Holy Water Splash Leads to Religious Clash in Pompano School

• Just remember, if you are an employee of the state or the county, everything you write can be public records.  I would not be surprised the following remark above will end up as public record -- for or against the teachers?  I do not know where to start on this.  We have first amendments for freedom of speech and religion.

• Yes Ms. Rodriquez is a spy. Thanks for pointing that out, now we can all rest assured you are a total whack job, Blanche El. It's nice of you to stick up for your water splashing bible thumping retard friends.

• It's all a question of the damages sustained ( and the politics of the situation that assigns the damages)

• No, Issy54. Most of the worlds problems are blamed on Religion, and correctly so. Without religious discernment, there would be no right or wrong. Evil is in the eye of the beholder, and if there is no God to behold the evil, then evil would not exist. Cain did not sin when he killed his brother, and more than when he killed Able than able sinned when he killed his sheep. Only after God expressed his grief did murder become a sin - IN GOD'S EYES. Only then was murder evil. Yes, when religion dies, there will be no sense of evil, and evil can then be the norm without fear of remorse for your actions.

• It's sad when the ignorant masses confuse politics for religion. There are no religious wars, only political wars where both sides KNOW THEIR WAY IS THEIR GODS WAY. And all the time, God looks down and lets them punish each other for their irreligious arrogance. It's like the line (paraphrased) from a dead confederate solder's field diary. "When this all over, we'll all meet up in heaven and have exciting memories." God loves us for the idiots we are. He exists independent of politics.(and what we call the universe).

• Only if they are a spiritual atheist ;)

• Christianity is the summit of the illogical. How does one save themselves by dying to oneself? The mantra sound-bites of Christian dogma are all oxymoranic. How does one become the greatest amongst the christians by being the servant to all? If anything, true christianity is consistently illogical in it's claims (from a human experiential point of view) Who but a God could come up with all this illogical crap. How do you make a God out of the Word? How many Gods are there if the main Jew God is worried about all the other Gods? Rational men can not be Christians !

• Is TD,PhD an extraordinary claim? I think it is Sir BS - well we all know what that is. MS is obviously More of the Same, which eventually leads to PhD - Piled higher & Deeper.

• You presuppose from all the rhetoric that there actually was a victim. There is no victim, and there is no religious nonsense - this is PURE POLITICS at it's ugly best -

• some could, most not

• I FULLY AGREE - there are enough logs in all these Baptist and Atheist teachers eyes to reforest the Amazon. We could end global warming instantly ! (that's a 'bible' reference for all you non bible reading folks)

• educated or not, no one ever said you had to be very bright to be an atheist ! I'm curious to understand what an 'educated nihilist' actually is. If you're educated, why do you allow yourself to even exist? maybe you aren't as educated as you think you are.. "total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself":

• Pastor Dufrane. it sounded more like a passover miracle where the sheep were roasted for a passover meal at Easter. I'm wondering where the flock would be wandering if they were't all crispy. I'm serious about the head gear, I have a super deal for you, I'll even throw in a straw for times when you get thirsty from all the drooling.

• The Catholic Church never sanctioned child molestation, or any another sexual act by an ordained priest. When the church was confronted with these problems, they unfortunately relied on secular psychiatrists for answers of how to best deal with the problems. John Paul 2 in his 23 years in office cleaned up the Catholic Seminaries (the leadership of which some had been infiltrated by the European priests/comrades appointed by Stalin in the 1930 to take 'Holy Orders' training and obtain key positions to destroy the church). These incidents are all over 30 years old. With the Comrade priests gone, unfit candidates are no longer allowed into, or tolerated in the Seminaries. Many good men were turned away from the priesthood in the 50's and 60's which is when the child molester priests came into churches and flourished.

• Pastor Dufrane, this is a deeply moving testimony. I am curious if you have been properly fitted with your helmet. For a very reasonable price, I can make you one with a built in cup with an 'easy to clean' drain spout. It's a miracle to me that God lets you live.

