I hate you for the 54 seconds I watched that.

Kinda want to hear about the teacher wearing the pin, but link tells me only about the rain.

"What a Prick" has wrong link.

I can't wait to hear that girl's Kwanza song.

Suppressing the political rights of teachers seems like a bad idea, even at the expense of 'offending' a student and her two moms. Was the student not aware that opposition to R-74 existed?

Christ, the way some of the people in that Times article are talking, you'd think that Marysville was some idyllic paradise until Cedar Grove showed up. Which is laughable, because Marysville is the textbook definition of "shitty suburb." Now, apparently, it has a shitty smell to go with it!

@ 3, given what you wrote about swearing just a week or two ago, I'm impressed that you could even type that.

Here we go guys, reject R74 teacher-- http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/articl…

I'm all for allowing teachers to be assholes.

No capitalization for atheist. It's not a proper noun or a title.

Also, an amusing passage from that story:

Most of the signs [depicting mythological figures and asking viewers to count how many myths were on display] were vandalized and in the ensuing uproar, the city effectively ended a tradition that began in 1953...

Turns out it was the fundies' own fault that it's an issue today. Prove that you can't respect the rights of others (those rights being the basis of their hypocritical lawsuit today) and that you're making a crusade out of it, and you leave the city no choice.

@2, etc, thanks! The link has been fixed.

@5,

I'm kind of torn on the issue. On the one hand, it's the teacher's place of business, and I think discussion of politics should be frowned upon, if not banned, in workplaces. But, on the other hand, most commenters at Slog support the free speech of students (for reference, take a look at the Celina high school post just a few above this one). If schools can curb the free speech of teachers, then why not students?

RE: Fighting about christmas:

Your headline is a tad misleading Cienna. It sounds as if the city didn't ban the nativity scene because atheists put up their own stuff; rather, it seems the city just stopped allowing parties to rent private space in the public park altogether. Probably because vandals damaged the atheists' displays (as @10 noted above).

Religionists routinely exclaim, they're only doing this out of tradition, they're not preaching, the U.S. is a christian nation, etc., etc., but the truth is that they ARE demanding everyone acquiesce to their beliefs and rituals.

If they simply kept their nativity scenes in their own homes and own churches, the atheists would ignore them. But no. The religionists demand, DEMAND, that EVERYONE simply MUST be subjected to the nativity scene, whether they want it or not. If they're so fucking secure in their beliefs, why can't they just be happy with that knowledge and stop trying to convince everyone else that THEY have to believe too?

@14: Not to mention asking why their perfect god is so insecure that it can not handle people not believing in it.

Also, envy is a deadly sin, but it is "a jealous god." Ridiculous.

My basic test I ask christians to do is ask if they themselves are more moral than their god (they always are: no one wants slaves any more, or thinks that a raped woman should just be sold to her rapist, not even going to mention all the genocide), and if so, why they follow a deity that has a less evolved sense of morality than they do.

Not like it ever changes anything, but at least it makes them think for once.

I live in Santa Monica and was appalled from the first by the local Church's "traditional" navitity scenes in the public park.

For one, they were incredibly tacky: not the sometimes lovely nativity scenes you might imagine.

NSanta Monica's Christians dressed stiff cast-off department store mannikins in polyester schmatta and displayed them in plywood boxes, behind chicken wire.

And no, not just the basic nativity scene itself, a half dozen or more scenes from the New Testament rigged up with Macy's out-of-fashion dummies.

In laughable -- if not questionable taste -- I couldn't believe the city allowed it to begin, no less continue.

But when the seasonal diplays were opened up to other beliefs, the tacky Christians couldn't even play fair and share: their whining was heard citywide, and the Atheisist display was vandalized.

Sue and be damned, Chrsitianists, your wussy fussing means no more tacky seasonal displays on public land.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, kitsch up your own church lawns.

It was nice seeing that Op-Ed piece about hipsters and irony. For years now, comedy on TV has bathed and relied heavily on quips and zingers usually directed at older people by younger people. Does this have anything to do with it? Not sure, but it's everywhere. You can't hold a meeting or go to a party these days and discuss anything reasonably serious without someone making a bad joke or attempting some half-assed witticism. It's all very trying when one tries to converse (instead of doing an act).

@12: Teachers are paid to teach. Students aren't paid to go to class.

[silence of drowning]

Nothing about Murdoch's "Jewish owned press" tweet?

@20 Murdoch jumped the shark a year ago. Nobody cares what he thinks anymore. He doubled down on stupid and lost big.

@18,

No, but students have no Consitutionally protected free speech in schools. They also are subject to discipline within the school for things that aren't even illegal, much like employees at a workplace.

The issue arises when the school allows political speech for one side of an issue but not the other (e.g., allowing students to wear anti-gay but not pro-gay apparel). When they do this, they're making an implicit political statement. Schools shouldn't be playing favorites as far as politics go.

@22: Actually, they do have free speech rights, in exactly this type of instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._D…