Horror Show Monday: Alabama Minister Abuse Goes Back Decades


Former music and youth minister at First United Methodist Church of Sheffield, Alabama, Oliver Brazelle, has been arrested and charged with sexual abuse and sodomy, although it is thought that his history of abuse goes back to the 1970s.  While the charges that actually got him arrested stem from allegations that Brazelle molested a boy at the church in the mid-90s, there have been claims against him for decades previous.

Charges from the 1970s forced the church to, at least for a time, suspend Brazelle and forbid him from acting with church choirs, but apparently that was eventually rescinded because he held the position of music minister at the time of his dismissal in 2012.  Police were approached by several people in mid-2012, alleging abuse in their childhood, but once the investigation was started, these people pulled back and refused to take part in the official charges.  It wasn’t until the end of 2012 when someone finally came forward and the investigation could begin in earnest.

“Officially, we never had a victim,” Sheffield Police Chief Greg Ray said about the July investigation. “We talked to several people, but no one (came) forward.”

Why am I not surprised that abuse victims were not willing to step forward and accuse a “man of God” of sexual abuse?  It’s something we see quite often, where a congregation will stand behind their pastors and will shun those who make accusations of wrongdoing.  While I have no idea if that’s the case here, it wouldn’t surprise me to find that those who stepped forward were criticized by other members of the church and shamed into retracting their statements.  I suppose we just won’t know for sure.

What is it about religion that makes pastors, priests and other clergy so untouchable in the eyes of their parishioners?  What grants these people such power that they can get away with horrific things and be supported because they’ve got a supposed conduit to God?  I wouldn’t say if we didn’t see it constantly but the number of cases where people refuse to testify, refuse to aid the authorities and refuse to convict a clergyman, just because they wear the collar or the robes, is rampant.  I guess they’re afraid that someone like Brazelle can sic God on them if they make them mad.

Is it any wonder we find religion absurd and dangerous?  That makes day two on Horror Show Monday.  What might be coming next?


366 thoughts on “Horror Show Monday: Alabama Minister Abuse Goes Back Decades”

  1. Back to the 1970's huh?

    Wonder how many poor children will not get the justice they deserve.

    Religion is gross

    1. The abuse of religion is gross.

      Just as the abuse of atheism by communists is gross, and the abuse of islam is gross…. nope that's not the abuse of islam but the adherence to islam.

          1. That was abuses of communism not atheism. No one has ever used atheism to kill or molest unlike your religion

          2. And this was the abuse of a sick pervert, not Christianity.

            You seem to think that everyone else has a different standard than your cherished atheists who under the guise of Communism murdered millions.

          3. Sorry you are comparing apples to oranges. Not believing in fairy tales has never killed anyone.

            christianity created this sick pervert. It also creates creepy online stalkers who harass and people

          4. No, actually I'm not.

            Atheism is the religion of communism and communism killed millions.
            If you can blame the teachings of Christ for this (when they don't say to do so), then atheism which has no values is responsible for the deaths under communism which won't admit to a God.

          5. Yes, you are.

            Just because I don't believe in god does not mean I have anything to do with communism. Communism is a form of government. That is like saying since I don't believe in unicorns or santa clause means I am a communist

          6. If I as a Christian deserve to be insulted because someone abused his authority while ignoring the tenets of his faith,

            then the same standard would apply that you as an atheist deserve to be tarred from the same brush as other atheists, even if they acted for communism.

            Millions dead.

          7. atheist don't have tenets or faith. We don't belong to any groups we are simply independent individuals that don't believe in god

          8. No that is me personally I don't speak for others and never said that was a requirement

          9. It is a requirement, and your parsing words just shows you have no credibility to seriously discuss things of any importance.

          10. Can't send a link because we don't have a manual we go off you fucking idiot. Just like you never showed one

          11. Sure you do, the first and most important one is no belief any any God or higher power.

            It's really simple if you toss out your hate and agenda.

          12. We don't have a manual. I believe in a higher power like the POTUS but not in any god. We also have higher social power in this country. So I just showed once again you are wrong

          13. A manuel, no. But a set required belief yes.

            And I'm just showing once again that you are a biased troll that ignores all facts when you want to push you one sided agendas.

            You won't even admit that atheists have to believe there is no God or higher powers.

          14. You may not, but then you're not an authorized spokesman for the entire system of belief, the belief that there is no god.

          15. Lots of people don't believe in god and don't consider themselves athesist, try again

          16. You don't get to speak for them, do you?

            And if they don't believe in any supernatural god they are atheists by definition even if they don't wear the label.

          17. No, but we do get to challenge the credibility of any link you provide and challenge your use of it if it fails to actually provide evidence for your assertions or claims.

          18. Which has no relevance to the comment to which you were responding. What kinds of links were you expecting related to my statement that we are permitted to challenge the sources you use?

          19. In a site for debate and discussion, why don't you try to actually debate and discuss?

            Not one sided comments with insults and derisions, but with your comments contributing to the topic?

          20. You are such a fool. Debate and discuss is exactly what I have been doing. But I don't expect you to see that since it is obvious to me that you don't actually understand what it means to debate and discuss a topic. You seem to think that everything you say falls into the category of debate and discuss and that everything everyone else says is not debate and discussion unless it happens to agree with you.

          21. I did not make any comment about nor demand for sources or links in my previous post. I have not made any assertions that require providing a link or source. What I have done is challenge the assertions you have made because you have not provide an adequate quantity of quality sources and data to support the claims.

          22. For two days you have been demanding over and over for proof of everything I've said.

            Do you want to play that game? I can go back and count the times if you don't recall.

          23. Actually, I do want to play that game and have been playing it with you. I keep providing you evidence and logically coherent arguments. You don't. I keep demanding that you provide evidence for your assertions, and you keep failing to do so. I am well aware of the number of times I have asked you to provide evidence. I am also well aware of the number of times you have failed to do so. The latter is exactly equal to the former.

          24. Yeah, unfortunately Roger's faith is more important than the facts. I've been asking him to provide evidence too, he's only concerned with what makes him feel good, not what he can actually back up with proof. Keep up the pressure.

          25. You've only requested it via straw man, you expect people to back up positions that they have never argued, where you avoid supporting positions that you clearly and directly support. Stop being dishonest, Roger. It's unbecoming.

          26. And I feel that you saying you don't need to because the position you take is 'established science' is also unbecoming. Meting on equal terms with equal standards for proof is only fair.

          27. "Atheism is the religion of communism and communism killed millions."

            Atheism is not a religion. It has none of the characteristics of a religion. It has no rituals, no sacred texts, no deity, all of which are components of religion. Communists did kill millions. And those communists were atheists. But they did not commit these killings in the name of atheism or to advance atheism.

            You are technically correct in saying that atheism is a position that contains no values. But this does not mean that individual atheists have no values. They do. But they don't derive those values from atheism. They derive their values from whatever philosophy they choose to follow. My values, for example, are derived from the philosophy of secular humanism.

          28. I read the material at the link you provided. What part of what is there disagrees with what I said? There is no set of atheist beliefs listed at that website. There is a list of the different reasons or arguments used by atheists for their non-belief in deities and the supernatural. But there is no set of beliefs such as one finds for religions, such as christianity.

            Your greatest confusion is in your continued assertion that not believing in God is a belief. It is actually the absence of a belief. I reject belief in God because there is an insufficient quantity of credible, empirical evidence to establish the claim that God exists. My rejection of your god, of all gods, is no more a belief than is my rejection of unicorns. I don't believe there are no unicorns, Rather I reject their existence because of the lack of evidence. This is not just a semantic different. There is a very important distinction between these two statements. If you are unable to understand what that difference is then you just aren't thinking clearly enough, not an uncommon problem with you.

          29. Yes there is. The unquestioned and necessary belief that there is no deity or supernatural powers controlling events.

            Why do you pretend that's not true?

          30. I am not pretending anything. You simply are incapable of understanding what I am saying. You have fooled yourself into thinking that the rejection of a belief is the same thing as a belief. You have problems with language comprehension. I suspect it is a rationalization mechanism you employ. In your mind it is easier to justify your beliefs if you argue that those who reject those beliefs do so on the basis of belief. But I don't employ belief as the method for evaluating the truth of claims. I use evidence. The lack of evidence to support the claim that God exists leads me to the conclusion that God most probably does not exist. This is not an unquestioned belief. If you or any other believer could provide a compelling evidence-based argument that God existed I would accept the belief. After some 2000 years of effort, there remains a paucity of evidence for the existence of your god and all of the other 10,000 gods humans have believed in throughout human history. My rejection of them all is not based on a belief. It is based on this near total lack of evidence.

          31. The rejection of a deity is a required position, the supposition is that adherents and members of the atheist group believe what they say.

            All the rest of your comment? It seems to be noise, reverting to your long comments.

            All your rejection of a supernatural deity has a total lack of evidence as well.

          32. Well, of course "rejection of a deity is a required position" of atheism. Do you think you are saying something profoundly critical of atheism or revealing of atheism? If you do you are foolishly deluded. An atheist by definition is one who rejects the belief in any deities. But that is where it ends. There are no other suppositions as you call them or beliefs that one must accept or believe to be an atheist. If you think there are then please list them in your next reply. Otherwise stop saying such silly things.

            It is only noise to you because you are so dogmatically attached to your beliefs that you treat anything that does not agree with your dogma as noise.

            I don't need evidence to conclude that God does not exist. I conclude this not from a body of evidence that conclusively demonstrates this, but rather from the lack of evidence that conclusively demonstrates the existence of God. This is the same standard I apply to my rejection of the claim that there are dragons or unicorns or that the Greek Olympian Gods (Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, Apollo, Aprhodite, etc.) exist, or that the God of Islam exists, or that any of the Hindu gods exist. I suspect that you also reject all of these other Gods for the same reason I do: there is no evidence for them. It is tragically sad that you don't apply the same standard to the Christian God.

          33. You admitted to a required belief, that shoots down your position that atheism isn't a system of beliefs, or a religion.

          34. You really are stupid. Examine the two following statements:

            I believe there is no God.

            I don't believe there is a God.

            Are you so stupid as not to see the difference between these two statements. The first statement is one that expressed a belief. If that had been what I said then I would be guilty of holding a belief.

