NationStates Jolt Archive

Not!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/20/teacher.cross/index.html

I guess that's one way to dispense corporal punishment. :eek:

:eek::eek::eek:

Wow, that's pretty f***ed up. Further proof of how Religion, left untamed, is just another tool of oppression, even on a small scale. But I digress.

Further, he was a Science teacher, yet supposedly said "Science is wrong on X matter, because *snip*". lol, wut? How did they HIRE him is what the f*** I wanna know.

And yet people will still insist that Christianity is an oppressed religion that has no power and no fringe nutcase members.

Mind if I sig that for tru7h?

Not!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/20/teacher.cross/index.html

I guess that's one way to dispense corporal punishment. :eek:

For irony, I propose a similar branding on the offender, except in the shape of an inverted pentagram. And then telling him it's a gift for doing the devils work. If he buys it, watch for head asplodey syndrome. I've always favored the ironic punishment. :p

I wonder what other classes he taught :eek:

Wow....just wow....Not much you can say really....except wow....

More Christian bashing :D

I hope he wasn't in charge of sex education in that school as well...

I hope he wasn't in charge of sex education in that school as well...

Would he brand penises on students bodies?

I hope he is barred from teaching anywhere ever again.
physically harming a child? fundy is lucky to be living. O_O

For me the big mental disconnect is how the article keeps mentioning that he kept mixing his religious beliefs into his teaching in the same sentences as they say HE BURNED A STUDENT.

OK, yes, science teacher preaching religion over science in science class = bad, and he should have been "processed" for firing because of that alone, but... HE BURNED A STUDENT! I don't care if it was a minor superficial burn. He burned the kid! On purpose!

Why wasn't he charged with assault? Why wasn't he immediately suspended and barred from the building to keep him away from other students? Ye gods, if I was a parent, you better know I'd be homeschooling my kid. Between the violent lunatics and the morons they work for in various school systems, my kid would be safer running with a gang.

I wonder if the student's parents are pressing charges against the teacher. I should hope so.

Yea, it's quite clear this is an isolated incident. Labelling all christians like this is just as bad as fundies screeching about a gay apocalypse/evils child murderers who portray themselves as pro-choice.

It's a crazy guy, who has taken his beliefs to an extreme. A common psycho.

The moment he burned the kid, he should have had his ass hauled bodily (preferably dragged) out of the school, summarily fired, and then arrested on all applicable charges.

This is a thorough indictment of the school systems screening process. Hiring a dude who is clearly disobedient, batshit insane, malicious and frighteningly short tempered to teach high school is entirely unacceptable. Little ol' Mount Vernon probably tries to protect children from sexual predators. Similar steps should be utilized to protect them from...other...predators.

To read this as some sort of indictment of Christianity, though, is absurd. This is one crazy guy breaking all of society's rules.

I wonder if the student's parents are pressing charges against the teacher. I should hope so.

Civil and criminal cases both. Get this whacko confined to a jail, and then extract money out of his pocket to pay for this kids future educational and psychological expenses.

Civil and criminal cases both. Get this whacko confined to a jail, and then extract money out of his pocket to pay for this kids future educational and psychological expenses.

*nods* He needs to be introduced to the might banhammer of the law.

*nods* He needs to be introduced to the might banhammer of the law.

Do I smell a perma-ban? I do! I do smell a perma-ban!

Hopefullly the judge will pwn him with his mighty Mod-Hammer of Justice.

A teacher for 21 years and NOW he gets suspended. My goofy sense is tingling...

wow that's really messed up. It's still cnn though :headbang:

Not all xtians are this insane, but one willing to brand a student is one too many. Seems returning the favor, preferably on the forehead would be appropriate.

What does Fox News Network say about this Christ-obsessed individual? I wouldn't be surprised if that 'fair and unbiased' agitprop channel has already transformed this mental case into a saint-like Christian martyr.

