This is too easy.

-FRAT STUD

Just another believer being persecuted. Someone call Ben Stein.

"the 1 in 8 biology teachers who don't believe in evolution"
WTF?
At which TTT college did you learn grammar?

Guys in my high school used to drive Satan out of a speaker all the time. It was no big deal.

"Speaker" as in he drove it out of a loudspeaker? Or was there someone giving a speech at the meeting?

Come on Kash, these are the details we need to know.

Branding is big right now. See http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/13/branded.ap/?iref=mpstoryview .

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Guys at my high school used to brand each other all the time. It was no big deal.

-Frat Stud

I love when people talk about hell.

that is just disturbing on so many levels. The principal wouldn't put a letter in the teacher's file unless he branded someone else?

creepy.

Why no criminal charges??

Posted by guest
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:29 AM

"the 1 in 8 biology teachers who don't believe in evolution"
WTF?
At which TTT college did you learn grammar?

*********
um, that's what bothers you about that statement? the grammar?

This is absolutely outrageous. Was the burning consensual? I don't necessarily have a problem with religion in school, but its place is in a theology class that examines and compares religions in an academic setting, not in biology.

You know what, we won't be reading Walt Whitman in English after all, class, for he was a sodomite and therefore against the Word of G-d.

Maybe it is just me, but branding your students does not seem like a very Christian thing to do . . .

The Lord will smite all of you, for you are wicked.

How is the school going to defend this one?

I don't want to live in a country where an 8th grade biology teacher can't brand the cross onto a student's skin.

No harm no foul. a little brand never hurt anyone.

When I was in 8th grade my teacher said he wanted to brand a mushroom stamp on my forehead, is that weird?

And we wonder why the Chinese are winning.....
Stupid POOORS keeping their stupid POOOR brethren stupid and POOOOR

Please, please, please give conservative evangelicals, bible-thumping nuts/creationists, rabid abortion opponents, and southern bigots and homophobes their own country. Let them support themselves. I'm tired of calling them fellow Americans.

10:17 -

We have our own country, it's called Amurica, and you're livin' in it!

10:16 AM:

Umm, have you been to china? The country where they eat monkey penises because they think that eating them enhances their own growth? The same country where people in the boonies think black men should have tails? (I know a guy who experience this first hand).

There is plenty of stupid to go around in this world. The fact that incidents like these are uncommon enough that they are a big deal shows this country has gone quite a long way since the scopes monkey trial.

In fact, the reason why stories like this make the front page is the internet has expanded far enough that places that once NEVER made the news can easily get blogged about. There have always been tons of crazies in the country. WIth the internet, we just now know about them.

I am sure that this will draw the ire of some, but does anyone else think that it is a little out there to say that this guy's actions are unconstitutional. I mean, I certainly think that he should be fired for assaulting his students, and I even believe that without that, he should be fired for teaching what he does. It seems, however, that you would need a pretty broad "state action" doctrine to have the first amendment (or the 14th's DP clause) reach a public school teacher who is diverging from the scope of the approved curriculum. Just fire the guy (1) because he has assaulted children and (2) because he is not teaching the required curriculum. No need to get the Constitution involved.

10:17 you are the shining example of the tolerance that liberals preach. Thank you for demonstrating that you want an America filled with only people who thing in an acceptable manner. Acceptable as determined by you.

It's not a big deal - on my first day at my firm, we all got branded with our employee id numbers. That way the partners don't have to spend valuable time learning our names. We also get implanted with microchips containing all of the client numbers for matters we are working on. When a partner needs something done, he just goes out into the hall and uses his scanner to find an associate to do the work. Efficient and effective!

Are the plainitffs suggesting that teachers must teach evolution AND that it is a correct theory? The teacher did edcuate the students about evolution, he just offered the opposing viewpoint as well. I see a well-rounded educational experience here.