            But the second sentence is a rephrasing of what I actually said. That second statement means the same thing as "I reject the claim that there is a God" which is what I said. It is not a statement of what I believe. It is a statement of what I don't believe. It is a statement about a belief I do not accept. Is this to difficult for your brain to comprehend. And it is a statement that reflects the position of most atheists. I suppose there may be some atheists who will describe their position as that of the first sentence. But it does not represent the position of most atheists.

            But even if I had made the first statement, and did in fact hold as a belief that God does not exist, this would not be a belief system. For atheism to be a system of beliefs there must be more than one belief. It is incorrect use of the word system to use it to describe something that has only one component. A system by definition is a group of components that are tied together and interact. Atheism if it were a belief would have only one component. Therefore it would not be a system of beliefs.

            Furthermore, you misuse the word belief in implying that a system of beliefs is a religion. For any belief system to be a religion it would have to have at a minimum the following:

            (1) a set of beliefs that involve acceptance of the existence
            of a deity or deities as well as acceptance of the existence
            of a supernatural realm.
            (2) a doctrine that includes a set of dogmas: statements
            accepted without questions to be true.
            (3) a set of rituals and ceremonies that prescribe and describe
            the practice of that religion and the behavior and conduct
            expected of its members
            (4) a system of practices for worshipping the deity or deities of
            that religion
            (5) an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and
            world views that relate humanity to an order of existence
            (6) a set of holy scriptures or sacred texts (Bible, Quran,
            Hebrew Tanakh, Hindu Vedas, etc.)
            (7) a set of sacred times (holy days and holidays) and a set of
            sacred places (holy sites, churches, temples, mosques,

            Atheism is not an organized institution such as Christianity. It has none of the characteristics above that are components of religions. Atheism is not a religion. If you insist that it is then state what are the defining characteristics and components of religion and explain how atheism exhibits any of them. You must also refute the list I provided above as defining characteristics or provide evidence that atheism exhibits the above characteristics.

          35. I'm not getting schooled, I'm the one pointing out a level playing field should apply. That if anyone demands proof they need to supply it themselves.

          36. He has provided multiple links with objective evidence to back up his claims. You have provided nothing, you are getting schooled

          37. That is more than you do, isn't it?

            And I explained why I don't agree with his links or that they say what he thinks they say.

            And you must be schooled, since you are here growling from under your bridge.

          38. You gave your opinion but provided no evidence to counter his links.

            I school you every time. Been schooling you for 4 years. That is why you stalk/harass me

          39. My points countered his links, the parts that were even relevant.

            That's more than you ever do.
            And just because you try to be more insulting and arrogant than everyone else only means just that. You haven't schooled anyone in the topics at hand.

          40. Sorry, but until you explain why I am wrong, they stand.

            You just got schooled again.

            Is this where you would say "Check mate"?

          41. and I explained why I Don't agree with him, you haven't shown why my points are wrong.

            Check mate back at you.

            You can't really debate can you? It's just not what you're good at. Stomping in, declaring some sort of arrogant decree then pretending you won is all you have.

          42. Then say why it's wrong.

            Are you just going to state that since you're a jerk and you can't agree that I must be wrong?
            Wow, such debate skills that takes !


          43. You haven't shown where you are correct, you've just stated your opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, you're not welcome to your own facts.

          44. Then why don't you explain why my opinion was actually wrong? Since you disagree with it, there must be a reason for it.

          45. Your brain really is filled with cobwebs enshrouded in a dense, impenetrable fog. The first statement is a belief statement. The second one is not. It is a statement about what I don't believe, not a statement about what I do believe. But given that you have demonstrated that you are uneducable, I see no point in continuing to press this point with you.

            Furthermore, you completely left unaddressed my rebuttal to your assertion that atheism is a religion. Rules of debate state that if you leave a point or argument unanswered you concede to the truth of that argument. I must then assume that you agree that atheism is not a religion. If not, then offer a rebuttal.

            I await what surely will be yet another piece of flawed reasoning. Comment by comment you have erected in this thread and others a stunning monument to ignorance and dimwittedness. Dullards everywhere will be singing your praises for generations to come.

          46. It seems you have some fog too.

            You are forced to take that position because it's the forced dogma your belief system demands.

            Furthermore you just proved my point that it is a belief system or religion. A very inflexible one too.

          47. What a pathetic response to an articulated measured post.
            Man up and either conduct yourself responsibility or feck off

          48. Wow, it sounds like I'm almost reaching low enough to make your level of debate.

            Not quite low enough, but then you've had a lot of practice.

          49. Nowhere as near as much practice as you and you 140k posts
            He destroyed you and instead of slithering off you embarrass yourself with adolescent quality retorts

          50. Oh look, the Euro trash is back.

            How is all that bailout stuff going due to all the failed economists over there?

            And why don't you just stay on your side of the pond? I didn't realize that you all were so regressive on debate.

          51. You spent months on the Belfast Telegraph site clogging it with nonsense and now have the cheek to tell me where I should post. Oh the hypocrisy!
            Clearly I won't be taking your advice.

          52. Yep and they banned his ass. The admin said he was reporting every comment a few us made and described him as a "nightmare"

          53. You were banned, they didn't like the way you kept attacking people. Gentleman John never deserved the way you went after him.

          54. I was never banned and was asked to create a new profile to post there so you would not be able to target me. And if gentle man john was such a good person was his points in the negative hundreds?

          55. Sure you were, they tossed us at the same time, you tried to sneak back under another profile and that stopped too, when they realized it was you.

            You can't stop the nasty insults and attacks on people that support Christianity.

          56. I am still posting there to this day. It was never sneaking in. She asked me to create a new profile and I did.

          57. Sure, and then why did they block you when you snuck back with another profile? Could it be that they just didn't like insulting biased people going after wonderful folks like Gentleman John. His comments were pulled, like mine were, what a strange coincidence I'm sure.

          58. Sure I have.
            On this thread it was that secular schools insist teachers advocate for evolution or face firing.

            I even gave two examples and you refuse to admit you are wrong, they demand evolution by 100% of the staff.

          59. That was 2 teachers not 100% of all teachers. You claim 100% of the teach evolution and have failed to back up that claim. I destroyed you with the beetle claim you made as well

          60. That was an example of my point that teachers cannot teach anything but evolution, can you come up with a single example otherwise?

            I'm still waiting.
            Just like your multiple comments showing the intricate balance in that beetle, you haven't shown how it might evolve in stages.

            You make this claims, and never have proof or examples.

          61. And where is your evidence that atheism has done anything at all?

            Oh that's right, you don't need evidence to make ridiculous claims.

          62. You know what I think is really cool about you, Rog? Being serious here — you have absolutely no sense of pride when it comes to highlighting your stupidity, you put it out there 145,000+ times and have no qualms about it. Keep it up, bud — you're fun to watch.

          63. And if I believed you have the cognizant skills to actually think, I might be worried. But nah — I've read a ton of your 145,000+ comments — you don't think, you troll.

          64. And you are entitled to that opinion.

            But the fact you are here trying to mock me shows you are worried.
            And of course as the good little troll that you are you sacrifice the topic of the story towards the goal of stopping my point of view.

          65. What's to say? This man is yet another religious pedophile who used his belief in god to gain access to and molest children. Throughout history sickos have used god to commit all kinds of atrocities, and you're defending those ridiculous beliefs while side-stepping the very real fact that religion is at the heart of many evil things, from trying to deny a gay person the right to be treated equally to providing a ripe setting for pedophiles. How does your god allow himself to be used that way? Oh, he doesn't, because he doesn't exist.

          66. What is to say? There is a higher percentage of sexual abuse in secular public schools.

            Had you been involved in this debate you would have seen where I linked to a source on that. Pedophiles use any tactic that might expose more victims to their perversion.

            And communists (all atheist) have murdered more.

            How does your stupid allow you to be used this way?

          67. Yeah, I'm going to look at a link YOU provided? And anyone who doesn't fall for your god theory is a communist? Did some of those gigantic balls of hail make a direct hit on your noggin? Ouch — but I can see it didn't change how you think, you're still rambling on oblivious to how others see your mumbo-jumbo.

          68. Once more you prove you have a fear of learning.

            Older sagging worn out women struggling with changes can't face facts well, they might have a hot flash if they do.

          69. Oh, you nailed me on that one, Rog. It was me having a hot flash that made me not want to look at some whack-a-do link you posted. Where's your link to that interview you heard with the shooter's father saying his son was a victim? It's been over a week, many of us are still waiting for you to provide evidence to support your lies.

          70. Dont' blame me if you look in the mirror and see Janet Reno more and more due to the advance of years.

            Where is your link to anything showing you are a real human?
            Where is the evidence that you are here to discuss the story?

            Did you just wake up bitter with the first glimpse of the cellulite that you have hanging around your ankles perhaps?

          71. Deflection is a game you play fairly well. Can't just say you lied? Understandable, but it renders you irrelevant. Whoa, big surprise there.

          72. And trolling like an angry ex wife suffering from extreme menopause is what you seem to play fairly well.

            Can't you just say that no diet or beauty parlor can help you?
            Understandable, but it renders your rants and insults with the perspective to see why you're so angry and so uncaring about the story that the site provided.

            Whoa, big (probably a plus size) surprise there.

          73. Still won't admit you lied? You can insult me until the cows come home, I'm not the one who made something up to push an agenda. Here, cut/paste this, maybe then you'll have a half-gram of relevance: "I was mistaken about the father of the shooter, and kept lying and deflecting to avoid embarrassment".

          74. Still won't admit you're just a cranky overweight woman without the looks you once had? Still won't admit that you might possibly be here for reasons outside of this thread?

            That would make you a troll, but at your age it might be an easy transition. You just wouldn't need to worry about cosmetics.

          75. WOW! What an incredibly sexist a remark, not to mention a violation of the very code of conduct your Jesus taught you. Very unchristian of you.

          76. She made her gender an issue by making sure I understood what it was.

            Are you admitting that Jesus lived and left a code of conduct?

          77. Making her gender an issue does not mean you have to use her gender as a means of insulting her. Knowing that she is a woman does not excuse or permit the use of gender-based slurs. The use of gender-based insults is sexist.