And of course it's true that this case is not exemplary for the state of mind of every Christian. Hell, Christians come in all kinds of flavours. Some of you happy campers may think that those of other faiths, the faithless and science are the biggest enemies of those who claim to follow the teachings of Christ, but that just ain't true. The most dedicated and lethal enemies of Christians are other Christians. If you want some enlightening examples, I suggest you look into the history of Europe for a bit. If that's too heavy for you, you could also try and read a couple of Chick tractates online, sooner or later those Evangelical masterpieces of crudely drawn intolerance will rant against the Roman-Catholic church.

Freshwater was also reprimanded several times for refusing to move his Bible from his classroom desk and teaching creationism alongside evolution, according to the 15-page independent report. The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that "science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner."

Why wasn't this man fired earlier?

Why wasn't this man fired earlier?

Because if you fired every teacher who ever spoke about their personal beliefs to a class then there'd be no more teachers.

Because if you fired every teacher who ever spoke about their personal beliefs to a class then there'd be no more teachers.

My geography teacher would've been fired long ago...

Because if you fired every teacher who ever spoke about their personal beliefs to a class then there'd be no more teachers.

None of my teachers ever taught their beliefs. They spoke about them at times, but they were teachers, not preachers.

None of my teachers ever taught their beliefs. They spoke about them at times, but they were teachers, not preachers.

I don't see any evidence in what he said that he was preaching

the quote i responded to was:
The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that "science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner."

that statement could have easily been preceded by "I think that", in which case he was just stating his beliefs, not preaching them.

"The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that "science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner."
But according to religion 'god' has made you and if that is true he also made your thought process, and Homosexuality is just a form of a thought process, as are most feelings and senses.
This is just further proof of why i think we will only ever advance as a species if all religion is gone. Mind you im an atheist and im just offering my opinion, and its doubtful anyone will even pay attention. and just to make sure none of you read me wrong i am not racist or a homophobe, i could care less what your skin colour is or who you want to fill with your creamy love toothpaste.

I don't see any evidence in what he said that he was preaching

the quote i responded to was:
The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that "science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner."
that statement could have easily been preceded by "I think that", in which case he was just stating his beliefs, not preaching them.
It could even more easily have been preceeded by an "in this class you will learn that..." Now, we can either wait until more people agree with me, thereby proving my interpretation correct, or we can realise that all we have is the context there, and judging from that, he certainly was preaching, despite any speculation on anyone's part.

It could even more easily have been preceeded by an "in this class you will learn that..." Now, we can either wait until more people agree with me, thereby proving my interpretation correct, or we can realise that all we have is the context there, and judging from that, he certainly was preaching, despite any speculation on anyone's part.

It could have also been preceded by, "...and much to my confusion and dismay, my tenth birthday cake read..."

Not!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/20/teacher.cross/index.html

I guess that's one way to dispense corporal punishment. :eek:

He should have got a Job with the Christian brothers. His use of electricity shows the kind of forward thinking they'd admire...

It's a crazy guy, who has taken his beliefs to an extreme. A common psycho.

The moment he burned the kid, he should have had his ass hauled bodily (preferably dragged) out of the school, summarily fired, and then arrested on all applicable charges.

This is a thorough indictment of the school systems screening process. Hiring a dude who is clearly disobedient, batshit insane, malicious and frighteningly short tempered to teach high school is entirely unacceptable. Little ol' Mount Vernon probably tries to protect children from sexual predators. Similar steps should be utilized to protect them from...other...predators.

To read this as some sort of indictment of Christianity, though, is absurd. This is one crazy guy breaking all of society's rules.
You've hit it right on the money, Andaluciae.

It could even more easily have been preceeded by an "in this class you will learn that..." Now, we can either wait until more people agree with me, thereby proving my interpretation correct, or we can realise that all we have is the context there, and judging from that, he certainly was preaching, despite any speculation on anyone's part.

Well, you can't be certain based off of context. And, I'm not sure what context there is to be had, no one has proved that the guy did put the cross on the kid's arm. It sounds more likely that some kid wanted to get back at him, and knowing that he was a Christian, decided this would be a good way to get rid of him. I'm fairly certain that type of thing happens more often than a teacher attacking his students.

