Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oregon Biology Teacher Fired Over Bible References
Fox News ^ | Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Posted on 03/20/2007 2:02:43 PM PDT by Diago

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-188 next last
To: tacticalogic; RobbyS
"Only it posulates that above man is this god-like being called The scientist. He serves as a kinbd of oracle of this supposed body of knowledge known as SCIENCE." Luddism is never pretty.
51 posted on 03/20/2007 3:40:23 PM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
"I think this is called opinion. Why should I claim responsility? It is mine own."

You don't claim responsibility for your own opinion?

52 posted on 03/20/2007 3:42:40 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Why should I NOT claim responsibility?


53 posted on 03/20/2007 3:45:11 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero
LOL! Kook. No business teaching school.

Exactly.

I wonder what his Freeper name is.

54 posted on 03/20/2007 3:46:51 PM PDT by Wormwood (Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Why should I NOT claim responsibility?

No reason not to. And no basis for complaining about anyone else's lack of objectivity on the subject.

55 posted on 03/20/2007 3:46:58 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

There is a difference between a science and SCIENCE. Is it Luddism is say that Darwin's theories were shaped by the prevalent opinions of his class and age?


56 posted on 03/20/2007 3:47:17 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
There is a difference between a science and SCIENCE. Is it Luddism is say that Darwin's theories were shaped by the prevalent opinions of his class and age?

I'm not sure what you'd call it to try to define science in terms of the abuses of TOE, but you don't call it rational.

57 posted on 03/20/2007 3:50:31 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; voltaires_zit
There is a difference between a science and SCIENCE.

No doubt. The difference is whichever one makes room for your theology isn't science.

Is it Luddism is say that Darwin's theories were shaped by the prevalent opinions of his class and age?

No. It's ad hominem.

58 posted on 03/20/2007 3:53:39 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot
"It may be just a bit over your head."

Or beneath contempt

59 posted on 03/20/2007 3:54:51 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Scientists are as likely to abuse their positions as anyone else. They are just as greedy for fame and fortune as the average rock star. More to the point, they are sometime guilty of priestcraft, which is to claim magical powers.


60 posted on 03/20/2007 3:55:29 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

All opinions, on any matter whatsoever, are shaped by the day and the culture in which they form.

That said, science is unique in human endeavor in that it actively works to remove blinders caused by that effect. Other endeavors, such as politics or religion, seem to glory in them.

It's the belief that slight, insurmountable cultural bias demolishes the truth in science or the value in modernity that is the basis of luddism.


61 posted on 03/20/2007 3:56:02 PM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

To the extent that it's true to say science is shaped by the day and culture in which [it forms], is to make an interesting but ultimately meaningless observation. No one is capable of working outside his time and place. On the other hand, if "day and culture" were able to distort science, why does science originating in, say, pre-Victorian England, still work in post-Mao China?


62 posted on 03/20/2007 4:01:28 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Scientists are as likely to abuse their positions as anyone else. They are just as greedy for fame and fortune as the average rock star. More to the point, they are sometime guilty of priestcraft, which is to claim magical powers.

One more time. Will you hold that hold to that opinion in the face of assertions that creationsists are not "anti-science"?

More relevant to the purpose of this forum, will you advocate that position as the correct political stance for passing legislation and forming public policy with regard to public support of science and the scientific community?

63 posted on 03/20/2007 4:01:32 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit

The hubris of scientists is to claim that the scientific method is the only way we can know anything. This puts them in the unique position of claiming the right to say which questions are meaningful.


64 posted on 03/20/2007 4:05:17 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

> On the other hand, if "day and culture" were able to
> distort science, why does science originating in, say,
> pre-Victorian England, still work in post-Mao China?

Because, as I also noted, the endeavor of science (alone among human undertakings) actually takes meaningful steps to minimize the effects by, for example, insisting that observations or experiments be repeatable and reproducible.