            No, I am not admitting Jesus lived. Read what I said more carefully. I referred to him as "your Jesus." That phrasing should have implied to you that he is not my Jesus and that therefore I don't believe in Jesus. I in fact think that the Jesus described in the Bible is a mythical being. I don't accept that there was an actual single individual known as Jesus. At best, I think it probable that the Jesus mentioned in the Bible is a fictional character developed based on earlier scriptures in the old testament and a patchwork of beliefs that developed during that time period based on the life of a number of different wondering apocalyptic preachers.

            As for the code of conduct, you are the one that said there is a code of conduct, not I. I know that the Bible describes a set of alleged teachings of what I am certain is the fictional character of Jesus. I don't accept that these prescriptions were actually derived from the teachings of Jesus, since I don't believe there was a Jesus Christ. I strongly suspect that the moral and ethical teachings contained in the Bible come from a variety of sources, many of them already commonly practiced in these ancient, pre-scientific, pre-literate cultures.

          78. She made it an issue then repeatedly insulted me.

            Why exactly is it wrong to use the things she inserted to the debate as points to return insults?

            Had she any manners I would have gladly treated her accordingly.

          79. Let me remind you of your comment, then my response. You'd said to someone else, about me, "…"didn't end so well for him last time." Here was my response to that:
            1 week ago @ Storyleak – Holder to Create 'Home… · 2 replies · +1 points
            I'm pretty sure I informed you I'm a she, not a he. So you have difficulty identifying gender? How come I'm not surprised? And do tell — how is it things "didn't end so well for him [her] last time"? I'm still here riding your hiney, you're still making ludicrous comments humiliating yourself. Win/win for me, Rog."
            You tell me and destroydogma and everyone else who might wander upon this little thread exactly how that's me making it an issue? I reminded you when you mistakenly referred to me as "him" that I'm a "her". In case you forgot, your very next comment to me mentioned my supposed 'sagging breasts'. So tell me, Mr. Christian Who Shouldn't Lie, who made my gender the butt of your sexist blather for over a week? That would be YOU.

          80. Roger lacks social skills especially with women. It is attributed to the fact that his mother was a drunk, and that his father was in prison for molesting him, or so I've read about him. He claims to be a Christian, yet with every word he hacks he proves otherwise. He is a joke. PS he really needs to get out more, he has been known to escape his parents basement in search of food, and replacement parts for his 1979Tandy 300 computer from time to time.

          81. Am I blind, missing something? Does letting someone know your gender when they mistakenly call you a 'he' when you're a 'she' warrant a 7+ day running stream of vitriol? Did saying "I'm pretty sure I informed you I'm a she, not a he" warrant all this? I KNOW he'll respond, he has "I-WANNA-HAVE-THE-LAST-WORD-ITIS".

          82. Poof, Roger is damaged goods. He makes all Christians, conservatives and men in general look dumb. I think his comments actually help put Obama over the top in the last election. I hope he will still be around to help Hillary Clinton. She is counting on his kind of stupid. Tea- bagger Conservatives make it so easy.

          83. Still here trolling? I thought you two would be over at that atheist site since Cephus hadn't banned me here?

            Trolls, you liberal hacks make it so easy.

          84. You just made it an issue in your two comments.

            See how that works? Like a harpie shrew you come here trying to hide behind your gender and pretend I should sit and let you run amok without calling you on it.

            Too bad, it's not going to happen.

          85. Hey Roger, here is a quote for you. " Forgive those who trespass against you." I'm sure you have no idea who said that. Once again you prove you are not a Christian.

          86. I don't reject Christianity, he has a point. You should also apologize to Poof for your crude statements to her.

          87. Smith, what ever guest troll you happen to be.

            She wanted to lower the debate to insults, you all are just mad because I did it better than she did.

            And why would I apologize for using something she insisted mentioning to make sure it was part of the discussion?

          88. Rogie, I forgive you for being a misogynistic, chavanistic pig and for spending the better part of 10 days trying to act like you're something more noble. Everyone's who's read any of your back-pedaling knows you're a liar, and I forgive you that too…it goes with your territory, it's what you do, you did it for weeks regarding the Isla Vista shooter's father and by trying to spin your disgusting anti-female garbage into something you can equate to your christian beliefs. All is forgiven, drop dead.

          89. If you think that making derisive comments about a woman's age or body parts makes you "better" at anything, you need to take some time for quiet introspection.

          90. You?

            When did you change and start using facts and sources to prove a point?

            I haven't seen it yet.

            Is this where you go of with multiple sources that don't back your position, and actually prove my point?

          91. "What is to say? There is a higher percentage of sexual abuse in secular public schools. "

            Even if this is true (and I am not conceding that it is), it does not in any way excuse nor minimize sexual abuse in sectarian schools and churches. No one here has argued that sexual abuse does not happen in public schools. We all know that it does. But you keep pointing this out as a distraction from the discussion about sexual abuse in sectarian institutions.

          92. While you argue about where there abuse deserves to be focused on, I say that approach is flawed and all abuse needs to be looked at.

            Do you think that your required position as an atheist that there is no sort of deity, that it precludes your unbiased approach to this? Is it a required atheist dogma to attack religion instead of simply rejecting it?

            We need to change the debate, from this secular vs religious settings for abuse to 'eradicating' the abuse.

            The ability to change the focus would show you don't have a dogma dogma.

          93. I never argued that all abuse should not be looked at. I acknowledge that child sex abuse occurs in the public schools. What I was taking issue with was you statement that it is more common in public schools than in religious schools and/or churches. I have repeatedly ask you to provide the evidence that this is the case. All you have offered thus far is the link to that one story, which I have repeatedly told you does not provide sufficient evidence to support you claim.

            I agree that we need to eradicate child sex abuse everywhere it occurs. It is not dogma, however, to insist that you provide evidence for a claim that you made. You are the one who introduced the issue of child sexual abuse in the public schools into this discussion. You are the one who claimed it is a larger problem in the public schools than it is in religious institutions. It is you who has to provide the evidence for this particular and specific claim.

            It is not an atheist dogma to attack religion. But religion gets no free passes. It is subject to criticism just like any other institution or belief system. There is much in religion, just as there is in politics or other areas of human affairs, that ought to be criticized.

            As my online name implies, I criticize all dogmas. Religion in all its forms is one of the world's leading, and I think most harmful, dogmas. So of course it is going to get a considerable amount of attention from me.

          94. Destroy, with all due respect.
            Why don't you look back at the very first comment on this thread.

            "Back to the 1970's huh?

            Wonder how many poor children will not get the justice they deserve.

            Religion is gross"

            From that to your comment. True, you didn't make that first comment but then again you haven't provided any indication you don't agree with it.

            It isn't about religion. You, and nobody else has shown that my religion teaches child abuse. Pedophiles use it to hide as a shield, but then again so do secular teachers.

            The commonality is pedophilia. Not religion.

          95. Gross is not one of the words I would use to describe religion. But I don't disagree with the sentiment it expresses. I have little but disdain for religious belief, not for the believer, but for the belief. I think believing in deities and the supernatural is a delusion. There is no credible evidence to support these beliefs. I have nothing but contempt for the belief of original sin. This is a savage, barbaric idea.

            I, nor anyone else here, has claimed that your religion teaches child abuse. This position exists only in your head. It is a strawman. This is not my position, nor is it the position that has been expressed by anyone else here. But it is an established fact that Christians, as well as non-christians do commit acts of sexual abuse.

            What I and others have been criticizing about Christianity is not that it teaches pedophilia. Rather we have been critical of Christians and Christian institutions that have failed to deal appropriately with it. More often than not the first reaction of Christian leaders of Christian institutions, the Catholic Church in particular, has been to circle the wagons rather than condemn those who commit these acts.

          96. And while you admit to that feeling I have a code of conduct I'm required to maintain.

            I see, the double standard.
            Can you see why I might have that kind of feeling towards atheists now?

          97. It is not that I don't have a code of conduct (a set of ethical principles to which I subscribe). Rather, while there is probably some overlap with the code you claim as yours, I subscribe to a set of ethical principles contained in the philosophy of secular humanism and the ethical system known as consequentialism. No double standard, just a different code.

            Now as to you maintaining or adhering to your code. I might be wrong, and if I am I'm sure you'll set me straight, but I'm fairly sure that this Christian code of conduct to which you refer does not condone the use of sexist insults. The fact that you have used such insults means you don't always adhere to your own adopted code.

            Admittedly, I too violate my own code on occasion. We are all human and stray from our code from time to time. But I don't use sexist insults, no matter how tempting it may be to do so. I am encouraging you to also refrain from such insults. If you must insult a woman, then do so using insults that don't use her gender as the core of the insult. I shall continue to call you a sexist so long as you employ sexist remarks and insults in your replies.

            As for you feeling toward atheists, I suspect you would have that feeling even if we always used the kindest of language toward you. Your religion contains beliefs that promote prejudice and bigotry toward non-believers. Search your own Bible.

            Psalm 14:1 ESV:

            To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

            Psalm 53:1 ESV

            To the choirmaster: according to Mahalath. A Maskil of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.

            Revelation 21:8 ESV:

            But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

            A large portion of Christians believe, for no reason other than their religion leads them to this belief, that atheists are immoral and can not be trusted. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-atheists-we-distrust/?print=true; http://www.thearda.com/quickstats/qs_32.asp; http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslim… )

            Pastor Rick Henderson went so far in a post on the religion blog of Huffington Post to state "There is no morally good atheist,…" because atheists reject the notion of absolute moral standards. The article itself was entitled "Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist". This of course is bullshit. Rejecting the notion that there are no absolute moral standards handed down by a deity does not mean that atheists do not practice a set of moral principals. But Henderson, and many fellow Christians continue to think we are immoral and perpetuate this myth about atheists. They do so because their religion – your religion – compels them to believe this to be true. So I don't accept that your feeling toward atheists is based on the experiences you have had with them on this and other forums. I suspect you had a prejudiced view of atheists before you ever encountered your first atheist.

          98. The first texts were from Palms, I'm not Jewish.

            The last one? Unless I'm banging every chick in the neighborhood I'm not sure why you quoted it.

            Paul referred to our lives as a spiritual war, and listed the armor for a soldier, not a spineless coward.

            You may not know enough about my religion to make sense of it.

            She is an ill mannered shrew IMO and if you want to rip on bad conduct you could ask her to tone it down.

