digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Creationists can't fail Earth Science: Oklahoma

badastronomy.com — The Oklahoma House of Representatives has passed a bill that says that a student can receive a passing grade in an Earth Science class if they say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth an hour ago, and then planted false memories into every single living creature on Earth to make it seem like they’ve been around longer.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 0260, on 03/10/2008, -19/+481Science testing is testing on what you are taught and not what your opinion is of what you are were taught. That is how it is in every class and exam. I am sure I would've failed if i said romeo and juliet was written by ron paul...
    • uptwolait, on 03/10/2008, -4/+259Exactly. I didn't believe in calculus, but I failed it anyway.
    • SuperWinner, on 03/10/2008, -5/+170sneakiest ron paul pump ever
      • pintomp3, on 03/10/2008, -4/+24ironic too, considering he doesn't believe in evolution.
        • artwithbyte, on 03/10/2008, -1/+9you don't need to believe in evolution to write Romeo and Juliet. /pedant
        • Parisjune, on 03/10/2008, -13/+4That's not true.
          • pintomp3, on 03/10/2008, -1/+11yes, it is:
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g&feature=rel ...
            "evolution is a theory and i don't accept it"
          • 0zzy, on 03/11/2008, -7/+3"I don't think that anybody has exact proof on either side [creationism + evolution]."
            OMG! HE'S ANTISCIENTIFIC AND ANTIGOD!

            He doesn't accept the whole theory of evolution, the theory as a whole, he's not a man of exacts. He also believes homosexuality maybe caused by birth rather than choice, saying homosexuals should be allowed in the military so long as they don't do anything disruptive (same as heterosexual).

            But no, let us call Ron Paul inside for he doesn't believe in the whole theory of evolution.
          • reaganluver, on 03/11/2008, -4/+2This of course means that everyone who would vote for him must not believe in evolution either. I mean come on, he's obviously an idiot, choosing to go to medical school instead of getting a real job. Evolution? Is it a real suprise that a 72 yr old christian doesn't believe in it? I mean, him being 100% correct on the war, economy, and civil liberties is irrelevant, he doesn't believe in evolution. Stone him!!
        • Gabberwok, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6Or true love...
        • SuperWinner, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3I don't believe in apples, next week I will not be believing in cars
    • FTLJohnson, on 03/10/2008, -7/+88I'm definitely digging this article for the accurate description! It's obvious to those who've been touched by his noodly appendage that our memories of the time before are a gift from the great one, sprinkled into our minds like so much Parmesan cheese topping.
    • insanebrain, on 03/10/2008, -2/+24He didn't write it ???
      • tracywood, on 03/10/2008, -2/+9No, but he did write the Constitution!
        • Tetraca, on 03/10/2008, -0/+20That's a common misconception. Ron Paul actually wrote the Articles of Confederation.
          • ConceptJunkie, on 03/11/2008, -5/+2Right. Everyone knows Chuck Norris wrote the Constitution.
      • OrangeTide, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4No, Ron Paul wrote the Magna Carta.
    • diggopolous, on 03/10/2008, -9/+29Romeo and Juliet may not have been written by Ron Paul but Romeo and Romeo was written by Ru Paul
      • ahawks, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9That was the most confusing sentence I have read today. I felt the little gears in my brain jam for a second there
    • stonewaljacksn, on 03/10/2008, -7/+66there I was studying like a sucker. I coulda played the Jesus card all along. *****.
      • LeeSoong, on 03/11/2008, -2/+10Science Teacher: 'Time for your quiz on rocks and minerals.'

        student: '' INSOLENT SLAVE! BOW DOWN TO THE GREAT GOD SETH ! "
        student's eyes flash white light...

        I was hoping Stargate SG-1's final episode would reveal Jesus as a Tok'ra.
        http://www.gateworld.net/omnipedia/races/t/tokra.s ...

        Stargate SG-1 reinterpreted many mythologies, but didn't have the guts to take on the biggest myth of all: Christianity / Judaism / Islam - All Goa'uld based mythologies.
        • masterdieff, on 03/11/2008, -0/+8For a laugh and and SG-1 reference on Digg, I give you: two geek credits. You may redeem them at any Fry's or Gamestop in your area.
        • RobotBuddha, on 03/11/2008, -0/+5I was kind of hoping for that as well. It could have been fun, and a nice way to exit. How awesome would it have been to see Jesus flying a spaceship.
    • Eivo, on 03/10/2008, -3/+18Just say you worship the goddess Eris or say your religion is Discordianism, then do whatever the hell you want. Just make it chaotic!
      • ictharus, on 03/11/2008, -0/+9I think I'll opt for chaotic neutral.
      • Squidwalk, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1Hail the None-Mother Eris! The world is but an apple make by Her to support an obscene amount of metaphors. Let us honor her by discarding this fact.
    • shaun1018, on 03/10/2008, -2/+39Thor bitches, Thor.
    • kdouze, on 03/10/2008, -49/+5i would think that the liberal left would be happy about this, it is a victory for freedom of religion. just because it is a prevalent religion doesn't mean it's wrong. God Bless
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 03/10/2008, -2/+34It's not a victory for freedom of religion as much as a victory for fredom of being a dumbass.
        • rkbabang, on 03/10/2008, -2/+18Freedom of religion IS the freedom to be a dumbass. You're free to be as dumb as you'd like. You shouldn't get a passing grade in earth science for it though.
          • Opiate, on 03/10/2008, -2/+4So in reality the problem lies in state schools..
      • JDove6, on 03/10/2008, -0/+14freedom of religion is one thing, getting out of science exams is another.
        • Mejari, on 03/10/2008, -0/+7Finally, after millennia of ***** religion actually does something helpful. No more exams! 2+2? Jesus did it. What is the best way to optimize a SQL database with n^k entries? God knows. Who discovered America? Jesus again. A+ for me.
        • LeeSoong, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3I can see grade school math class fundamentalist students now:

          'No, Teacher, YOU ARE WRONG!!!
          1+1+1 = 1 Don't cha read the Word of GOD?!?!?'
          • celotil, on 03/11/2008, -0/+5Pi is 3! Not that heathen 3.1415!

            Decimals are from the Devil!
      • juicebag, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1Good thing you said "God Bless" at the end of your post. And good thing all liberals are not creationists and vice versa.
    • JAVandiver, on 03/10/2008, -17/+6Innaccurate! Read the Bill before you take the word of a blog:
      "Homework and classroom work shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school. Students may not be penalized or rewarded on account of religious content."
      • carpespasm, on 03/10/2008, -3/+14Well, if that's the line that you're choosing to discredit the article you must have misread it. It says they can't penalize on account of religious content. That means that myself and all pastafarians as well as last-thursdayists have as valid a source to put in their oklahoma tests as creationists of any creed.
      • mlwarrior, on 03/10/2008, -2/+8Jav, reading comprehension is important.

        "Students may not be penalized or rewarded on account of religious content." Therefore, if you decide that scientific fact supported by testing and evidence means less than what your hick religion tells you, you can't be penalized.
      • steeeeve, on 03/10/2008, -2/+4What i read here is, that you are allowed to have a nonscientific viewpoint and talk about it. I do not read, that knowing or being able to describe the mainstream science viewpoint is optional. You can add "but i do not believe it because it is not in the bible" at the end of the text without getting a disadvantage for it. That is all i read here.
    • tracywood, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5Ahh... knowledge puffs up...
      • LeeSoong, on 03/11/2008, -1/+4but religious brain washing builds armies of devoted followers.

        GIVE !!!
        GIVE $$$ TO JESUS !
        I am just handling his account until he comes back,
        so if you could please just make your checks out to 'CASH'...
      • vincexs, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1...but love builds up. 1 Corinthians 8:1
        • LeeSoong, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2JESUS SAVES - AT First National Bank !
    • Bilabrin, on 03/10/2008, -5/+19We should allow parents to remove their childeren from schools on religious grounds and not have mandatory ciriculum for homeschoolers. That way these religious freaks would never achieve higher education and would sink to the bottom rung of society where they belong.
      • therealtt, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7The facts don't agree with your comments...

        13. Statistics also demonstrate that homeschoolers tend to score above the national average on both their SAT and ACT scores.

        http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.as ...
        • rkbabang, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7You are correct the facts are that the government won't leave the home schoolers the hell alone.
      • ArandiaT, on 03/11/2008, -2/+8Problem: The poorer you are in society / the lower your IQ, the more likely you are to procreate (think trailer trash). As IQ and religious and/or scientific ideas are to some degree influenced by your parents, this will gradually lead, over time, to a population dominated by creationists.
        • ntr0p3, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3Seconded.
          More importantly the more easily manipulated you are by people who claim to agree with you, and the more useful you as a blunt political weapon for whoever is ruthless enough to use you (see neo-cons and evangelicals).
          Elitism sounds great in theory, but rarely works in practice, Barbarians usually get ya in the end ala Rome, damn germans.
        • Bilabrin, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2I suppose the popularity of springer/brittany/pop and especially rap music are indicative that you may be correct. Looks like the dirty, neglected masses are more influential than we'd hoped.

