The creationists are trying to force their religion into science classrooms because they can't force non-believers to attend church. They want their religion to be mandatory, so no, they would not allow any sort of "opt out."
2013-09-27 01:07:16 PM  
3 votes:
Just call it Sharia law. Get a Muslim to speak on behalf of the anti-science point of view. Watch support disappear.
2013-09-27 01:05:02 PM  
3 votes:

super_grass: Luckily for them, the hard core post-modernists are also starting to reject empiricism because of "privilege" and "social constructs".

Looks like all derp converges at the top.


The po-mo epidemic peaked in 1996 and has been receding ever since.  The virus will always be endemic because actually understanding things is harder than bulls**ting, but the epidemic is past.
2013-09-27 01:02:11 PM  
3 votes:

Nurglitch: What if they just teach it as "mostly, contingently, and as far as we knew, kinda true," rather than TRUTH?


What if they each religious beliefs in church, and science in science classes?

Evolution happens.  Evolution has happened.  Evolution will continue to happen as long as there are organisms that reproduce.  If the creationists can't deal with that simple fact, that's their problem.
2013-09-27 12:53:31 PM  
3 votes:
Why in the world do judges even hear these bullshiat cases?
2013-09-27 12:50:23 PM  
3 votes:
truly frightening the quotes in tfa

reads like - my faith and parenting are weak - therefore, you may not expose my child to anything scientific I may have to explain - or anybody else's child because Jesus

also science fair projects invite the Devil's fire right up to the kitchen table - why else would so many of them feature Volcanos?
2013-09-27 12:32:41 PM  
3 votes:
The world needs ditch diggers too.
2013-09-27 04:05:41 PM  
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.


Paine was a Deist, which was a fairly reasonable understanding of reality given the information available at that time.  You, however, are a disingenuous jackass.  Paine was not supporting the teachings of Christianity, per se, and if you read (ahahahahah!) The Age of Reason, you would see it spelled out quite clearly many times over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism  is a nice jumping off point for you.  You should check it out.

Yeah, yeah, SkinnyHead is a troll.  I figured it was worth the time to reply anyways.  Someone else might actually learn from his mistakes.
2013-09-27 02:52:12 PM  
2 votes:

vudukungfu: We need to start treating Christians just like their ululating wacko babby raping worshiper counterparts that squat in the desert.
They are 100% the same kind of ignorant philistine schizospiritual terrorists andthey havenothing to offer society or civilizationexcept for patented fear and prejudice.
There is no place for them on this earth but an insaneasylum.
And whenarmed, they are a clear and present danger to all around.
Period.


You know, there are many millions of Christians in this country who don't force their views on others and don't agree with this kind of education nonsense. They just go about their business and go to church on Sunday's. They have plenty to offer society, not due to their faith, but due to the fact that they are human beings that have lives that are not solely about their faith. I'm an atheist, but I think it is very important to make a clear distinction between the people that do things like these groups from TFA and many millions of others who don't do anything to bother anyone. Just outright calling anyone who 'believes' a whacko isn't helping.
2013-09-27 02:45:09 PM  
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: "It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.



I can cherry-pick quotes too.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason


The opinions I have advanced ... are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues - and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now - and so help me God.

Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason
2013-09-27 02:00:44 PM  
2 votes:
So the argument is that schools should not "promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another."

By that logic, anything that contradicts any religious dogma (Christian or otherwise) should be removed from the Kansas science standards. The only acceptable material would be that which does not contradict any religion at all and agrees with empirical observation. I imagine the intersection on that Venn diagram is pretty small...
2013-09-27 01:59:52 PM  
2 votes:

Nurglitch: See, what you're not getting is that scientists and lay-people use the term "fact" differently, and that some people take the notion of fact as Fact, as in something universal and absolute. In other words, literally, you're talking about different things using the same words and although it looks like you're having a conversation (hence the appearance of disagreement), you're actually not talking about the same thing at all.



No, I get that.  The thing is, there is an observed "fact" of evolution in exactly that sense.  There is also a "theory of evolution" that explains the observed "fact of evolution."  It is perhaps unfortunate that the same term - "evolution" - is used to refer to both, but there's little I can do about that.