      1. The only reason this man had access to children is because he was a minister and people tend to trust ministers where they wouldn't trust other people. People tend to be more comfortable placing their children in a minister's hand than they would other people. That's why there is so much sex abuse among the clergy, they have access and trust built into their jobs.

        And you're gross, Roger, how you're happy to dismiss religious sex abuse.

        1. This man has some answering to do.
          James 3:1
          "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."

          Cephus, for all your posturing, there is a higher rate of sexual abuse in secular schools. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex

          Am I excusing this creep? Nope, but I realize that it wasn't his relationship with Christ that led to the abuses.

          1. Nor was it a lack of a relationship with Christ that led to the sexual abuse committed by public school teachers in public schools. But it sure seems more than coincidental that the majority of public school teachers are christians, and therefore, the logical inference is that the majority of sexual abusers of students in public schools are christians.

          2. You keep trying to make a connection between Christian teachers (without establishing that there are that many) and abuse (without establishing who is doing that abuse in secular schools).

            Statistics could show that a majority of teachers support evolution and statistically make the case that evolutionists are pedophiles. But it wouldn't be anything but empty rhetoric and I try to avoid that.

          3. Premise 1: More than 75% of U.S. citizens are christians.
            Premise 2: Based on Premise 1, it is reasonable to conclude that more than 75% of the teachers in U.S. public schools are Christians.
            Premise 3: Sexual abuse of students by teachers occurs in U.S. public schools.
            Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude that 75% or more of the teachers who sexually abuse students are Christians.

            Now refute this. Explain what you think is wrong the flow of reasoning in this argument. I offered this argument not to argue that public school teachers who are christians and sexually abuse their students do so because of what their christian beliefs have taught them. I offered this argument because you implied that all or most of the public school teachers who sexually abuse students are atheists. You did this without actually providing any kind of data or evidence to support the claim, nor any kind of well-constructed argument based on any kind of factual premises. You still have not done this. You made the original assertion.

            I suppose statistics could show that a majority teachers support evolution, but this would not lead to the conclusion that all evolutionists are pedophiles. It would simply likely be true that most public school teachers who are pedophiles also accept evolution. One could not conclude that evolution is why they are pedophiles. That would be falling victim to the causation fallacy. I did not at any time say that those public school teachers are pedophiles and christians are pedophiles because they are christians. I simply refuted your assertion that the majority of public school teachers who are pedophiles are atheists. This can't be true given that such a large percentage of the population is christian, thus the majority of the public school teaching population must also be christian. There is no reason to assume that the population of public school teachers is not representative of the U.S. population as a whole.

          4. Premise #1 100% of secular schools teach evolution.
            Premise #2, 100% of the teachers teach evolution in class. It's reasonable to conclude that all the teachers are evolutionists.
            Premise #3, Sexual abuse of students by teachers occur in US Public Schools.
            Conlusion: It's reasonable to conclude that 100% or more of the teachers who sexually abuse students are evolutionists.

            Now refute that!

            Oh, I can refute your conclusion because Christians have a code of conduct, and sexual abuse isn't part of that.

          5. Wrong. Math teachers teach math, English teachers teach English, Art teachers teach art, shop teachers teach shop, PE teachers teach physical education, Speech teachers teach speech, Home ec teacherd teach home ec, hostory teachers theach history, you only learn evolution in science

          6. You say it's established science, but I say it's a theory.

            That it's established fact that there is diversity, that its' established fact that there is complexity. Both are evidence that perhaps there is more to the story than millions of years that would have, according to your theory not have happened or lasted.

          7. Does your ignorance know no end? What the hell do you think a theory is? theories are not speculations or opinions. Theories are very well-established scientific explanations of natural phenomena. Theories are based on and contain observations, evidence, multiple confirmed scientific hypotheses, established scientific laws, experimentally-derived data. In fact theories are the explanations that tie together a related set of hypotheses, scientific laws, observations, and experimentally-derived data. All theories have multiple lines of converging evidence that are explained by the theory. All well-established theories make predictions that can be and have been tested and verified, thus adding additional support for and confirmation of the theory. Theories are the BIG ideas in science. You're science understanding is astonishingly shallow and wrong in a very big way. And don't come back and pretend to instruct me on science. I was a science teacher for 21 years. I was trained in science. I hold a degree in geology, one particular branch of science. I have literally read hundreds of books about the various branches of science. I subscribe to and read the weekly journal Science, one of two of the top peer-reviewed professional scientific journals int the world. What I know about science is magnitudes greater than what you know about it.

            You comments about diversity and complexity are so hugely wrong that they reveal a nearly complete misunderstanding of science in general and evolutionary theory in particular. You need to stop talking about these subjects because you know absolutely nothing about them. I have studied evolution for over 25 years. I have read some 50 books on the subject written by experts in the field. You haven't a clue what you are talking about. Biological diversity and complexity are not evidence of creationism or intelligent design. Evolution does a much better job of explaining the biological diversity and complexity we find on Earth than does creationism or intelligent design. Your explanation boils down to this: God did it and we can't know any more about it since God's ways are a mystery to man. This explains absolutely nothing. It is about as stupid and asinine an explanation of life on this planet as one can imagine.

          8. Diversity and complexity aren' theory, they are fact. I've given two examples that you haven't been able to disprove, if you want to pretend and name call, your'e off to a great start.

          9. You have horrible reading comprehension. I never said that biological diversity and complexity are a theory. Of course they are observed facts. But they are facts that are explained by the Theory of Evolution. You again use the word theory incorrectly. You are incorrectly assuming that there is no connection or relationship between the concept of theory and facts. Facts are components or parts of a theory. Facts are explained by theories.

            Of course I have not tried to disprove that biological diversity and complexity exist. If you would read my comments more carefully, you would see that I accept and have acknowledged that biological diversity and complexity exist. What I am trying to educate you about is that biological diversity and complexity are fully explained by evolutionary theory. Using God as an explanation in fact does not explain the diversity and complexity we observe. It provides no detailed description of how the diversity and complexity arose. Evolutionary theory, however, does provide this description and explanation. The degree of biodiversity has varied over geological time. During periods of extinctions, as shown in the fossil record, biological diversity decreases. Periods between mass extinctions, based on the fossil record, show increasing diversity. Only evolution explains the change in the number of species (which is what biodiversity is) during various periods of Earth's history. God did it explains nothing about diversity or its changes over time.

            Some resources to consult:

            (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity
            (2) http://www.whfreeman.com/catalog/static/whf/fried
            (3) http://teacherweb.com/VA/PaulVIHighSchool/SFarrar

            (1) http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0005074.pdf
            (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_biologi
            (3) http://ncse.com/rncse/26/3/evolution-biological-c
            (4) http://nirmukta.com/2010/01/25/complexity-explain

          10. All that, and you're still wrong.

            Evolution is the process where the best survive and where everything else is forced to keep up or die, that's not diversity.

            All the things you just listed is evolutionists trying to make the facts fit the theory instead of looking at the theory to see if it's plausible.

          11. Did you actually read the articles? They demonstrate how evolution can explain diversity!
            So stating that he's wrong is a lie at worst and sad at best

          12. That's what happens when someone who is totally ignorant of the science and has an emotional attachment to creationism argues against science. The evidence is right there, it's agreed to by all credible scientists, anyone with even a high school education ought to get the broad strokes, yet they just refuse to acknowledge the facts. I wouldn't say if they could show why the evidence is wrong but they can't, they just STATE that the evidence is wrong because it gets in the way of their religious beliefs.

          13. Its the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting na na na I don't believe you

          14. That's pretty much what theism is all about. I'm in the middle of a discussion with a theist who claims that the scientific method is "faith" because we cannot prove with absolute certainty that our experiences 100% correlate with the real world and therefore, claiming that there is a supernatural out there somewhere is just as valid as claiming that the chair you're sitting on is real. No matter how many times I point out that this isn't defensible, he keeps repeating the same nonsense over and over.

          15. What they fail to accept is that science doesn't have a predetermined outcome but starts with the null hypothesis in any field.
            If then the experimental results or the repeatedly observed information did indeed point to the existence of supernatural origins of the universe then the literature would be reflective. It just happens that the vast majority of the science shows the opposite.
            Religious faith is the mirror opposite. A predetermined outcome, little evidence and unwavering position regardless of contrary evidence
            They are hardly equal positions of validity

          16. In evolution it does.
            You have your predetermined outcome in what you see around you, then flex and adjust the theory to match that.

          17. No it doesn't
            The vast majority of evidence points to evolution
            There are still gaps and no scientist would admit otherwise but if science knew everything it would just stop.
            If it were up to creationists we would not be progressing vast areas of science

          18. There are a lot of people who don't rule out evolution think that it was by design, and what we see today wasn't by chance.

          19. Yes there are, there are also lots of people who believe in reincarnation. So what's your point?

          20. There are lots of stupid people out there, people for whom evidence means nothing and rational thinking is anathema. We need to fix it but unfortunately, those stupid people tend to breed faster than the rest of us.

          21. You're certainly on the right track. Science looks at the evidence and comes to a conclusion. Religion starts with a conclusion and only pays attention to evidence that supports that conclusion. One finds truth, the other confirms faith.

          22. How would you know what a public school teacher tells a student about evolution if the child asks? Have you spent a large amount of time in public schools investigating this? Have you spoken to a lot of public school teachers and asked them what they tell students if or when they are asked about evolution? Have you read any research that provides data about what all or even most teachers tell students about evolution if they are asked about evolution by a student? I suspect the answer to each of these questions is No.

            I would suspect that most teachers never get asked about evolution by students. It is highly unlikely that students routinely ask their math, english, history, music, physical education, health, or foreign language teacher questions about evolution. So I suspect that very few of these teachers have ever had occasion to say anything about evolution to their students. And I further suspect, having spent 21 years in a public school setting, that if any teachers in any of these disciplines were asked about evolution they would likely tell the student to go ask their science teacher rather than try to answer the question themselves. Most teachers outside of the science department know little more than their students about evolution and so would not even be well-enough informed to answer questions about it. It is absurdly silly for you to assert without providing any basis that all public school teachers endorse evolution when asked about it. A PEW Research survey published in December 2013 (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/) found that 33% of the U.S. population reject's evolution and are creationists. With no reason to assume that the population of public school teachers is significantly different from the general population when it comes to beliefs, it stands to reason that roughly one-third of public school teachers also reject evolution and are creationists. From the PEW survey:

            "According to a new Pew Research Center analysis, six-in-ten Americans (60%) say that “humans and other living things have evolved over time,” while a third (33%) reject the idea of evolution, saying that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”

            So it is highly unlikely that every public school teacher would, as you claimed, "endorse evolution if a child asks." You just pull this shit out of your head without actually doing any research. You just make up these assertions because you think these things have to be true if your belief is correct. And since you believe in your belief you just assume that anything that pops into your malfunctioning brain that supports your beliefs is automatically and self-evidently true. This is exactly what constitutes a delusion. And you are in the clutches of a whopper of a delusion.