Even so, some of the assumptions underlying Newtonian physics, that space could be adequately described using Euclidean geometry and that time progressed at a uniform rate, were clearly "time and place" sorts of assumptions that have measureable, negative, impact on the accuracy of his theory.

What assumptions do we make today?


65 posted on 03/20/2007 4:09:53 PM PDT by voltaires_zit (Government is the problem, not the answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Creationists are not anti-science unless science demands that they accept that the scientific method is the only way we can know anything. As for the peculiar term "scientific community." is that politically-speaking simply another lobby, little different in its acivities from the gay-rights lobby in trying to get the law to silence its opponents?


66 posted on 03/20/2007 4:11:38 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Scientists are as likely to abuse their positions as anyone else.

That's because they're just as human as anyone else.

They are just as greedy for fame and fortune as the average rock star. More to the point, they are sometime guilty of priestcraft, which is to claim magical powers.

Is that why so many scientists have their own television shows on which they appear immaculately coiffed, sometimes with their wives interjecting, "Oh! Praise Pasteur!" every few moments while the scientist tearfully warns his viewers that unless the viewers send money, that science won't like them any more?

67 posted on 03/20/2007 4:13:00 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Creationists are not anti-science unless science demands that they accept that the scientific method is the only way we can know anything.

Is it all right if they demand that the scientific disciplines be based on the scientific method, or do you demand that theologians reserve the right to overrule their conclusions if they conflict with religious dogma?

As for the peculiar term "scientific community." is that politically-speaking simply another lobby, little different in its acivities from the gay-rights lobby in trying to get the law to silence its opponents?

The Founders specifically made reference to the legitimate role of government in advancing and supporting science and scientific inquiry. You tell me if it's "just another lobby".

68 posted on 03/20/2007 4:18:42 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: voltaires_zit
Because, as I also noted, the endeavor of science (alone among human undertakings) actually takes meaningful steps to minimize the effects by, for example, insisting that observations or experiments be repeatable and reproducible.

Of course.

Even so, some of the assumptions underlying Newtonian physics, that space could be adequately described using Euclidean geometry and that time progressed at a uniform rate, were clearly "time and place" sorts of assumptions that have measureable, negative, impact on the accuracy of his theory.

Yup. At present, we regard it as "true as far as it goes." Newton should never be underestimated, even though he modestly stated he was "standing on the shoulders of giants." We now have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of several generations of very intelligent and hard-working people who have been standing on Newton's shoulders.

What assumptions do we make today?

That will be more obvious in fifty or a hundred years.

69 posted on 03/20/2007 4:19:22 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

First of all what do you mean by "creationists?" That can mean just those who believe that the account of the creation in Genesis has to be taken as it is. More broadly, it is the theological doctrine that the universe is a creation, not just something that "happened." Another part of this is the belief that the universe had a beginning and will have an end. Many thinkers from Aristotle onward, and taught that the universe always existed. Scientists who accept the latter belief might be called anti-creationists, and they can hold to this even though it seems to go against what we now know. Fred Hoyle believed this, I think. Others try the end around notion of multiple universes or consecutive universes, which is also in one form or another a way of accounting for the counter-intuitive aspects of quantum theory. The way that human beings are made indictaes that we can never be satisfied with agnosticism about untilmate things, which is why Eveolutionists and therologicnas each go beyond what they actually know at any given moment.


70 posted on 03/20/2007 4:22:36 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Diago

That's a good post.


71 posted on 03/20/2007 4:24:27 PM PDT by RightWhale (Treaty rules;commerce droolz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diago; All

Why do these idiots always bring up eugenics and what the Nazis did in their opposition to evolution theory? Social conservatives complain all the time about liberal teachers with agendas; why should kooks from the right get a free pass?


72 posted on 03/20/2007 4:29:04 PM PDT by WestVirginiaRebel ("...Mindless pack of trained Maoist circus seals."-www.iowahwk.typepad.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If you are going to teach in a government school, you have to stick to godlessness. You cannot mention God or anything from the traditional biblical perspective that has served as the underpinning of American civilization for four hundred years.

