Mean ACLU Sues Teacher For Trying To Shame Atheist Child Into Heaven
Get out your Teacher Of The Year ballots, we have a nominee to present! Meet Michelle Meyer, who teaches at a public school, Forest Park Elementary in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Her ass is getting sued by the ACLU, and here is why. One day, during recess, a 7-year-old boy named "A.B." (his name is withheld in the lawsuit) was talking to a classmate, and according to the suit, she asked A.B. if he went to church. He said no, and also he doesn't believe in God, and this made her cry, probably because, WE ARE GUESSING, her parents are fundamentalist Christian fucks, and she's a young girl who hasn't seen enough of the world to know that her parents are raising her to be a holier-than-thou dick. Not her fault.
So the teacher, Ms. Meyer, came to help sort things out, and she took it as an opportunity to explain that some people believe in God and some people don't and that is okay, let's go play hopscotch, right? Haha, of course not, she decided it was her duty to show that little girl what happens when you grow up to be an ADULT holier-than-thou dick:
At that point the students were going to lunch and Ms. Meyer asked A.B. if he had told the girl that he did not believe in God and A.B. said he had and asked what he had done wrong. Ms. Meyer asked A.B. if he went to church, whether his family went to church, and whether his mother knew how he felt about God. She also asked A.B. if he believed that maybe God exists. Ms. Meyer told A.B. that she was very concerned about what he had done and that she was going to contact his mother – although she never did.
Because saying you don't believe in God in a public school is an offense tantamount to calling your teacher a twat or chewing gum.
But Ms. Meyer wasn't done yet, oh hell no, she is THAT shitty of a teacher (allegedly, sort of, except for in the lawsuit, it states that she confirms this timeline of events, so fuck her). She had to protect the other children from the godless atheist in their midst, because we all know atheists are probably murderers, or at least gay Jews:
Ms. Meyer required that A.B. sit by himself during lunch and told him he should not talk to the other students and stated that this was because he had offended them. This served to reinforce A.B.’s feeling that he had committed some transgression that justified his exclusion.
Lovely! So now the kid is feeling really sad because again, HE IS SEVEN, and he's probably a lot better behaved at school than the little Christer shits he's forced to endure on a daily basis.
So, banished from the other kids. For how long? Three days. Why? Ms. Meyer probably had some Bible thing in mind about how Jesus rose on the third day, so maybe A.B. would see the error of his ways if she crucified him for that long.
Is Ms. Meyer the only douche-thistle employed by Forest Park Elementary? Sadly, no, though she is the only one named in the lawsuit. Sometime after the incident, Ms. Meyer sent the two kids to talk to some other adult at the school about what had happened, and that "grown-up" heaped some more shame on top of A.B., while continuing to soothe the little Christ-nozzle's broken feelings:
Upon hearing [the story], the adult employee looked at A.B.’s classmate and stated that she should not be worried and should be happy she has faith and that she should not listen to A.B.’s bad ideas. She then patted the little girl’s hand.
There there, little girl, don't cry. YOUR CLASSMATE WILL BURN FOR WHAT HE'S DONE! In Jesus' name, Amen.
The lawsuit states that even now, after the incident and Ms. Meyer's three days of official shunning passed, while A.B. is allowed to talk to the other kids, he doesn't like going to school anymore, because he feels like an outcast:
A.B. came home from school on multiple occasions crying saying that he knows that everyone at school – teachers and students – hate him. Even now there are some classmates who will not talk to A.B. Even now A.B. remains anxious and fearful about school, which is completely contrary to how he felt before this incident.
And that is why Michelle Meyer is your nominee for Teacher Of The Year. And a total dick.
[ Washington Post / lawsuit via RawStory ]
“ to be make a rational statement, or a logical one, you have to defend assertions. If you make such an assertion you assume the burden of proof.”
There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“Here are some of my assertions.....I'll reference you to all of your arguments that there is no burden of proof when making such assertions.”
There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“1) Homosexuality is poisonous to society.... etc...”