          23. What the hell are you talking about? Provide evidence of this assertion. I have not heard of a single teacher being fired for teaching creationism or intelligent design, though frankly they should be fired for doing so. I have heard of cases of teachers being told to stop teaching creationism or intelligent design. There may be cases of teachers fired after having been told to stop teaching creationism but refused to do so. However, the cause of their termination would be insubordination. But I don't know of any specific cases of this happening. But since you claim that it has provide the evidence to support this claim.

          24. Before I refute the argument you have presented, let us be clear about something very important: all that is necessary to refute the type of argument you presented above is to show that one or more of the premises is false. If any one of the premises is false then the conclusion is not valid nor is it true. This is basic logic. So let us begin.

            Premise 2 is demonstrably false.

            All that is actually required to refute your premise is to show that anything less than 100% of public school teachers teach only evolution. Here is a source that does precisely this: http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/creationism-in-t…. This article in the Arkansas Reporter is about a social studies teacher who taught creationism in her classroom during a world history unit on the Stone age. Creationism was taught by this teacher because she is not an evolutionist, but rather she is a creationist. Creationism is a theological view, not an accepted scientific or historical view. A person who teaches it, whether in a social studies class or a science class, must be an advocate of this view. One cannot be both a creationist and an evolutionist. The two are mutually exclusive views. Since this one example refutes your premise that 100% of public school teachers are evolutionists, your conclusion is also therefore incorrect.

            But let's not leave it at just one example. I want to provide a slam-dunk refutation.

            So just google the number of public school teachers who teach intelligent design in their classroom. Sure, you will find that many of these teachers teach evolution as well. But this is because they are required to teach what is in the curriculum in their district and the state standards in their state. Evolution is a part of the state standards and curriculum in every public school. Many of those teachers who don't personally accept evolution teach intelligent design as well, even though it is constitutionally prohibited. They must be doing so because they are not evolutionists. For example, in a study conducted in Ohio alone (the state in which I live), it was found that nearly one-third of the biology teachers in the public schools teach intelligent design. (http://ncse.com/rncse/24/1/ohio-teachers-teaching-evolution-counter-evolutionary-concep). So your premise that it is reasonable to conclude that 100% of public school teachers are evolutionists is false. If this premise were true then there would be no teachers teaching intelligent design in their classes.This is true because (1) intelligent design is not actually part of the state standards in any of the states, (2) the relevant scientific community (biologists in particular) reject intelligent design as a scientific theory, and (3) courts have ruled intelligent design to be a theological view and not a scientific theory (Kitzmiller v. Dover, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_… and therefore constitutionally prohibited as a subject to be taught in the public school classroom. Thus there is no reason for a teacher who is an evolutionist to teach creationism or intelligent design unless they are advocates of and believers in intelligent design rather than evolution. Thus it cannot be that 100% of public school teachers are evolutionists. Since your premise is wrong, logic dictates that your conclusion, based on this premise, is also incorrect.

            The Week, a national magazine, reported online on February 1, 20111, that results from a nationally-conducted survey of biology teachers showed that 13% of the teachers polled "openly advocated creationism — the belief that God created Earth and humans, as told in the Bible's Book of Genesis — or intelligent design, the theory that a higher power, not natural selection, guided evolving species." (http://theweek.com/article/index/211627/why-is-creationism-still-being-taught-in-public-high-schools#axzz34ZRL89Ij). An article on this same survey was also published online at LiveScience in January 2011 (http://www.livescience.com/11656-13-biology-teachers-advocate-creationism-class.html). Thus your premise is again demonstrated to be false, and along with it your conclusion.

            I have offered more than enough to refute your argument. I will read with amusement your silly, inane attempt to wiggle out of this one.

          25. All that works against your false conclusions too.

            You have nothing. Nothing but a bias and a desperate need to pretend.

          26. Unbelievable inanity on your part. I offer a fully flesh-out argument and your rebuttal is "All that works against your false conclusions too." You think that constitutes an actual rebuttal argument? You say nothing about the evidence I provide that dismantles your second premise. You are way out of your intellectual depth on this forum.

            But now to address the pathetic response you offered. The rebuttal I presented does not invalidate my earlier argument. It does not because none of the premises in my argument are actually false or incorrect. But if you one or more of them is false, then amuse me with whatever feeble-head argument you can muster that demonstrates this. Provide an argument that invalidates my argument. Show which of my premises is false. This is what is necessary for you to demonstrate that my conclusion is false. What you wrote above does not do this.

            I take it from your sentence, "All that works against your false conclusions too", that you are conceding that your argument was flawed and that your conclusion is false. If not then why add the word "too" at the end of that sentence?

          27. Sometimes, it isn't length but quality of content that matters.

            And yes, it demonstrated the false premise of your theory.
            And if 100% of teachers present evolution then that is far higher than the amount of teacher that you haven't proven followed teachings of Christ. I could claim to be a monkey, that doesn't make it so.
            So, I'll make it a slam dunk refuting your false conclusions.

            You can't show that 75% are Christian, you can't show that that percentage are abusing the students. You are just proving that bias makes up for your lack of facts.

          28. It is true that quality of content matters more than length. But then I never said my rebuttal statement was correct because of its length. When I used the phrase "fully fleshed out argument" I was referring to the quality and quantity of the content, not the length of my comment. But apparently the metaphorical phrase "fully fleshed out" is unfamiliar or unknown to you. To say that something is "fully fleshed" is to say that it has everything it should have and needs to have to be complete. It means that it has all the necessary substance required for it to be complete. In the context in which I used the phrase it meant that my argument has all the details and components of a complete argument. This is something you have failed to produce thus far.

            To paraphrase a remark you made to me, repeating a statement does not make it correct or true. You keep saying that the conclusion in my original argument has been demonstrated to be false by the criticism I offered of your poorly constructed argument. But repeating this claim does not make it true. You MUST present a rebuttal argument that states which of my premises are false and explains in a logically coherent manner, with countering evidence, how the premise is false. You haven't done this.

          29. But it wasn't fully fleshed out because you didn't make a connection between the 75% and the actual teachers convicted of abuse.

          30. It's statistical. It may very well be that more than 75% of the teachers convicted of abuse are Christian. After all, entry statistics in the prison system show that there are more self-identified Christians being sent to prison than their representation in society as a whole.

          31. And it might be that statistically a higher percentage of places advocating evolution have sexual abuse, after all entry statistics show that the higher the level of evolution being taught the higher the level of abuse.

          32. Oh brother, if I prove all secular schools teach evolution you'll still pretend I didn't prove anything.

            That's right one state wanted options and was told no. 100% have evolution as the mandated theory of origins.

            That confirms my correlation that 100% of sexual abuse in secular schools comes from schools that teach evolution.

            Next question? I'm waiting.

          33. He did not ask you to prove that all secular schools teach evolution. Both he and I know that evolution is taught in secular (public schools). Cephus asked you to provide the data and statistics to substantiate your claim that "it might be that statistically a higher percentage of places advocating evolution have sexual abuse, after all entry statistics show that the higher the level of evolution being taught the higher the level of abuse"

            This claim is not the same as the one you have now mentioned.

            "That confirms my correlation that 100% of sexual abuse in secular schools comes from schools that teach evolution."

            You have again changed the assertion. Cephus was not challenging this assertion. But I will. It probably is a fact that all secular high schools and middle schools teach evolution.. Evolution is not taught, however, at the elementary school level. So any sexual abuse that occurs at the elementary level does not occur in schools teaching evolution. So your statement is false.

            Also, the article you linked to speaks of a specific single case in South Carolina. A single example can not serve as evidence for a claim of 100% of something. At best the article you linked to serves as evidence that evolution is taught in South Carolina public schools. It says nothing about what is taught in the public schools in the other 49 states. To establish that evolution is taught in public schools in the other states you would have to provide links to the state science standards in those 49 states and show where in those standards the teaching of evolution is mandated. I am not denying that the teaching of evolution is mandated in these other states. I only make this point to illustrate that you have not in fact substantiated your claim by using only the example of South Carolina.

            Furthermore, correlation does not necessarily establish a causal link. To claim that it does without actually providing empirically verifiable evidence of the link, is to employ the logical fallacy known as the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this". It is also known as the false cause fallacy. So the fact that evolution is taught in public schools and that sexual abuse occurs in public schools does not establish that the teaching of evolution is the reason public school teachers sexually abuse students. To establish a causal link between these two you would first have to conduct research that eliminates all other possible causal links.

          34. "And if 100% of teachers present evolution then that is far higher than the amount of teacher that you haven't proven followed teachings of Christ."

            Actually, this statement is absurdly false. First of all, 100% of biology teachers teach evolution in their biology classes. But 100% of public school teachers don't, as your phrasing above implies, teach evolution because they are not all biology teachers. Evolution is not taught by teachers of math, english, foreign language, physics, chemistry, social studies, history, etc. So actually, since biology teachers, the only ones who actually teach evolution in public schools, is a subset of all teachers, they cannot actually be 100% of all teachers. While there is no way to determine what fraction of all teachers biology teachers represent, it certainly is no more than 4% to 5% of the total number of teachers. As an example, in the district from which I recently retired, there are about 390 teachers district-wide spread out in four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Of this total there are five biology teachers at the high school. This represents 1.2% of the total. But to be fair, lets also include in the mix those general science teachers at the middle school who would teach some evolution, but not to the extent that is taught at the high school. This would be about another 10 teachers, bringing the total to 15 who teach some evolution in this district. These 15 teachers represent 3.8 percent of the total. Now I am going to assume that the percentage of public school teachers teaching evolution is roughly the same throughout the nation. There is no reason to assume that my school district is significantly different from other school districts in terms of the percentage of biology teachers as well as the percentage of teachers who are Christians. The percentage may vary by a couple of percentage points from district to district, but this would not make the numbers substantially different. So a rough approximation is that about 4% of the nation's public school teachers actually teach evolution to varying degrees of depth and complexity in their classroom. Do you seriously think that fewer than 4% of public school teachers are Christians? It is very probable that the percentage of public school teachers who are Christians is roughly the same as the percentage of the U.S. population that are Christians. And as I have pointed out, this percentage is known to be more than 75%. In fact, the PEW Research survey to which I provided a link in a previous reply puts it at just over 78%. Thus there is very good reason to think that somewhere near this percentage of public school teachers are Christians, since there is no reason – at least known offered as yet by you – to assume that the population of public school teachers is not representative of the nation's population in terms of religious belief.

