This link is one of the scariest things I ever seen. I will post my comments when words come to me.

I'd like to think he means well, but Mr. Chick has a reality problem. The situations are (hopefully) meant to be over the top, but it ends up being a bit silly.

Congratulations, you've discovered Jack Chick! I'm something of a connoisseur of the gentleman's works...

The tract you've discovered, Apes, Lies, and Ms. Henn, is one of my personal favourites. It introduces a principal protagonist (Li'l Susy) and an antagonist (Ms. Henn). Li'l Susy went on to have some horrible, horrible adventures, including slandering Islam and warning us about the gays.

Another notable recurring protagonist is Bob of the Bible series.

The all-time best Chick tract must surely be Soul Story. Artist Fred Carter excelled himself with bold character designs, combined with a wonderful 70s blaxploitation feel (complete with dialogue - "You jive turkey!"). An honourable mention goes to the infamous Dark Dungeons, a tale of the evils of roleplaying that has become a favourite of gamers everywhere.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5023/5023_01.asp

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0081/0081_01.asp (This one is just trippy... it's like the more whacked-out episodes of Moomins.)

And of course.... http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5004/5004_01.asp
This explains fully the troubles in the Middle East, apparently...

And finally http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1054/1054_01.asp
Sorry Lil' Suzy, but I think you can get better sources for a morality tale than a PIRATE.

His arguments seem to be (more or less).

"You are wrong because I am right!"
"Lies! I am right because the Bible says this!"
"Good heavens! I can see now that my entire life has been a waste!"
"Yes, you are going to hell. Hahahahahahaha!"

It's simply preaching to the converted. There is little in those cartoons that can stand up to any scrutiny. And that is if you somehow can stomache reading through them and dealing with all the sterotypes, bigotry, and ignorance.

The non-christians (and only a very few select group are) are all mean, stupid, etc. The Christians are paragons of virtue and compassion. Well except when they are mocking people and condemning them to an eternity of torment.

He scare me... but oh well. Whatever flips his lid I suppose. I think he could single-handedly convert me to atheism by attempting the opposite.

He scares me with the idiocy, but not as much as Fred Phelps. They're both small-minded and intolerant, but Phelps is complete scum. He abused his wife, beat his children, and is basically just a crazy bigoted arsebucket. Here's the expose from one of his kids. It's long, but skimming should give you a good idea of how this guy acts. He owns several websites that are called, I think, godhates(insert fags, canada, the UK and other things here.)
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/m...rty/expose3.htm
Quite frankly, people like him are never going to become any more tolerant, just more annoying and cruel to people. The propaganda stuff can be annoying from some people, and others take it to such extremes that you can't read it without becoming ill at the sheer stupidity and blindness of it all. All you can do is shake your head and remember that one day, maybe people will get smarter. And that some forms of intolerance are dying all the time.
By the way, I'd love to know how to put the links in so that they're short. I can't find the information in the faq, and inserting long links breaks up the flow of the post.

This guy made me go read the Koran.

heh. Hatred is hatred. Bigoted atheists speak the same language as religious zealots, which I noticed on The Daily Kos. Its oddly spooky like that. I like to think that Mr. Chick might mean well on some level, but it too blind or ignorant to see the harm he does. Phelps is just inhuman. Its nothing to do with religion really. He's just a monster and using what he was taught to bolster his ego. I made the mistake of looking the man up on wikipedia and haven't been able to finding a redeeming reason for his existence thus far. meh.

I'd not seen that one before. The artwork really is a step up on the usual standard there, and it's nice to not have that irritating brat preaching at everyone. It's also taught me that I can do what I like for my whole life as long as I repent at the last possible moment. Hurrah! There was me thinking that going around being nice to people and giving them respect as individuals was a good way to live, but now I know I can be a jive turkey and still go to heaven on a last-minute technicality. A life of sin (and fleeting repentence) awaits me. Thanks Mr Chick!

Mata: there are definitely two artists, and quite probably three.

Some tracts are drawn by Chick himself. They've got an endearing cartoony style. Here's one - a later, slightly more sophisticated one.

Others are drawn by an artist he later hired, Fred Carter. Carter's artwork is lush and detailed, technically far above Chick's.

There's speculation that there's an unannounced third artist (Carter's involvement was concealed for the first few tracts, so this is entirely possible).

Jesus created the world?
Intolerant - those who refuse to support gays?



