Or
"How I Threatened To Burn My Professor At The Stake"

(or the dangers of humor when dealing with the religously insane)

http://90percenttrue.com/index.php?p=41

.: Many of you by now have heard this story. Either I told you over the phone, through AIM, or in person. It’s a long story, and for the first time I’m going to write down as much of it as I can.

.: It all starts with a lecture in my Introduction to Neuroscience class. The professor, Dr. Patton, made a demonstration with two very important and influential books: The Bible and the Origin of Species. The lecture can be summarized in these four lines:

Holding up the Bible: “This is not a science book.”
Holding up the Origin of Species: “This is.”
Holding up the Bible again: “This is a book about relationships with God.”
Holding up the Origin of Species again: “This isn’t.”

.: This is a very basic idea that many people, unfortunately, do not yet grasp or are unwilling to understand. As Dr. Patton informally stated later: “The Bible says nothing about how I should repair my car. That’s not why it exists.” However, a student in the class did not agree with Dr. Patton and was deeply offended by his remarks. In a show of defiance, he walked out of the class mid-lecture in front of everybody. His name is Christopher Stone.

.: Later that evening, I received an email by Mr. Stone. He had sent it to almost everybody in the class, with the exception of the professors. (Intro to Neuroscience is a team-taught course; there are five professors.) I now reproduce his email in full:

Read all:

http://90percenttrue.com/index.php?p=41

or, is it wrong to mock someone's beliefs because you don't happen to agree.

Tolerance starts with you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that the emails shouldn't have been sent around to the class members. I wouldn't want to get spammed by fellow students because that's just plain rude.

But I do think the blogosphere was a good place to put them. Gives people something to think about, like say how some people get very angry about science not being a faith-based class.

of the original Mailer? Or Chris Stone.

I think tolerance in this country is wanning. When you have a faction of the country that is determined to enact what they deem God's will (who ironically gives everyone FREE will) you have a problem.

Now, I know hot issues like Gays and Abortion usually set off the spaz-o-meter, but we are not even talking about that here. We are talking about teaching science and evolution. Stating this is a book science this is a book about having a relationship with God, is not offensive.
I have many various spiritual beliefs, as well as political I'm inclined to tolerate differences of opinion. In fact when religion begins to teach intolerance for those who believe in evolution, we have an entire religion of bigotry and hatred brewing. That is dangerous, it's the seed of genocide being planted.

Tolerance happens with both respecting parties decide to allow live and let live happen. Tolerance is also about having your personal beliefs challenged, otherwise spiritual growth would not happen.

I'm not flaming just pointing out the original Stone didn't have very much tolerance for the subject of science.

The first student made a public spectacle of himself, not by walking out, but by sending the email. When you make such public denouncements, you invite public rebuttal.

It is not "intolerant" to rebut some loonies ravings.

"Tolerance starts with you" can be applied as easily to the person who called for a boycott of the professor's class.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"We" are not a mob, but rather a collection of individuals.

:eyes:

According to all the information at the link, I saw nothing that slammed down Christianity. Nor does it seem the professor did any of what you said in post 13: "Its OK to discriminate, look down upon, and otherwise hate christians."


As far as I know of the lecture, the professor simply stated some truths: the Bible isn't a science book. It is a book about relationships with God. Now I have no idea if the professor filled the rest of his lecture with "Bible stupid! Darwin rules!" slogans, but I highly doubt it.

Instead of tolerating the professor's views (remember, this is the self-proclaimed "Christan") and perhaps engaging the professor in discussion, the student decides to call for a boycott of the professor's class (note that he leaves the professors out. Kinda sneaking behind their backs, I guess) because he said the Bible wasn't a science book. (Oh, the horrors!)

On edit: as for the student's parody...well that was just funny. And the "Christian" was the intolerant one. Fight intolerance with humor.

(Edited for spelling)

I'll eventually get the hang of this message board online-debating thing.

Was this a personal experience of yours?

for your reading pleasure.

You have just escalated the issue under discussion two orders of magnitude.

(Also, "cracker" has no where NEAR the history "nigger" does).

:eyes: How many times has science been "tolerated" by the fundies?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

however, roll my eyes at the behavior of some of them.

Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/liberalchristians.htm

I see nothing "wrong" with pointing out that a religious text isn't science when in a science classroom. I also see nothing "wrong" with pointing out that a science text isn't part of dogma when in a house of worship.

When you project the opinion that "you guys just aren't getting it" it's VERY possible that you're underestimating others and overestimating YOURSELF!

It's too bad that the student who walked out didn't get himself to a nunnery - since that's where he OBVIOUSLY belongs if that's the kind of message he expects.

"Oh ye of little faith" who can't abide disagreement ... when the early Christians had to abide lions.

It wasn't an attack on Christian faith, but the intolerance of some believers with regard to science. That is quite different from what you are implying. The professor didn't attack the bible or Christian faith, either.

because someone of a certain religion might disagree with the content. Do you?

the REAL ones who practice what Jesus taught (be nice to each other, love each other, etc.), and the ones who are "excited" about everybody who doesn't do what they want going to hell.