            Lastly, my argument was not that 75% of Christian teachers don't follow the teachings of Christ. I am sure that 100% of Christians follow some of the teachings of Christ some, maybe even most, of the time. But I have no doubt at all that a large percentage, probably close to 90%, of Christians do not follow all the teachings of Christ 100% of the time and in all instances and circumstances where these teachings would apply. If you are claiming that this statement is false then you are completely out of touch with the reality of how people live out the religious component of their lives. Afterall, you did concede in an earlier posting that there are few, if any, perfect Christians.

          35. No, it is not on the face of it factual. You literally said that 100% of teachers present (I presume this means teach) evolution and that this percentage is greater than the 75% figure I referred to in my comments. Your statement would be true if all teachers taught evolution. But as I clearly demonstrated nowhere near 100% of teachers teach evolution. At best 4% to 5% of all teachers teach evolution. So your statement can't be true. You are an idiot if you think it does.

            What I presented was not an opinion. It was an argument containing s set of premises and a conclusion that logically folllows from those premises. Your problem is you are apparently so intellectually stunted you can't tell the difference between a logically coherent argument and opinion.

          36. All teachers if asked must present evolution, that would 100%.

            Can you prove that 75% of the teachers are Christian?

            You haven't. Equal standards of proof, either you prove your point of you need to back off of your demands.

          37. That is not your orginal claim. You get shown to be wrong and you think you can re-word your claim.

            Do you know how to debate?

          38. I have and math teachers taugh math, English teachers taught English, Art was taught in art, evolution was taught in science and was never brought up in other classes

          39. Evidence to show I'm wrong, or that every teacher in your town is a Christian, or that any teaching of Christ advocates for this abuse?

            (bird chirping)

          40. I told you I can't prove that, at least I admit it. So when you provide evidence that 100% of teachers teach evolution as you claim.

            Birds chirping

          41. I have. Don't you read the thread before you start trolling it?

            Or is it that you're just here to stop debate and insult people?

            A teacher can't even have the historical literary work of the Bible in the class, even if they don't teach from it, they can't give one out as a gift after class.

            100% evolutionist schools.

            Check mate. Want to go for another round?

          42. So one was a sub and the other was a science teacher. Can you show an art or math teacher that teaches evolution?

          43. So, they got fired for not pushing evolution can you show that it's all right for teachers in a secular system to do anything else?

            Nope, but still as a troll you won't provide proof or evidence to the level you demand of everyone else.

            So predictable, and all your comeback will be will be an insult, not a link or source, it's all you have.

          44. You made the claim that 100% of all public school teachers teach evolution. That claim is wrong and you have not provided any evidence to back up your claim

          45. And the evidence was too teachers who were not teaching science class that got fired for not advocating for evolution as the only theory for origins.

            That backs up my claim.

            But hey, go ahead and show they can if you want to.

          46. And they were fired for not towing that 100% party line.

            Why can't you go ahead and prove with examples of teachers that teach more than evolution in secular public schools?

          47. You made the claim the 100% of teachers in public schools teach evolution. Where is your evidenced?

          48. When will you back up your claim that 100% of public school teachers teach evolution?

          49. Nope, that was never my point, but on the flip side of the coin that was your point for your position that all the teachers in your town were since they attended church.

            You haven't proven it, you can't prove it and you might as well admit that you just wanted to push your agenda instead of actually debating with facts.

          50. I told you I can't prove they all are. At least when I can't prove something I am man enough to admit it

          51. So, you offer an example that doesn't hold up but when I provide examples – well documented court cases for my positions you still attack that.

            Double standard much?

          52. You provided an example of a sub and science teacher. No examples or evidence that 100% of public teachers teach evolution.

            Admit you were wrong and quit trolling

          53. Both teachers fired for not towing the party line on evolution, and you can't prove they were not teachers or that exeptions are ever granted.

            Admit you are wrong and that you're trolling.

          54. And both were teachers that didn't make the state run allowed talking points and were fired.

            I realize you just can't bring yourself to admit you can't prove you point, and I did. So, you're wrong.

            Don't even think you need to admit it.

            But all these repeats that don't even admit that teachers get fired for not pushing evolution? It's just lame.

          55. Can you show that 100% of all public schools teachers teach evolution?

            That was your claim. Now if you claim we only have 2 public schools teachers in this country and they were both fired then you would be correct

          56. I showed what the polices were and examples of how intolerant those rules are.

            I notice you haven't shown a single example otherwise.

          57. They no more deny a creator than they deny unicorns. Since there is no evidence for a creator, and let's be honest, you've done a really awful job supporting your claim that there is one, it doesn't get taught.

            Stop trying to turn things into a conspiracy. When there is evidence for your God, your God will be taught in schools and not until.

          58. See, you just proved my point for me.

            There is evidence of intelligent design, and yes the endocrine system is more complex and there is more diversity than millions of years of rewarding survival of the fittest can explain even if you won't admit it.

            The bombardier beetle is evidence for intelligent design. Otherwise it would have blown itself out of existence along the way.

            You keep saying I need to prove God, I keep saying there is evidence of intelligent design. Where have i ever claimed I can prove there is God or not?

          59. I just listed three examples.

            Try reading a comment before replying to it.

            But if you can show those three examples are different than what I said, go for it.

          60. That's something I've pointed out to him time and time again and he ignores it. If you cannot draw a direct causal link between the event and the claimed cause of the event, you've got nothing. He'll ignore you too.

          61. I don't ignore it, I simply explain I never claimed it and that your'e changing the argument when you try to put words in my mouth.

          62. I notice you say that a lot without offering any yourself. Not any that actually proves your point.

            Like claiming teachers aren't forced to advocate for evolution in the secular schools and just repeating the claim instead of proving it.


          63. Seriously? Even Duane Gish admitted that the bombardier beetle was an absurd example. Come on, you're 30 years behind the times!

          64. Unless Duane Gish can evolve a bombardier beetle from an earlier less developed life form, why does what he say matter?

            It's a perfect example, you're showing that this beetle has been hitting a nerve for 30 years.

          65. Did you actually read that article? Chemicals that react and explode are stored in different body organs, that sounds like intelligent design to me.

          66. Here is where ID fails
            1.1) Hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide do not actually react when mixed together unless a catalyst is added (in this case an enzyme secreted from cells that line the mixing chamber inside the beetle). In other words, any amount of these two chemicals is completely harmless to the beetle or any other insects unless a catalyst is added and therefore there is no ‘delicate’ chemical balance.

          67. 2. 2) The quinones are not unique to the bombardier beetle and are indeed found in most other insects and invertebrates. They are produced by cells, which harden the skin into a cuticle or exoskeleton along with an unpleasant taste making an effective deterrent to predators

          68. And you presume that all that just happened to evolve over millions of years without those excretions blowing up the beetle?

            Sounds like intelligent design to me.

          69. Yes, according to the facts you presented. If anything you showed how intricate and well designed it had to be. And how hard it would have been to accidentally occur.

          70. 3) The strength of the chemical reaction relies on the concentration of the hydrogen peroxide. The higher the concentration, the higher the amount of oxidization, which results in a more violent reaction.

          71. All of these issues can easily be explained from an evolutionary perspective: As stated above, the quinones are commonly found in many insects and are produced in tiny indentations or small glands in the ‘skins’ of invertebrates. Due to the unpleasant taste, some beetles and insects have developed muscles that can contract around these glands giving them the ability to secrete larger quantities of quinones on demand in order to deter predators when they attack. The bigger these indentations, the more quinones they are able to secrete, thus making the survival rate amongst beetles with larger quinone sacs higher than those with smaller ones. Over time it is possible for these sacs to grow and develop into larger ducts which we find in the abdomen of bombardier beetles today. When predators’ resistance to these chemicals develops (see evolutionary arms race*), other quinones (such as hydroquinone) then develop. This is later mixed in with hydrogen peroxide (a common by-product of cell metabolism*)

          72. Humans haven't been able to design anything like that in living tissue, sounds impressive!

            Someone, something did a great job.

          73. The bigger these indentations, the more quinones they are able to secrete, thus making the survival rate amongst beetles with larger quinone sacs higher than those with smaller ones. Over time it is possible for these sacs to grow and develop into larger ducts which we find in the abdomen of bombardier beetles today. When predators’ resistance to these chemicals develops (see evolutionary arms race*), other quinones (such as hydroquinone) then develop. This is later mixed in with hydrogen peroxide (a common by-product of cell metabolism*)

          74. *Cell metabolism is a set of chemical reactions that happen in cells that use energy to construct cellular components such as proteins (which form enzymes) and nucleic acids, which allow them to grow, reproduce, and maintain their structures. These chemical reactions are organized so that one chemical is transformed into another through a series of steps by a sequence of enzymes. Enzymes act as catalysts and allow these reactions to be carried out quickly and efficiently.

          75. The bombardier beetle is a wonderful example of how evolutionary processes can span millennia to form extremely complex and seemingly impossible organisms through small, gradual changes and it is through the wonder of modern biological science and chemistry that we are able to understand how these changes occur.

            Complexity cannot and does not occur instantaneously. You cannot throw a pile of junk metal into the air and expect it to land in the shape of a working car, which is the approach that creationists and the religious right seem to take. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the only logical, methodical and elegant explanation we have that is able to explain the huge diversity of the natural world and all its wonders

          76. Just because you cannot explain how an organism evolved to be like that does not mean a god must have done it. That is a very naïve position

          77. And just because you can't explain why there can't be a designer doesn't 'mean that there wasn't one.

            That is a very biased position.