Well, you can't be certain based off of context. And, I'm not sure what context there is to be had, no one has proved that the guy did put the cross on the kid's arm. It sounds more likely that some kid wanted to get back at him, and knowing that he was a Christian, decided this would be a good way to get rid of him. I'm fairly certain that type of thing happens more often than a teacher attacking his students.Now you're making shit up.

Now you're making shit up.

no, you're making shit up

yay!


Sure, its just speculation, but it sounds more likely than how its being reported in the article.

no, you're making shit up

yay!No, seriously. You're finding the most amazing stories to explain why things happened differently than they apparently (hence why it's written that way in the article) did happen. It's exceptionally delusional on your part.

No, seriously. You're finding the most amazing stories to explain why things happened differently than they apparently (hence why it's written that way in the article) did happen. It's exceptionally delusional on your part.

I don't think its an amazing story, some kids like to get back at their teachers for a low mark, or just because they don't like them. So far they've got nothing to prove this guy did anything besides a little burn, that from the looks of the picture is quite mild, and could have been self-inflicted. Even the article doesn't claim he actually did anything to the kid.

It does seem... well...
Freshwater, according to an independent report, used an electrostatic device to mark a cross on the arm of one of his students, causing pain to the student the night of the incident and leaving a mark that lasted for approximately three weeks.
this sounds like it was either...
1) done on campus but never reported until that night
2) done at night.

and why an independent report? would the kids be soo ingrained with the 'don't snitch' rule that they won't report this teacher in when it happened?

as for the persecution of christian remarks some posters sneered at...
Freshwater was also reprimanded several times for refusing to move his Bible from his classroom desk and teaching creationism alongside evolution, according to the 15-page independent report. The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that "science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner."
why print this? what purpose does this have other than to show that the teacher was a christian?

no cause was given for the branding... so was that paragraph there to hint that the branding was religous baised?

Freshwater shouldn't have been a science teacher. especially if his beliefs were in strong contrast to the subject he was teaching.

IF it's proven that he did use an electrostatic device to brand a student. then Criminal charges should be levied and not him being just plain fired.

I'm fairly certain that type of thing happens more often than a teacher attacking his students.

And your certainty is based on what, exactly?

It could have also been preceded by, "...and much to my confusion and dismay, my tenth birthday cake read..."

It even could have been preceded by "Deep blinky sprong!".

My geography teacher would've been fired long ago...

My history teacher was obsessed with Hamilton. He hung a framed picture of the man on the wall of the room, refused to speak the name of Aaron Burr, and kicked a kid who said Burr's name out of the classroom ;)

Talk about opinions!

All I can say is- Yay! It wasn't in my neck of the woods. Other states are also afflicted with the batshit insane.

And your certainty is based on what, exactly?

because, a teacher spends more time in the school system than a student does, and theres far more students than teachers. Therefore, if a teacher did something like this he would be removed, and probably not given a spot anywhere else. Meanwhile, if a student does something like like I've proposed, he would be expelled perhaps, but would still go to a school and there'd be 29 other kids who could still pull the same stunt in that class.

A smaller percentage of teachers reported being physically attacked in 2003–04, 3 percent, than in 1993–94, 4 percent (table 5.2).

While its not the same as an accusation like this, its clear that teachers are targeted by students. I couldn't find any statistics on teachers attacking students, however I doubt its in the 3-4% range per year.

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2007/ind_05.asp

because, a teacher spends more time in the school system than a student does, and theres far more students than teachers. Therefore, if a teacher did something like this he would be removed, and probably not given a spot anywhere else. Meanwhile, if a student does something like like I've proposed, he would be expelled perhaps, but would still go to a school and there'd be 29 other kids who could still pull the same stunt in that class.



While its not the same as an accusation like this, its clear that teachers are targeted by students. I couldn't find any statistics on teachers attacking students, however I doubt its in the 3-4% range per year.

Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2007/ind_05.aspPoor blameless teacher. I'm glad we have someone here who respects and believes in our authorities. And our Dear Leader as well, no doubt.

Poor blameless teacher. I'm glad we have someone here who respects and believes in our authorities. And our Dear Leader as well, no doubt.

lol, I'm not sure if this even is worth responding to but here goes...