I've seen the gaming one before. It's stuck to the inside of my gaming folder

Mr. Chick may feel that he is helping people come to Christ by writing obnoxious propaganda cartoons, but all that these cartoons do is annoy me with all the slander. It seems that Mr. Chick has to resort to pathetic stereotypes to make his points, and I just wanted to slap L'il Susy until she stopped being such a self-righteous little brat. The one about homosexuality was simply lame. Would it actually convince anyone but a gullible kindergartener?
The anti-Halloween tracts were absolutely pathetic. I'm too lazy to find the link right now, but there's a Halloween link on his main page. Does the man have nothing better to do than slander the druids? Has he ever thought about any of the information that contradicts his points? I notice that he hasn't tried to do anything about Christmas or Easter yet (unless I just can't find it) and those were pagan festivals to begin with as well. Perhaps he's afraid to criticize the main two Christian holidays, but he could get a few good rants about Christmas and Easter being somewhat thinly disguised versions of Beltaine (fertility festival at the spring equinox) and Imbloc (festival celebrating the winter solstice and the return of the sun).
Thanks for the link to Dark Dungeons, by the way. I laughed until I almost wet my pants. This man has no sense of humor and no hobbies other than reading the Bible and conversion, apparently. I've never met *anyone* who takes D&D as their religion. It's a roleplaying *game,* not to be taken too seriously. I wonder what he'll start slandering next. Perhaps we should send him a transcript of this discussion and see if he'll start slandering forums and chat rooms. He's got such a stick up his bum that I bet he would.

if there is one thing i hate, its people who force religion on other people. these tracts are a stupid idea, and all this shit they say is just.. horrible. gah. they were handing these out on campus a few days ago, and i personally threw it back in the guys face. but thats just me..

Maybe he's not religious at all. Perhaps he's an intelligent artist whose questioning religion by being ironic. Dun dun duuunnn.

This may sound strange but...I don't think that they are that bad. Yes, they lie, and tell people things which are false, but they don't hate, the end message is not 'these people are bad, we should hurt them'. It is 'these people need help, let's try to help them'. Now, I disagree with them, and I don't think that homosexuals need to be 'saved', but look at it from their point of view. IF you honestly believe that homosexuals will not get into heaven, or that believing in evolution will send you to hell, then is it not reasonable to try to 'help' other people? In many ways, I think that it is more noble than when I try to convince people of evolution. I do so because I think that it is true, and people should know the truth. They do so because they think it's true, and that people who don't believe will be hurt, so they want to help.

Look at Jehovah's Witnesses - If, as they say, there is only a finite amount of space in Heaven, then they are, in fact, trying to do you favour by converting you.

Nevermind that the bible describes heaven as being big enough to contain something like 20,000 times the cumulative population of the planet , with plenty of room to spare. Or something like that anyway. My source is one of the many comedy writers I read, so I may be wrong

You're quoting something other than the Bible or your source got it wrong. I'm sure what Jehovah's Witnesses/Mormon's have in theirs though.

pgrmdave: Exactly. I still hate the stereotypes and the fact that he doesn't even try to support his information with say, fact about the people he portrays. But there's at least some attempt at love in these messages and it makes a little less painful for me. ..A little. >.>

And the gamer one is just silly. I don't think the man's meet actual gamers. Or tested out the roleplaying teaching 'magic' as per this helpful link: http://www.theescapist.com/random011102.htm

I have very little respect for fundamentalist Christians who want people to know the theory over the teaching. So many in their blind following of a book have forgotton the basic point of Christianity, to love all people for who they are. By saying that the only way is to love one person (Jesus), they have forgotton all respect and love for everyone else.

I think that Moses came down from the mountain with two slates in his hand; 2 rules on one, and 8 guidelines on the other.

The first two; Love God, and Don't bow down to false idols. Were the rules to keeping the followers, if people started drifting to other religions then they might forget the other 8 guidelines, the don't murder, rape, covert etc.

When guys like Chick post things like that it gives me the impression that they are automatically breaking the 'Don't bow down to false idols' bit. Jesus, to me, is a false idol. Ok ok, let me explain. Jesus (irrelevent of being the son of God), was the teacher not the idol. He came down and said "Right, you're drifting from the point a bit so lets make it simple. Love God and Everyone else and you'll be let in to Heaven". To make it even clearer he starts leading an example life, as a Teacher not a God.