          78. It doesn't mean there was one either. In order for anyone to take you seriously, you'd have to prove that there actually was a designer and produce evidence to support it. When do you plan on doing that? Just saying there was doesn't make it so.

          79. Duane Gish was the apologist who started using the Bombardier Beetle originally but science proved that all the things he was claiming about it were wrong. He was forced, in a debate, to admit that he was completely wrong about his claims and after that, pretty much nobody talked about it because the issue had been put completely to bed. It's not hitting a nerve, it's surprising that anyone still takes that nonsense seriously anymore.

          80. What is wrong? The chemicals react and it's a weapon. They can't mix and separately they are useless for defense.

            You toss out a name and expect me to think that Chemistry is out the window?

            Evolution doesn't explain the beetle.

          81. I say that your own story lays out why I see that beetle as evidence of intelligent design.

            Why would I need to use anything more? It wouldn't have survived evolution or even had a reason to evolve in the manner that left it with the results we see today.

            You made my case for me and presented enough evidence, I'm happy right where things are now.

          82. "You can't show that 75% are Christian, you can't show that that percentage are abusing the students."

            It is true that I have not shown with data from a research survey that 75% of the public school teachers who sexually abuse students are Christians. I am not even certain that such a research source exists to draw upon for such a conclusion. But what I have done is shown through a logically coherent argument based on data about the size of the Christian population in the United States that it is highly probably that somewhere near 75% of public school teachers who sexually abuse students are Christians. You have offered no logially coherent rebuttal to this. And you also have not provided any evidence for your claim that all or even a substantial portion of the public school teachers who sexually abuse students are non-christians. (By this I assume you mean they are atheists or believers in a religion other than Christianity). But the logical sequence of my premises does in fact make my conclusion that something near this percentage of public school teachers who sexually abuse students are Christians. And while you have repeatedly asserted that my argument is false, assertions do not make an argument and you have failed as of yet to actually offer a rebuttal argument.

            I am not claiming, and have not claimed, that they sexually abused students because they are Christians or because their religion teaches that sexually abusing students is acceptable. I have made the less contentious claim that the overwhelming majority of these teachers who do this are also Christians. I can't speak to what motivated each and everyone of them to sexually abuse students. But it is absurd for you to keep insisting that none of them can be Christians because your Christian code of conduct and teachings informs Christians that sexual abuse is wrong and unacceptable. Even Christians engage in immoral behavior. Even Christians violate this code of conduct you spoke of. Even Christians violate the teachings of the Jesus Christ you believe in. And yes, even Christians sexually abuse children.

          83. You make the claim, but you don't connect it with any facts.
            The facts I've made about all teachers advocating for evolution aren't up for debate, they are required to do so. So my argument is more fleshed out than yours.

            And no, those following the teachings of Christ don't sexually abuse children, in order for you to fully flesh out that one you would need to show teachings of Christ and tolerate abuse towards kids.

          84. Wow, that sounds exactly like you! You claim that the endocrine system proves that there had to be an intelligent designer but you don't connect it with any facts!

            Besides, who are you to declare what is and what is not the teachings of Christ? There are more than 36.000 distinct sects of Christianity, all with different views on what Jesus taught. Where did you get the idea that yours is the correct interpretation, or even that any of them are?

          85. I compare the facts with the fact that evolution teaches survival of the fittest, not the most complicated.

            And the Bible gets to say what the teachings of Christ are. Not me, and certainly not you.

          86. The biological diversity and complexity to which you refer is a result of the survival of the fittest part of evolution. I suspect however, that the reason you think otherwise is because you don't understand what the "survival of the fittest" phrase actually means. It does not mean that the strongest are the ones that survive. It means that individual members of a species that ate best adapted to their particular environment tend to live longer and produce more offspring, thus their genes tend to be the ones that increase in frequency in the gene pool for that species. Incidentally, this phrase was not originally used by Darwin. The phrase was first used to describe natural selection by Herbert Spencer. Darwin refrained from using the phrase until the fifth edition of his book, On The Origin of Species. Additionally, most biologists and other scientists don't use the phrase because it is not a very good description of natural selection. It is most frequently used by people like yourself who have such a shallow understanding of evolution and a deep misconception about it that they don't understand how inadequate the phrase use in describing and discussing evolution.
            Several sources to consult:
            (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/survival+of+the+
            (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fitt
            (3) http://evolution.about.com/od/NaturalSelection/a/
            (4) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE
            (5) http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
            (6) http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/tauto

            Read these articles at these links before you reply. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on this phrase.

            I never said that I get to say what the teachings of your fictional Christ are. I have read the entire Bible. I am familiar with the teachings of this fictional Christ as described and listed in the Bible. My comments have been based on my familiarity with these teachings. And I am insisting that based on those teachings you are not fully complying with those teachings. The teachings of your fictional Christ do not include permission for you to use sexist insults. In fact, the teachings of your fictional Christ prohibit such behavior. If it does not, then please direct me to the passage or scripture in the Bible that says it is okay for you to use sexist insults. Did not your fictional Jesus tell you to "turn the other cheek." Does not this imply that behavior that employes sexist insults is not condoned? If your fictional Jesus actually did exist and could be standing looking over your shoulders when you typed the numerous sexist insults you wrote, would this fictional being approve? Would he have read those remarks and then said, "Roger, you have my blessing to say those things. My teachings permit you to use such language about a woman."

          87. Do you even listen to what you post?

            Surival of the fittest would eliminate diversity, not encourage it.

            Three animals are in a clearing, survival of the fittest means only one leaves alive, that's not what our diversity shows.

          88. "The facts I've made about all teachers advocating for evolution aren't up for debate, they are required to do so. So my argument is more fleshed out than yours. "

            Cite the law of or statute that requires all public school teachers to advocate evolution. You are aware that there is a difference in meaning between the word advocate and teach. Science teachers are required based on their state science standards and locally adopted curriculum to teach evolution. But no math, English, social studies, history, foreign language, physical education, or music teacher is required to teach or advocate for evolution. They aren't required to teach it and don't teach it because evolution is not a subject in the math, English, music, history, etc. curriculum. As for advocacy, no teachers, including science teachers are require to advocate evolution.

            advocate: a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy

            No state or federal law requires teachers to actually publicly support or recommend evolution, only that they teach it. To teach something means to explain something, to expose others to the evidence for something, to present the knowledge about a topic. None of this requires one to actually advocate. Your ignorance apparently even extends to the meanings of words and their correct use.

            So the priests who have sexually abused children are not Christians? The principal of the Christian school mentioned in one of the articles to which I linked is not a christian? This is what you are going to stick with? This is patently false and a thoroughly stupid assertion. I do not need to show that the teachings of the fictional Christ "tolerate abuse towards kids." I merely need to show, as I have, that some Christians fail to follow some of the teachings of your fictional Christ. It is illogical for you to claim, as you keep doing, that if a person sexually abuses a child they can't be a Christian. You seem to have set yourself up as the judge of who is and is not a christian. By your reasoning anyone who commits an immoral act or violates any of the teachings of your fictional Jesus is not and cannot be a Christian. Such a position would almost certain disqualify nearly all self-described Christians from legitimately being Christians. I have no doubt this would include you. I doubt you are a prefect Christian. I strongly suspect you have violated one or more of your fictional Jesus's teachings. I doubt you can legitimately claim to have never committed an act or engage in a behavior that is considered immoral by the code of conduct derived from your Bible or from the teachings of your fictional Jesus.

          89. Prove that a teacher advocating for evolution, and a teacher teaching evolution is actually different for a student asking a question about origins.

          90. "I could claim to be a monkey, that doesn't make it so."

            Actually, if you claimed to be a monkey I think I might be inclined to accept that claim. You've provided more than sufficient evidence by way of your comments in these threads that whatever intelligence you have it is no greater than that of a monkey. I am beginning to think that is something less than that of a monkey

            It is sad, pathetic and tragic all at the same time that you think your replies, including this latest one, constitute a slam-dunk refutation of my arguments.

            "You are just proving that bias makes up for your lack of facts."

            There is no bias in my arguments or comments. What lack of facts? My comments and replies have included facts. It is, for example, a fact that more than 75% of the U.S. population are Christians. But your refusal thus far to actually offer an evidence-based argument to support your original claims that sexual abuse is more common in public schools, and that even some of those public-school teachers who sexually abuse students are not and cannot possibly be christians, reflects bias and dogmatic thinking on your part. You display a prejudice that leads you to believe, without evidence, that a christian is incapable of sexually abusing a student and that those who do sexually abuse students cannot be christians and thus must be either believers in a non-christian religion or be an atheist. This is a view based on and motivated by bigotry and bias of the foulest kind.

          91. What is sad is thinking any of your sophisticated chatter makes up for your lack of connecting any evidence to your claims.

          92. I have provided all the evidence needed. Just because your can't acknowlege any evidence that conflicts with your beliefs does not mean the evidence isn't actually evidence.

            As for sophisticated chatter, at least you acknowledge that what I say is sophisticated. Your attempts at presenting arguments haven't even risen to the level of simpleton. They remain down in the depths of the moronic.

          93. "Oh, I can refute your conclusion because Christians have a code of conduct, and sexual abuse isn't part of that."

            It does not matter that sexual abuse is not part of that code of conduct. Christians violate their Christian code of conduct quite frequently. Catholics are christians. There is no question that catholic priests have committed sexual abuse. Therefore christians are capable of and do in fact violate this christian code of conduct to which you refer.

            Here are links to a series of articles about other christians at christian schools who have committed sexual abuse of one type or another.

            (1) http://www.vice.com/read/sexual-abuse-has-become-
            (2) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/education/chris
            (3) http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/04/03/chri
            (4) http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-cour
            (5) http://prospect.org/article/next-christian-sex-ab
            (6) http://www.illinoissexabuseattorney.com/31-claims

            Surely, the above is enough to demonstrate the falsity of your claim that Christians don't sexually abuse people because of the christian code of conduct you mentioned.

          94. And even if you're right… you haven't shown that it's Chrsitian teachers doing the abuse, or that Christians tolerate the abuse when it's exposed.

