rec.sport.football.college

Don't you talk ugly to me, stephenj. I'll send you to the moon with my magic
shirt!

> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> Don't you talk ugly to me, stephenj. I'll send you to the moon with my
>> magic
>> shirt!
>>
>>
>>> Kevin Cunningham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Teaching "creationism" is a fraud on the children and any one else
>>>> taught.
>>>
>>> Possibly, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. Please buy a clue.
>>
>>
>> Well, there you have it, folks.
>>
>> Steve is actually arguing that using the state to foist religious lies onto
>> public school children is *not* ‹ I repeat, *NOT* ‹ unconstitutional.
>
> that's exactly right, because that's out constitution.

That's not a complete sentence, Steve. If you can't even be bothered to write
complete sentences when you pretend to have the slightest fucking clue what
you're talking about, what makes you think that anyone is going to take you
seriously when you pretend to have the slightest fucking clue what you're
talking about?

> hey, the founders included an amendment process.

And if they thought we needed specific amendments for every specific little
thing that could possibly arise, like you apparently believe, they wouldn't
have written all of those amendments in such general language.

The reason they wrote all those amendments in such general language, Steve,
is because they, unlike you, understood that times do, in fact, change. They
understood that a government cannot function in perpetuity when its content
and structure are dependent entirely on the philosophy, science and
technology of the times in which it was first established. This is because
they, unlike you, were thoughtful, intelligent men who had the long-term
functioning of a nation first and foremost in their minds, rather than,
*like* you, the selfish and self-important desire to impose their own
personal bigotries, neuroses, mental deficiencies and cowardices onto the
rest of humanity without exception or recourse.

> though that might be
> hard to use, since NEVER in our entire history even TODAY, has a
> majority of americans believed otherwise.

And if we determined scientific truths by polling the general populace, most
of which wouldn't know good science if it jumped up and fucked them in the
eye, this would be relevant.

> Heck, in a Newsweek Poll this past june, 66% of americans said that it
> was either definitely (39%) or probably (27%) true that God created
> humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years.

And if we determined scientific truths by polling the general populace, most
of which wouldn't know good science if it jumped up and fucked them in the
eye, this would be relevant.

> when asked if they favor teaching creationism alongside evolution in
> public schools (the very thing the SCOTUS struck down in 87), 58% said
> yes, 35% said no.

And if we determined scientific truths by polling the general populace, most
of which wouldn't know good science if it jumped up and fucked them in the
eye, this would be relevant.

> The only majority that has ever existed in this country against teaching
> creationism has been ... the 5 to 7 justices on the US supreme court
> over the past 30 years.

And given that that's exactly how our government is *supposed* to work, the
fact that you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about
notwithstanding, that's a *good* thing.

--
Daniel Seriff

Don't hug men while shaking their hand. Enough already with that. The
shake/hug (shug?) is probably something Roman guys did when their empire was
in decline.