See, here you’re trolling, even tho believe these statements..... This also doesn’t interest me wrt to this debate- they’re separate issues AND irrelevant to my point.
“If anyone challenges me on any of them I'll just say it's my own opinion, I have no burden of proof to defend anything...”
I can see I’m going to have to wade in where the water’s a bit shallower, so to speak.... no, I edited that bit out. Instead, I will simply use a hammer and hit the nail repeatedly:There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“However without making a rational, logical case for these assertions.... then they are meaningless assertions. It's rambling.”
There is a difference between defending one’s statements and proving them. A conversation is not a debate or a trial.
“That is why I used it as an example of where "supporting evidence" tells us... absolutely nothing.”
You misunderstand the nature of supporting evidence. Supporting evidence tells us the earth revolves around the sun. This is viewed as a fact, but it has not been PROVEN. Science doesn’t PROVE things. If I tell you the earth orbits the sun, and you ask me to PROVE it, I will laugh in your face. If you think that makes my assertion meaningless, if you think I am telling you absolutely nothing, then that is because you’ve mistakenly fallen into a mindset of excessively rigid thought patterns. I’m going to take a moment here to emphasize this: I can ONLY offer *supporting evidence* for these assertions: The earth orbits the sun. Evolution occurs. Manmade global warming is real. Christianity has harmful effects on society. Joe Flacco is a top 5 NFL quarterback. Joe Vs the Volcano is the best movie ever made....None of these statements is provable [excepting #2], but the supporting evidence for each varies by degree. It is absolutely *absurd* to demand rigorous proof or even rigorous supporting evidence for anything after #3. But that does not mean they tell us nothing. It means different assertion have different standards of supporting evidence.
“I'm not entirely certain what you were arguing about with "moral relativism". That was not a moral relativist argument.”
Sure as shootin was! You were arguing the context determines the morality of the action. That’s pretty much the definition.
“Absolute morality pertains to right and wrong regardless of what human beings think about it”
I’m sure it would, if it existed.
“This is why I usually debate one topic at a time”I forgot to point this out to you when you said you’d ‘win’. We are doing different things. I’M having a conversation, YOU’RE having a debate. You can’t win against someone who’s not playing.
“You make a great demonstration of what the philosophy Scientism is. You make arbitrary scientific observations and then form philosophical conclusions. That is why Scientism is a philosophy, and has almost nothing to do with science.If any of your statements were formed into any manner of logical syllogism they would make no sense.”
That is.... [a] true [b] completely irrelevant [c] amusing [d] consistent with every other philosophy.Where to begin? F*ck it, I’ll be brief. I’m not pretending my personal philosophy is scientific, only that it’s rational and well considered.
“but you certainly are not in the area of Logic which is more objective than is "Science".”Semantics. Logic is more ‘objective’ in the sense that it’s not subjective, Science is more ‘objective’ in that it describes and predicts the external world with a higher degree of accuracy.
“[argument about abiogenesis] And therefore what exactly? Therefore there is no God?”
Boy, somebody really did a number on you. Therefore, this EXACTLY: abiogenesis is derived from demonstratable phenomenon. That’s it. One CANNOT derive that there is no God or that other stuff. You’re jumping to conclusions here.
“You make this statement in an absolute vacuum and just leave us hanging as to what it's supposed to prove exactly.”Matt, I realize I say a lot, but I TRY to be precise. I SAID in that post *what*- that abiogenesis is derived from demonstratable phenomenon.
“Your assertion ..... and this is "proof" that we sit here debating today is caused by abiogensis?”Hammer, nail: There is a difference between supporting evidence and proof. I SAID it last post, I’m going to try and be clearer for you- abiogenesis is AN ASSUMPTION, but it’s a leap DERIVED from OBSERVED phenomenon. Doesn’t mean it’s true, it’s just a guess. With supporting evidence.
“This is a complete disconnect in provability.”THAT’S WHAT I SAID!
“Your scientific assertions mean absolutely nothing in answering any of these questions.”Well, no. Abiogenesis is a valid hypothesis regardless of any philosophy. Question: What is the origin of life? Hypotheses: God, abiogensis. Answer? Unknown. Supporting evidence? See above. All that is true whether you’re a scientist, an anarchist, a Christian, whatnot.
“using the logical rules of inference:”See above. Debate, conversation.
“In respect to "Computer programs showing" anything, this is completely absurd. A computer program is going to show you whatever you tell it to.”
I’m sorry, but saying emergent properties are programmed to emerge does not mean that emergent properties are not emergent properties. Is this clear to you? I’m assuming you know chaos theory better than I do.
“Really?? Abiogenesis is derived from a known and demonstratable phenomenon?”YES! I EVEN DESCRIBED THE PHENOMENON! You even discussed them above! Keep up!
“If this is a scientific fact, give me the name of the first species that possessed a rudimentary notion of "love".”
It would be an emergent property.
“It is a completely made-up sequence of causality from inorganic matter to "love".”I’d criticize you for this, but really I’m not above nonsequitor arguments. So I gotta give you kudos. But I won’t bite, I’m not claiming love came from inorganic molecules. Yet.
“then it seems that abiogenesis would be demonstratable.... it is not.”...aaaand here it is, god of the gaps. You’re right, it is *not* demonstratable. Currently. Subject to change as science progresses.
“..... I simply do not get what point this is supposed to make. Perhaps you, as an atheist, have a very different understanding of this story than any Christian theology I have ever heard.”
Damn straight. Bear in mind that just because *I* never heard my take before doesn’t mean I think it hasn’t been considered. But here: God intentionally manipulated Adam and Eve into eating the fruit, then blamed them for it and punished them and all their descendants forever for it. For me, it’s like handing a loaded gun to a 3 year old and then throwing him out into the wilderness when he accidentally shoots someone. So not only did God do it on purpose, he chose one of the worst possible punishments for breaking his arbitrary rule.[1]
“Yes, i know that you're going to claim 'God of the gaps',”
Nyah Nyah.
“There ARE NO GAPS, and never have been.”Well, there HAVE been- evolution covered one. But currently it’s abiogenesis and the big bang theory, plus arguments like the uniqueness of earth and universal constants for human life. These are all, in ESSENCE, gap arguments. ....Logical, like the First Cause or whatever it’s called. These I dismiss as mental exercises, not evidence
“You just dismiss them?”As mental exercises.
“From my standpoint that's like saying "i just dismiss Science and Math".”
That’s because of your profound misunderstanding of science. Science deals with known and measurable phenomenon, posits hypothesis and uses experiments to answer questions. Math is a series of rules that is internally consistent and which has some real world applications.Logic is a set of thought tools. When dealing with reality, things that measure reality trump thought tools designed to help human understanding. Logic doesn’t tell you gravity, math tells you the rate, but it’s science that tells you things fall down.
“You can dismiss them all you want, but from a logical standpoint;”Sorry, but that’s funny. It’s like a chess player yelling ‘checkmate’ to a guy passing by.
“..... there are probably around 20 of such arguments that if the premises are true then everything we know about logic and knowledge tell us that the conclusion must be true.”
You remember how just a bit ago you were harping on about abiogenesis not being demonstratable? Paint me as a ‘show me scientific evidence and I’ll believe it’ guy.
“how Hell somehow leads you to think that the Christian God must be false”Please pay more attention. I said if Hell exists I cannot love God, not that Hell proves God doesn’t exist. It’s a conundrum- I’ve been told/read that if one does not accept Christ into one’s heart, then one will spend an eternity in a lake of fire. But if that’s true, I cannot accept Christ into my heart. I cannot *force* myself to, it would be a lie. I understand there are different theistic opinions on that statement, I’m waiting for y’all to resolve it amongst yourselves.
[1] I understand the concept of free will could be used to counter this argument, but I maintain that free will does not apply when the actors in question are ignorant.