          In theory, overpopulation and undereducation among the poor should lead to in-fighting which should ultimately reduce population totals, shorten lifespans and life quality and ultimately reduce relevance of said populations. The extent to which this is true seems to be in question. Social darwinism disproven? Well, not so fast. Resources are becoming scarce and when it comes to food and water shortages and we start getting callous about human life, the elite should get first take. I must admit ignorance here of the causes of the fall of rome but certainly the french revolution would give us some clue as to how this might play out so... I'll cede this point.
        • CyberSkull, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3And that leads to Idiocrasy.
        • Squidwalk, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2Haha, Cyberskull beat me to it. Check the movie Idiocracy if you haven't yet. Or better yet, just check the opening, because all in all the movie isn't very funny but the opening is hysterical.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzmYUjCNpk8&feature ...
      • mOdQuArK, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3I'll do you one better & propose that such parents should be deported to a small island where they can live without the benefits of the technology that all that "science" was responsible for creating.
    • sizzam, on 03/10/2008, -5/+5"Science testing is testing on what you are taught and not what your opinion is of what you are were taught."

      -- unless we're talking about intelligent design. Then opinion matters.
      • Fozefy, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2Teachers just need to be careful to word a question like that correctly. As long as the word it, saying the "theory as learned in class" or some such thing. There is nothing in any religion as far as I know against knowing what other religions or beleifs are and obviously the student should not be penlized if they word their answer as though they beleive its wrong, however they should have what was taught involved in their answer.
        • ashleegirl, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2"If you listen to other religions then their demons are in your head and will takeover your soul."
          What I was told by my christian stepmother when I brought a Harry Potter book over for the weekend.
          • Monk22, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3you step mom is an idiot. this isn't the middle ages any more, Zeus isn't gonna throw a bolt of lightning at you if you read a book.
          • ashleegirl, on 03/12/2008, -1/+1@ Monk22: Well thank you for clearing that up for me, I had not realized that my father married a brainwashed whore.
          • Monk22, on 03/12/2008, -0/+2it happens
    • Jackolicious, on 03/10/2008, -1/+18I call this a victory for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
      • jimv1983, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2I've been touched by His Noodly Appendage!
    • norman619, on 03/10/2008, -1/+9Here's to them keeping it real!

      Real stupid.
    • rileyhallwood, on 03/10/2008, -2/+5well failing earth science also requires you to be retarded.
      has anyone actually taken that class? I have upwards of 95 percent and i go to every 2nd or 3rd class.
      • Fozefy, on 03/11/2008, -2/+7The same can be said for alot of class...besides no one cares about your minor victories.
    • cbuddha42, on 03/11/2008, -11/+5I don't think this applies to test. If it does then teachers will simply word their tests "in the opinion of your textbook's author how old is the earth?" This just tries to stop teachers from telling kids who are confused by possible conflicts between their religion and classes that the religion aspect is what's wrong.

      Regardless, even as a non religious person I'm kinda sick of the anti-religious sentiment on digg. Just like some poor kid can't explain how the earth can be 6000 years old yet older fossils exist to his or her 4th grade teacher, the author of this article can't back up his "facts." There is simply no way to prove that God didn't create the earth 6000 years ago with all of those fossils already in the ground. But hey, lets play science; we can all observe that objects with mass create a gravitation pull on other masses, but I challenge anyone to explain how and why they do so.
    • eOgas, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Damn, so that's why I failed Literature.
    • Dsly, on 03/11/2008, -2/+1Way to take a step forward Oklahoma
      http://www.jfcshow.com
      • MicrosoftBob, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Look out, Kansas! Here comes Oklahoma!
    • 0zzy, on 03/11/2008, -3/+2For example, in government there are stupid questions like, "Does war help the economy?" I say no, but he says it is right. I know what he thinks though, so I put yes.
      • Acolyte357, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4Your example is flawed. A better question is "2 + 2 =?" the answer is 4 but now in Oklahoma you can say "God".
  • hauntedchippy, on 03/10/2008, -34/+379Well so long science, it was nice for a while and we've had some fun over the years, but we've decided that pure fantasy is way better. I'm personally hoping to cure cancer with pixie dust later on this year.
    • paperclipsNsoup, on 03/10/2008, -8/+8Well if hear if you snort pixie sticks...
      • Cerebron, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8Supercool?
        • boombye, on 03/10/2008, -6/+2That was a good episode of Upright Citizens Brigade. Whoever dugg this guy down is just an emo turd who thinks crap like "Whitest Kids U Know" is funnier or something.
        • barbobot, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3I was doing my dishes in the bathtub.
        • Disfnord, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1911 is a joke, and so is psychotonomy.
    • FredFredrickson, on 03/10/2008, -6/+63Who needs pixie dust, or modern medicine, when you can heal with prayer?
      • GeneralFault, on 03/10/2008, -1/+10Wish they would spend more time trying this method. Then I might be able to get a real Dr. appt in less than 2 weeks wait.
      • ch33sehead, on 03/10/2008, -0/+27Yeah, but if the prayer doesn't work, then the doctor killed 'em.
      • dumpyhumpy, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9AAAAAAAMEN!

        (cough, cough)
      • sotopheavy, on 03/10/2008, -0/+8Yes, It's worked so well in fact, that virtually all disease has been eliminated. No matter what anybody else tells you ever.
      • LeeSoong, on 03/11/2008, -2/+3Fred,

        A few years back someone did actually perform a double blind study of patients being prayed for by a faithful group and the control who received no extra prayer.

        Guess what?

        Patients who were prayed for ended up having slower and more difficult medical recoveries with more complications.


        A real test - does prayer heal? In this circumstance - it harmed.

        Maybe prayer healing works for some people, the rest are going to have to do the best they can with science, biochemistry, and family support...
    • KicktheDonkey, on 03/10/2008, -2/+14Please, let us know how your research goes. I've got a hypothesis (and by "hypothesis" I mean bat-*****-ass-can thought) that I can cure cancer by wishing it away.

      Maybe we should collaborate.
    • jaznova, on 03/10/2008, -1/+24Hang on a minute! If FSM is pure fantasy, how am I supposed to know the difference between right and wrong?
      • LeeSoong, on 03/11/2008, -0/+5RELIGION: WE HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS !
        You must not think, just BELIEVE! Doubting Us is a sin!

        SCIENCE: Sorry, all we have for you are questions.
        You are going to have to do a lot of hard thinking and difficult experiments.
        How does this work? What happens when you do this? Where did this come from ?


        GroupThink religious fantasy operates just like racism: they both say
        God is good and ( insert-other-race-religion-here ) are evil godless scum.
        It MUST be True!
    • Khannea, on 03/10/2008, -4/+16Hey, I live in Europe.... sometimes we just have to cut our losses. Maybe we just have to accept the fact that slowly but surely the US is sliding back into a third world status. Maybe it just can't be avoided. *sniff*
      • zeabu, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7Well, I also live in Europe, and it's not *snif snif snif*, what happens over there has its reflections here. The German prime minister, she believes the same.
        • niczar, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Complain not, Merkel's scores better in that department than our vertically challenged Napoléon wannabe.
    • Cyrus042, on 03/10/2008, -27/+2I personally believe that all sciences are not equal, and this is one example. How is determining the history of the world by extrapolating from a series of hypotheses or facts the same as actual observed (not unearthed) facts in cancer study? I'm not saying that people shouldn't believe in evolution or creationism for that matter, but come on, these things aren't equivalent.

      Cancer research uses sciences to save lives. Evolutionary science and related fields doesn't. I don't understand why evolution became such a hot topic for so many people that they must make sure that everyone learns it even though I don't believe it has any applicable purpose. (And seems to be more divisive than anything else)

      Honestly, I don't believe it's possible or ever will be possible to prove the absolute origins of the Earth and all life on it. Some things are just going to be unknowable. To me, both sides are acting foolish when they try and undermine each other.
      • countingthedays, on 03/10/2008, -3/+11Maybe you'll realize why it's important when you turn 16.
      • willfe, on 03/10/2008, -0/+14Cyrus042: You're an idiot. Evolutionary science and the principles it brings to the table are the foundation for the biologic sciences, which have brought us everything from vaccines and antibiotics to cancer and blood pressure treatments. "Evolution science" does not attempt to determine or prove the absolute origins of the Earth. It is focused on why organisms evolve the way they do.

        This is just the modern window dressing for the age-old urge by religious nuts to take their shots at science. This same kind of idiotic temper tantrum erupted back when humans first started suggesting the world was round. Science isn't actually trying to "undermine" religion, you know... most scientists are too busy trying to figure out how stuff works (and why) to be bothered with having meetings with your favorite invisible bearded guy.
        • Cyrus042, on 03/11/2008, -9/+1What is with this all or nothing philosophy? Evolutionary science may be a biological science but it's not the "foundation" of biological science in the sense that applicable sciences such as medicine rely upon it. Vaccines and Antibiotics existed before evolution was proposed, and I'm sure that blood pressure treatments did as well. You cannot validate the virtues of evolution by presenting things that preceded it or are not dependent upon it.

