Teacher sued for remarks "hostile" to religion

[Q]

I'm still not sure how that makes 50/50 viable.

Well, I guess that's your problem, given the fact that I never said anything about 50/50 and that you're the one that introduced it into the conversation.

 

You're insisting on looking at 10 vs. 90. I've been looking at any 1 vs. the other 99 since the beginning.

[Achilles]

Well, I guess that's your problem, given the fact that I never said anything about 50/50 and that you're the one that introduced it into the conversation.

The religious would stand just as much of a chance of insulting the wrong person as the non-religious.

 

You're insisting on looking at 10 vs. 90. I've been looking at any 1 vs. the other 99 since the beginning.

The religious would stand just as much of a chance of insulting the wrong person as the non-religious.

 

Carefully what you say on the interwebz. Copy/pastes pwns all.

[Q]

Where do I say 50/50? Nowhere. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

Thank you.

 

Oh, and try practicing what you preach for once.

[Achilles]

Where do I say 50/50? Nowhere. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

Thank you.

 

Oh, and try practicing what you preach for once.

One more time:

"The religious would stand just as much of a chance of insulting the wrong person as the non-religious."

 

The odds of something happening can only go up to 100%. Therefore if two things have an equal (your exact words were "just as much") chance of happening, then they have to be 50/50. So please stop blaming me for your error, own that may have misspoke, and let's move on.

 

Because your current tack = fail.

[Achilles]

Sure, if it's closer to what you actually meant to say, then that's great.

 

The new statement is so obvious as to be devoid of value, but hey, at least we cleared up the whole "what you say you meant isn't what you said" thing.

[Tommycat]

Honestly Q, I thought your original post made more sense. Disparaging the wrong religion has a good chance of causing an uproar. Teaching Christianity in a Muslim dominated area is as likely to garner attention as dogging religion. Imagine a Muslim teacher in the bible belt pushing Allah and Muhammad. Or a Jewish teacher in the same area saying Jesus does not exist.

 

It's too bad Achilles had to nit pick it to death.

[Rake]

It seems like most of you are agreed on the fact that he violated the establishment clause. Recently (don't have a source yet), the dean of law at UCI (or some such), came forward to this teacher and offered to represent him in an appeal, for free. Do you think an appeal will turn out with the same result?

[Achilles]

I would have to know his basis for appeal. Does he think he was given the wrong verdict or does he think there was a procedural error with the case?

 

Without knowing that, we're only guessing.

[Rake]

I would have to know his basis for appeal. Does he think he was given the wrong verdict or does he think there was a procedural error with the case?

 

Without knowing that, we're only guessing.

 

The basis, I believe, is that the judges decision was illogical, and wrong. However, I'd probably have to wait for another article to be 100% positive.