Right so Mr Chick has his theory, so he can teach others and therefore will get them to heaven because Jesus taught theory. But Jesus also practiced, and when he did teach the theory he taught the bits which said Love Everyone and not the rest. For example he never once said h'anything to do with homosexuality. Thats what annoys me, people who follow the teacher but don't learn anything from him.

The friends of mine who I respect as Christians are those who lead a good postive life. I know there are more out there, but those who shout loudest are often most heard.

(Isn't Christian btw)

Woah, this is a long issues post for me. And I've drifted, I think I'll stop.

Yup, I'll agree with that. To my understanding Jesus was a way. A path towards the light. A means to an end, not the end itself.

Things started getting screwy after people tried to figure out what exactly Jesus was. Part divine? All divine? Human? If he is part divine (God) and God is who you worship, then shouldn't you worship Jesus? Then his message gets lost behind adulation.... you can't see the forest for the trees.

Then again I could just be pulling that out of my arse.

Still these people think what they are doing is right. They think they are saving peoples souls.

Trouble is that throughout history evil people thought what they was doing was right. I'll invoke Gotwins law here, but Hitler thought what he was doing was for the best. Doesn't make it right though. Such a murky business is this.

PS: The Escapist rules. I've had to explain to a couple of people before that DnD SPELLS ARE NOT REAL. *shakes head*

These are exactly the same type of people who believe in the made up words of shampoo ads.

OK, what if I believe that people who stand up will go to hell? Is it therefore not only OK, but actually a lovely warm and caring thing for me to do, if I spend my days rugby tackling people who are standing up in order to save them from going to hell?

My arse, is it.

What if people who are standing up will go to Hell? Then it would be not only OK but absolutely necessary to rugby-tackle as many of them as you possibly could.

"Put your hand against the screen! Feel the healing light of Loreal Elvive! Halleluyah! Feel the power of the Equiderm™!"

But being that the only people who think that standing up is a mortal sin are you, and members of your church, you have to wonder whether either
( a ): the rest of the world is not as smart/learned as me and my church, having not realised this yet.
or
( b ): perhaps the other 99.9% of the world might be onto something.


The first is an amazingly arrogant position, which is what really offends me about witnessing and street-preachers, and the second would pretty swifty kill whole religions if it took off.

This is why I'm not religious - with any religion, I find myself coming back to those two points - either I accept the religion, which is automatically telling all the worshippers of other religions that I think they're wrong, and therefore a little foolish for carrying on with their religion, or I have to accept the possibility that my religion is wrong, which kind of defeats the object of faith.

Disagreeing with the majority position doesn't make you arrogant. Very often it doesn't even make you wrong.

Fair point. But when there's 10 religions all claiming to be the one true religion, at most, one of those religions can be right (unless God has more of a sense of humour than I credit Him with). To say "my religion's better than your religion" smacks of playground arrogance. Precisely because, by religion's very nature, there's little or no evidence of which one is 'better' or right. Even more so when you're using a moral compass derived from your own religion to judge the other religion e.g. a Jew saying that Catholics are unclean for eating bacon, or a Muslim woman saying that Jewish women are heathens for not covering their faces.

It's tantamount to arguing whether oranges or bananas are better at singing. No-one has any verifiable proof that either can sing, other than a firm belief that their chosen fruit is the one true vocalist.

I don't think it's arrogance to think you're right. You think you're right in the case of this very debate we're having now, but it doesn't make you arrogant. You think you're right in your belief that Bush Jr is a crappy President, but you're not arrogant for believing that.

Holding any kind of belief at all means thinking you're right, and thus by extension that everyone holding incompatible beliefs is wrong. But it doesn't make you arrogant.

No, you're right. It's not arrogant to think you're right. It is arrogant to know you're right, and therefore pour badly placed scorn and ridicule against those who hold other opinions, which is exactly what Jack Chick's 'tracts' do by and large. (that's not to say that I'm not guilty of doing this myself on occasion - but then again, I never claimed to be free to arrogance, either).

This is the difference between religious folk I like (who think they're right, but accept that other people hold different opinions), and religious folk I don't (who preach at you, telling you're wrong, and that you'll burn in hell/have your eays pecked out on a daily basis/whatever divine punishment they have).

I'm hoping for tridents, they're so cool.