For the entire history of the country until quite recently you could mention God and refer directly to biblical principles concerning the origins of man because that was the kind of schools that communities "freely" chose to create since the beginning of this country.

This is no longer the case, for you must now lead children to believe that science has proven that the only reasonable explanation for their existence must be given by naturalistic science, for they are the ultimate holders of all truth about past events that they did not observe or test and the Bible is merely a book of nonsense.

It was only recently that liberals have used the supreme court to overcome the will of most parents in the name of their own secular progressive revisionism.

The only solution is to phase out and discontinue the godless government school monopoly and let the parents choose a private godless school if that is their choice. At the same time the large majority of parents will get to choose a school that they favor as well. Goodbye to the forced godless indoctrination.

It is the only just solution, because the government schools are a political monopoly as dictated by the NEA and the ACLU playbook.

73 posted on 03/20/2007 4:31:36 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
First of all what do you mean by "creationists?"

I mean those who describe themselves as "creationists". You can't be that obsessed with measuring everything else by contemporaneous cultural and societal dynamics, and then pretend you don't understand that context here and now.

74 posted on 03/20/2007 4:34:23 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks

And you think the appropriate response to that situation is to hold science in the same contempt that liberals hold religion?


75 posted on 03/20/2007 4:36:17 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You saw nothing of the kind in my post. This only proves that some people ignore an entire post and see what they want instead.


76 posted on 03/20/2007 5:03:46 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
First of all what do you mean by "[C]reationists?" That can mean just those who believe that the account of the creation in Genesis has to be taken as it is [interpreted by rustic American preachers a century ago]

Let's go with that, and ignore Creationist attempts to vague the term

77 posted on 03/20/2007 5:08:10 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("Red Meat. We were meant to eat it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Diago; Gelato

Filed under "reasons to kill off the government schools."

Entry number 10,485,339...


78 posted on 03/20/2007 5:08:28 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (If you want your eco-sins forgiven, just buy Carbon Indulgences...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diago
During his eight days as a part-time high school biology teacher, Kris Helphinstine included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.

ROFL

You look too small, to be a threat to the men in power ...


79 posted on 03/20/2007 5:09:55 PM PDT by af_vet_1981 (Waiting for Samson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
You saw nothing of the kind in my post. This only proves that some people ignore an entire post and see what they want instead.

Not buying it. I saw not only the entire post, but the post it was in response to that established the context. Thou doth protest too much.

80 posted on 03/20/2007 5:24:37 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot
...obviously there would be no serious action at all if a liberal
teacher did something similar on his side of the political line.


The poor fellow must not read enough thread on Free Republic.
Otherwise he'd have realized that he'd get a promotion if he'd tried
to indoctrinate the kids in the Islamic Shari'a view of science.
He'd would even have had all the judges and MSM on his side.

Schoolboards don't screw with advocates of a "faith" that might
just cut their heads off.
81 posted on 03/20/2007 5:25:52 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


82 posted on 03/20/2007 5:28:23 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, insects)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I am hardly buying your overreaching spin. When you take the time to read my post with objectivity you will see what my post actually says. It is about the godless government school monopoly.


83 posted on 03/20/2007 6:31:03 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
I am hardly buying your overreaching spin. When you take the time to read my post with objectivity you will see what my post actually says. It is about the godless government school monopoly.

The context of the exchange you injected that comment into was not. If you jump into the middle of an exchange with another poster, I assume your comments will be in the same context as that discussion. Do you think that is an unreasonable assumption to make?

84 posted on 03/20/2007 6:39:06 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Continental Soldier
What in the world does Nazi Germany have to do with evolution?
Google "Eugenics"
85 posted on 03/20/2007 6:45:04 PM PDT by Tailback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VOA
The poor fellow must not read enough thread[sic] on Free Republic. Otherwise he'd have realized that he'd get a promotion if he'd tried to indoctrinate the kids in the Islamic Shari'a view of science.