          In terms of evolution's purpose, well, from my experience I've only really seen it used as a means of trying to examine the past, not prepare for the future.

          Lastly, I don't take a position as a "religious nut" to take shots at science. You're assuming that anyone who disagrees with how evolutionists are handling themselves must be religious. I am not religious. I say it as a skeptic who doesn't have absolute faith in science. I say it as someone who is tired of seeing it turned into a divisive political issue not used for progress, but used to try and "factually" prove that all religions are wrong, "look we proved it".

          My position is simple, I don't know how we got here, or how the Earth or universe got here, and I don't think it's possible to ever know. What I do know is that evolution has turned into a hateful issue, and has turned into a ridiculous litmus test for whether people are rational or not.
        • Phyraxus, on 03/11/2008, -0/+7First, evolution IS the foundation for ALL biological sciences. Second, "faith" is not required in science, that is what makes it science. Third, "Ohh well evolution is true, but we hurt some peoples feelings because we speak the truth then we better just silence ourselves and let them stay ignorant." Is a patently ludicrous idea.
          And sad but true. Acceptance of the theory of evolution has turned into a litmus test because it is inherently controversial to religious people and, generally, they don't accept it. Thus they are ignorant/irrational/foolish and these are the people that are turning it into a "divisive political issue." Science, in itself, doesn't INTEND to prove religions wrong, it simply does due to the fact that they were wrong in the first place about the natural world. Therefore, those ignorant/irrational/foolish people wish to impede its progress and to keep people ignorant of it.
      • celotil, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2I can understand your confusion and, contrary to those who don't, I won't dig you down because of it.

        Before Evolutionary theory, medicine and the biological sciences were based on conjecture and whatever the ***** someone dug out of the ground, including dead people who were recently buried.

        After evolutionary theory there came a period, before we had the oppurtunity to set up such experiments in a lab, where we could look to the past, as documented in the earth and what it contained, and see what possibly had happened.

        The sciences are definitely related, that there is no doubt, but what you have to realise is the difference between conjecture based on thought experiments and hypothesis based on actual evidence, such as the fossil record and geological formations.
    • Bilabrin, on 03/10/2008, -0/+7Excuse me but I'm highly offended by that comment. My religious book says that pixie dust DOES cure cancer! Who are you with your arrogant "scientific method!" Burn heathan!
    • funkedup, on 03/10/2008, -0/+8Yeah, what a great way to get our American kids up to par in the sciences with the rest of the world...
    • julianrod, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5pixie dust = homeopathy ?
    • amirman, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6why should we cure cancer? cancer is God's punishment for gays... oh wait that's something else. damn!
    • N256, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3You can't just hope, you have to BELIEVE.
  • pcgenome, on 03/10/2008, -58/+9Oklahumpa whata Stumpa
    as long as this stays in Oklahoma I guess I can live with it. I mean there are many many places I would not want to live in because of what they might do to my kids. I guess Oklahoma gets crossed out now too. Mind you, I think I can trust my kids to know a Flying Spaghetti Monster when they see one.
    Believe-in-me-or-your-fu$*ed-david-miron
    • insanebrain, on 03/10/2008, -0/+8Evil spreads .. you can hide for and think it isn't gonna find you, but one day .. one day you will wake up and still think everything is as it should be.
    • enclaved, on 03/10/2008, -1/+16At first, the government tried to teach kids in Oklahoma that god created them, and I said nothing because my kids did not live in Oklahoma
      Next, the government tried to teach kids in New Jersey that god created them, and I said nothing because my kids did not live in New Jersey
      50 years and 47 states later or so until they reach your state and you're ***** and have to move to Iraq, which is about half way to actually becoming a democracy thanks to our government..

      If we're lucky when we're done with Iraq they can return the favor and fight for our freedom too!
    • Khannea, on 03/10/2008, -2/+12IT IS DEMOCRACY. Those retard dimwitted people in Oklahama, or whatever the ***** backwater bushwhacked cousin-monkey-sodomy hellhole we are talking about, they are ruled democratically. If you don't like it, apply some evolutionary pressures and emigrate to Europe.
      Now don't be surprised in a few years we in Europe enact laws TO KEEP OUT sloped inbred goddists and allahmites or hubbardites who go on claiming the sun or xenu revolves around the earth. Call that evolution in action ! It wont even be racism if we test science scores for admission.
      • source1984, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2chill chill chill. Theres so much freakin hate here. And then we wanna go overseas and solve their problems....
  • ExtremeRyno, on 03/10/2008, -29/+628As a teacher in Oklahoma, I can say that if this gets passed, I will certainly fail any student who tries to claim religion on a science test. As a teacher in Oklahoma, I also know this bill is not seriously being considered, and it has been shot down repeatedly.
    • quaxon, on 03/10/2008, -38/+112As a teacher in oklahoma you should really think about moving to someplace better, a place where the educated arent looked down upon as arrogant god haters.
      • rnelsonee, on 03/10/2008, -1/+137On the contrary, I can't think of a better place for a teacher to be than in an area where there are many people that need teaching. Also, maybe he just likes steak too much to move :)
        • kingmanic, on 03/10/2008, -3/+19Move up here to Alberta Canada, the steak is better and the crazy religion nuts are far less nutty (although equally numerous).
        • Midtowner, on 03/10/2008, -18/+16Nice. Way to stereotype an entire state.

          Does your enlightened brand of thinking encourage you to paint with so broad a brush and make conclusions unsupported by anything more than an anecdotal fact? I'm an Oklahoman. I, like you, would brand this bill as a prime example of religious wacko douchebaggery. Don't paint with such a broad brush. This does not represent our state anymore than Tom Cruise represents California.
          • GeneralFault, on 03/10/2008, -2/+9You are clearly outnumbered. And yes, as a Californian I know that I am a bit outnumbered by nuts too.
          • stonewaljacksn, on 03/10/2008, -2/+7Midtowner you are dead on. The beauty of America is that you can propose anything you frickin want. Anybody can. That doesn't mean everyone's crazy and will definitely pass the bill. You are getting dugg down for championing moderation, and it would be equally wrong of me to call all diggers left wing zealots because of it am I wrong?
          • rnelsonee, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9I didn't stereotype the entire state - the OP did. I was making a general comment that any area where there are ignorant people is a good place for teachers.

            On another note, I don't think it's wholly inappropriate to generalize education by geography. Stereotyping intelligence is wrong, but not education. It's fair to say a student in northern Virginia (lots of top-ranked schools, heavy education budgets) will have more of a scientific education than someone from Marion county, GA (where a lot of this anti-evolution crap started - it's the place with the stickers on the textbooks saying not to trust the material inside them).

            If idiots like this can get elected in your jurisdiction but not in others, then your jurisdiction probably has fewer well-educated citizens who favor science than most others in the country..
          • rholland356, on 03/10/2008, -1/+0Ha! As if you care about your state's reputation. And yes, YOUR legislature represents YOU! Oklahoma and Texas are mentioned in the article. And Kansas is adjacent. I'd say if was a regional defect if good ol' Florida weren't also at this dance.
          • fivefootstep, on 03/10/2008, -0/+0As a Californian, I'd say Tom Cruise is pretty damn average around here, sadly enough.
          • Midtowner, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Our state legislature, like many states is *heavily* gerrymandered. In other words, our districts at one point were in many cases changed from squares to (as one Supreme Court opinion called it) "uncouth 27-sided polygons." That means that liberal or conservative, the more extreme you are, the more likely you will be elected. This is especially true in urban districts such as the heavily christian/conservative district (Dist. 91) which Representative Reynolds, the bill's sponsor comes from.

            With extremist lines, you get extremist representatives. Right now, the Republicans, for the first time in 80-something years in Oklahoma control the House of Representatives. Accordingly, some of these wackos see this as their only chance to get this trash to the House floor.

            All of that aside, as an Oklahoman, I can rest easy. This bill is at least as of this moment not going to see the light of day. The House Rules Committee still must approve a voting calendar for all bills which made it through committee. This particular bill has not yet been approved. Four more hours and this thing is nothing but an embarrassing memory.
        • sotopheavy, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Well, The steak is likely coming up from Texas. And speaking of needing an education.
      • urbanenomad, on 03/10/2008, -0/+33I would say we need more teachers like this teacher in these kinds of areas, so that they can vote to throw these kind of bills where they belong, in the garbage.
      • designerutah, on 03/10/2008, -0/+34Good job teacher. We need more teachers who are willing to stand up for what is FACT. Let the belief be taught at home.
        • HoratioHellpop, on 03/10/2008, -31/+2Yup, because as we all know, the Big Bang Theory is a FACT. (let the burying begin)
          • GeneralFault, on 03/10/2008, -0/+15And how does the big bang theory relate to evolution? Or are you just as confused about this whole "how we got here" argument as the Oklahoma reps?
          • ApokalypseNow, on 03/10/2008, -2/+26Big Bang Theory is supported by many facts. A Scientific Theory cannot become a fact, science does not work that way.
          • quaxon, on 03/10/2008, -0/+13You can actually see remnants of the big bang, its called cosmic microwave background, but i wouldnt expect any of you religious retards to understand that.
          • macweirdo42, on 03/10/2008, -8/+3For someone so ignorant, you're amazingly on the ball. So on the ball, in fact, that you don't actually realize that you are. The Big Bang Theory is, in fact, a scientific fact.
          • Mnementh2230, on 03/10/2008, -1/+15NOT fact - Scientific theory. That means there is evidence to support it. HOWEVER, it is not a fact, and will never be, because we can't go back and observe it now can we?