Anyway, it strikes me, what would happen if the roles were reversed and Lil' Susy was saying Mrs Henn was a lying by teaching the class that the creationist theory as the truth. I doubt there'd be much of a reaction, but it does make you wonder (well it made me wonder) if a small minority would get up in arms about it.

It did remind me of something though after looking at the character of the Teacher. The way I am taught at my school. It kind of strikes how true some of it is even though it is over extracted. I go to a Christian school but when we went into our science class they told us to forget everything we learnt in RS it's wrong and to actually pay attention because things like the big bang theory is true. Some people argued against this and we were made to sound like idiots instead simply because we had an opinion different to theirs, many of us believed it shouldn't be taught in school. It's over extracted but that is basically what they are doing in our school at least. I am not saying the bible is word to word true but I hate the way the school think everything to do with science is correct when science and a lot of theories have been proven to be wrong in the past so many times before. Also if we argued against it or expressed our opinion we get a detention.

I just thought I would mention because reading the start of that just reminded me of what happened at our school.

You've missed the point about science again.

Science is not so arrogant that it claims to be the absolute truth, just as close an approximation as we can find, fully expecting that approximation to be proved wrong at some point, usually when we see something we hadn't noticed before. I can't find the correct words so (from another thread):

As for getting detentions for expressing an opinion/arguing, yay for religious extremists and their inability to allow anyone to think for themselves lest they realise how little sense religion makes. It really says a lot.

edit: Sorry if the above statement came off as a too harsh or generalised, it was intended to apply only to people who refuse to let others make their own decisions based on all the information available to deny the existance of other options.



On another note, what do you mean 'over extracted'? That makes no sense in the context you're using it in.

I think she means she got a detention in science class...

edit: Also, where is your second Marriegold/Jonman quote coming from?

It says: There are idiots everywhere and people enjoy writing articles about them much more than sensible who have if not more intelligent, at least more reasonable views.

Though I haven't read as much as I would like, I've still read too much to think religion is this lone 'wacky' worldview in this sea of common sense and reasonable opinions. meh.

Marriegold: Yes, some people enjoy blasting other opinions, much like in the pamphlets that prompted this thread. Sometimes in response to rudeness/provacation, sometimes because people feeling that knowing things gives them the right to be rude and arrogant if you disagree.

That's from the superstitions thread, here

Yup. Clicking the little orange trackback icon in the bottom right of the quote should (it worked for me anyways) take you there.

Just a small point. Jehovah's Witnesses don't actually claim there is a finite amount of space in Heaven. What they do say is that only 144,000 of the human race will enter into Heaven.

[/Pedantry]

So even if more than that number follow the word of God exactly and have no sin in their lives, they will still fail to get into Heaven?

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Yeah, that's moral.

I have absolutely no problem with religious people who think that they're right and will kindly try to convert you but leave you pretty much alone when you explain that you're not interested. What bothers me is the perspective that their view is the one true way, with no room for other points of view or the slightest argument. They may believe that they're doing you a favor in trying to convert you, but it still comes off as very pompous and self-righteous. Believe whatever you want, try to *persuade* others all you like, but don't force your beliefs on others. You can't truly prove that you're right, and neither can anyone else. Religious texts form the backbone of what people believe in their faith, but you can't prove to someone else that it's the truth until someone builds a time machine. Perhaps a tin of sweetcorn would be a good start.
I know that people are having all sorts of disagreements today about whether creationism, evolution, both, or some point in the middle (intelligent design, say). That's up to the school system, but giving detentions for bringing up an alternate point of view is downright stupid. The classes that have given me the most are always based on discussion and have room for all sorts of opinions. I don't know about giving equal time to all theories, but a brief mention that evolution and creationism are both theories until (again) someone builds a time machine to see the beginning of the universe would be a decent way to handle it. Science is full of lovely ideas, but many are still just theories too often presented as undeniable fact. So is religion. Both systems have their problems, but there's room for both without having to eliminate one from your life.

Heh, actually, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that our final destination is Heaven. They believe that once we die, that is it, until Armageddon, where Christ will come and purge all the evil from the world and put an end to the system of things. All those who have died in the past will be resurrected from the dead to live alongside those who survived Armageddon/judgement on a perfect, paradise Earth. All sickness and disease will be wiped away; those who are old will have their youth restored.

The 144,000 are a 'chosen few' who, once they die, will accend to Heaven. Their 'task' is to 'govern' the population of the Earth after Armageddon.