The "fact of evolution" is that offspring are different from their parents, and that the relative frequencies of variant alleles in the gene pool of a population change from one generation to the next.  That is as much a "fact" as anything in science can ever be.  It is as much a fact as the claim that brick houses are made of bricks.  It's something that, with the right equipment and instruction in how to use it, anyone can observe.

The "theory of evolution" is that natural selection, mutation, recombination, genetic drift, and a few other processes are the causes of the observed fact.  The theory cannot be "proven," since theories are ideas about cause and effect relationships, and as such are not physical "things" that can be observed.

The fact remains a fact however.


Secondly, if it was "patently and obviously false" then there wouldn't be a disagreement, because it would be patent and obvious that your theory isn't in conflict with their myth.


Creationism is patently and obviously false to anyone who actually looks at it with unbiased, objective eyes.  The fact that some people are delusional, brainwashed, or just to plain dumb to realize that they are wrong does not make their beliefs any less false.  Anyone who interprets Genesis as a literal, accurate, historical account is either delusional, dishonest, ignorant, or stupid.

(People who interpret genesis metaphorically don't tend to have any problems accepting evolution.  They are not creationists.)


Something science communicators (and most 'experts') often fail to do is to assess their audience, and adapt their language appropriately to make things clear to their audiences as well as to themselves.


Yes, this is a challenge.  It's one that I have to consider when I'm actually doing work, rather than just messing around on Fark.


What creationists want is their myths promulgated by the state, which I believe is illegal by your country's constitution.


That's correct.  Ultimately, what they want is a theocracy, in which their personal interpretations of scripture carry the force of law and it is illegal to believe anything else.  The repeated attempts to push their religion into the science classrooms are simply one battle in their culture war.  The fact that they lose the battle every time doesn't seem to dissuade them; they sincerely believe they can do the same thing they did before, the same way, and still expect a different outcome.
2013-09-27 01:49:41 PM  
2 votes:

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


The bold is blatantly false.  Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."
2013-09-27 01:42:01 PM  
2 votes:

boue67: Can someone explain to me how these peoples are that different from the Talibans?


they live Kansas
2013-09-27 01:35:04 PM  
2 votes:

busy chillin': This is stupid. But it seems you let the teacher teach science, and then sometime during the year the teachers says "Also, Christians believe God created the universe and all living creatures. There is no proof of this. A pastor and the church of your choice can expand upon these ideas. Now, onto ionic bonding."


No.  Never give them a millimeter.  There is no reason to poison education with their nonsense.
2013-09-27 01:05:12 PM  
2 votes:
Brad Dachus of Pacific Justice complained that is a violation of a child's rights to teach them that Creationism isn't the truth.

Which f*cking religion are you talking about, moran? I went to a Catholic high school and learned about evolution in freshman biology, and was taught the creation story in Genesis was allegory.
2013-09-27 01:00:50 PM  
2 votes:

Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.

2013-09-27 12:55:43 PM  
2 votes:
We need to start treating Christians just like their ululating wacko babby raping worshiper counterparts that squat in the desert.
They are 100% the same kind of ignorant philistine schizospiritual terrorists andthey havenothing to offer society or civilizationexcept for patented fear and prejudice.
There is no place for them on this earth but an insaneasylum.
And whenarmed, they are a clear and present danger to all around.
Period.
2013-09-27 12:38:35 PM  
2 votes:
And most of them will continue to home-school their kids anyway. Or send them to private Christian schools.

Oh, and starve the public schools of funding too. Forgot about that one.

How Jesus-y of them.
2013-09-27 12:37:56 PM  
2 votes:

Blues_X: I hope a teacher starts telling students about the Hindu view of creation.


I hope so too, because it's important to study the major religions of the world in order to understand how they have shaped the world, and how the world has shaped them.  As a computer science major, my absolute favorite non-major course in college was an objective, historic factual study of just that.  BRB I am going to become death, destroyer of worlds.
2013-09-27 12:33:56 PM  
2 votes:
Here, I'll list all of the medical achievements made through an analysis of the bible:
2013-09-27 12:32:19 PM  
2 votes:
My level of tolerance for these people is quickly dwindling .
2013-09-27 12:30:51 PM  
2 votes:
Everyone knows that Atun masturbated onto the ground creating the other gods.

