Meanwhile, back in Lebanon, Missouri, I give a hater a lesson in Constitutional law and biology

June 5, 2014 • 11:49 am

I have gotten by far more email on the Lebanon, Missouri issue than on anything else I’ve ever written about.  And nearly all of it, save letters from Lebanon High School students who want to complain privately about the relentless Christian proselytizing of their school, is negative or hateful.

This, for example, comes from one Tom Chiusano:

 I’ve been following your shtick against Lebanon and its citizens throughout the week. Apart of me wants to dust it off as summer boredom for a professor, but knowing and communicating with my fellow atheist colleagues, I assume otherwise. Like yourself, I am a Harvard educated college professor (at a local community college. Received my BA from BYU and MBA from Harvard Business School). Yourself and those who comment on your blog have painted quite an unfair strawman of our quiet and friendly hometown. You continuously claim that your issue with the entire ordeal is a defiance of the United States Constitution. We both know this is completely and utterly false. Your issue is with those who have faith, and have the cajones to express that. You are the vocal minority, and with that precious title comes unnecessary responsibilities I suppose. I can only imagine how admirable you feel that your superior intellect has prevailed over a town of God fearing citizens. Even after an apology was issued (which was hardly necessary), you continue to stick your nose in the air.

I know you’ve gotten numerous emails, and will most likely continue to get them. Some more eloquent than others. With that said, I pray that you understand our side in this issue. A town of 15,000 people and you have made it a priority to make this story breaking news. So much good comes out of our community, and all I’ve heard is the Chicago professor who had an issue with a moment of silence during a graduation that had no relevance to him. For somebody who believes everything came from nothing, I’m hardly surprised. It reminds me of a question a friend of mine asked a high school science teacher my junior year here at Lebanon. “Because termites cannot digest food, they have little critters in their stomach called the flagella that help them do so. The termites cannot function without the flagella, and the flagella cannot survive without the termite. Which evolved first?”

Yours in Christ,

Tom.

Here’s my response (to which I’ll alert Mr. Chiusano):

Dear Mr. Chiusano,

Our academic credentials, and the fact that we both went to Harvard, are of course completely irrelevant in this matter, which involves a clear violation of the Constitution. You claim that such a violation is “completely and utterly false,” but give not a shred of evidence that Principal Lowery’s prayers at graduation were Constitutionally allowable.

And my issue is not, in fact, with those who have faith, but with those who have faith and try to impose it on others. As you may know from reading the three letters from Lebanon High students who wrote to me and Hemant Mehta (I now have a fourth), all is not well in your community. The reason you don’t know that is because the relentless proselytizing for Christianity by Principal Lowery and many of your neighbors has cowed those with opposing views into silence. While you see your hometown as “quiet and friendly,” that’s simply a facade. The minute someone disagrees with your religious beliefs, or tries to stand up for the U.S. Constitution, that facade crumbles into anger, aggression, and sheer hatred. I should know, because I’ve received a lot of emails full of vitriol from your “quiet and friendly” neighbors! If you really were that friendly, three of the four students who dissented wouldn’t be afraid to make their names public. But they know that if they did, Christians like yourself would harass and terrify them, as they have done all over America. That kind of behavior is shameful, and something I wouldn’t expect from people who call themselves Christians.

It is in fact that tyranny of the religious majority that mandated the writing of the First Amendment, which was designed to protect all people, believers and nonbelievers alike, from having different religious views forced upon them by the organs of government. You don’t seem to understand that, nor the fact that the courts have repeatedly ruled that acts like Principal Lowery’s prayers do in fact violate the First Amendment.

What I fail to understand is why people like you must force your religion on captive audiences like those at the Lebanon High School graduation. Is it not sufficient for you to pray at home, in church, or even in school (silently and to yourself)?  Why must you proclaim your belief in God and Jesus in public to an audience that may not all share your views?

As for myself, yes, I’m a nonbeliever, but in my official capacity as a teacher at the University of Chicago, or when I talk in public schools, I never proselytize for atheism. I could never get up at a high school graduation and tell the students that I didn’t believe in God, and that they shouldn’t either. That, too, is against the law, and I would obey it.

Finally, let me correct you on your statements about evolution, for you appear to be just as ignorant about that science as about the Constitution.  First, the “critters” in termite guts that help them digest cellulose are not flagella, but flagellated protists. “Flagella” are the whiplike organs that help them move, but the protists themselves are called “flagellates.” You apparently are arguing that evolution cannot explain the strong mutual dependence of the termites and flagellates, which form what we in biology call a “mutualism”: each species benefits from its association with the other.

But that mutualism, like all mutualisms, can be easily explained by evolution. First, not all termites harbor flagellates: only what they call the “lower” termites. Other termites have bacteria that help them digest cellulose. Second, those bacteria and flagellates are not absolutely required for termites to digest cellulose, for all termites retain some ability to digest it without their symbiotic microorganisms. So here’s one evolutionary explanation. Assume that the ancestral termite had a poor ability to digest cellulose, and ate other things as well. It was then invaded by a protist that had the ability to digest cellulose, and to excrete some of those digestive products. In such a case, the termite and its little passenger would both benefit. And, over time, each of them would evolve adaptations that, by helping itself, would also help its partner. The termite would become more hospitable to the flagellate (or bacteria), for that organism helps the termite immensely; and the flagellate (or bacterium) would become more useful to the termite, for a healthy termite is something that the flagellate needs. (The termite, is, after all, its home and protector.)

Over a period of time, this could result in a very strong dependence of the two species on each other—to the point that neither could live without the other. This has also happened in lichens, which are a mutualistic association of a fungus and an alga, neither of which can live apart.  But in both cases it is no problem for us to envision how such a codependency can evolve in a step-by-step way through natural selection.

So there is a biology lesson for you, Mr. Chiusano. I hope you learn it better than you learned your civics lesson. And, if you really don’t accept evolution, which appears to be the case, you might benefit from reading my book Why Evolution is True. It’s a pity that there’s no book called Why the Constitution is Law. 

Yours in Darwin,
Jerry Coyne

 

233 thoughts on “Meanwhile, back in Lebanon, Missouri, I give a hater a lesson in Constitutional law and biology”

  1. Why do those people almost always try to introduce evolution into an issue that most certainly is not about evolution? It only serves to further expose the weakness of their position and demonstrate their ignorance.

  2. He speaks of ‘cajones’ which are drawers as in a desk. What you have is ‘cojones’ which are needed in quantity against militant godding.

    2. Cajon is also a percussion instrument, it’s a wooden box that is sat on and slapped. I’ve only seen them used by buskers in the street. So I read that sentence as him assuming Jerry is just banging his cheap drums loudly at the poor faithful people. It could have been a spelling mistake, it could be a reference to Feynman, it was still a rude assumption.

      1. Cajon is also a percussion instrument, it’s a wooden box that is sat on and slapped. I’ve only seen them used by buskers in the street.

        There’s an electronic version which I’ve seen/heard used to marvelous effect by multi-instrumentalist Alex Wong in support of the songwriter Vienna Teng; I’ve not being keeping up with her work as much as I should, but he’s there on her Inland Territory, which he also coproduced. I saw him use the thing on stage with her a few years ago, and was boggled by the capabilities of the instrument.

        What I’m trying to say is: Thank you, I never knew the thing was called a cajon.

        2. Yes, they’re great things. A couple of percussionist/drummer friends use them for acoustic shows.

          I’ve been tempted to pick one up myself but I think that adding percussion to the instruments that I already practise at home may drive my neighbours over the edge!

    3. The spaniards use the term “cojones”, latinamericans use “huevos”, and americans use “balls”, all with the same awful meaning, that you can’t show bravery if you don’t have a pair. I’ve met many women who are far braver (without having a pair of those testosterone producers) than many men. I find the use of the term sexist to the extreme. Unfortunately Sarah Palin seems to have popularized it among US conservatives.

      1. So Mr. C was being ignorant, bigoted, sexist and just plain old factually incorrect all at the same time??? Wow, that’s almost impressive. In Florida we call this the Duvall County Grand Slam.

          1. The sexism is present no matter who is directing it to whom. It’s in the meaning of the term: “balls” being equated with “courage.” The letter writer wasn’t discussing Jerry’s actual sex organs.

      2. I remember Madeleine Albright used the term during the Clinton administration.

        1. My impression is that many people use it without knowing that it actually refers to testicles.

          3. Albright had (has?) more than two braincells to rub together. I’m sure that she knew what she was saying. I’d suspect that she was using it as a shibboleth, to detect characteristics of her audience in the same way that a programmer hunting a bug puts “hooks” into the code, and when my flat-mate Dave-The-Mad-Irishman-Whose-Name-Should-Not-Be-Mentioned-In-Full-For-Fear-Of-Him-Darkening-The-Doorstep-.-Again was doing thesis-typing, he’d slip deliberate errors into the typescript and lie to the proof-reader about how many “Judas pages” there are.

          4. She is also adept at language, having studied and become proficient in several. I’m sure she knew exactly what she was saying!

    2. I LOLed at the signature as well. Also interesting to me is the dropping of the “H-Bomb” as it is sometimes called: “I went to Harvard so I’m not just some rube like everyone else in Lebananon and don’t you dare call them rubes because try totally are not.” Had he stuck to his knitting, Mr. C might have made the business case or microeconomic case for people wearing their religion on their sleeves; not sure what that argument would be and I think for both the case against would be stronger ie a secular invocation would serve the same purpose from a spiritual perspective while avoiding stamping the Lebanon brand as “backward” and “Constitutionally ignorant.”

      1. If I recall correctly, George W. Bush also went to Harvard and received the same degree as this gentleman, so if I were he, I’d keep it a secret.

        2. The recent Rethuglican candidate for lieutenant governor in Virginia was a nutcase named E. W. Jackson who is also a graduate of Harvard Law School. Must be something in the water up there in Cambridge.

      2. I think he was rather worked up about the issue but Mr. Chiusano’s letter was an ill-considered, rambling mess – not what I’d have expected from someone with an MBA from any American University. Rather than post it right away, he should have waited, read it the next day and rewritten it to be as cogent as he could make it.

        A well-written, well thought out letter does not need a written-by-a-Harvard-graduate label.

        1. I’ll reveal a bit of bias here, but I am not at all impressed by MBAs as a group and hence my total lack of surprise at the rambling incoherence of Mr. Chiusano. The hordes of MBAs churned by American universities have not, in my view, had a particularly positive impact on American society.

      3. It’s the proclamation of an MBA as if it were something desirable or respect-worthy that cracks me up. Every time. I’ve not met an MBA who bothers to put it after his name and who was worth pissing on, even if he (or she) were on fire.

      4. LOL. Dropping the H-bomb. It’s actually the BS H-bomb. Which you can take by correspondence I believe.

      1. I disagree. I think it’s flip, and feeds into the theist accusation that atheists worship Darwin, that “Darwinism” equates to modern evolutionary theory and that both are a religion. I don’t think people who don’t follow this conversation will get the joke at all.

        2. Flip? So what? Some people won’t get it? So what? Those who don’t aren’t going to respond positively anyway. Snark and ridicule are appropriate when addressing gross stupidity.

          1. addressing gross stupidity

            That’s “MISTER Gross Stupidity, MBA, Harvard,” to you!

        3. I agree. Darwin isn’t an authority figure or comparable to Jesus as an object of worship.

          1. Well, … I’d worship Darwin LONG before I’d worship the apparently imaginary Jesus. Not that I’m in favor of worship as a general rule. But, Darwin is (was) a genuine authority and even today most people would learn a great deal by reading his writings.

        4. I agree completely! Since Darwin was used in place of Christ, Mr. Chiusano will probably take it as evidence that we do indeed worship Darwin. I hardly think it’s helpful to further misinform Mr. Chiusano about atheists. He will not get the joke.

          1. “He won’t get the joke.”

            Won’t he? Maybe I’m just not cynical enough (I’m only 25), but to me “Yours in Darwin” is so obviously an absurd thing to say that it’s hard for me to believe. I think it’s hilarious and effective.

          2. Never underestimate the influence of cognitive dissonance, insidious enough in ordinary neutral life situations, profound when augmented by devotion to emotion.

          3. Maybe Mr. Chiusano is that stupid. I doubt it, but it is possible.

            Still that’s not a reason to avoid using big words or absurdity to make a point. Someone too stupid to recognize the humor/absurdity will not understand the rest of the comments, either. Should we all just shut up because these folk need to read a copy of Snark for Dummies?

        5. The religious are forever looking for any specious way to claim that belief in evolution involves faith and is akin to a religious belief.

    4. Agreed. But when I read ‘Yours in Christ’ what I pictured is that someone means ‘Place your male member in Christ’…gross.

      1. You really ought to warn people.

        First I get coffee all over my keyboard, and now my kiddos want me to tell them what’s so funny.

      2. Also, warn people using the exclamation “Jesus fucking Christ!” not to google it.
        .
        .
        .
        You did anyway, didn’t you?

        1. The correct form for (trinitarian) Christians is actually “Jesus Motherfucking Christ.”

        2. Umm, yes, I frequently have, and umm, yes, I did Google it and ended up at Uncyclopaedia.

          My alternative of ‘Holy Jesus fucking Christ on a bicycle’, when Googled, lands me up at Urban Dictionary.

          Either one is equally unedifying… 😉

          1. When wanting an epithet for emphasis, I find that sticking to facts helps. So I swear “by the four balls of Jesus, Mary and Joseph” if I want to make a point.
            It turns nuns a really unattractive shade of fuschia.

      1. Sorry to disagree with the majority, but the closing “Yours in Darwin” was only my *second* favorite part of Prof. Ceiling Cat’s response. This was my favorite:

        “All is not well in your community. The reason you don’t know that is because the relentless proselytizing for Christianity by Principal Lowery and many of your neighbors has cowed those with opposing views into silence. While you see your hometown as “quiet and friendly,” that’s simply a facade. The minute someone disagrees with your religious beliefs, or tries to stand up for the U.S. Constitution, that facade crumbles into anger, aggression, and sheer hatred.”

        Truer words were never written, and the flow of the prose adds to their effectiveness. Bravo!

        1. I agree, that was the best part. Jerry’s entire reply was good, except for this: That kind of behavior is shameful, and something I wouldn’t expect from people who call themselves Christians.

          Let’s be honest, there are a whole lot of Christians in America from whom this kind of behavior is exactly what I expect.

          1. We know that, but we also know that Christians like to think that ‘true Christians’ are models of good behaviour. So I find Jerry’s comment perfectly effective.

          3. If they perceive themselves as good Christians, and you make them realise they are acting in an “unchristian” manner it may at least serve to improve their future behaviour. That at least is a far more achievable goal than convincing them their core beliefs are wrong.

        2. That is indeed a major point in Jerry’s response.
          However he did leave one appreciable stone un-turned. Where Jerry wrote that

          The reason you don’t know that is because the relentless proselytizing for Christianity by Principal Lowery and many

          It’ a racing certainty that there are more issues than that lurking under the sidewalks of Lebanon. Some of the sub-texts of the published letter from residents sound as if there’s a lot more muck in that little town waiting for the rake to disturb it. This may be the most public one at the moment, but the correspondent is sure to know of others.
          So you leave a hint at that knowledge. Something that will nag away at him when he’s reviewing his next response … and lead him to tell us more than he ever wanted to know about what really worries him.
          I don’t like myself when I’m being a manipulative little bastard. But pulling the scales off the eyes of goddistas is much more fun (and a much more defensible hobby) than pulling the wings off Drosophila.

  6. He’s been thinking about that termite question since his junior year at high school! Would that have made him about 16? It is weird how someone could be thinking of an interesting question for so long (it has got to be at least a decade) and never have the curiosity to find an answer. He is fortunate to have you answer him.

      1. Yes.

        And the “somebody who believes everything came from nothing” is Chiusano, because he has no evidence for his magic agency. Or any magic agency for that matter.

        That science suggests “everything came from nothing” isn’t true. Currently it suggests that “everything came from very little”, as in _one_ quantum particle field (inflaton).

        That’s perhaps as far as it goes, the field is eternal in nearly all cases. (There’s always perverse solutions, which amounts to finetuning.)

        In both cases, that’s nothing like the strawman Chiusano claims.

        1. Oops. _Of course_ the field is in principle eternal. It’s rather its inflation state I was thinking of, which continues while parts (universes) drops out of it.

    2. And seriously, he’s talking to someone who wrote a book titled “Why Evolution is True”, and he thinks he’s going to stump the author with something his high school biology teacher told him? Like Dr. Coyne won’t have any answer, and will say “Gee the business major who took science in high school came up with a new question. I guess we will have to toss 150 years of scientific enquiry by people who actually know what they are talking about.”

      There must be a word for that combination of ignorance and arrogance.

      1. “There must be a word for that combination of ignorance and arrogance.”

        There are 2: religion, faith.

      2. When you have faith you have a tremendous amount of confidence in the bullshit you believe. And you’re always proud and loud about you stupidity

    3. The termite-flagella (sic) evolutionary paradox derives from Kent Hovind. Or at least he has advocated its polemical use by the creationist faithful.

      Hovind also advocates challenging evolution supporters whether they believe everything comes from nothing. My reply is that we don’t know what precisely caused the big bang, but we can explore different theoretical possibilities. We are not obliged to field a question which is not at all interested in furthering our scientific understanding, but is only interested in filling in existing lack of understanding with the word “God”.

      1. Also, no scientist I’ve seen states it as fact that the Universe did come from nothing. As Sean Carroll pointed out in the debate with William Lane Craig, the Universe may well be eternal and the Big Bang may be just a transition point.

  7. Jerry has point, game, set, match and championship. It is astonishing that Chiusano wasted his education and learned very little. Maybe his faith crowds out thinking, rationality and facts.

      1. “On ne te demande pas à penser dans l’armée” (Anouilh).

        Or, as Russell put it, “So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.”

      2. The other side met a veritable chat la strophe, monsieur Ceiling Cat.

  9. So, let’s break down his side:

    Argument 1: he [Lowery?] apologized. Response: that’s not exactly an argument that his action was okay, is it? And oh by the way, it was a notpology.

    Argument 2: we’re just a small town. Response: constitutional violations are okay if the town is small now?

    Argument 3: we’ve done a lot of great things. Response: constitutional violations are okay if you’ve stored up good community credit, then?

    Argument (or claim) 4: it was a moment of silence. Response: a moment of silence preceded by a spiel about the wonder of religion and God, and followed by an explanation of what he prayed about, is not exactly secular. Next time, do the moment of silence without the Christianity-boosting editorializing to bookmark it, and it’ll be perfectly fine.

    2. Tom Chiusano isn’t your typical dumb, Bible-thumping hick. But why does he think like one? There must be some genetic or instinctive programming in the brain that even intellect can’t overcome. It must be something that is inherited, something that’s also extremely prevalent in the Middle East. Yet, he and his ilk are totally blind to it. Surely simple Bible school brainwashing can’t account for it.

      1. I don’t think its physiological, or even intellectual per se. I think it’s just following the herd. Intelligence is not a bulwark against social conditioning and, according to Michael Shermer, those with greater intelligence have a greater ability to rationalize their superstitions.

        1. I’m not trying to be argumentative, but what IS a bulwark against social conditioning? I was born and raised attending xian church, but by no later than the age of ten I realized that religion is pure nonsense. What was my bulwark?

          1. I went the same way. At a very young age, the nonsense taken for granted around me seemed just weird. My sense is there are deep seated proclivities of certain minds that simply insist on a logical explanation. Some people simply are not equipped.

          2. These seem reasonable. There could be a combination of factors. In terms of liklihood for gettin’ religion, it could be that religious upbringing in with poor education > religious upbringing with better education > religious upbringing with education and lots of science > > … secular upbringing. But on top of that, people could differ in their relative immunity to indoctrinization.

            It would be interesting to see a study on religiosity of twins raised together versus twins raised apart.

    3. Yeah, what is it with this small-community justification. We love our trees, we love our parks, we all love each other and want to pray to God together. Apparently Chiusano does not get out much.

      1. He seems to be the who acts superior, not Jerry. Why would he opens with disclosing his education otherwise? It appears that he really relishes his position as” the really well educated guy in town”.

        1. I can understand locals get upsset when some out-of-towner stirs up trouble.

          But, as JAC has said, they need to understand that the trouble was already there. The town has secular students who were upset and alienated by the principal’s speech, exactly what the first amendment is supposed to prevent. So this is not a case of “no harm, no foul,” its a case of “I don’t want to think that we’re doing any harm, so when you point out that we are, I get upset and offended.”

      3. Also, it’s imperative to remember that this lovey-doveyness is only applicable to those other members of the town who happen to be of the Caucasian persuasion. And who worship the correct invisible man in the sky.

    4. Argument 3: we’ve done a lot of great things. Response: constitutional violations are okay if you’ve stored up good community credit, then?

      ****

      At the risk of violating Godwin’s law, may I point out that the Nazis did some wonderful things too? And Hitler loved children and d*gs

      1. I know a ninety-ish year old German woman who claims to have actually seen Hitler when she lived in Germany. She says that in post-WWI Germany, Hitler was seen as a hero during his rise to power.

        1. I’m sure that was correct. After the humiliating defeat of World War 1, Hitler was evidently a political leader with huge charisma who gave Germans a patriotic pride in their country and its ability to rise from the ashes. And maybe if he’d been reined in or assassinated at the right time, history would look on him much more kindly.

  11. “Yours in Christ.” The perfect, snotty sign-off. And he accuses Jerry of a sense of superiority!

  12. And nearly all of it, save letters from Lebanon High School students who want to complain privately about the relentless Christian proselytizing of their school, is negative or hateful.

    On the other hand, virtually every one of the regulars here, including I suspect the overwhelming majority of those tens of thousands of silent lurkers…well, we’re all cheering you on and glad you’re not abandoning Lebanon students to being bullied into ignorance and willful idiocy.

    b&

    3. Once upon a time (mostly before the internet) we simply did not know stuff like this went on. I consider this another continued advancement for reason when we are made aware of the backward provincial thinking that persists in some minds in America.

      Hey Lebanon, this is the 21-century, get used to it. The campfire includes us all.

    1. I’m glad that you and several others cleared that up. I had actually been wondering a bit about the name of the town here in California, “El Cajon”. The singular was, in particular, bothering me.

      1. Ha! You do learn useful things on this site. I see a future of me making jokes about drawers.

      2. The next word to examine perhaps should be the Italian, “penne”, as in penne pasta. Pasta comes in all kinds of wonderful shapes.

  15. To Tom from Harvard and Missuri,  I never went to BYU, Harvard. or the U of C and I still haven’t finished by BA; but, somewhere along the line I picked up the idea that its not real smart to “carry coal to Newcastle”.  Try to remember that Tom, before you start explaining termites and such to an evolutionary biologist. Just keep working to understand those first sixteen words of the 1st Amendment.  Mike

    ________________________________

  16. Apparently, proficiency in english composition and grammar are not prerequisites to graduating from Harvard. Either that, or excessive exposure to Christianity causes those skills to atrophy.

        1. Interesting you mention the water. Do you know about it there? I didn’t, until I happened to look at their Wikipedia page just now. (The water there is apparently special – who knew?)

    3. Proficiency in English composition and grammar are required of all Harvard College freshman, but Chiusano didn’t go there; he did his undergraduate work at BYU. His Harvard degree is from the Business School.

        1. 😀 you know he just thinks we are all elitists laughing at his grammar, but he started it flaunting his degree.

      2. Mitt Romney attended Stanford one year, then later graduated from BYU with a degree in English, then a combined MBA/JD from Harvard.

  17. I’m not one to be too picky when it comes to Harvard educated college professor’s, but this sentence:

    ‘Apart of me wants to dust it off as summer boredom for a professor, but knowing and communicating with my fellow atheist colleagues, I assume otherwise.’

    Fer cryin’ out loud, sir.

    There is a part of me that screams: “Edit, man!”

    You signed off with ‘Yours in Christ’, so what is up with ‘fellow atheist colleagues’?

    ‘Knowing and and communicating with … colleagues’ … permits you to make assumptions?

    Not an example of the sort of reasoning practice one expects from a professor. Or from a high school teacher, for that matter. Here’s hoping this is not what you actually teach your students.

    2. He intended to write fellow colleagues who are atheist but failed to articulate properly.

      1. Yea, I also saw “fellow atheist colleagues.” After I finished his letter I thought that I obviously imagined that. But, there there it was.

        1. It puzzled me too. If he’d left ‘fellow’ out it would have been okay. Easy mistake to make though, and surprisingly hard to spot, because “I know what I mean” and quite often what I think I wrote is not what it reads like to someone else.

  18. Turns out that a Harvard education doesn’t mean you can’t turn out to be a Liar for Jesus.

    Remarkable.

    1. All schools have them, Stanford, Berkeley, Yale, Cornell…though I really think younger generations are less likely to be this way.

  19. I think this entire issue comes down to the fact that far too many citizens read freedom of religion as, “my religion gives me the freedom to tell other people what to do.” Proselytizing to a captive audience of teenagers is not showing “cajones,” but, in fact, an act of cowardice. I think the principal understands, at least on some level, just how anachronistic his beliefs are in 21st century America. Maybe that’s why he feels the need to indoctrinate his students in such a manner. This is a classic example of a religious group demanding special privileges and crying foul when they get any resistance. If the principal had not invoked religion in anyway and instead lectured his students on the importance of environmental activism or spoke about the erosion of civil liberties in an age of governmental largesse and over-reach, half of Missouri would be calling him a monster right now.

    1. Interestingly, “(abridging the) freedom of speech” literally appears in the Constitution while “freedom of religion” does not. Yet, they’re instantly in your face with “separation of church and State isn’t in the Constitution – SO THERE!”

    2. Not a strong disagreement, but I think most people don’t give a flip about the Constitution if they think that they are right. Religious people — I would say by definition — think they are right. The history of religious freedom actually reinforces the idea that you should stand up for your religion in the face of persecution and unjust laws (while often ignoring the fact that such persecution was often, itself, religious). Christian Evangelicals (is that redundant? don’t care anymore) feel that they have a duty to spread “the Word”. They fail to see that limits on proselytizing by government figures also protect them, and are part of an explicit contract among citizens (the Constitution) to leave that outside of government power. The fact that many Evangelicals believe that Jesus will return in their lifetime makes it easy not to think of the long term negative effects of breaking down the barrier between state and church. The potential here is that, if the religious doctrine of the nation were a matter of majority vote, their splinter sect of Protestantism would not be legal.

      2. The very high probability that a particular subset sect of the sect Christianity is not going to be legally tolerated in a potential Theocratic States of America is the point I stressed in emails I wrote last week to the graduation speaker, his supervisor, and the school board president.

        I also asked who would prevail in a war to determine who is boss between Catholicism, Protestantism, and LDS sects in our country. My prediction: Two gang up pronto to kick Mormon butt, then instantly turn against other after their win.

        Prod’s stay united long enough to beat Catholic’s in this showdown due to their numerical supremacy. With the Papist’s no longer in the picture, the S. Baptist’s try to be dictators of the rest of the prod’s (including heretical other non-S. types of Baptists.

        Before this can play out, Islamist’s swarm on the scent of all the blood in the water. So all the surviving Christian’s are forced to postpone their internicine fight-to-the-finish and team up for the Main Event rabid fundie’s wanted from the get-go, only now it is imperative to unite in a fight for survival. I emphasize “postpone,” because religious sect competition ends only when theism ends.

        I also reminded them of the fate of Joseph Smith as a result of religious fear and loathing a century and a quarter ago in, where else, the state of Missouri. And how his adherents had to haul ass west to keep from being executed, also.

        I still await a reply to those emails.

      3. “Religious people — I would say by definition — think they are right.”

        Not really – they know they are right. If you “think” about it, it suggests there might be room for error or a change of mind.

        1. Actually, I’m going to quibble. I don’t think they know they are right. I think there is a lot of very public posturing to re-assure themselves.

    3. Even better, suppose he had given exactly, word for word, the same prayer, but had addressed it to Allah or Vishnu.

    4. I wonder if half of Missouri would give him grief if he had told students:

      “Think for yourself.”

      Or: “Something is not true simply and solely because someone says so.”

  20. Is BYU = Brigham Young University? If so, good chance Tom’s a Mormon. Ask Tom if “flagella” (ha) have a soul and, if so, do Mormon’s have a flow chart for what happens to the “flagella” soul similar to this one for humans:

    http://mollymuses.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/mormon-flow-chart-for-your-soul/

    As a former mormon, I can tell you the chart is accurate to what is taught in that faith (except for the names taken from Harry Potter). This chart is what I was fed growing up . . . yes, mental abuse. Now, as a devout Pastafarian (SON OF PERDITION, if you are following along in the flow chart) I can say with great confidence that the almighty FSM prizes “flagella” and other tentacle like things in the universe above all, except . . . cats. Can I get a ‘Ramen’?

  22. Why is it that creationists are happy to use symbiotic systems like this as evidence of ‘design ‘ but don’t bring up parasites and their destructive relationship.See how cruel your god can be in his wisdom.

    Actually it was thinking about such things that started my move away from my creationist upbringing.

    1. Not to mention that THE wondrous proof of ID is the bacterial flagellum – that little “motor” that ONLY God could have designed.
      The CreoIDer’s overlook that they are claiming that dangerous bacteria, such E. coli and Salmonella typhimurium (cause of food poisoning) were directly designed by God to make them more efficient diseases.
      (I am no biologist so this may be subject to correction……but I read that the bacteria would be killed by the digestive juices so the flagellum bore into the walls of the intestines, causing them to leak fluids which dilute the juices. These fluids cause the severe diarrhea that can be fatal to the young, the old and infirm.)
      Only a CreoIDer can explain why God would choose dangerous bacteria to unambiguously announce his presence.

  23. “There’s a Harvard man on the wrong side of every question.”

    — Nathan Pusey, Harvard President

    When you factor in that we’re talking about (cough) “the B school” (cough) here, Doctor Pusey’s quip is, as ever, on solid ground.

    1. Be fair. It was better written than most of the crazy mail. Though I admit that isn’t a very high standard.

  25. Tom fails to tell us whether the science teacher in that class actually answered his friend’s question. His implication seems to be that the teacher was stunned into silence by such an astute question. Perhaps the teacher provided a great answer and Tom has simply forgotten that part of the story…

    1. The question is designed to flummox evolution proponents who haven’t been faced with the question and who are not professors of evolutionary biology. It’s a prepared polemical trick question. If someone can answer it, one quickly moves on to the next polemical trick. And so on. Works best on junior high school level teachers, I would guess. Only true burning stupid would try it on with a professor of evolutionary biology.

      1. We can all be a bit arrogant at times; I expect Mr. Chiusano’s inclusion of the example in his letter to Jerry is just based on the internal thought process: “It looks like an unanswerable paradox to me. I’m a really smart guy. So therefore nobody can answer it.” Not great logic but frankly, not that uncommon across humanity either…and certainly not limited to religious fundamentalists.

  27. This was an excellent read, in all respects. It shows a typical misunderstanding of biology and evolution, and your response was spot on. Excellent.

  28. The dunning-kruger is strong in this one. Harvard failed to provide a DK vaccine.

  30. “Yourself and those who comment on your blog have painted quite an unfair strawman of our quiet and friendly hometown.”

    Did you learn to use reflexive pronouns loosely like that in Harvard? And “unfair” strawman? I suppose you wanted to emphasize this is not the regular kind of fair strawmen. And what does your town being friendly and quiet have anything to do with defending your case? You can be friendly and quiet and ignorant of the Constitution and insensitive to minority rights all at the same time.

    1. It’s friendly and quiet *to him* because he’s a Christian! That’s all that matters.

    2. Ts Eliot seems an appropriate accompaniment, like your own hype girl 🙂

      We are the hollow men
      We are the stuffed men
      Leaning together
      Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
      Our dried voices, when
      We whisper together
      Are quiet and meaningless
      As wind in dry grass
      Or rats’ feet over broken glass
      In our dry cellar

  31. I have to disagree with one part of your letter, Jerry:

    “Christians like yourself would harass and terrify them, as they have done all over America. That kind of behavior is shameful, and something I wouldn’t expect from people who call themselves Christians.”

    I’d expect nothing else, sadly.

    What would be unexpected would be letters from Christians saying, “I understand now that it was an abuse of my position as a government employee to push a particular religious viewpoint, and it won’t happen again.”

    1. Exactly! Maybe Jerry is ceding the “Christians are supposed to be nice” (false, but widely believed) cliche as a matter of diplomacy.

  32. Jerry,

    Your letter to Mr C is brilliant!! What a magnificent teaching moment not only for Mr Ch (if he is able to listen and learn) but also for the rest of us. After he has read Why Evolution is True, Mr C might also dive into Your Inner Fish.

    Now I confess I didn’t go to Harvard but I did read the Origin of Species, cover to cover and word for word… and in only two months time!!

    Yes, in the adventure of Darwin!!!

  33. Thank you, professor, for pointing out the ignorance in my town. I hate it here and wish to leave, but because of the town I live in, lack the funds to get my family and myself out of this poison. Please, do not let up on this town. I want them to face justice.

    1. Are you indeed an atheist living in Lebanon? Have you experienced persecution because of your stance on religion and/or the existence of the supernatural? Or, perhaps, the environment is such that you don’t dare speak out? I live in an area that is predominantly religious, but I do enjoy a small circle of like minded atheistic friends, so I feel quite fortunate in that regard. Plus, my young adult children and most of their friends are non theist, adding to the comfort level. Without those things life would be quite horrible, so I empathize with anyone who has to not believe in silence.

    2. I sympathize. I’m in a similar situation, and this website is, in effect, my non-religious community. Please feel welcome to share anything that you think might help!

  35. It’s almost like we’re not talking about Lebanon, MO, but Lebanon, Middle East.

  37. knowing and communicating with my fellow atheist colleagues

    These’d be all the fellow atheists who sign off “Yours in Christ”.

    To be honest, I can see how Chiusano, living within mainstream Pop. 15,000 Lebanon, feels that too much is being made of too little. It’d be nice if he could take a (mental) step outside, though, and recognize that

    (a) the unanimity he sees in those around him camouflages at least some and perhaps quite a lot of intellectual repression (no freedom of thought there, eh?), and

    (b) there’s a long history of corruptions being incremental, whereby small original corruptions, if left unchecked, have opened the famed slippery slope for larger ones.

  38. I think I would have gone with “yours in reason.” Yours in Darwin is definitely funnier in context, though.

  39. Well done Jerry , school these arrogant guys who feel they can push their faith upon everybody .They just expect us to sit down and take it.. The starter of american atheists i forget her name but very influential made a long speech on that could be found on youtube called “gutless atheists”. We shall not stand by idly and allow this nonsense happen

  41. Mr. Tom Chiusano, or Mr cajones:

    “Your issue is with those who have faith, and have the cajones to express that. You are the vocal minority, and with that precious title comes unnecessary responsibilities I suppose.”

    It’s a minority that, when it comes to issues ruled in the courts of law, always kicks the american talibans in the ass. And the reason is very simple: the truth isn’t decided by the number of suporters of this our that world view. If that was the case the Earth would be flat during the dark ages. The truth is a matter of solid evidence and stands on it’s own.

    And by the way, if the good people of lebanon decided to burn witches again would you say it’s ok because they have Cajones to make such a decision?

    And what’s up with the Your’s in Christ thing? You Know Jerry Coyne is an Atheist, Would you have Cajones to say that to a Muslim or an Hindu? Now, that would be weird.

  42. I am curious about his claims about needing “cajones” to show faith.
    Whilst there are some parts of the world where it might take courage to show Christian belief this town doesnt really seem to be one of them.

    Other faiths than Christianity maybe but it wouldnt be because of atheists.
    He seems to be displaying the classic martyrdom complex.
    Sadly I suspect the biology lesson will be wasted on him although at least, as always in these cases, it was an interesting read and benefits others.
    I do wonder though if he expected you to go “damn didnt think of that” and rush out a new edition of WEIT with page 1 being “It isnt. God did it” and the rest of the book being blank or just a copy of the bible.

  43. To Tom from Harvard and Missuri, I never went to BYU, Harvard. or the U of C and I still haven’t finished by BA; but, somewhere along the line I picked up the idea that its not real smart to “carry coal to Newcastle”. Try to remember that Tom, before you start explaining termites and such to an evolutionary biologist. Just keep working to understand those first sixteen words of the 1st Amendment. Mike

  44. Incidentally, cajones literally means boxes but substitute an, o, for the, a, and the word changes to the vulgar, street slang for testicles.

    Why is it that some folks switch to another language when uttering or writing vulgarities rather than sticking to English?

      1. Dans ce cas, je suis en désaccord.

        One, the English equivalent of the Spanish word Mr. Chiusano used is no less expressive.

        Two, the Frenh phrase, mot juste, doesn’t convey anything that the phrase, right word, does not.

        Nevertheless, one can always find certain words in any given language whose equivalent in another doesn’t have quite the same shade of meaning.

    2. Why is it that some folks switch to another language when uttering or writing vulgarities rather than sticking to English?

      It’s ’cause they ain’t got the cojones, innit?

  46. Isn’t the Creation story actually the “something from nothing” version of how the universe began? If he thinks you can’t have a something-from-nothing world, then he can’t be a creationist.

    Also, what’s with his grammar? He sure didn’t take any English or literature courses in Harvard. “Yourself and those who comment on your blog?” What’s up with the “yourself?”

    1. Can we please not worry too much about his grammar? We all have lapses, and I think I have a “yourself” in there, too. The grammar issue is likely to derail the thread.

      2. My apologies. In my defense, I only had the grammar bit as an aside– after my main point. It’s interesting to me because it’s so common in the rants and hate mail of religious people, and not just on your site.

  47. Such a great response to that professor. Well-reasoned, informative and enlightening. I’m sure it will be ridiculed.

  49. If this chap is ‘yours in christ’ would it be fair to say he is in a symbiotic meme relationship with his host and therefore could not survive outside this relationship. Further to this irony, no amount of factual correcting and nourishment and exposure to embarrasmentt will ever shake. I, on the other hand, are perfectly happy with my meme meal .

  50. I am always amused when someone like Mr. Chiusano thinks his god needs him to do his/her/its boxing. One would think a serious sky fairy wouldn’t need such help, or if they did, they could find someone with a bit more knowledge about what they were claiming. But thank you Jerry for posting this — the amusement factor is quite large.

  53. “You are the vocal minority, and with that precious title comes unnecessary responsibilities I suppose.”

    I suppose “vocal minority” is a title now, as in VM Jerry Coyne. But what’s with the “precious” and “unnecessary”? I suppose FQM (Friendly and Quiet Majority) Tom Chiusano is just fond of his precious, unnecessary adjectives.

    1. I saw what you did. Love the subtle change in the meaning of ‘precious’ 😉

      But I quite agree that Mr Chiusano seems to be getting his cliches a bit confused.

  54. This might be my favorite WEIT post. One rarely sees succinct explanations of mutualism and constitutional law paired with one another.

    Still, though, I think the big takeaway is that it’s important to have good high school biology teachers. Otherwise you end up with having to suffer through folks like our friend in Christ here.

  55. Mr Chuisano

    You stated “Your issue is with those who have faith, and have the cajones to express that.” and went on to say that those with a different viewpoint are “the vocal minority.”

    If you are here, maybe you can explain in what way it takes courage for a member of the majority to make a speech that the majority will whole-heartedly agree with. This is arrogance, not courage.

    For true courage, read the letters of those in your community who do not fall in lockstep with majority thought. Pay special attention to the one young lady willing to sign her name. If your “quiet and friendly” christian community is like those of Cranston, Rhode Island, Bastrop, Louisiana, and so many other places, she will soon be getting death threats. Talk to her if you want to learn about real courage, rather than the kind you alluded to in a crude (and misspelled) reference to male genitalia.

  56. If you really were that friendly, three of the four students who dissented wouldn’t be afraid to make their names public. But they know that if they did, Christians like yourself would harass and terrify them, as they have done all over America.

    Very well said. Too bad these words are probably wasted on all such Christian bullies.

  57. I’m not sure if anyone in previous threads has mentioned this but maybe Tom and the other residence of Lebanon should consider reading Matthew Chapter 6.
    Your own Bible is calling you a hypocrite.

  59. Just a small comment directed at only one sentence.

    If you cannot publicly pray and practicise your religion, then there is no religious freedom. That was an answer given more than three hundred years ago by Zamoyski to Swedish envoys, when they claimed that catholics are not oppressed and they are free, because they can pray in their homes and churches as they like.

    1. Lowery is welcome to publicly pray and practice his religion on his own time. When he is getting paid by the state to represent the state, he represents all of us, not just Christians, and thus he must remain neutral towards religion.

      This is not hard to understand. If you don’t want to be bound by the state’s on-the-job requirements, don’t take the job.

    2. You seem to miss the point, szopeno. The issue isn’t public prayer it is religion imposed by public institutions and their representatives in their professional roles. Please recognize the difference.

    3. Ah, yes, the old, “Freedom of religion means I’m free to impose it on others!” If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that sort of non-logic…

  60. That was a well written rebuttal but I liked the bit about mutualism best. I can’t wait for the new book. 🙂

    There is a great song by Kronos Quartet featuring I.F. Stone that starts out with him giving a talk about having to repeat things over and over again… basically because it’s necessary to preserve what Professor Coyne has written about here.

  61. If he wanted people to take him seriously, he probably shouln’t start by calling Haravard Business School an education.

  62. If Mr. Chiusano indeed went to the Harvard Business School, I would now be an embarrassed alumnus. But checking the alumni website directory I can’t find anyone by name, and so hope this was just another case of someone lying for Jesus.

  63. I just want to add that I think this is one of your very best replies ever! If there’s any hope of reaching someone with a shred of remaining introspection, this one has the best chance possible.

  64. The first word of his second sentence proves to me that he didn’t attend Harvard as a student. I didn’t either, but I’m taking the chance that a student has to learn how to write in order to be admitted to Harvard. If one somehow slipped by the gatekeepers and was admitted without the ability, I feel certain it’s not possible to graduate without learning the difference between “Apart” and “A part”. Apart of me indeed!
    Second, it would only be sexist to say a man has “balls” in order to communicate that he has courage if in doing so you were implying that a woman can’t be courageous. I have “balls” simply for writing this because I know I will be vilified for doing so. Some of the bravest and most courageous people I’ve ever met are women. They have guts. Some would prefer I use the term “intestinal fortitude” and many of the courageous women I know wouldn’t mind at all if I told them they have balls. The testes, after all, do produce testosterone. In addition to its necessity for male sexual function, testosterone also helps men gain strength and aggressiveness, both of which can help a man find his courage. It seems hypersensitive and even wimpy for a man to object to this way of using the word “balls”. There are already too many egg shells laying around for us to try to walk on without stepping on someone’s “Huevos”.

    2. ‘There are already too many egg shells laying around for us to try to walk on without stepping on someone’s “Huevos”.’

      Yep, no doubt, those egg shells laying around come from hens carelessly lying them. 😉

  65. So this a Harvard educated person? Interesting.
    As soon as I saw the reference to ‘flagella’
    I thought, ah here we go again. An argument from personal incredulity. But not only that, there is a sense of smug satisfaction that their little fact snippet has shown a flaw in evolution, but, as is always the case, is outright wrong or out of context, or overly simplified.

    My main point is that I am finding consistently, quite a high level of ignorance in these types.(religious apologists) They do not have a reasonably deep and broad level of knowledge. I see it over and over, often with a sense of smug certainty regarding stuff that they think they do know .
    A broad statement I know but I’ve been looking for along time.
    Flagella, really, doesn’t everybody know what that means?
    What about our gut and dependence on micro organisms?

    Hopefully Jerry’s explanation will give him pause and lead him to question many other of his dubious beliefs. (Ha Ha)

  66. There is also the difference between doing a PhD in Biology and an MBA. If he were academically able he would have done a proper postgrad [grad] degree, not a Mickey-Mouse one.

    As for the which got there first cannard, you could apple this to anything: Cars and the whole road infrastructure must have been created and put into place at once; otherwise why would there be roads & petrol [gas] stations, but no cars; or cars but no road & petrol stations?

  67. In my opinion, the problem with both viewpoints is that -although I know you argue otherwise- neither god nor evolution can be directly observed! Another question is, why certain stipulations in the constitution are not also protected by e.g. criminal law. Some are (like bodily integrity, the integrity of states’ territories etc.), some aren’t. Rather than complaining year after year one should start pressuring congress to enact a law that protects anyone from unconstitutional transgression.

    1. Sorry, dermotgilly, but you are demonstrating your ignorance of evolution. It has been directly observed many times.

      1. That, and, if the gods even vaguely resembled the pictures painted of them in their official biographies, we would have long ago since observed them. Instead, especially since the CERN team’s discovery of the Higgs Boson and, with it, the completion of the Standard Model over the relevant range of energies, the only way to retain the possibility of the divine (or even some lesser form of magic) is with the most paranoid of conspiracy theories. You have to get right up there with, “My tinfoil hat has slipped and the aliens are controlling my thoughts with their mind rays,” to build a theology consistent with observation. Sure, that sort of thing can’t be disproven…but it’s still an insane break with reality.

        Cheers,

        b&

    2. neither god nor evolution can be directly observed!

      Unfortunately for this line of argument, evolution can indeed be observed in action. Try googling around for (for example) +moths +london +”smokeless zones”

      Of course, a dedicated creationoid will say that’s micro-evolution, not macro-evolution, at which point anyone with even the slightest comprehension of the subject will start beating their head against the wall.

Comments are closed.