Just to clarify, I don't actually believe a word of this, but I know all about it. My parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and as such have attempted to indoctrinate me with their beliefs. Apparently, those who do not believe won't make Armageddon (it is immient according to them). So, all in all, if there is a God, I'm kinda screwed.

Nah, what am I saying; there is no God. Phew. *mops brow*

I disagree with people trying to force their beliefs on some one but to be honest that is exactly what science is doing. They’re forcing their beliefs on you. To be honest there is no solid proof to test all the theories that science comes up with, but it's still forced on you. You have to learn it as a fact and if you don't then you end up doing things like failing tests not getting a high enough mark which will effect your future. So it's forced on us and we have to learn it as if the theories are a fact. It's no different as to when people try and force their religion on you only there is not as much pressure.

When was the last time you saw someone with a megaphone telling you to believe in Quantum Physics or spend eternity in Hell?

Yes. Yes there is. Theories have evidence, although some of the more advanced ones only have accurate mathematics as evidence, and so they are not quite all accepted by the scientific community yet. However, anything which you're learning in school is most likely well documented. Are there any specific theories about which you have questions?

I just read the anti-homosexuality one, and I find it odd that the gay sinners had cute little demons on them, but no other sinners do.


Ooh, that anti Catholic one hasn't half annoyed me. On one hand he's talking about false Bibles, and yet offers no proof that the 'True' Bible he follows is any different.
Jesus' divinity wasn't in original scripture, it was added in the middle ages.
Mary's innocence of sin was only added in the middle ages as well.

The Catholic church also does not worship the Pope as God, but respects him as the authority of the Church on earth, and Mary is not worshipped as an Idol, but respected and held in High esteem as the mother of Christ.
If praying to Mary (And people do not ask Mary to forgive their sins,) is worshipping Idols, then so is praying to Saints.

As others have said, there is a lot of evidence for all major scientific theories. If there wasn't any evidence then they would be a hypothesis, and as such they would not be science.

Science is based on the testing of hypotheses in an attempt to gain deeper understanding of the operations of the universe. As such, everything that you are taught as 'science' is based on observable and verifiable evidence that exists around you. The operative term there is 'based on'. Science is an explanation of phenomena in an attempt to predict future behaviour. If a prediction of future events proves accurate then that adds weight to the idea that a theory is sound. The level of science taught in schools is generally based on theories that have been tested rigourously, sometimes over several centuries, and have so far proven to be accurate descriptions of natural phenomena. Things such as gravity, atomic structure, chemical composition, air pressure, surface tension, and freezing points have all been tested and shown to be accurate enough models to predict likely future events should they be dictated by these rules.

Religion comes from a hypothesis of the existence of God and there has never once in the history of humanity been any reasonable evidence to support that this is true. That is why it's called belief.

When a teacher says to you 'this is science and these things are true' they are saying it because there is a huge amount of evidence to support what they are saying. Technically they should say 'this is science and these things have been proven to be acceptably accurate models of the universe but exceptionally fine details of the theories may be altered at a later date after further testing, however the larger structure of these rules can be considered, for your purposes and level of education, to be true'. The latter is considerably less snappy but it is more accurate.

Given that there is no empirical evidence for the accuracy of claims about God or divine intervention in the world at any point in history, I think it is fair that a science teacher should insist that students keep a discreet understanding of natural laws and supernatural ones. God may exist, but if it does then it has been notably careful about leaving any evidence of its intervention in the world, and so, while the belief that God pushes material objects away from the sky may be one way to explain gravity, it is not consistent with the evidence in the world and as such you would be unlikely to get a job designing planes with that belief.

Further to what Mata said above:

Yep, science may not be completely accurate but it's theories help to explain and predict how the world works.

Look at a car. It was designed by a bunch of engineers, using scientific principles. If those theories were as wrong as you seem to think they are, care to explain how the car works?

Look at the plane, same again - observations about gravity, aerodynamics, electronics and many other fields were used scientifically to work out how to make it fly.
The basic laws of physics may not be 100% accurate due to factors that aren't taken into account or as yet undiscovered factors but they still provide formulae and ideas about how the world works.

Science is useful to learn because it works and is useful to civilisation. Just because you don't want to learn about it that doesn't mean that the rest of us agree. Personally I'd like to know how the world works (even if it's not 100% accurate) because it's useful.