If you actually have something to add to the debate feel free. If not, and all you can come up with is an ad hominem which isn't even accurate you can butt out.

because, a teacher spends more time in the school system than a student does, and theres far more students than teachers. Therefore, if a teacher did something like this he would be removed, and probably not given a spot anywhere else.
If the victim came forward and could prove he/she had been assaulted by his/her teacher
Meanwhile, if a student does something like like I've proposed, he would be expelled perhaps, but would still go to a school and there'd be 29 other kids who could still pull the same stunt in that class.
This isn't much to base a certainty on. Do you know of any cases of a student injuring himself and blaming the teacher? How many of these are there compared to the number of cases of a teacher injuring a student?

Oh, and a student attacking a teacher isn't the same as a student injuring himself and trying to blame it on a teacher. And far far more teachers have assaulted students than vice versa. It's pretty obvious when you consider that for decades across the world, if not longer, corporal punishment was deemed perfectly acceptable.

lol, I'm not sure if this even is worth responding to but here goes...

If you actually have something to add to the debate feel free. If not, and all you can come up with is an ad hominem which isn't even accurate you can butt out.Ya know, I was fixin' to log off. But since you said butt out I find myself with the urge to stay. Though feel free to put me on ignore as I hang about on this public forum.

If the victim came forward and could prove he/she had been assaulted by his/her teacher

This isn't much to base a certainty on. Do you know of any cases of a student injuring himself and blaming the teacher? How many of these are there compared to the number of cases of a teacher injuring a student?

Oh, and a student attacking a teacher isn't the same as a student injuring himself and trying to blame it on a teacher. And far far more teachers have assaulted students than vice versa. It's pretty obvious when you consider that for decades across the world, if not longer, corporal punishment was deemed perfectly acceptable.

Never said it was the same, and theres no need to be so specific as "a student injuring himself and trying to blame it on a teacher" unless you want to make the teacher part as specific and say "a teacher using an electronic device to burn a cross onto a kid's arm".

Corporal punishment is somewhat irrelevant as it clearly wasn't considered assault at the time.

Besides, I never said i was absolutely certain, just "fairly" and can only be based upon my idea of how things work in a school. Of course if you have any contradictory evidence, feel free to present it, I've already looked and couldn't find much besides the number of teachers getting attacked by students.

If a teacher was this crazy in my classroom, even without the branding, I'd carry a one shot lethal weapon on me at all times... He tries to do anything to me, Crack! Steel marble to the skull. RAIL GUNS, FTW!

no, you're making shit up

yay!


Sure, its just speculation, but it sounds more likely than how its being reported in the article.
Just finished reading the rest of your explanation in your subsequent posts, and no, it doesn't sound more likely. It sounds like you're just making shit up.

I can't shake the feeling of dread at the thought that the guy landed a job as SCIENCE teacher and managed to keep at it for 21 years... Tells a lot about the quality of teaching there I guess...

I can't shake the feeling of dread at the thought that the guy landed a job as SCIENCE teacher and managed to keep at it for 21 years... Tells a lot about the quality of teaching there I guess...
It does seem bizarre. If that chap is that much anti-evolution, how the devil does he manage to keep a job as a science teacher for that long, unless this was the last straw for him and he snapped and did such a thing to that pupil.

My history teacher was obsessed with Hamilton. He hung a framed picture of the man on the wall of the room, refused to speak the name of Aaron Burr, and kicked a kid who said Burr's name out of the classroom ;)

Talk about opinions!

That's it? I had an English teacher that would kick your desk if you started to day dream. He did it to me and I was sitting in the front row. That was a stark difference from my grade 10 math teacher who ignored me (while I slept in class) until the end of the period only to walk over, knock on the desk and tell me class was over.

Never said it was the same, and theres no need to be so specific as "a student injuring himself and trying to blame it on a teacher" unless you want to make the teacher part as specific and say "a teacher using an electronic device to burn a cross onto a kid's arm".

Corporal punishment is somewhat irrelevant as it clearly wasn't considered assault at the time.