Why won't the Kansas school board teach this?

DAMMIT WEENER!
2013-09-27 04:55:58 PM  
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: rinosaurus: I also don't think Paine would have gone along with Christian creationism being taught in the first place.

No, but Paine would have supported the scientific theory of Intelligent Design.  And he certainly would not approve of efforts to prohibit students from learning about Intelligent Design in schools.  He and Jefferson would insist that students should at least have the opportunity to learn of the controversy and of the differing views, so that they should be permitted to think and decide for themselves.  Most reasonable people think so too.


If Paine somehow lived through the intervening two hundred years, had no access to any current information, you might be correct.  I like to think otherwise, but neither your theory nor mine are provable in any way, much like Intelligent Design.  However... Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.  It is worth noting that students are not prohibited from learning about Intelligent Design in school, provided it is part of a larger study, such as world religions.  Intelligent Design is not included in science classes because it is NOT SCIENCE.  This is not controversy except in the minds of ignorant people.  Intelligent Design is not testable or falsifiable.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intel li gent-design-is-not.html   Read on!
2013-09-27 03:46:26 PM  
1 votes:

EWreckedSean: FloydA: EWreckedSean: mgshamster: EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).

The bold is blatantly false.  Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."

I would suggest you google scientific fact...


mgshamster is right.  A theory is not a fact and never can be.  A theory is (minimally) a set of postulates that are logically consistent and are intended to explain the cause and effect relationships between observations.  Since theories are ideas, they cannot be directly observed or measured, so they do not fit the definition of "facts" as it is usually understood.


You are correct that scientific theories are believable, and we can generally be pretty confident that they are correct, but they are neither a "superior" nor an "inferior" kind of knowledge than facts are.  Facts are the "stuff" that we want to explain, and theories are the explanations that we use to make sense of the stuff.

You are confusing a theory with a scientific theory. They are not interchangeable.


You are confusing theory (scientific or otherwise) with facts. Evolution occurs, that is a fact. WHY evolution occurs is the subject of various theories.
2013-09-27 02:49:37 PM  
1 votes:

unexplained bacon: [www.creationism.org image 720x375]

[www.creationism.org image 720x375]

such wit simply could not have evolved from apes


"Man" Tracks has been debunked for years - only the most intellectually dishonest creationists still use this argument:  http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

/ just saying...
2013-09-27 02:42:25 PM  
1 votes:
controversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.comcontroversy.wearscience.com
2013-09-27 02:36:08 PM  
1 votes:

super_grass: Oh shiat, I forgot about this gem of a webcomic:

[www.answersingenesis.org image 291x324]


upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

Amazing how science can blow holes in even simplistic crap like that.
2013-09-27 02:28:28 PM  
1 votes:
Tell ya What Kansas.


We are going to have a contest.

Several in Fact.

Contest 1: Build a house
You may only use one of the following: Science, or Faith.

Contest 2: Grow Crops resistant to drought.
You may only use one of the following: Science, or Faith.

Contest 3: Build an Airplane
You may only use one of the following: Science. or Faith.

Contest 4: You have all been given skin cancer. You must treat and cure it.
You may only use on of the following: Science, or Faith.
2013-09-27 02:21:08 PM  
1 votes:

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


Cf. Asimov essay.

Further, "science" and "scientific facts" are slightly different things. The term "Science" variously refers to a philosophical discipline, some anthropological practices, or the body of information resulting - "scientific facts" being only the last.

mgshamster: Theories are explanations of facts, they are not just "stronger facts."


That, too. Ob:

img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.
2013-09-27 02:18:36 PM  
1 votes:
The judge should invite each plantiff to discard their man-made cell phones, walk home, and not go to a hospital if their family ever becomes ill.
2013-09-27 02:17:31 PM  
1 votes:
Oh look, elchip's bored again. Cookie Clicker is a better way to taste time than SkinnyHead.
2013-09-27 02:09:52 PM  
1 votes:
"It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles. He can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author."  ~ Thomas Paine.
2013-09-27 02:07:21 PM  
1 votes:

Lord_Baull: How strong is your faith if science creates a hostile environment? More importantly, how great is your God if you are incapable of using the brain he gave you?