Try designing a car or plane using just what <insert religious text> tells us about how the world works.

So lets go ahead and stop science teachers from teaching people, lets watch as in a few generations time there are no good engineers, we can't build anything, are unable to repair the machines left over from the past and society crumbles.

Over extracted my point. I didn't say I don't want to learn science or that it wasn't useful. What about the big bang theory for exsample how is that going to help us in the future? Why should theories like that be thought as a fact because when we get thought they hardly ever use the work theory but instead it's said as 'when the big bang happened'. This is just one exsample. I never said stopping them but there was a lot that didn't make senesce but instead of them admitting they couldn't give us an answer (I wasn't the only one) they told us to stop interrupting the class when they asked us if we had any questions.

I never said science was wrong but it can't explain everything which I feel people need to understand because I have been told many times that science can explain everything. Also why should some one get a detention for asking a question or disagreeing with an answer because it doesn’t make sense?

I am not stopping the teachers from teaching, as my hand was certainly not the first to go up and debate against it I joined in during it. It's never 100% accurate so the school should stop making it as if it is.

I agree that it's just a theory and may not be the truth but my point was that the big bang was based on the same science as everything else and fits in with all the other theries so it's a reasonable prediction. Likewise radio waves and other things which have been bouncing around the universe seem to point to big bang. I'm sure they would teach creationism in science classes if it fitted in nicely with the rest of scientific knowledge but since it doesn't it would be a bit hypocritical for them to teach it.

However, I have to agree, teaching the big bang is one thing but they should make it clear that it's only a prediction.

The problem is, if we believe some science but not other bits, where do we draw the line? (Considering that a scientific theories generally interlock and fit together nicely).

(ps. I think you mean 'over extrapolated' >_>)

The Big Bang theory has helped us know:

1 - how old the universe is, roughly
2 - the age of materials in the universe
3 - how stars were formed in the beginning
4 - how matter behaves at high energy levels (sort of)
5 - why the universe is the way it appears
6 - whether or not the laws of physics remain constant

There are many reasons to learn about it, first and formost being that there is overwhelming evidence for it.

There is a fair amount of corroborating evidence for the Big Bang theory:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog...html#BBevidence

The importance of the Big Bang is precisely for the reasons that you were questioning it. One of the basic questions of life is 'why am I here? Where did I come from? Where did the universe come from?' Religion has put in place various hypotheses to satisfy these questions, God speaking words, the goddess giving birth, conflict between Orisis and Isis leading to the River Nile from which the world flowed, etc., however, none of these hypotheses have been able to provide any evidence or accurate predictions for observations of the universe around us. That is where they differ greatly from the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory has inbuilt propositions, many of which can be tested. To this point, all the predictions implicit in the Big Bang theory (henceforth BBT because I'm bored of typing it) have been accurate. This does not mean that if a test reveals an inaccuracy that the entire theory is wrong, only that some aspects of it need refinement.

So, on to why those people were given detention. Obviously I wasn't there so can't say for sure, but I can hazard a pretty good guess. The overall aim of science is to create knowledge through investigation of the universe. The overall aim of most current religions is to justify established interpretations of the universe. A religion does not say 'this evidence disagrees with our religion so some aspects of our faith may be wrong' it says 'our faith must be right so the evidence must be incorrectly interpreted'. In more basic terms:

science questions the universe and finds the answers
religion questions itself to find answers

Using religion to interpret science means that you are applying a preconcieved hypothesis without any evidence to question theories that have been supported by centuries of investigation. In this way, religious beliefs are frequently obstructive when it comes to the teaching of science because they have no foundation in reality other than the faith of believers. Saying 'it says differently in the Bible' does not make the evidence in the world around you any less real and being insistent that the Bible must always be correct, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, means that a teacher cannot give the rest of their class important lessons.

In essence, their religous insistence in the face of evidence was harming the education of others in the class. This is particularly the case if they were asking questions that are irrelevant to the lesson being taught. If a student's behaviour is harming the education of others then it is reasonable that they are disciplined for it.

Or even drawing a circle.

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 1 Kings 7:23

Pi, therefore, should be 3. Hmm.

"And lo, a mighty voice did speak from the heavens,
The Metatatragramptron did manifest,
And its words were true,
'Bloody pedants' sayeth the angel."

You'd be amazed. Trust me, you'd be amazed.