As for the "branding," it cannot be argued that the student was mistreated; its not even alleged. All indications suggest the student invited the mark. Kids break their legs playing gym soccer, this is a skin welt. Get over it.

it is unconstitutional to prosecute a teacher for branding a kid since that would infringe on his first amendment right of freedom of expression.

10:36,

The difference is that the liberal preaches that everyone should follow the doctrine that all people are able to live their own life as they see fit. Obviously this runs into conflict with that particular breed of conservative who believes that a proper function of their life is to restrict everyone else to that conservative's particular code of conduct. Given the choice, I'll go with the simple, more expansive "live and let live" doctrine over evangelizing an unnecessarily restrictive dogma.

10:38, what indications would those be?

Right, 11:01, the liberal doctrine is "live and let live." You left off the most important part - "live and let live, so long as you don't disagree with or offend me; in that case, fuck straight off." See the difference?

11:03 -

the absolute silence from the parents that their son was forced to take it.

If forced, I have no doubt the parents would mention it, and I also contend that criminal charges would be filed. Perhaps you disagree.

11:01 - but by stating that all those "conservative evangelicals, bible-thumping nuts/creationists, rabid abortion opponents, and southern bigots and homophobes" should get their own country and that the commenter does not want to call them fellow american, he/she is not adhering to the "live and let live" doctrine. Instead the commentor is hypocritically saying "live and let live" unless you believe x, y, and z because I don't like x, y, and z.

10:28,
No, the Establishment Clause is not a peripheral part of the Constitution, and a public school teacher is quite clearly a state actor. See, e.g., Edwards v. Aguillard.

Why no restraining order??

It is the sure way to get any employee, including unionized teachers and police officers fired.

The heck with the school board, do it yourself.

Boy, times sure have changed - we use to just stone the infidels and burn the witches. What is this world coming to? Next you're going to tell me they've done away with vivisection.

Law students at AU brand their arms with a hot iron TTT at the end of their first year. Its pretty cool.

I heard they did that at Regent and the Bush Whitehouse.
(along with the mandatory TTT tattoo). any confirmation?

11:05 (+ 11:07),

As I said, the conflict arises from the fact that ideological, stereotypical liberal "tolerance" is itself intolerant of intolerance. It's a valid point that there is a certain level of hypocrisy inherent therein, but at worst it's the lesser of two evils.

In the rare instance that our firm hires a TTT grad, such as an AU or GULC grad, our hiring partner immediately brands their forehead with a TTT so as to identify them to all other associates. This policy has been in place for years and seems to have been rather successful.

Actually, 11:07, he is saying to live and let live -- he's perfectly happy to let the wingnuts live out their bigotry, he just wants to ensure they don't endanger his or his family's freedoms. So he suggests a compromise of giving them their whole country. That's a lot more generous than any compromise the wingnuts have ever offered.

their *own* whole country

proofreading's for the weak anyway :-P

11:44 - but by your definition - "live and let live" unless your doctrine conflicts with what I believe is exactly what the "intolerant" conservatives do. Everyone is willing to allow you your beliefs unless and until they conflict with their own worldview. That doesn't make liberals better - just the same as everyone else with a condescending view that their way is the best. They go beyond "we disagree" to "you're a bad person and shouldn't be an american because you don't share my view."

12:48,

You missed the part where I agreed with you. The difference, however, is that the liberal approach is more expansive in that it allows for the conservative viewpoint to exist. The same is not true in reverse.

Simple example: under a liberal view, a white man is free to exclusively date white women if he so desires. He is free to believe that others should do the same. If he voices those beliefs, some might argue with him and consider him a jerk, but he retains his freedom to live as he sees fit, while others who would like to date someone of a different race are free to do so. Under a conservative view, the behavioral model of that particular white man could be forced upon everyone.

Yes, it's true that either view is in some sense forcing a behavioral model; but the liberal model is far more expansive and permissive. In order to preserve that model, it is obviously necessary to fight against those who believe that everyone should act the same way in _specific_ matters, by trying to get everyone to act in the same _general_ manner of letting others conduct their own lives.