These people don't have faith. They have terrified, terrorized obsession. Blind faith is the weakest sort, and while it sounds challenging to believe in something against what is observed, that's only because to do so is farking stupid. True faith is faith that can still stand in the face of changing knowledge, and if your faith can't work in line with that knowledge or adapt to be of allegorical and spiritual value while working with that knowledge, it's not faith. It's delusion.
2013-09-27 01:46:56 PM  
1 votes:
"The group maintained that questions like "Where do we come from?" can only be answered honestly by religious dogma."

So, you're going to honestly answer questions using only dogma, which is itself based on a set of un-provable assumptions.

/morans
2013-09-27 01:39:02 PM  
1 votes:

dletter: Speaker2Animals: Brad Dachus of Pacific Justice complained that is a violation of a child's rights to teach them that Creationism isn't the truth.

Which f*cking religion are you talking about, moran? I went to a Catholic high school and learned about evolution in freshman biology, and was taught the creation story in Genesis was allegory.

Evangelicals.... Catholics are practically athiests compared to them.


And hell, it's not like Jews take a literal interpretation of the Old Testament.
2013-09-27 01:36:39 PM  
1 votes:

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


Depends on what people intend when they say "true".

Science is about creating models which best describe reality. Some aspect of the model might turn out to be flawed (indeed, this is almost a certainty), but that does not preclude the general conclusions of the model from being what the average person would consider "fact" or "true".

Newtonian physics is a flawed model that can still generate conclusions we would consider to be factual/true.
2013-09-27 01:32:14 PM  
1 votes:

EWreckedSean: Off the subject, but saying science is true is a bit of a misnomer too. Scientific theories, which are the strongest of scientific facts, are often shown to be not 100% accurate (e.g. special relativity to general relativity).


They're testable and repeatable. Sometimes the test gets better and what was once promoted to theory gets washed away based on new evidence. Sometimes it is just new discovery that better explains a process.

That's the thing, though. Testable and repeatable. Wilingness to change accepted theories based on new evidence; these are how we get science. Religion just 'is' because they believe it. Of the two choices here, one is more "true" than the other.
2013-09-27 01:10:09 PM  
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: There are religious schools you can send your fat children to, bootstrap that shiat.


They can't do that until they get vouchers so the taxpayers can pay for their instilled ignorance
2013-09-27 01:08:04 PM  
1 votes:

vudukungfu: Schools are like polling places. And religion is like a penis. It's OK to have one. It's OK to be proud of it.It is NOT OK to wave it around in public.



...or to ram it down childrens' throats.
2013-09-27 01:07:04 PM  
1 votes:
There are religious schools you can send your fat children to, bootstrap that shiat.
2013-09-27 01:04:28 PM  
1 votes:
There is a thing called mental constipation.  The subject can not release a belief no matter how hard they try.  They keep pushing, and pushing, but nothing comes out.  Calling science a religion is a good example of this.  Trying, 42 times, to defeat a law, which was already upheld by the Supreme Court is another example.  These people are stuck and cannot move.  Time simply passes them by.
2013-09-27 01:03:34 PM  
1 votes:

vudukungfu: qorkfiend: Question. Is there a judicial test to determine what does and does not qualify as a religion?

Is it based on peer reviewed science or an invisible friend?


I mean, I know most people have one, but is there an accepted standard for the courts? There must be, otherwise you could classify almost any action as "religious".
2013-09-27 01:01:48 PM  
1 votes:

qorkfiend: Question. Is there a judicial test to determine what does and does not qualify as a religion?


Is it based on peer reviewed science or an invisible friend?
2013-09-27 12:59:44 PM  
1 votes:
Religion and people like this turn people off from religion.
2013-09-27 12:36:30 PM  
1 votes:
What's science ever done for us?

*clicks add comment*
2013-09-27 12:33:51 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: These people are embarrassingly stupid and weirdly proud of it.


Yes. Yes they are.
 
Displayed 56 of 56 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report