            It's a theory like GRAVITY is a theory.
          • DustinHill, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5I usually don't like to repeat points have already been made, but so few people seem to understand that a scientific theory is based on facts that support an idea or set of ideas. I think certain aspects of our society would be better off if more people realized this.
          • designerutah, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6The processes described in evolutionary theory, such as mutation, are based on observable facts. Genetic code does mutate. It has been observed. There are more than one cause for this, including such reasons as incorrect copying, gamma radiation, inhibatory chemicals within the cell during division. Teaching these FACTS is what teachers are supposed to do. The grand scheme that says single celled creatures evolved into man is an established scientific theory based on the known observable facts. Creationism is not based on fact. It's based on belief, and as such, deserves no time in public schools. Put together enough observable facts that Creationism is accepted as a scientific theory and you could then argue that it deserves to be taught.

            As far as gravity being a theory. Well, gravity has been part of several theories, from Gallileo's theories to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. It still is a theory, in that gravity won't ever become a law, but it is a theory that is so well supported and so provable in a broad set of environmental conditions, that you can take it as FACT unless you have something better to base it on. Evolution will likely always be a theory for this same reason. At some point, people stop thinking of it as a theory, because the evidence that the theory is at the least MOSTLY correct becomes irrefutable. And so it slips into the category we like to call FACT. Not that FACTs never change. Just that basing your understanding on something that is so strongly supported is typically a successful idea.
          • rholland356, on 03/10/2008, -2/+1Geez, there are a lot of Oklahomans in this thread!
          • duncanspumpkin, on 03/10/2008, -2/+1EPOC FAIL.
          • mrASSMAN, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Why are you people assuming he's a ignorant and religious? He said it isn't a fact. That is true. Nothing in our universe is treated as an absolute certainty in the realm of science. The Big Bang is the best performing theory, therefore it is currently the most accepted explanation for our creation. We still have - and will always have - endless questions to ask about our reality.
          • j1w2d34, on 03/11/2008, -5/+1A Scientific Theory can become a Scientific Law if it is PROVEN that is why the THEORY of Evolution is a THEORY and NOT a LAW it can't be proven right or wrong.
          • ApokalypseNow, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4#1: Gravitation is just a case of Special Relativity, so it is covered by that Theory.
            #2: A "Law" is less certain than a Scientific Theory - Newton's Laws don't work for macro-scale 3-body systems, but we keep them around because they're good estimates for 2-body systems. A Scientific Theory, however, describes far more than a Law, it describes a whole SYSTEM of related phenomena - thus, a Scientific Theory can NEVER become a Law.
          • Mnementh2230, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1j1w2d34 - perhaps you should look things up and know what you're talking about before you start spouting lies like that...
            See ApokalypseNow's comment.
          • dbs1221, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Furthermore, in response to i1w2d34 nothing in science is proven, theories are tested and disproven, furthermore I challenge you, or anyone else on digg, to cite for me evidence that it is accepted scientific nomenclature that theories are not proven and laws are proven in the way you have described.

            Even if your distinction between law and theory were correct how does that make creationism more valid or evolution less valid, evolution is still the foundation of modern biology and as such it should be taught in biology, since creationism as yielded no valuable advances in biology, medicine, our understanding of life, speciation etc, and because nothing more can be taken from it or learned about it there is no reason children should learn in a science class.

            If and only if credited reviewed experimentation and observation challenges it (like Einstein did with relativity) should the way we teach biology and evolution change.
        • cranium, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6@HoratioHellpop
          You wouldn't put it like that if you knew the first thing about science. FAIL.
          • HoratioHellpop, on 03/10/2008, -7/+0@cranium
            You wouldn't have responded as you did if you knew the first thing about sarcasm. EPIC FAIL.
          • ohnoihavenoname, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2@HoratioHellpop
            He knows that. He meant you wouldn't have worded your sarcasm like that. Your comment implies that you think a theory is a potential fact that hasn't been "proven" yet.
      • scoffey, on 03/10/2008, -1/+9incidentally, the university of oklahoma has the highest number of National Merit Scholars enrolled per capita among public universities in the nation (of which i am one)

        please don't think that the "educated are looked down upon as arrogant god haters" here, simply not true
        • zeabu, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Oh, I am surprised. Well, if it's THAT easy to pass, just say what you believe and it's accounted as true. So, what's worth a degree over there?
        • NetPyro, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Agreed, OU is a great school. Not all Oklahomans are redneck fools. Just the ones in office apparently... >_
      • DustinHill, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1It's sad, but the bill is actually as obnoxious as the description implies. It's times like this when I start to ponder if Darren Aronofsky was onto something with the ending of Pi.
    • SuperWinner, on 03/10/2008, -19/+13Evangelicals have taken over your country, where in the US would this teach go?
      • PeppermintPig, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8Unfortunately public school is being tailored to mediocrity.

        A private school that teaches and grades on substance might be right for a teacher who wants to preserve science.
        • TheG2, on 03/10/2008, -3/+8Thats funny, most private schools I know give A's based on how much money your parents can throw at the school. Oh, and that cocaine bust? Don't worry, a lot of private schools now choose to handle anything up to a felony internally rather than contact the police.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 03/10/2008, -21/+2Surprise surprise, a mommy-state Canadian comes on digg to trash talk America. Be a little more subtle with your jealousy champ I know it's rough being in our shadow.
    • talonstriker, on 03/10/2008, -2/+40Bravo!
      Be sure to record the angry parents bitching and put the video on youtube.
    • cquinnd, on 03/10/2008, -9/+132"I will certainly fail any student who tries to claim religion on a science test."
      I would suggest not failing them for claiming religion, but for failing to show repeatable examples of their work.
      • zeitgueist, on 03/10/2008, -2/+32Hah, well played.
      • GeneralFault, on 03/10/2008, -7/+4My old biology teacher, an agnostic I think, would have surly failed me for claiming creationism as an answer to any early-biology questions. I do think however he would have given me full credit if I had attempted to use the scientific method to back up any "magic guy in the sky" kind of answers. Not unexpected though, the "magic" part is near impossible to explain using the scientific method (or just about any logical method).
      • numbercrunch, on 03/10/2008, -9/+1i believe you misunderstood his meaning. he was implying not that he would fail them for claiming religion, but that he would fail them if they tried to blame poor performance on a test on the fact that they don't believe the subject matter to be true...
      • sotopheavy, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2They will just keep naming sources out of the bible. You need to have them include at least 3 sources and the bible only counts as one.
        • j1w2d34, on 03/11/2008, -1/+3Bible, Torah, Qur'an thats 3
          • dbs1221, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1The Qur'ran doesn't describe the story of creation, and the quoted bible would be a translation of the Hebrew from Torah,
            So for creation you have listed 1 source
            for anything else you have listed at most 2 sources.

            BUT since certain parts of those sources in contradict themselves and each other, using them in combination could negate your entire argument

            Finally since you are arguing your religious belief you could probably only cite those text which are part of your belief system, only Muslim's consider all three texts holy books therefore only Muslim students could fairly cite all three, my previous refutations aside.
        • Acolyte357, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2sources != repeatable examples
          • GeneralFault, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2Student: Teacher, I poured water into this flask. Then I sat down and prayed and now it is wine.
            Teacher: Why is it clear and tasteless?
            Student: God did that to test your belief in his abilities. You just have to have faith.
            Teacher: Ok. Your expelled for bringing alcohol to class.
    • exronin, on 03/10/2008, -6/+5Thank you!
    • jrkaisersr, on 03/10/2008, -56/+5Wow, you people are closed-minded hypocrites. It's hard to take some of the vitriol in these threads.
      • Fafnir43, on 03/10/2008, -3/+33We're "closed-minded" to people suggesting that objective reality is not something that should be taught and tested in science classes.
      • Nougat, on 03/10/2008, -21/+7***** YOU, GO STRAIGHT TO HELL YOU ZEALOT
      • Tryptomine, on 03/10/2008, -1/+14Yes, I admit it. I am close-minded. I don't accept fantasy as being part of reality and never will.
      • quaxon, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9i am very close minded and bigoted when it comes to that filth religion that you guys worship and dedicate your lives to. see my comment below.
      • celotil, on 03/11/2008, -0/+5When I was sixteen I was very open-minded...

