I'm going to have to call BS on that.

Somehow how I don't remember BART being mentioned in the First Amendment. Did it really say we have the right of peaceable assembly except where BART prohibits us?

Still, the people of San Francisco pay to run BART, which pays the carriers, so OP's point is still valid. BART is a public service, owned by the public, and its officers do not respect that relationship when they assert their authority arbitrarily.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Illegal according to whom?

Or even worse: you might be branded as a politician!!

Well said. Anonymity != cowardice.

Do enlighten us O Holy and Great Commander of All Knowledge!

Stupid constructs and notions? No. Homogeneity is not a sign of intelligence (or lack thereof). It's really sad to me that people see all of our (anglophones') variegated forms of words and totally ignore the individual histories of suffixes, conjugations, etc. "-Or and -er are just the same! Strike one from the record!" It's nauseating really.

Plus, I'm not sure what party you think "crafted" English over time... was it the Celts, Romans, Normans, etc. all conspiring together? Not to mention that there are 100's of dialects of English, all with their own interesting stories. It is a language with a rich history whether you want to believe so or not.

Still seems like two sides of the same coin to me. Just because you think a teacher is "whacko," shouldn't curtail their right to do what they want with their lives and to be open about it, as long as they are just teaching kids about religion intellectually. To me it doesn't seem so hard to see where the line is between establishing religion and talking about it or expressing it openly.

Likewise, other people will think a teacher is "whacko" for talking about homosexuality or, really, a whole slew of other sexual topics in the classroom. The travesty of US education is that we don't seem able to distinguish the free flow of information in a free society from indoctrination. The anecdote you give is obviously a case of indoctrination and establishment of religion, in that the teacher was using his or her position of authority to influence the students.

In a free society we can't just pretend the bogeys aren't there. Controversy and discussion are essential to free society, and it is counterproductive to restrict it. We should encourage debate of these topics precisely because they are controversial, and because our preoccupation with them is destroying any real progress in politics (away from corruption). That's why restricting teachers too much in either regard encourages divisiveness and political bickering.

It's always refreshing to see reaffirmed the bigotry so inherent in the US. But hey, it's fun to make generalizations about all Tennesseans. They're all racist fucks, right? Even if people aren't so vocal about their bigotry in the noble part of the country from which you obviously hail, there are still plenty of bigots willing to classify people based on where they live or the color of their skin.

If you can't see it, you needn't look very far or very long to find it.

It's hard to talk about religion, specifically Christianity, in public schools, much harder in some places than others. To me this is the same type of censorship. It seems that very few people understand the line between learning about something and sponsoring it. This is just the other shoe falling. It's about time that the US started to value true freedoms again. Otherwise we will remain caught up in these stupid arguments about whether it's OK for a student to know his teacher is a devotee of some religion, or whether a student should know that there are gay people in the world.

I have a right to be offended by your joke. I appreciate the point you are making, but you are also sort of making the point that you are a bit crude and willfully offensive. Now, that's well within your rights, but I don't think it helps the cause of free speech much. I imagine you are righteously pissed-off about the state of civil liberties in America and much else of the world, and I can't say that I blame you. But, given that few people even seem to understand freedom of speech and its implications for a free society (as much as they understand that), it might help to present your arguments in a way that would be accessible to more people.

+1 Insightful

The second paragraph of the "Incidence and Importance" section of the relevant Wikipedia article (Iatrogenesis) lists some interesting references and numbers...

People think I'm crazy having only gone to the doctor a few times in the past decade and a half, and I see people in the comments here looking askance at herbalism and other folk healing traditions, but I feel much safer relying on these for everyday problems.

Obviously, garam masala can't perform heart surgery and lovage can't treat epilepsy, and I'm not saying to forgo science in favor of tradition, in fact it would be great if there were more studies on the properties of herbs and their essential oils, etc.

The fact is that there are safer alternatives to running to the doctor every time something seems slightly amiss with one's health!

I'd rather cry in a city bus than a Mercedes...