Besides, I never said i was absolutely certain, just "fairly" and can only be based upon my idea of how things work in a school. Of course if you have any contradictory evidence, feel free to present it, I've already looked and couldn't find much besides the number of teachers getting attacked by students.

For me to have contradictory evidence, you would have to have evidence. What you have is an idea.

I had one maths teacher who pretended to cough for a whole lesson just to piss us off because we had annoyed him in the previous lesson.

My history teacher was obsessed with Hamilton. He hung a framed picture of the man on the wall of the room, refused to speak the name of Aaron Burr, and kicked a kid who said Burr's name out of the classroom ;)

Talk about opinions!

Mine was an extreme environmentalist and James Lovelock's biggest fan. He was also an huge critic of religion which led to some interesting class discussions. Never resulted in any violence though.

It's a crazy guy, who has taken his beliefs to an extreme. A common psycho.


To read this as some sort of indictment of Christianity, though, is absurd. This is one crazy guy breaking all of society's rules.

Yes, but it appears to me that the OP intended it to be, if not an indictment of Christianity, then at least a condemnation of creationism, and the teacher, contrary to what someone else said in this thread, should NOT have been fired merely for teaching creationism.

But burning a student intentionally? THAT is grounds for firing him, creationist or otherwise.

Yes, but it appears to me that the OP intended it to be, if not an indictment of Christianity, then at least a condemnation of creationism, and the teacher, contrary to what someone else said in this thread, should NOT have been fired merely for teaching creationism.


So violating the First Amendment is not grounds for a firing?

Just finished reading the rest of your explanation in your subsequent posts, and no, it doesn't sound more likely. It sounds like you're just making shit up.

So you think its more likely for the average teacher to burn a cross onto a student, than for an average student to burn a cross onto themselves to get back at a teacher?

So you think its more likely for the average teacher to burn a cross onto a student, than for an average student to burn that cross onto themselves to get back at a teacher?

Fixed.

So you think its more likely for the average teacher to burn a cross onto a student, than for an average student to burn a cross onto themselves to get back at a teacher?

This isn't an average teacher, so your question flawed from the ninth word of the sentence.

Every group has extremists. I think its bad policy to paint a whole group with the same brush.

And yet people will still insist that Christianity is an oppressed religion that has no power and no fringe nutcase members.Like, even sofar as to dedicate an entire thread to that bullshit. :rolleyes:

So you think its more likely for the average teacher to burn a cross onto a student, than for an average student to burn a cross onto themselves to get back at a teacher?
Obviously yes.

I would not call this deranged teacher "typical" of Christianity, but Lackadaisical, with his willingness to confabulate any kind of excuse, unfortunately *is* typical of Christians.

And yet people will still insist that Christianity is an oppressed religion that has no power and no fringe nutcase members.

Well Gauthier, that may be the case in the United States, but consider in Europe.

You are a Christian that preaches against homosexuality. You get arrested and sent to prison for hate speech.

You are a Muslim that preaches against Christianity. You never get arrested, and instead, you are allowed to express your point of view.

Is that not oppression?

no, you're making shit up

yay!


Sure, its just speculation, but it sounds more likely than how its being reported in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy

And yet people will still insist that Christianity is an oppressed religion that has no power and no fringe nutcase members.

So we're going to dismiss the Hindus, Pagans, and Muslims that pull the same smeg then aye? Seriously with everyone grouping all the bad people who commit atrocities in the name of religion with religious people in general I am beginning to believe a real life Free Minds Alliance (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546840&highlight=free+minds+alliance) should be instated.

We should be grateful at least that this teacher wasn't a member of the KKK - he might have tried to set fire to the cross on the kid's arm.

We should be grateful at least that this teacher wasn't a member of the KKK - he might have tried to set fire to the cross on the kid's arm.

Only if the kid was black.

Well Gauthier, that may be the case in the United States, but consider in Europe.

You are a Christian that preaches against homosexuality. You get arrested and sent to prison for hate speech.

You are a Muslim that preaches against Christianity. You never get arrested, and instead, you are allowed to express your point of view.

Is that not oppression?

