[grania]

Okay, who's going to be the first to use this defense for teaching Intelligent Design? Wouldn't hold water then would it?

That's just the point. It probably would. "Intelligent Design" should be taught. It could be an exciting and interesting subject that covers the spectrum from Science Fiction to fundamental Christianity.

You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot. Defend this guy, and then say the arguments that liberals used to defend him apply to the intelligent design curriculum.

[Jaysun]

You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot. Defend this guy, and then say the arguments that liberals used to defend him apply to the intelligent design curriculum.

That's a valid argument. But here's my point:

We wouldn't tolerate a teacher that spent half an hour giving a graphic and detailed lecture about his sexual fetishes. We wouldn't tolerate a teacher that referred to the students as "motherfu*kers" and used "goddamn" for emphasis. We wouldn't tolerate a teacher that praised the merits of nudism and invited them to all shed their clothes. We wouldn't tolerate these things because they're against our values. I would argue that advocating the exact opposite of what we stand for as a nation is also against our values and beliefs. It's not unreasonable to expect public teachers to uphold our values - we expect no less from everyone else.

[infidel29]

You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot. Defend this guy, and then say the arguments that liberals used to defend him apply to the intelligent design curriculum.

I'm not defending him, you misunderstand me, I think this teacher should teach geography and STFU about everything else.

Creationism and/or ID would never stand up in court even with the first amendment defense being used here.