"The difference is that the liberal preaches that everyone should follow the doctrine that all people are able to live their own life as they see fit. "

Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

This teacher was perfectly within his rights. The anti-religion liberal majority is pushing its own beliefs onto everyone in the schools and not even allowing for alternative viewpoints.

When I substitute-taught biology a few years ago, I merely presented to the students an alternative viewpoint to evolutionary THEORY and was immediately dismissed!!!! Talk about a violation of my First Amendment rights!!!

To all who care to hear the TRUE story of the origin of the earth and all existence, here it is:

After the creation of the earth and every living thing on it in the period of six days, the Lord rested on the seventh day, for he was exhausted and was desirous to look upon his creation and be entertained. He saw that all he had created was good. He spake unto Adam and Eve and asked, "what do you think of my creation?" And, lo, they agreed that it was very good. And thus, to show the Lord their gratitude for granting them existence, they bought him a brand-new Playstation 3 with a 108-inch projection screen television. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats.

Dear 1:22 PM:

How many of your students did you brand with a red hot cross?

1:22,

I lol'd at the MP:HG reference. I haven't seen that in ages.

This is yet another example of missing the forest for the trees.

Burning a cross into a students arm is criminal and along with criminal sanctions should result in immediate dismissal (I understand that because of contractual issues maybe it's suspension pending review or something). That should be the lead part of the story, but it has an entirely misplaced emphasis.

If one wants to argue issues of freedom of conscience and religion and speech vs. educational requirements, pick an example where the teacher's not a nutbar -- using this guy as a poster boy is akin to a straw-man argument.

"The teacher did edcuate the students about evolution, he just offered the opposing viewpoint as well. I see a well-rounded educational experience here."

Yes, teaching the "opposing viewpoint" to the theory of gravity is part of a well-rounded educational experience as well.

Just the other day I was sitting in my local coffee shop in this great liberal city smoking a cigarette and eating trans fat and foie grois while posting an ad on Craig's List for a white person to rent my investment property to. I had my Hummer parked outside with the engine running and all the incandescant light bulbs were burning in my house, which I still owned because the liberal Supreme Court shot down the government's attempt to take it away with eminent domain and give it to a campaign-donating developer to build condos. Luckily I didn't have to waste any time this year filing any paperwork with the government detailing where all my income was coming from and had plenty of money to pay for that Hummer because I didn't have to pay 50% of my income in taxes so that my liberal government can give it away to whomever it wants. And I didn't have to worry about high gas prices because there was plenty of drilling going on all over the US and refineries popping up everywhere. I checked how my personal retirement account was doing, and the balance was nice and healthy from all the extra money I was able to invest by not having to pay into social security. Since I had some free time, I hit the local gun shop and picked up a nice piece to defend myself and do a little shooting at the range. The rest of the day was less eventful. I picked up some groceries at Walmart and then rode my bike without a helmet over to the men-only golf club to play 9. At the end of a long day I went home, where my 3 wives were waiting for me with a hot dinner. Boy, do I love liberalism. Live and let live!

I have to say, the liberal insistence that all sides be heard on an issue is sometimes detrimental. It confers a measure of legitimacy on morons.

Everyone should follow the doctrine that all people are able to live their own life as they see fit. On the other hand, we can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times, and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen.

- BHO

1:40,

I appreciate your skill with irony, but do I really need to take the time to debunk the half of those comments that aren't completely irrelevant?

1:03: Interracial dating as an illustration of liberalism? Seriously? Dude, get a new time machine.

1:55,

Would you rather I use anti-sodomy laws? Same principle, just happens to be a couple of decades more recent. What's the big deal?

12:19 -- My firm brands TTT associates too. Its become a springtime tradition for us. Sometimes the partners even make a day out of it and bring their families down to watch the event.

1:03 my intitial comment that started this whole thing was in response to the commentor who essentially stated everyone who disagreed with him/her should just leave the country. Essentially that person wants an america that only tolerates liberals/people who agree with his/her thinking and everyone else can take a hike. He doesn't want to call them fellow americans. I simply said that suggesting one should be kicked out of the country due to their beliefs is hugely intolerant.

Amen, 2:00! (Wait, can I say "amen" in this forum?)

1:58: Thanks for weighing in, Austin Powers.

Its JEBUS! HOOORAAY JEBUS!

My intolerance is better than your intolerance because I'm intolerant of the "right" things. Right according to who? Well, me of course. I only hate the people the liberals tell me it's ok to hate - you know - those "wingnuts".

1:53, I'll go ahead and try. I'm bored at work.

FYI, when I say "liberal" I'm talking about something that's probably closer to libertarian than democrat -- libertarians are really the ones with the live and let live philosophy. I agree that the democrats are not. Still, libertarian principles are not libertine -- your right to swing your fist ends at my face.

1:40:

-smoking cigarettes directly affects the health of those around you. That's not a personal liberty issue, it's a harm-weighing issue. The harm you would do to another person in the coffee shop by smoking outweighs the harm done to you by telling you to do your business at home where it won't hurt any nonconsenting parties.

-trans fat, granted, is borderline. But when your consumption of trans fat increases my health care costs, I have the right to ask my legislator to tell you to knock it off. A sin tax wouldn't be enough here, because health care is a nonfungible scarce resource. I.e., you cannot monetarily compensate those on the margins who will not have access to a doctor because that doctor is attending to your health problems resulting from trans fat consumption. So, your trans fat consumption may in fact kill someone. Obviously this principle can be taken too far, so it is an open question where the line should be drawn. But restrictions on the use of trans fat IN RESTAURANTS (you can still buy it for use at home -- and, hey, it wouldn't hurt you to do more of your own cooking anyway) is not inherently un-liberal.

-I like foie gras, but I just don't care enough about it to get worked up over it. When we fix the economy, prevent global warming, eradicate global starvation, and find a cure for AIDS, then I'll worry about foie gras.

-you can already post whatever ad you want on Craigslist, as long as it doesn't violate, e.g., obscenity or IP laws. Free speech. If you wind up turning down a potential black renter, you might face liability for unlawful housing discrimination, if s/he presses charges, and your ad would serve as evidence of discriminatory intent. But the racism example isn't a great one.

-I think in most cities it's illegal to have *any* car just sitting there running, unattended, because of the possibility of theft, which results in a drain on public police resources.

-Hummers contribute to global warming. Your right to drive whatever you want ends at the point it causes the extinction of the human race. Totally unfair, I know.

-I don't know anyone who agrees with Kelo, liberal or otherwise. Fuck ups by Supremes who are generally liberal is hardly an indictment of liberal principles themselves.

-The tax question is where the distinction between liberal and democrat becomes really important. True liberals despise government waste and oppose tax increases, at least until the government starts using the tax it already *has* in a manner approaching efficient. I don't know *anyone* who doesn't hate the complicated tax laws, except for my tax lawyer friends (since that's what keeps them employed) -- who are republicans, by the way.

-you wouldn't have to worry about high gas prices if you purchased a more efficient vehicle. Or if, instead of relying on a natural resource that will someday, without a doubt, DEFINITELY run out, the money taxed (used so improperly I'd call it stolen) to keep oil companies and their friends like W rich could instead be used appropriately on research and development of alternative fuels. Someday we will need them. Period. It is foolish to pretend we can sustain our lifestyles forever. This is sheer denial. You may as well drop a gigantic ice cube into the ocean every few years to slow global warming. 'Cause, yeah, that's totally sustainable.

-again an important distinction between liberals and democrats. Liberals abhor social security.

-you don't even get to drive a car without a license (something even you don't seem to find problematic), and yet you would have us give guns -- which are even MORE deadly -- to any random joe who walks into a gun shop? Deadly weapons have to be regulated for the operation of an orderly society. Unless conservatives are anarchists, you must concede this point.

-liberals vs democrats again. Liberals oppose helmet laws, though it does bear mentioning that the same principle may apply here that applies to trans fat, above -- if your risky behavior means there is one less doctor available, someone else is harmed by your riding without a helmet. Again, not saying this wholly justifies helmet laws, but it bears consideration in the analysis, which must be rigorous.

-there still exist men-only organizations in numerous locations around the country, and liberals have no problem with homosexuality.

-if by "wives" you mean women you live with for whom you have perhaps entered into various contracts, there's no liberal problem here. But "marriage" is inappropriate as a state institution, as its underpinnings are generally religious in nature. And, if you can find three women happy to fulfill your fantasy of coming home to a hot dinner, more power to you. Just don't be surprised when they leave with half your salary.

Teaching the theory of gravity exclusively in schools violates my religious rights. Gravity is only an unproven THEORY. The true believers, however, know that the only reason humans don't fly off into space is because God is giving the whole earth a big cosmic hug that keeps us stuck to the ground. He hugs the moon, too, but not as tightly, so that's why you feel lighter on the moon.

I demand that my religion's beliefs be given equal time in the classroom!! Students must be taught about the Cosmic Hug!!

2:26,

Thanks for stepping in, though I'd offer a couple of counterpoints:

-I believe it is illegal to state a racial preference in a housing ad. Not sure if this applies to other types of ads, or if "rental of an investment property" was meant to imply housing, but it was one of the points I considered meritorious. I'd point to restrictive covenants in deeds -- people certainly have the right to include them, but they cannot be enforced by government, as that would violate the Constitution.

-Hummers contribute to global warming, but so does any car -- and there are a lot which get worse gas mileage than a Hummer. Some tweaking is necessary here to prevent a reduction to "you must buy the single most fuel efficient car on the market, period."

-Social security is another form of insurance. Nobody expects to lose their job a year before retirement, have their company file bankruptcy to avoid paying their expected pension, etc. Social security spreads the risk over the population. It definitely needs a lot of work, and arguably people like Bill Gates don't need to be collecting a Social Security check, but it has significantly reduced the number of senior citizens living in poverty, which in turn helps the economy, i.e. everyone else. Arguably, the best solution would be to get rid of most of social security while significantly increasing unemployment benefits. Also, the original poster made the incredibly fallacious assumption that the money taken from the secure environment of Social Security had (1) gone into the volatile private investment market in the first place; and (2) yielded a higher return. The private market is more volatile, so some people will undoubtedly come out on top, but not everyone can be a winner.

Agreed in full with everything else.

2:42, thanks. If even the *advertisement* is itself illegal, then you're right -- I do IP, not housing, so I'm not as familiar with those laws. I agree with your other points.

OOOoooo, I would LOVE to have the debate of whether liberals or conservatives are more tolerant.

Describing home-grown conservatism in this country as a bastion of tolerance is the most preposterous proposition I have ever heard.

3:00, what an intolerant thing to say! Three God-spankings for you.

1:40(1): I LULZd

1:40(2): credited, it's the down side of ethical consistency / having an IQ over room-temperature

Its JEEEBUS! HOOORAAY JEEBUSS!!!

Smoking a cigarette directly affects the health of those around you. Abortion directly affects the health of the unborn child.

What if I give cigarette smoke via an IV to an unborn child?

Why hasn't there been some really good Frat Stud posts here? I know it's too easy, but it's also screaming to be done.

JEBUS WILL SAVE TEH BAYBEEZ IN TEH MOMMEE TUMMEEZ!!! HOORAY!!!!!

why is anyone arguing? we brand that guy with the kid's beliefs - maybe a sponge bob or something. hopefully the teacher thinks sponge bob is gay.