Show me any time in the last two centuries where Christians were explicitly denied human rights just for being Christians in a broad, continental scope and had to fight for the right to their beliefs and still continue to do so today. Show me where Christians weren't allowed to marry or adopt children and benefit from a spouse's health and insurance plan.

Show me proof of these, then you can compare the genuine oppression of homosexuals to the persecution fantasies of fundamentalist Christians.

:rolleyes:

Show me any time in the last two centuries where Christians were explicitly denied human rights just for being Christians in a broad, continental scope and had to fight for the right to their beliefs and still continue to do so today. Show me where Christians weren't allowed to marry or adopt children and benefit from a spouse's health and insurance plan.

Show me proof of these, then you can compare the genuine oppression of homosexuals to the persecution fantasies of fundamentalist Christians.

:rolleyes:

Aww, don't be so harsh on him. Didn't you know christian has to be persecuted to be a good christian?

I had this friend who went from agnostic to "reborn christian" or some such and every time anyone contested his beliefs in any way he would draw the "persecution" trump card and refuse to listen. He usually even refused to come up with proper answers to any of the questions such as why he broke all his heavy metal CDs. At first he said those CDs were evil, but soon had to change his views as he loved playing similar music himself...

Well Gauthier, that may be the case in the United States, but consider in Europe.

You are a Christian that preaches against homosexuality. You get arrested and sent to prison for hate speech.

You are a Muslim that preaches against Christianity. You never get arrested, and instead, you are allowed to express your point of view.

Is that not oppression?You do?

Yes, but it appears to me that the OP intended it to be, if not an indictment of Christianity, then at least a condemnation of creationism, and the teacher, contrary to what someone else said in this thread, should NOT have been fired merely for teaching creationism.He should most certainly be fired if he teaches the opposite of what he's been hired to teach. Same thing if he was teaching Lamarckian evolution as truth.
So you think its more likely for the average teacher to burn a cross onto a student, than for an average student to burn a cross onto themselves to get back at a teacher?
Do you think it's more likely for someon that's 6' 3" to be the average height or for them to be 6' 3"?

"Average" just means that more often than not, teachers don't burn crosses into their pupils arms. It certainly doesn't prove that one given teacher didn't do what he reportedly did do.

But what if you are a Christian, homophobic or not, that preaches against Mohammedanism? You would probably have as much freedom to do that as the beforementioned Muslim that preaches against Christianity. Still I think it's just a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.

Corporatum's story about his friend who found the light highlights an interesting aspect of those previously without a distinct belief who become Born Again. Those people tend to become more fanatic than the average follower, since they apparently want to make up for the time they were a godless heathen.

Only if the kid was black.

Or had a burn shaped like a house with African-Americans in it...

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

So you think its more likely for the average teacher to burn a cross onto a student, than for an average student to burn a cross onto themselves to get back at a teacher?
Cute.

A) Average people, on average, do not go around burning each other, so I reject the suggestion that any of this is likely among either group, on average.

B) This is not a story about groups. It's a story about individuals. So your imaginary averages do not apply anyway. No one is suggesting that there is a rash of teachers burning students going on.

C) You say there is no proof the teacher actually did this, but there is evidence that he did, in the form of the student's testimony and the existence of the burn itself. The description of how the burn was caused would lead me to suspect that there may be merit in the student's claim. Therefore, in advance of an official verdict, I consider it entirely reasonable to take this story at its face value, for purposes of discussion.

D) You say there is no proof the teacher did this, but you have no proof the student did it to himself, either. You don't even have suggestive evidence. You just have some supposed "average" that, even if it exists, would not mean that the individuals in this story did not act the way it is said they did. In other words, if the average teacher is not likely to burn students, that is not evidence that THIS teacher did not burn THIS student, and if the average student is likely to burn himself to get back a teacher, that is not evidence that THIS student burned himself. (And as stated above, I dispute your notions of average teachers and students.)

So, since you reject a story that has at least some evidence behind it in favor of a supposition that has no evidence behind it at all and no relevance to the story either, I conclude that you are just making shit up.

Only in America... (In England we're too tolerant/lazy

Main problem I have with that is we aren't told what finally tipped the teacher into full scale loon.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/2350/scienceandfaithtr5.jpg