The Islamic view of science is indistinguishable from the fundamentalist Christian view of science.

86 posted on 03/20/2007 6:47:57 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I corrected the incorrect assumption you made apparently based upon what someone else wrote. I just told you what my post was about as if it was not already clear enough, but you keep protesting.

You protesteth far too much so I must assume that what really offended you was my view that the big centralized government school monopoly should be defunded and phased out of existance.

87 posted on 03/20/2007 6:49:45 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Diago

What the hell has Hitler got to do with evolution? Oh that's right, if Darwin had never existed, or if the discovery of natural selection had been suppressed, Nazism would never have arisen! Hitler would never have thought of using the brand-new European phenomenon of anti-semitism (it and all other kinds of racism and genocide never existed before Darwin, you see) and demagoguery to rise to power.

This numbnuts deserved to be fired. Good riddance.


88 posted on 03/20/2007 6:52:40 PM PDT by Youngblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
I corrected the incorrect assumption you made apparently based upon what someone else wrote.

What incorrect assumption did you think you were correcting? The discussion you jumped into the middle of was over the characterization of science and scientists. The phrase "government school monopoly" or words to that effect do not appear anywhere in the discussion leading up to the post you replied to.

89 posted on 03/20/2007 6:57:25 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Tailback

Evolution is a well-supported theory about the history and development of life on earth. That evil or misguided men have twisted or misused that theory to support or shape their political or social projects does not mean that it is wrong or should not be taught in science class.


90 posted on 03/20/2007 7:00:44 PM PDT by Youngblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Continental Soldier

"What in the world does Nazi Germany have to do with evolution?"

Probably brought up evolution themes of "survival of the fittest" and drew parallels to Nazism's eugenics. Planned Parenthood founder was a follower of eugenics and admirer of the Nazis. She advocated removal of "human weeds" from the evolutionary process.


91 posted on 03/20/2007 7:04:03 PM PDT by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I have already told you what my post was about. That post I replyed to just happened to be the last post on the page so I told you plainly what my post was about.

Once again, you protesteth far too much which betrays a hidden motive. I will tell you once again to read my post, it is about defunding and closing down the Big government public school monopoly.

92 posted on 03/20/2007 7:04:29 PM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Diago
What he actually *did* was blaspheme the Great God Darwin by pointing out the perfectly true fact that both Nazi ideology and Planned Parenthood look to evolutionism and "survival of the fittest" ideas as the basis for what they do.

At lest regarding the Nazis (I'm no expert on Planned Parenthood) that claim is extremely overblown, and can only be made in the most superficial fashion.

The were pre-Nazi figures who incorporated evolution into a system of "scientific" racism (e.g. Ernst Haeckel) but the Nazis had no sustained and systematic interest in Darwin or evolution. Sure, they mentioned it and occasionally appealed to it in a kind of naive "survival of the fittest" form, but it is all but absent from explicit expositions of their racial theories.

In fact the Nazis were creationists, albeit of a "mystical" sort that wouldn't be attractive to most modern fundamentalists. They believed in a kind of "racial soul" that was carried "in the blood". Hitler held this view at least in a general sense. It's most literal form of can be found in the most complete and authoritative exposition of Nazi race theory: Alfred Rosenberg's The Myth of the Twentieth Century.

The Creator made each race separately with their distinctive "racial souls" which gave them different characters and destinies. (The Aryans' destiny, of course, was to conquer and rule over other, lesser races.)

The purity of these race souls and been sullied since the creation by race mixing. The Nazis' aim then was precisely to REVERSE evolution. They wanted to purify "the blood" and thereby restore the primeval purity of the racial soul as it was originally created.

93 posted on 03/20/2007 7:08:23 PM PDT by Stultis (I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks
I have already told you what my post was about. That post I replyed to just happened to be the last post on the page so I told you plainly what my post was about.