        Fast forward a few years and I was still as open-minded, and I was searching. Searching for metaphysics that worked, searching for telepathy, searching for telekinesis, searching for astral travel, searching for evidence, any ***** evidence at all, that the supernatural was real - God, Magic, Wicca, Demons, ANYTHING!!!

        I found precisely JACK *****.

        I'll repeat that - I found absolutely JACK ***** supernatural phenomena. I did not find God (any god), magic, or the supernatural in any way, shape, or form.

        What I did find were stories, wondrous, amazing stories, but nothing factual or reproducible from hearsay in any form whatsoever.

        God DAMNIT! I wanted vampires! I wanted demons! I wanted some ***** excitement! I got JACK *****.
    • Asianwaste, on 03/10/2008, -7/+21HOLY ***** WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR EYE????
    • hazard, on 03/10/2008, -2/+13Well the only question I have is who keeps bringing it up if it keeps getting shot down repeatedly?
      • NSMike, on 03/10/2008, -1/+17People with too much taxpayer time and money to waste.
    • RabidAngel, on 03/10/2008, -3/+4/salute!
    • MattB123, on 03/10/2008, -4/+2Thanks and good luck to you.
    • damndj, on 03/10/2008, -3/+4Fight the good fight, ExtremeRyno!
    • LogicBomB, on 03/10/2008, -4/+25ExtremeRyno - Thanks.

      I come from a catholic school in Ottawa, Ontario. Up here we taught religion in religion class and science in science class. Believe it or not this topic was never even broached in all 4 years I was there.

      Everyone just knew that you didn't bring geography homework to math class.
      • brstilson, on 03/10/2008, -1/+13Catholics accept evolution, though. Evangelicals are completely opposed to it, and accordingly spread lies about it, teaching that it leads to immorality, etc.
        • Rikkochet, on 03/10/2008, -0/+14*cough* Evolution leads to immorality? Never thought I'd say it, but it's absolutely true. When's the last time you saw a paramecium covet his neighbour's wife?
          • brstilson, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4They reproduce asexually though; that's masturbation.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 03/10/2008, -2/+16I went to Catholic School in Jersey and it was the same thing here. We had our little story-time happy ending have good morals religion class and then put those books away and learned about evolution. Though I'm certainly no longer a practicing Catholic I see no harm in this. Actually religion is kind of a good thing when you take the good aspects from it and don't let yourself be limited to seeing it as the end all answer to EVERYTHING.
      • ravensncrows, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1it comes up all the time at my catholic school here in toronto, even the live-in priest jokes about it
    • designerutah, on 03/10/2008, -33/+5Which ones are the close minded hypocrites? The teacher who says he'll fail any student who uses religion on a science test? Or the people supporting his decision?
      • AoiTakuma, on 03/10/2008, -1/+17Two different subjects, science and religion can both be taught but not at the same time
      • pineutrino, on 03/10/2008, -1/+17This isn't about open/closed mindedness, this is about evidence and proof. If two contradictory claims are being made on any subject, I'll go along with the one there's actually evidence for. Suddenly trying to claim that this is somehow "closed-minded" is a straw man attack, and misses the point completely.
      • WNW3, on 03/10/2008, -1/+12Ummm...Is that a trick question? I say neither. Are you sure you know what a hypocrite is?
      • brstilson, on 03/10/2008, -2/+21Religion is not science, and the concept of religious beliefs (accepting dogma despite a lack of supporting evidence, or even evidence to the contrary) flies in the face of the scientific method.

        Science says, "every claim should be testable and conclusions arrived at only by the scientific method."
        Religion says, "The claims made by our interpretation of our holy book are the absolute truth, all evidence that contradicts it, not matter how much of it there is, is automatically wrong, because our holy book was written by men who claim to have spoken to God."

        In other words, science uses evidence to shape the conclusion, religion uses the conclusion to shape the evidence.
        • x252, on 03/10/2008, -9/+1Wow, douche bag. Way to generalize every faith imaginable.
        • Mejari, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Actually, that's really just the western religions. A lot of eastern religions are about finding the truth, not justifying it. Goooooo Buddhism!
        • Phyraxus, on 03/11/2008, -1/+5@ mejari: Well, Buddhism could hardly be called a religion, more like a philosophy.
          @ x252: That is what "faith" is by definition, to believe things regardless of evidence to the contrary.
      • designerutah, on 03/10/2008, -2/+0Actually, I was asking the poster (jrkaisersr) of this post, who he was talking about:

        "Wow, you people are closed-minded hypocrites. It's hard to take some of the vitriol in these threads."

        Must have clicked the wrong response link because it wasn't put where I intended. Still want to know who is the close minded hypocrite?
      • Mejari, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Hypocrite?

        "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
    • Khannea, on 03/10/2008, -9/+2Oklahoma standard article in 2 years "pedohyle teacher hanged and burned by angry posse"
      Caption shows picture of blackened corpse hanging from a status of the archangel mozes.
    • cr250guy, on 03/10/2008, -1/+0Still, this is the reason i moved out of oklahoma to an even more sensible state....florida.
      • solid12345, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Florida is nothing but white trash, tourists, and Cuban exiles, not the pick of the litter of states either.
    • Dsly, on 03/11/2008, -0/+5As a student in Oklahoma, I promise to logically pummel any fellow classmates who try and use religion as an excuse for ignorance into shutting the hell up.

      http://www.jfcshow.com
    • zekt, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4This is actually interesting. It also meant that, if you are an atheist, you can go into a religious studies class and write on your paper "God is crutch you have invented to help you feeble little mind" and then walk out - and you will get a passing grade.
  • 0two, on 03/10/2008, -16/+226What's to stop me from creating my own religion that states that the answer to everything is 5 and then moving to Oklahoma and doing ***** while maintaining perfect grades in every class? DON'T YOU TREAD ON MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS YOU BIGOTS!
    • drlha, on 03/10/2008, -4/+149Sorry, your religion is wrong, the answer to everything is 42.
      • Fafnir43, on 03/10/2008, -13/+62Actually, life is 13, the universe is 24 and everything is 5. Thus, the answer to "life, the universe and everything" is 42.
        • damndj, on 03/10/2008, -2/+21Dugg down for making my brain explode!
        • Firehed, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7If you can't do second-grade addition... well THERE's your problem.
        • brstilson, on 03/10/2008, -8/+1LORD DELIVER ME FROM PERSECUTION!!!!!
        • Niallgriff, on 03/10/2008, -1/+14Wanted to Digg you up, but it was already at 42, let's try and keep it that way.
        • Abomonog, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5Your problem is that you don't actually know the question.
        • Phylodome, on 03/10/2008, -6/+2buried for trying to add your own comedic slant to something that was already perfect as it was.
        • LittleDas, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4Haha
          every time your comment drops below 42 it gets dugg and every time it gets above it gets buried
        • j1w2d34, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Very Nice!
      • jiveturkeyblues, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2that's not true, as, at this time, there is still insufficient data for meaningful answer.
    • MrWhite7, on 03/10/2008, -4/+6Reality.
    • kingnothing1, on 03/10/2008, -13/+3Hahaha nice. I actually laughed out loud on that one.
    • cornswalled, on 03/10/2008, -26/+4Because it wouldn't t be a real religion.
      • Memnochxx, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9It would be a religious belief.
      • ApokalypseNow, on 03/10/2008, -1/+21What, not enough pesecution in it? Not enough hatred of groups that are different? Or is it just that it hasn't been around long enough?
      • Daz3, on 03/10/2008, -0/+7It has as much justification as any other religion.
      • j1w2d34, on 03/11/2008, -10/+2Religion: 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, BELIEFS, and practices
        Evolution is a religion by definition
        • ApokalypseNow, on 03/11/2008, -0/+5Incorrect - there is no evidence for the supernatural, so therefore I LACK belief in it.
          Atheism is not a belief system, it is a LACK of one.
        • Acolyte357, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4"Evolution is a religion by definition"
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
          Ok, prove your case there smart ass. And remember BELIEF is not used in science.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3Oops, I misread this, I thought he said atheism, not evolution.
          Evolution is not a belief, it is an observable fact and a Scientific Theory. We can observe it, reproduce it (look up Nylon-eating bacteria), and measure it. We try to explain how it has happened in the past, and how it continues to happen today with the Theory.

          How does this constitute belief if it is all part of the scientific process? Mind you, faith in careful procedures, evidence, and observation is not the same as faith in the supernatural, for which there can be no empirical evidence.
        • dbs1221, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3I guess that makes political affiliation a religion, neoconservatives are their own religion and supporters of the president and the war are members of a religion, I guess by your reasoning and reading of the definition if someone believes that black people are inferior its a religion, any institutionalized racism is a religion.

          The problem is none of these things are religious beliefs, neither is acceptance of a tested scientific theory, evolution.

          Evolution is not a religion!!!!
    • ashwinmudigonda, on 03/10/2008, -2/+35 you.
    • Khannea, on 03/10/2008, -2/+7Hmmm I wonder if I came up with a religion that incorporated page after page of hot steamy lesbian sex, strapons and latex miniskirts and thick creamy facials. Hey, this is my belief, sorry to displease your fine sensibilities but it's clear to me by divine relevation that all this... this...and that too. *moan*... was instrumental in the *moan* creation of the universe (voice trails off).

      Wait till you see my next story, it involves 72 twinks in pink and a 65 year old leatherbear called Muhammed. FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
      • celotil, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Now that's a church I'd proselytize for.
    • beloitpiper, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4I think you'd need tax exemption status?
    • steeeeve, on 03/10/2008, -3/+1I change the question from "how did it happen?" to"how did it happen according to mainstream science?". Problem solved. You can still believe what you want but you have to know this stuff.
  • BlackOut2300, on 03/10/2008, -5/+103Well, I don't think this will have a large effect, but all teachers have to do is add "According to..." in front of a question - such as: "According to (book/author), the Earth is ____ years old" (~4.5 billion is the answer), then personal beliefs don't factor into it.
    • talonstriker, on 03/10/2008, -1/+26They better include, "According to talonstriker, the Earth is (1/pi)*e^(G*R) years old" or I'll sue them for discriminating my religious beliefs.
      • Fetttson, on 03/10/2008, -0/+180.318309886 years old?
        • gnalakalaciath5, on 03/10/2008, -0/+10god I love digg.
        • rnelsonee, on 03/10/2008, -1/+70.318311 (J m^3) / (kg K mol s^2). Can't forget units! (is G*R really equal to 1 exactly? I get 1.000056...)
          • talonstriker, on 03/10/2008, -0/+9***** I should have thrown in c and permeativity constant in there just so that you'll have hell with units.
        • talonstriker, on 03/10/2008, -0/+10you dare question my religion? To the gallows infidel!
        • j1w2d34, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2My religion doesn't believe in such complicated math. And the earth is 45 years old. HAHA my mom really is older than dirt. lol
      • brettmjohnson, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2See FSM false memory argument above.

      • iiBeLiEvE, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3Talonstriker, I think you taught my 6th grade science class.
    • ElectroOverlord, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5Peer Reviewed Material should be the standard...
    • Veretax, on 03/10/2008, -19/+2An excellent suggestion, but I'll be honest when I was in school we didn't even spend a full day on Evolution before digging into the REAL part of science, I don't really feel that Evolution is that big of a deal for high school science.
      • trevorh, on 03/10/2008, -1/+11Because the theory that all modern biology is based around is irrelevant.
    • EarlOfLade, on 03/10/2008, -4/+46It should be "According to reality ..."
    • jawnboy, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3Shush, we must denigrate the "others" that don't share our beliefs, we must not use our superior educations and rational thinking skills to find an easy way to disarm the entire sillyness. We must engage in a battle of wills with people when the power of faith is involved, it is not like people with that type of fervour have ever gone to extremes to have their way. No we must stoop to name calling and shaming them into compliance then they will know that they are wrong and we are right! That is what is important after all, not the actual curriculum.
    • cranium, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2Meh. The answer could simply be changed to "according to my religion, all scientists have always said the earth is 6000 years old and any documentation you have to the contrary is a lie".
      • ElWizardo, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6I wonder if that will work at your bank? My religion says I have a Gazillion dollars.
        • cranium, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4If it did work, chances are the teller went to school in Oklahoma.
      • jawnboy, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2How is that a valid answer to the question, "According to Charles Darwin in the Voyage of the Beagle etc etc.?"
        • cranium, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Isn't it obvious? Religion always claims that contradictory documentation is wrong, including that documentation that shows what Charles Darwin said. Religions aren't exactly new at this game.
    • bc289, on 03/10/2008, -2/+0If we include this statement, then we must include a million other statements from those who don't believe it to be true. It's not that we shouldn't teach opposing views in school, but rather that we should only teach opposing views when there is direct and verifiable evidence that supports it.
    • whitehatlurker, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Hey, why didn't they put the answers in parentheses when I went to school?

      According to Hamlet/Shakespeare, Ophelia was told to get herself to a _______. (Psst the answer is "nunnery".)
    • Myztry, on 03/11/2008, -1/+1They're just taking care of a minority group. Globally, Christianity pales in comparison to both Buddhism and Muslim religions. And the first asks you to imagine a better you, instead of a better fictional being. Sounds like a strong basis for good to me.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 03/10/2008, -5/+123Believe me, I defend science. In a free country, I also have to defend the rights of parents to be idiots, and to unfortunately take their children down this same path.

    The issue here is educational standards. Public education is a necessity in a free and democratic country. You *MUST* have a population that is educated. Standards should be the same everywhere, and should not be granted exceptions based on religious dogma. You are otherwise free to believe what you will, and parents are free to contradict what their teachers teach (and in many school districts, you're better off doing so). But standards should not be altered based on feelings, that is horse-*****.

    If you make this exception here, then guess what, you open up a can of worms that includes allowing any child in inner-cities to use ebonics on tests and essays. You're basically throwing all standards into the wind. When that happens, I look for another country to live in, because this one won't last a generation or two without education.
    • puter, on 03/10/2008, -3/+16The problem is separation of church and state.

      Apparently there is none now. My kid will be going to private school.

      There is nothing wrong with teaching religion from a historical perspective, but disregarding the scientific method to teach creationism as a science invalidates the class. If they can teach creationism with scientific method (and have it work) then I would have no problem with it, but they can't because apply the scientific method to creationism would tear it apart. Instead of trying to teach creationism in science classes they should be teaching history and religion classes, creating a clear delineation between science and religion...and not violating church and state separation since the belief would be studied from a historical/analytical perspective rather than a statement of fact.
      • echotech, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6Most private schools are heavily influenced by religion. Sending your kid there isn't gonna get them away from this.
      • puter, on 03/11/2008, -0/+2You choose your private school, some are influenced some are not.

        My school had a school pastor, but he was a quaker. They never forced religion upon you but were great about giving opportunities to those who were religious. Honestly, that is my ideal school. I'm atheist, and this is an idea school because they are so accepting of religious beliefs; certainly more accepting than most atheists I know. One of the things that I constantly see and that just pisses me off is other atheists being more aggressive and judgmental than ANY of my religious friends. Hell, most atheists I know are more judgmental than my girlfriend's father and he's a pastor...and then after they finish making fun of a religion they start bitching about people not respecting their beliefs. You want respect, give respect.
        • echotech, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1I'm with you 100%. Both of the schools I went to had heavy Christian influence and I still turned out atheist. I was just saying....
    • PeppermintPig, on 03/10/2008, -0/+3If you believe that the population MUST be educated, and we continue to see morons managing the system without any fiscal accountability, I don't see how the quality of that education will ever recover. If anything, they're passing more laws to regulate private schooling. Your idea of standards may be noble, but the execution of such standards nearly always leads to teaching to tests and holding many students back from their potential.

      Yes, this is a scary system.
    • logandurand, on 03/10/2008, -10/+7How can you feel that parents have the "right" to teach religion to their children? Youth must choose for themselves when they are old enough, we can't allow parents to simply tell them that "this is the truth".
      • AaronHoffman, on 03/10/2008, -5/+2By that logic, how are we supposed to teach anything but cold, hard, provable facts? Like father, like son. By saying that parents can't teach religion to their children, no matter how retarded the religion, you begin to take rights away. Wave goodbye to common decency and respect for others.

        "Son, lying is bad. Society says so and I say so, but your mother and I won't punish you if you lie to us. Why? Well, because you need to be old enough to choose for yourself if lying is bad. Until then, do as you please."
        • Otto, on 03/10/2008, -6/+8Nonsense. Teaching religion to children is child abuse and should be treated as such.
          • puter, on 03/10/2008, -4/+5I'm going to take that as a joke.

            I'm atheist and I think that idea is stupid. If my child chooses to follow a religion then I will support him/her fully. What people require in their lives is highly variable to that person; choose whatever makes you happiest. Our time on earth is short enough as it is without religious or atheists trying to push their concept of reality down your throat. I'm tired of religious zealots (or atheist zealots which have been far worse in my experience) trying to tell everyone what to believe.

            I am an atheist, I will give my reasons if anyone wants to know them, but I will NEVER try to force someone else to be and I will always respect their beliefs. My girlfriend's father is a pastor and I get along great with him and his family simply because I honestly respect their beliefs. i question them, I learn about them, I try to make them question their own believes (and they mine) but above all I ALWAYS respect them.
          • fivefootstep, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4Personally I think respect ought to be earned, never simply rewarded. I don't respect little kids because they haven't earned my respect yet. What is there to respect? Nothing, of course.
            Parents should not be respected simply because they are parents. They should be respected based on how good they are at being parents, at being teachers, doctors, businesspeople -- whatever they are.
            Hypotheses are not respected simply because someone thought them up, they are tested until (and if) they become theories. Most never do. This is no discredit to hypotheses, but someone who takes one and runs with it has not earned my respect.
            The same standard should apply to all things. Respect is not a God-given right, because there is no God, and there are no God-given rights... and neither is it a normal social assumption - in many countries, after all, it's customary to murder each other unless they believe the same as you.
            (I'm not defending that behavior, just saying - this "let's just ignore it and pretend like everything's okay" behavior is not universal)
          • Otto, on 03/11/2008, -0/+3@puter: I did not intend it as a joke, and you should not treat it as one.

            Teaching religion to children is child abuse. If somebody was to teach kids that murder was okay, or that having sex with minors was okay, then you'd have no problem with putting that person away. But scaring kids with fairy tales about heaven and hell, brainwashing them into performing ritualistic behavior, teaching them to reject science and truth and facts, this is okay with you?

            I respect the fact that religious people have beliefs. But I do not respect the beliefs themselves, because they are laughably ludicrous. You can believe whatever you want, but passing those beliefs onto impressionable and innocent children is despicable, and anybody doing it should absolutely be locked up for their crimes.
        • AaronHoffman, on 03/10/2008, -4/+1Define religion. My dictionary says, "details of belief as taught or discussed."

          Can science prove lying is wrong? No. Common decency is all-too-often uncommon in today's world, and requires teaching. I'm not advocating religion to teach morality; I'm saying morals must be taught in a free society, no matter the means. Only the fanatics, mind you, are the ones taking "morality" and thinking it means they should kill people that don't share their ideals.

          Someone saying that the teaching of anything (other than truly illegal views/acts, i.e. cannibalism, racism, polygamy) is "child abuse" is bordering on anarchy, and the person saying it is guilty of being just as much of a bigot as the religious nuts they so greatly despise.
          • zeabu, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5I am for banishing religion. Or at least organised religions. I don't give a duck if you believe in god or not, maybe it's me who's wrong. But I do think putting your kids in sects, being it witnesses of Jehova, or protestanism, or islam, ..., well, for me that's a crime.
      • jawnboy, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4I hear the stamp, stamp, stamp of the jackboots coming to answer your call...seriously geez extremist much? Why not remove all children from parents at birth and have the state raise them in a crèche to insure proper socialization with the true values of the people?
    • brstilson, on 03/10/2008, -4/+8"I also have to defend the rights of parents to be idiots, and to unfortunately take their children down this same path. "

      I disagree. Forcing children into any ideology is wrong. If you think parents have the right to do this then you must think it's okay for parents to teach their children to be racists.
      • AaronHoffman, on 03/10/2008, -4/+6Godwin's law FTW.

        No one is defending racism. No one is advocating illegalities. The people whose opinions differ from your own (at least the reasonable ones) are advocating freedom of stupidity, as long as it does not affect anyone else's freedoms.
        • echotech, on 03/10/2008, -3/+3Google Godwin's law before you digg him down. Then his comment will make sense.
        • brstilson, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2"The people whose opinions differ from your own (at least the reasonable ones) are advocating freedom of stupidity, as long as it does not affect anyone else's freedoms."

          But the original poster said that he defends the right for parents to take their children down an idiotic path. Does that not interfere with the child's freedoms?
          • jawnboy, on 03/10/2008, -2/+1So who is omnipotent and knows the true path? What you are suggesting is the same as many have throughout history, just with different window dressing. Science does not provide THE answers science provides answers and until we get to the point where we are infallible who gets to choose for all of humanity's children? So far the way we do it is pragmatic, evolution created the family unit, it works, not perfectly, but it is functional.
          • BigManOnCampus, on 03/10/2008, -1/+1Until you're 18, even the government doesn't give you total freedom.
        • zeabu, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2It (bold, color=red, size=172) DOES (/tags) interfere. If you allow this, your kids or theirs will be exposed to this crap, and finnally, it will be us "who are wrong".
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2You need to think harder about what you're saying. What you're saying is that the government gets the final say in what you can teach your children. This means that the state can take children away from their parents if the parents disagree with what the state thinks should be taught to children. What you're talking about is a situation where no parent is allowed the freedom to raise their kids as they see fit. That is wrong.
    • mdcarso, on 03/10/2008, -7/+1"Public education is a necessity in a free and democratic country." - NO
      There are alternatives, private schools and more importantly HOMESCHOOLING.
      • AaronHoffman, on 03/10/2008, -1/+4An "alternative" is a secondary choice. Private schools and homeschooling are alternatives. Good job. Not everyone, unfortunately, is able to afford these perks. Therefore, public education is a necessity for the majority of America.

        Lern 2 argue.
        • mdcarso, on 03/10/2008, -4/+1Homeschool is not a perk. It require time and sometimes money that we don't have, but our children's education is important, so we make due. In addition, I would disagree that homeschooling is a secondary choice, it is a better choice. Public school for us is not even a secondary choice, it would the choice of last resort.
          • lowhauler, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4I'm sorry to have to point this out, mdcarso, but your comments are inarticulate to the point of incomprehensibility. If you're homeschooling, your kids are in trouble. Out of about six grammar and spelling mistakes, I'll just say this: it's "do", not "due". Secondly, bad as public schools may be--and I know they can be pretty bad--two parents working simply cannot pay enough attention to their children's education to do an adequate job. Well-funded public schools have to form the base of the level playing field that democratic capitalism pretends to be.
          • BigManOnCampus, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Public school is a last resort because it's managed soo poorly in most places that it is a waste of tax dollars. That doesn't mean that it is not a necessity.
      • brstilson, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2That's right. Let's just let parents teach their kids....any slack-jawed yokel with no credentials, no standards, no goals. We'll just give everybody diplomas when they're 18!
    • Cyrus042, on 03/10/2008, -8/+3Since Creationism and Evolution are such divisive issues, why teach it at all? The information is out there on the internet, or in books. Students who are curious are more than welcome to explore their own interests and teachers can be more than willing to lead them the way. I say this as a critic of both sides.

      Does anyone believe that the teaching of evolution is necessary to the success of our country? If evolution is equal to other sciences then why isn't string theory taught as well? Or any other number of disputed hypotheses? (widely disputed or not)

      Why are we arguing about evolution when most students are still not taught as much about civics and political philosophy? How is evolution education necessary for a free and democratic country? If we stopped teaching evolution and replaced it with teaching the political philosophy of Adams, Madison and Jefferson we would probably have a population that was educated in a way that gives them greater understanding of their "free and democratic country".
      • lowhauler, on 03/10/2008, -1/+7Evolution is absolutely essential for understanding vast swathes of biology, zoology, botany, ecology, and medicine, and offers plenty of food for thought for many other disciplines. String theory is almost unteachable to anyone without post-graduate-level math skills. Most cutting-edge science is hotly contested.

        The idea of only teaching what will result in productive citizens is the thin edge of the wedge that turns education into job training and propaganda. You teach as much as possible of as broad a range as possible at least in part to offer kids choices: what is interesting to you? What do you want to know more about? What do you want to be when you grow up?
        • BigManOnCampus, on 03/10/2008, -5/+1Not really.

          Evolution just explains where things came from. Most of those subjects deal with how things are since we don't have a nearly as much information on what was. You can still easily fill a semester talking about the details of how photosynthesis works, or how beavers live, or how whales breed. You don't *NEED* to cover evolution to talk about those subjects.
        • dahlek, on 03/11/2008, -0/+4Yes, you DO need evolution. We cannot interpret modern biology without evolution. Life is life partly because it evolves. One reason that a rock isn't considered a lifeform is because it cannot evolve. Evolution is the cornerstone of biology - the central pillar. You could teach students, I suppose, all about galaxies colliding, what black holes do and where the planets go without talking about gravity, but...wouldn't that be sort of missing the point? Controversy be damned, evolution is as good as scientific theories get. Btw, evolution isn't the least bit controversial in science circles, nor has it been for nearly 100 years. We won't get the general public up to speed by sweeping such things under the rug...
      • brstilson, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6If we lived in the 1500's would you be saying "let's not teach children astronomy at all! It's too controversial."
      • JackHarkness, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4It's not just about evolution. You forget creationism says the world is only 6000 years old. A lot of things in science involve the fact that the world/universe is a lot older than that. teaching creationism as a legitimate theory would contradict some thing about every topic except optics and electricity. And replacing well thought out and provable science with "God did it to sort out the unbelievers".
        • brstilson, on 03/12/2008, -0/+1I'm not a creationist, but not all versions of creationism believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Those are "young earth" creationists. There are also "old earth" creationists that believe the genesis "day" isn't literally 24 hours long, and acknowledge that the earth is, in fact, billions of years old. That's how I grew up, until one day I realized that we were accepting the idea of billion-year-old rocks but still teaching that the fossils inside them are thousands of years old.
    • ntr0p3, on 03/11/2008, -0/+0"Public education is a necessity in a free and democratic country. You *MUST* have a population that is educated."