          95. Are you always this stupid or are you just making an extra special effort in this thread? I linked you to 6 articles that provide evidence that some Christian teachers have sexually abused students in public and sectarian schools. But it is obvious you did not read the articles. When someone provides you evidence for a claim you are expected to examine that evidence before you respond. I read the links you provide before responding. Intellectual honesty and integrity demands that you do likewise. Failure to do so means you are intellectually dishonest person and have no or little intellectual integrity. Read the Goddamed links I provided in the reply above before you write a reply. And then be sure to actually address the evidence I provided.

          96. I read those links. Three were saying that Chirstian colleges had an issue, but mentioned Bob Jones twice, and all those were reports of inter-student incidences not faculty abusing them.

            One was a story about a faculty assaulting someone twice allegedly but not with a conviction but the arrest. Not of a rape, but of an attack.

            One was a private academy in cook county.

            The last two where faculty were involved, there was no explanation that they occurred due to the Christian teacher.

            You failed. You pretended and failed.
            If you wanted to prove it was a Christian teacher thing you should have done so.
            Like this: http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php

            And no, this isn't saying rape only happens on secular colleges.
            But it does lay out the stats and they don't back up your claims.

            My claim was that 100% of secular schools teach evolution so all sexual abuses that happen at secular schools happen by teachers that advocate evolution.

            It is all wrapped up the way you tried to use it against Christian teachers in secular schools only at 100%, so I don't need to prove that the teachers were anything at that participation ration. If you say Christians are only 75% of the population and haven't even proven that 75% of teachers are Christians still have that hurdle to clear, even if the rest of your argument didn't flunk the level of proof that you and Cephus impose on me.

          97. "Three were saying that Chirstian colleges had an issue, but mentioned Bob Jones twice, and all those were reports of inter-student incidences not faculty abusing them."

            Doesn't matter. You said that Christians do not sexually abuse people. I offered those articles to demonstrate that some Christians do.

          98. You didn't show that the students involved were Chrsitians.

            You just shows that the victims attended Christian colleges.

            Dogma, you haven't proved anything.
            Is this where i need to return some insults and say you have fog in your clogged and regressive mind?

            If you demand proof from me, you need to show the same level of proof.

          99. "And no, this isn't saying rape only happens on secular colleges.
            But it does lay out the stats and they don't back up your claims."

            These same statistics do not provide any evidence that supports your claim that that 100% of sexual assaults in secular schools occur at schools where evolution is taught. The statistics to which you linked say nothing any possible connection between the teaching of evolution and sexual assault in public schools. Nor do these statistics provide any support for you claim that none of the sexual assaults that have occurred in public schools were committed by Christians. If you think they do provide evidence then tell me exactly which of the statistics listed do so.

            "My claim was that 100% of secular schools teach evolution so all sexual abuses that happen at secular schools happen by teachers that advocate evolution. "

            Wrong. I pointed out in another reply upthread a short distance that this can't be true, since evolution is not taught at the elementary school level, but some sexual assaults undoubtedly occur at this level. Or are you going to assert that all sexual assaults in public schools occur at only the high school and middle school levels?

          100. Evolution is taught in elementary schools.
            I remember having it taught in my third grade as a student.

            You really need to consider your tactics.

            Less dogma, more proof. That's what you demand from me.

          101. You went to a Christian Elementary school, of course they teach evolution there, and lie about it. No wonder you turned out so fucking stupid.

          102. You brought it up asswipe, so, yes, it IS my business. Your propaganda Christian elementary turned you into a dumbfuck.

          103. Quote me.

            I said when I was in third grade they were teaching evolution in that grade.

            The rest is you stalking me and digging up personal information you have no right to.

          104. I don't know, I went to a Christian elementary and high school and I never learned about evolution. It depends on where you go, I guess.

          105. Yes, that's a big part of it.

            Do you remember that school used to be about the 3 R's and that was enough? Students were not taught what to think, but how to think.

            Teachers were more worried about academics and parents supported the teacher.

            Those were different times.

          106. Yes they were and we need to get back to it. The reason it changed largely is because parents are not doing the job that the parents are supposed to do. They are not taking care of the social aspects of raising children, they are leaving it to the schools, which really are neither equipped or liable to teach kids how to be decent human beings. This is the fault of the liberalization of America, where having kids went from being a planned responsibility to something that happens because you're not careful having sex.

          107. "If you say Christians are only 75% of the population and haven't even proven that 75% of teachers are Christians still have that hurdle to clear,…"

            By what tortured logic do you think that there are no public school teachers who are christians? In an earlier post I pointed out that in the high school where I taught more than 75% of the teachers were Christians. In my department alone at the time of my retirement 10 of the 13 teachers were Christians. This is 76.9% of the department. Within the entire building there were only 4 atheists. The remainder of the 115 teachers were christians. This means that 96.5% of the teachers in the building were Christians. I doubt that my school is very much different in this regard from nearly every other public school in the country. I am not saying that any of the teachers in my building sexually assaulted their students. To my knowledge none of them did. I offer this only to demonstrate that you are wrong to deny the logical inference I made that the buik of teachers in public schools are christians in their religious beliefs. Furthermore, it is faulty logic on your part to maintain that none of the public school teachers who are christians have not sexually abused students. Whatever the actual percentage is of public school teachers who sexually abuse children, some part of that percentage has to include teachers who are christians. You are a freakin idiot to continue to persist in the claim that no christian sexually assaults (whether it be rape, or touching, or fondling, or whatever) children.

          108. By what tortured logic do you think you have proven that 75% teachers are Christians? The education system is liberal and hostile to Christians, there are many college and university settings as hostile as you are to those with religion. To survive that it would be plausible that non Christians are rewarded with teaching positions and higher marks and class placings.

            You are a freaked idiot to pretend you prove anything then demand I must.

          109. Nope. Have the schools been convicted of trying to hide their crimes if they are? That's something the RCC is famous for.

          110. And something that RCC parishioners are famous for not supporting.
            They vote with their feet, and a lot of RCC churches are closing due to dwindling attendance.

          111. Three words in a row, I'm shocked.
            And it's not even during your normal scheduled working hours at the work terminal.

          112. Since you claim I have a work terminal why not prove it? Any objective evidence to back up your baseless claim?

          113. The obvious is that you are just not at home with your loving family and children enjoying father's day.

            I don't care, but what about all those insults because I was here on weekends?

          114. Why is it that you think that public schools are not representative of the population at large? Why is it that you do not accept that given that more than 75% of the U.S. population are Christians this would not be approximately true of the population of public-school teachers? You actually think that very few, rather than most, public school teachers are Christians? This is an absurd, illogical position to take, given that there is no reason to assume that public school teachers are not representative of the population as a whole where it concerns religious belief. Just as one example, the public school in which I taught up to my retirement, there were only four atheists at the high school where I taught. This was out of a teaching faculty of about 115. Nearly every one of those 111 teachers at the high school who were not atheists were Christians. I know this for a fact. I spoke to these people. In my department alone, science, there are 13 teachers. One of us- myself – is an atheist. Another described herself as an agnostic. The other 11 science teachers? Everyone of them is a Christian. I have no reason to assume that the school at which I taught is significantly different from any other public school in the nation where it concerns religious belief of the teaching staff. So I reasonably conclude that what is true at my school is generally true at most, if not all, other public schools. And this would fit well with the fact that some 78% of people in this country are Christians.

          115. To my knowledge there are no studies that actually provide data showing how many of the teachers in public schools who sexually abused students were Christians. But since no such studies exist, you also cannot provide any conclusive evidence that there are no teachers in public schools who are Christians and have not sexually abused students. The best we can do is draw logical inferences from data and information that informs us about the percentage of the population who are Christians. The U.S. population is currently estimated to be about 318.2 million. As I have said repeatedly, it is estimated that about 78% of this population are Christians. This would be 248.2 Christians in the United States. There are an estimated 3.7 million public school teachers in the United States. It is reasonable to assume that the public school teaching population is representative of the population as a whole in regards to religious belief. (There are certainly no logical or rational reasons to assume that this population does not reflect the religions beliefs of the larger U.S. population.) Thus it is likely that approximately 78%, or 2.89 million, of these teachers are Christians. Even if it were lower than this, say only 55%, it would still be more than 2 million teachers. While we have no data that indicates the actual percentage of public school teachers who sexually abuse students, it is mathematically improbable, bordering on impossible, that none of these teachers are Christians. In fact, the greater probability, given the size of the percentage of the U.S. population that are Christians, that a sizable percentage and therefore actual number of the public school teachers who have sexually abused students were also christians. This is a logical inference from the available data. It is not a logical inference from the available data to maintain that none of these teachers who sexually abuse students are christians. In fact, as I have said before, this position is illogical.

          116. Yes I can, and I have.

            Higher education is just as hostile to religion as you are, why do you think that Christians tolerate that bias and bigotry to teach when the position doesn't pay much and they can always teach in parochial schools?

            You can't prove your point. In fairness, since you demand proof from me I think it's time you admit that you had a flawed, unprovable accusation that you can't back up.

          117. No you haven't you pathological liar.

            As she said… But since no such studies exist, you also cannot provide any conclusive evidence that there are no teachers in public schools who are Christians and have not sexually abused students.

          118. You have given up. Your trolling days are over. You used to be able to steal talking points and insults from the folks at Breitbart, but now all your conservative sites are ghost towns and you are reduced to copy and paste.

          119. You still pretend that making my positions and explaining why I disagree with other positions is trolling?

            And why don't you brag and claim to have done all that? You have in the past.

  2. 11 minutes ago @ Bitch Spot – Horror Show Monday: Al… · 0 replies · 0 points

    And you can't show it's not the same policy forcing every other teacher to do the same.

    That is not your original claim. Your original claim is that all public school teachers teach evolution. Prove it

    1. My original claim was backed up by not just showing the policy but how inflexible it is even with subs.

      Now, why don't you show I'm wrong. If you can…?

      1. You have not shown that 100% of public school teachers teach evolution. My math teacher never taught evolution, art teachers teach art, shop teachers teach shop, home ec, teach home ec.

        1. My original claim was backed up by not just showing the policy but how inflexible it is even with subs.

          Now, why don't you show I'm wrong. If you can…?

Leave a Reply to Roger Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)