So you felt like jumping in, and were just too lazy to scroll up to the top of the thread and reply to the poster of the original article, and you post didn't really have anything to do with the post you replied to?

94 posted on 03/20/2007 7:10:11 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Old Landmarks; tacticalogic
Okay. I read your post. It's most unimpressive.

If you are going to teach in a government school, you have to stick to godlessness. You cannot mention God or anything from the traditional biblical perspective that has served as the underpinning of American civilization for four hundred years.

And in a government school, whose version of which religion should govern the science classes? Or how about Math class? You know, don't you, that the zero is a Muslim invention? It might be interesting if Muslim teachers decided to teach the Koranic version of science, or if Hindu teachers decided to make sure the curriculum didn't contradict the Vedas.

For the entire history of the country until quite recently you could mention God and refer directly to biblical principles concerning the origins of man because that was the kind of schools that communities "freely" chose to create since the beginning of this country.

And if communities "freely" choose to teach that down is up, you're okay with that, right?

This is no longer the case, for you must now lead children to believe that science has proven that the only reasonable explanation for their existence must be given by naturalistic science, for they are the ultimate holders of all truth about past events that they did not observe or test and the Bible is merely a book of nonsense.

I don't know whether this is ignorance or lies. Either way, it's wrong. Science is about naturalistic explanations, but as yet there is not scientifically accepted theory of origins.

Do you really want the Bible in science class? Then you'd better be ready to have scientists subject the Bible to scientific scrutiny. Be careful what you wish for. Should we teach that roses are red because God wanted to remind us of the blood of Jesus? What color were roses before 33AD?

Why is the level of scientific knowledge in the Bible indistinguishable from the average man's knowledge of science when the Bible was written? Why didn't God drop a hint, say, about penicillin?

Kids need to learn science. If you want to live in the tenth century, fine. Enjoy life with the Islamists -- they're your allies in this.

It was only recently that liberals have used the supreme court to overcome the will of most parents in the name of their own secular progressive revisionism.

The only solution is to phase out and discontinue the godless government school monopoly and let the parents choose a private godless school if that is their choice. At the same time the large majority of parents will get to choose a school that they favor as well. Goodbye to the forced godless indoctrination.

Whose version of which God should be in the public schools?

Universal private schooling is a different issue entirely. But it should be noted that those who support schools that willfully distort science end up penalizing primarily their children.

It is the only just solution, because the government schools are a political monopoly as dictated by the NEA and the ACLU playbook.

I'm not here to defend public schools, but I do object to attempts to inject anyone's peculiar reading of the Bible into science.

You post has been addressed. Happy now?

95 posted on 03/20/2007 7:10:13 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Diago

It's Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show!!!!


96 posted on 03/20/2007 7:11:02 PM PDT by HitmanLV ("If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do suck seed." - Jerry 'Curly' Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diago

97 posted on 03/20/2007 7:13:43 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: VOA

Yes, might be a good career move.


98 posted on 03/20/2007 7:25:12 PM PDT by California Patriot ("That's not Charley the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: California Patriot

It certainly shows the PC Tolerance that the loving Left wants to indoctrinate our kids with. As a teacher of some 45 years, I have mangaged to always skip the PC malarky and call a spade a spade. Of course, my colleagues though I was a nut but I am still doing my thing. And as a pastor, I teach and preach the Gospel not the tolerant PC wishy washy malarky that the Left wants the Church to teach. Odd that the Left which says it speaks for freedom is the one which is the totalitarian in nature! Ha.


99 posted on 03/20/2007 7:26:36 PM PDT by phillyfanatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: phillyfanatic

Yes, the Left certainly isn't about freedom. It uses the principle when convenient, trashes it when not.


100 posted on 03/20/2007 7:27:45 PM PDT by California Patriot ("That's not Charley the Tuna out there. It's Jaws." -- Richard Nixon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-188 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson