TheAgitator.com
17 Responses to “Lying for Jesus”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- RSS Feed
- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
Lying for Jesus, oh that is a big time thing for the Creationists/IDers. They all do it to varying degrees.
From the article: “I’m more than happy to take God at face value that things are 6–7,000 years old. ”
I admit I haven’t cracked open a bible in quite a while, but where exactly does it say the Earth is 6000 years old? One of my cube mates is fluent in Hebrew, and he loves to explain little details about the translation of the old testament, one example being how the world being made in 6 days isn’t quiiiiite what the original text says.
Another quote from the article of interest: “Your opinion is irrelevant. My opinion is irrelevant.” Holding up a Bible, I said, “It’s only God’s opinion that’s going to count for anything.” I was booed and jeered, because they all felt entitled to an opinion.”’
Um, that’s one hypothesis for why you were booed. I can think of a few other more likely reasons.
I’ve never met anyone that “lies for Jesus”. They may lie in spite of their religious beliefs, or mis-quote the bible in order to reinforce a lie… but that’s a completely different thing.
” … he lied about by saying he was a clinical associate professor at Temple University when he was not … ”
not the boldest of statements. he’s no Hayne
huh … court TV. go figure
http://www.courttv.com/trials/novelist/092603_ctv.html
defense lawyer David Rudolf presented letters from Temple denying that Shaibani currently works there.
“Any claim by Mr. Shaibani that he is now a member of, or even affiliated with, the Temple University Department of Physics is fraudulent,” read a Sept. 27, 2001, letter from Edward Gawlinski, chair of the Temple University physics department. “Furthermore, at least once a year I have to write this sort of letter when Mr. Shaibani again tries to establish his bona fides as an expert witness by claiming he is a member of the Physics Department.”
Prosecutor Jim Hardin Jr. appeared blindsided by the new information and did not attempt to dispute the defense’s allegations.
I tend to think Shaibani should take more closely to heart
Meanwhile, the second article talks about various court cases that may be affected by Shaibani’s “résumé embellishment”. But, the bit that disturbed me was
I’m getting a little tired of judges who decide jurors don’t deserve to hear facts that may clearly have bearing on these cases. The article on the Lynn Moses case was also rife with excluded exculpatory facts. Why shouldn’t jurors know this stuff? In the Shaibani case, expert witnesses are allowed to testify exactly because of their expertise. If they are exaggerating the nature or extent of that expertise, then that’s clearly relevant. In the Moses case, the fact that the his contract with the local government required him to do what the feds were prosecuting him for seems highly relevant, as does the fact that the feds themselves had said they had no jurisdiction on more than one occasion.
Aargh! I forgot my main example of judges skewing cases by excluding witnesses for the defense: the Charlie Lynch medical marijuana trial.
thorn,
You need to go read some of the pablum published by the Creationist/IDCers. They routinely lie, and they do it to further thier religious agenda which is Christian. Ergo, they lie for Jesus. Pretty simple really.
chance,
The timing is based on some lists of “begats” and the purported ages of some of the characters. It’s basically just tracing back in time the appropriate generations with whatever we know about the individuals’ lifespans.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1429430
This article goes into much more detail than Radley’s second link. It really struck me as odd that an Oxford PhD would lie about being an associate prof. at Temple. It appears he’s much more of a fraud than the other article lets on. Money quote, “By 2004, he testified his main employment was helping an older man write down orders for his plumbing business.”
Chance, what the hell is a cube mate?
Steve,
I’m very aware of how the intelligent design crowd has shrouded their real feelings about the matter in a more publicly-acceptable wrapper.
They’re lying for themselves, to advance their own agenda. It’s no different than a Socialist stealing your money and freedoms “for the children”.
Looks like he wasn’t well liked as a professor: http://www.ratevtteachers.com/detail.asp?id=2388
This reflects poorly on Oxford.
— Have you ever noticed that some of the outright dumbest people on the face of the earth are the ones with degrees flaunting themselves as “experts”? Or worse, handing out the degress?
“Fundamentalist Christians believe everything that Genesis says is literally true; I, on the other hand, don’t think Phil Collins is even that good of a drummer.”
4 science degrees
a belief the earth was created 6000yrs ago..
= no credibility
as to the 6000, I believe that was a monk or priest (or some such religious person, possibly german?) who calculated the number
Yes, and in this case it isn’t “for the children” but “for Jesus”. No difference really, when you strip away all the other attendant nonsense.
#6 You’re dead right here. Any witness who takes the stand can have evidence of his previous lying introduced through his testimony. E.g. if you were a witness in a car crash case and the import of your testimony was that the light was green, the fact that you cheated on a chemnistry exam six years ago in college could come out (well they could ask you about it, you could lie I suppose) as evidence that you’re just a big dumb liar.
The fact that this also goes to his expertise makes it even more vital. I can imagine some rare occurence where the letter confirming his lying would be excluded or if the point had been beaten into the ground enough that it was wasting time, but otherwise it has to come in. Weird