      ...really? oh *****...
    • 007brendan, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1Schools are accountable only to the parents of the children who go there If they want to teach religious beliefs let them, but it cannot be mandated from some higher government power! This is the problem with government-controlled education. There should be no department of education or government mandates. Teachers, and ultimately, parents are the only ones responsible for what their child learns.
  • Taciturn, on 03/10/2008, -4/+26More hilarious news about Sally Kern. Did she go to clown college or something? I keep getting the feeling she's going to appear on television to address the people of her state and suddenly shout "ya'll got punk'd, electorate!"
    • jstohler, on 03/10/2008, -0/+14She failed clown college.
      • OrangeTide, on 03/10/2008, -0/+5In Oklahoma you can just claim God already knows every joke that has been and will be, and get a free pass through clown college.
    • Midtowner, on 03/10/2008, -0/+1Sally Kern graduated from the University of Texas at Austin.

      As an Oklahoman, I love that.
      • RpgActioN, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2I can't believe that somebody this utterly misinformed and amazingly illogical has the brain capacity to graduate from any four-year university.
      • Pantheran, on 03/10/2008, -0/+6There really is no place less accepting of gays and atheists than Austin, let me tell ya.
        • Supurcell, on 03/10/2008, -2/+4I was lead to believe that there were only two things that came out of Texas. One of them was some sort of steer, but I can't seem to remember what the other thing was.
    • WNW3, on 03/10/2008, -0/+4How does that crackpot not have a wikipedia entry?
    • jaxcs, on 03/10/2008, -0/+2Before she became a politician, she was a teacher herself.
  • quaxon, on 03/10/2008, -47/+49wow, what ***** retards some people are. We have evolved to a point were we do not need religion nor gods anymore. ANyone who still believes in this ***** and dedicates their lives to worshiping some fictitious being does not deserve to be tolerated, does not deserve to be taken seriously and should be locked in a mental institution
    • quaxon, on 03/10/2008, -25/+23It is also ok to be bigoted against these religious retards. People who defy logic and science in favor of myths and fairy tales and truly believe the ***** they are spewing do not deserve to be treated as if they are sane.
      • MrWhite7, on 03/10/2008, -4/+10Your extreme attitude is exactly why religious zealots are so prevalent. When you start persecuting large groups of people they tend to get pissed. I understand the frustration, I used to share it, but it accomplishes nothing.
        • quaxon, on 03/10/2008, -1/+8They have waged war against non-believers for too long. You dont believe me just look at all our laws, look at the fact that gays cant get married, hell just turn on the tv or radio and look at how much of it is censored (in every other western country you can hear swear words and see full nudity even on network tv). Until we realize that we cannot win this war with tolerance we will continue to lose.
          • Warbick, on 03/10/2008, -10/+0You have to remember our country wouldn't even exist if it weren't for religious beliefs, at least not in its current form. I also like how you managed to twist this right into Iraq, nice. Took some twisting didn't it?
          • JDove6, on 03/10/2008, -0/+10He wasn't mentioning Iraq...he mentioned the war he was talking about in the first line...Our country being formed had more to do with taxation without representation than religion. You 'twist' alot of things up in that noggin of yours don't you
          • MrWhite7, on 03/11/2008, -1/+2All of those things you mentioned are morally subjective opinions, some correlate with religion some don't. I know plenty of non-religious people that are anti-gay marriage and several religious types who are all for gay marriage. I'm telling you, if you blindly attack a label, you're just going to get them riled up. Ignore their religion and just attack its attempts at control.
        • Fhwqhgads, on 03/10/2008, -1/+6I'm starting a religion where I worship quaxon as my lord and savior. His beliefs are exactly like mine in every way.
        • makkaveli19, on 03/10/2008, -1/+5quaxcon, while i do agree with you, i think that going against 5 billion people with that attitude will do you no good. i'm an agnostic muslim. i just believe iun a higher power, i believe in evolution, and i do not agree with all the ***** people do in the "name" of religion. if you decide to tell people what their personal beliefs can and cannot be then you are no different than the ones you hate.
        • JDove6, on 03/10/2008, -1/+3I agree with makkaveli19
      • PeppermintPig, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2Bureaucrats and parents fighting to control curriculum is a problem. Property tax hikes are really pissing off the people who don't approve of what they're doing in public school in any case...

        Everybody should be free to discriminate, though some forms of discrimination are founded in ignorance and will be ostracized. Having discriminating taste is essential in making successful and profitable decisions, such as choosing to value science.
    • oldhick, on 03/10/2008, -7/+25Actually quaxon its really not ok. I agree that these creationist laws are lame and that everyone has a vested interest in fighting them. However, we do not need to do it by being bigots. Bigotry and intolerance makes us no better than them. For all of our evolution and maturity, we should be able to be mature enough to realize that over half the worlds population is religious in some form or fashion. We all have family members and neighbors who believe and they are great people. While you may choose not to believe the same way and you may choose to fight their beliefs being pushed on you. We don't need to be assholes.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 03/10/2008, -7/+23Bigotry implies prejudice. It means you are not objective.

        There is no way to argue that creationists are reasonable. Logic can't convince them, empirical evidence can't convince them. They are stupid by definition:
        http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+stup ...

        Stupid things don't deserve respect. Being alive does not command respect. Existence doesn't command respect. I have no reason to respect theists, espescially not creationists.
        • oldhick, on 03/10/2008, -11/+9Men far brighter than you have understood that having faith doesn't equal a lack of intelligence. But you're a commenter on Digg, by far the smartest ever.
          • quaxon, on 03/10/2008, -2/+5no, having faith definitely doesnt equal a lack of intelligence, but what you put your faith and dedicate your entire life to certainly does. When you put your absolute faith in something that every ounce of logic and scientific study has proven false or highly improbable, and not only do you have faith in it but you dedicate your life to worshiping it, donate thousands to it, elect people to office simply because they have the same faith, try to make everyone else follow the laws of your faith, etc. you not only lack intelligence but are very dangerous as well.
          • oldhick, on 03/10/2008, -5/+2Saying God has been proven false is a bit arrogant. How do you disprove something like the idea of God?
          • ElAssoWipo, on 03/10/2008, -0/+7@oldhick I don't really have to tell you about the burden of proof fallacy do i?

        • ElAssoWipo, on 03/10/2008, -6/+4"Men far brighter than you"

          I want names.
          • Azuroth, on 03/10/2008, -7/+8Dear ElAssoWipo,
            God does not play dice.
            Sincerely,
            Albert Einstein
          • ElAssoWipo, on 03/10/2008, -3/+9Man usually avoids attributing cleverness to somebody else
            -- unless it is an enemy.

            -- Albert Einstein
          • Gforze, on 03/10/2008, -2/+7"God does not play dice."

            By which he meant that the universe works according to fixed laws that always must be obeyed. Not that a god of some form conjured everything more or less at random.
          • JackHarkness, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2Einstein was an atheist.

            It might just be me but I don't see how the second quote helps
          • Naidel, on 03/11/2008, -0/+1"Einstein, stop telling God what to do." -- Niels Bohr

            IIRC, this was in relation to their dispute regarding quantum mechanics. Einstein had problems accepting the scientific theory that everything is governed by probability.
        • saunders45, on 03/10/2008, -4/+6Kepler, Einstein, and Newton for starters...
          • ElAssoWipo, on 03/10/2008, -3/+6"In theology we must consider the
            predominance of authority; in philosophy
            the predominance of reason."

            Kepler.

            I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
            -Newton.

            "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

            - Einstein
          • quaxon, on 03/10/2008, -2/+5both Kepler and Newton never had a choice, it was either believe in god and tie all your theories to our religion and god or have all your work discredited and thrown in jail for the rest of your life. Just look at what they did to Galileo until he submitted. and einstein did not believe in the christian god any religion for that matter, his god was science..
          • zeabu, on 03/10/2008, -1/+2ElAssoWipo: What have you done with the real EAW? You're making clever comments now. Keep that up.
            "I like!"
      • quaxon, on 03/10/2008, -5/+18elasso said it perfectly. do you have respect for a grown adult with an imaginary friend? one who believes in santa? the easter bunny perhaps? how about a person who believes there are people on this planet who are actually a lizard race from another galaxy here to infiltrate our species? the fact is people with stupid beliefs do not deserve equal discourse when it comes to education nor should they be allowed to have any influence in politics (which they have so much of in this country). These people should not be encouraged, we should not tolerate them trying to make the rest of us dumber by refuting all factual evidence of how old this planet is, how it came into existence, etc. and submitting to their "book of all answers" the bible or any other "holy scripture." We need to send a message that this is not ok anymore, we have evolved past the need for a crutch in life (i.e. religion, god) and have the ability to figure stuff out on our own now, but the religious fundamentalists would rather we not and just take the bibles word for it. Im sorry but i cannot tolerate or encourage their stupidity, especially since they have such a powerful influence on government and the way we live our everyday life. I am a bigot against all religions. <