Which kind are you? :)

The guy who walked out the classroom reacted without thinking clearly or rationally. Somehwere in there, he automatically assumed the prof was slamming his faith, when in fact nothing of the sort was said. He therefore, as a foolish individual and not as a Christian, deserved to be made fun of.

No one here has made fun or slammed Christians as a group. But you yourself have now contributed your own musings on the subject to the massive body of evidence that tends to show that Christians, as a group, these days *imagine* themselves to be persecuted, when in fact nothing of the sort is happening.

Think this through, carefully and critically, with logic and reason, and not emotion, before you reply. Rationality is your friend. Speaking without thinking critically first is your enemy.

Mr. Stone was a dick.

Whom do you feel was standing up for what he believed, and how was he doing that? Whom do you feel was mocking someone's beliefs?

vice versa.

For those whose faith states something entirely different from all scientific knowledge, and they go with faith, I have no qualms with that. The arguments become spurious at best, and there is no denying science, except by self imposed ignorance.

What I find fascinating, is the notion that if God created everything, he created science and the laws found within it as well.


There is no sense to arguing this point, it goes nowhere, people of faith and people of science have a common ground, but neither of them will approach it, both sides felling they are superior in their thoughts. The only way to come to the common ground, is if both sides understand that they each have a stake in how this whole situation is played out.

in distinguishing the scope of two books.

The clueless student decided to make an ass of himself.

He got it handed back to him by another student.

Power mad bullies decided to try and intimidate the second student.

If you don't want your mail and opinions commented on, don't send them out to the entire class.

Moran.

It's about understanding the difference between science and religion.

Tombstoning and post removal are discrete maintenance functions.

about "God" or any other "matters of FAITH". This is very confusing to me, and the only explanation I can come up with is that it is the same BuShit as someting called "Pro Life", i.e. distraction, while the Real Deal goes down Elsewhere.

Primary and Secondary schools need to do a better job of defining Science on its base of Rational Empiricism. And what the "nature of proof" is; what constitutes "Knowing" within its context.

The response letter to the Mr. Stone was hillarious!

I don't get people. Who doesn't understand this is satire?!

I liked the author's coments too:"American entertainment is sorely lacking in irony and subtlety. Everything is too loud and too obvious."

So true, and kinda scary...
You know, when you can't write satire because it's 'dangerous', the terrorists have already won...

eom

because it is fodder for good discussion.

I personally think the young zealot was over-reacting. What did he expect in a science class? On the other hand, the Prof was not sensitive in his initial statements. He was not exhibit much tolerance, himself..although science types are about to just explode over this debate.

Now, regarding the parody, my question is whether or not YOU signed it or whether you wrote it in his name. Obviously it was under your email address, but the other students didn't know who sent either of them, so they could have assumed the kid that walked out was the sender. And the parody was subtle enough to have been true.

I'm sure you learned a lot through this experience!

I say nokudos to you. We held unrush at my apartment one year (although I am not a noze), and persons of your character were in full unglory.

You will unabashedly have a kareer in unpolitics, and your satire was unwell not recieved.

Ramble on, artful one, ramble on.

the cops said he had threatened to commit a "TERRORIST ACT". No, he hadn't. Even if he had plotted to kill his professor at the stake it would have been simple murder. Remember murder? Kill a person = murder.

Terrorism is something altogether different. My fear is that everything against the law seems to be labeled "terrorism" now. So they can use the terrorist laws against everybody. Which means that law as you knew it doesn't exist anymore at all.

-----------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

you heard? :sarcasm: It's starting. Did you see the article about Wal-Mart turning someone in for taking pictures of an anti-Bush sign?

someone starts up with the "these kids are all so conservative nowadays, in my day we would have stormed the administration building" speech...

Amazing how a two bit lame duck kings' paranoia can still fuck with innocent people of a pagan faith centuries later.

Truly its disgusting, I bet people that believe in that shit jack off to Leviticus as well.

heres the other translations most are worse in regards towards women.

Exodus 22:18 in 19 English translations of the Bible:

Various Biblical translations render this verse as:

American Standard Version "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live."
The Answer: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
Amplified Bible: You shall not allow a woman to live who practices sorcery.
Good News Version: Put to death any woman who practices magic.
James Moffatt Translation: You shall not allow any sorceress to live.
Jerusalem Bible: You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
King James Version: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Living Bible: A sorceress shall be put to death.
Modern Language Bible: Allow no sorceress to live.
New American Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
New American Standard Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
New Century Version: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
New International Version: Do not allow a sorceress to live.
New Living Translation: A sorceress must not be allowed to live.
New Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.
New World Translation: You must not preserve a sorceress alive.
The Promise: Contemporary English Version: Death is the punishment for witchcraft.
Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
Revised English Bible: You must not allow a witch to live.


This is why I somewhat despise bible literalists and consider them every bit as dangerous any other religous extremist.


All that being said the Doctors faux email was a crack up, and i believe he used that passage to tweak Christopher Stone (wouldn't that be funny as all get out if this were Roger Stones' kid!! lol) just a bit more. People that take the bible so seriously are more than welcome to but they are no different than any other violence minded group who just haven't committed the act on a personal level... all in the name of some god out of many worshipped on this earth.

Sorry for the rant... Im mor eof a taoist these days than anything but my pagan roots still mean a lot to me. I am alas still attached.