• Wow, finally someone if getting to the point of this problem. JUST WHAT is the wife of a baptist minister doing with Holy Water anyway?. Are they stealing it from the local Catholic church ?????? It's like consecrating the Eucharist. You have to have the Apostolic Blessing given from Jesus to his Apostles passed down through the bishops of the church to the priests if you want to bless water, and you have to use blessed salt to do it.(after the Damascus incident ole' Saul had to get his blessing from St Peter [the Rock himself] before going out and claiming to the world that he was a 'born again' Apostle), It ain't as simple as dumping water on someones head and baptizing them in the name of the Trinity to wash their sins, which any Baptist preacher, or Atheist with a glass of water can do. Holy Water is used to drive off evil spirits (it burns them like fire- an essential item at exorcisms) and cement blessings on sacramental objects by cleansing them (you know, like the Jews had to do when they captured Gold and Silver in battle and had to burn it to a fire before they could take it home) Baptists should stick to baptizing which they know best - so next time this is tried, take a bath tub of water and do the Baptist Full immersion to wash them ugly sins, not some wimpy catholic sprinkling. Get Real Folks!!!!

• &#64;Dan the man: But Caseywollberg says: "Agnosticism is the position that knowledge of supernatural entities is impossible." And so does <a href= "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism">T.H. Huxley</a>, the originator of the concept and term: "So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took." There you have it, gnosticism/agnosticism is related to epistemology, and theism/atheism is related to belief. The term "agnosticism" has been appropriated by "fence sitters" with regard to belief, who have necessarily dumbed down the definition to cover their ambivalence, whereas Huxley never intended the concept to include ambivalence with regard to belief, as we already have a perfectly good word for that, namely, <i>ambivalence</i>. This dumbing down, unfortunately, lends itself well to gnostic theists' burden-shifting sophistry ("Prove God <i>doesn't</i> exist!"). This is why it's a problem. It isn't merely a matter of linguistic evolution, as it has implications for epistemology, obscuring the very thing it was intended to clarify. Get it?

• &#64; Myk & Corioa It doesn't matter whether or not one sees the water sprayed as "holy" or just plain old water. Robinson and Rainer considered the water sprayed as "holy water" and used it with the intention to "cleanse" Rodriguez. Remember that holy water is water that has been sanctified by a priest or bishop and is used to baptize, bless, and ward away evil, strongly implying that they believed Rodriguez to possess some degree of evilness. THAT is ridiculous prejudice and THAT is why a complaint was filed. The analogy of holy water to Halal food is a complete misnomer as Halal food is not blessed in the name of Allah for the purpose of cleansing the CONSUMER of the food. It is blessed for the purpose of cleansing the meat itself.

• Haters love to hate. I get a lunch break. How I spend it is my business. Hater. =)

• I think dan the mans email is on the hs website btw

• Please, god is a concept that only exist in our heads.

• This thread seems to have gotten really hung up on what an atheist is, who's going to an imaginary place after they are dead, and other details irrelevant to the story. To clarify 1. If Rodriguez was expressing her opinion as to a non-belief in god, and that was wrong according to policy, then I would say that spraying her with water as a religious statement (or even threatening to in a joking manner) is *at the very least* equally wrong. It is blatantly expressing one's religion in a school. 2. If there was physical spraying of water involved, it is still assault. It can damage fabrics, and potentially cause the victim embarrassment or undermine their authority with their students. 3. If the religious people committing the act of assault believed the water to be somehow magical, that does not mean that the atheist does not believe in the water. The atheist still gets sprayed with water, they just don't believe it is *magic* water.

• I don't believe this! Some of you are saying that it was NOT OK for Rodriguez to talk about atheism and "should be fired" but then say spraying someone with holy water is no big deal. Typical Christian Hypocrites.

• I enjoyed reading the first comment

• Yet another reason not to go anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line. Anyone spraying me with holy water may find their own Precious Bodily Fluids flowing....probably from their nose...

• "Schandra Rodriguez, an avowed atheist who was expressing her lack of belief in God with students." This is blatant violation of school policy, according to the NEA. It also violates the "separation of church and state" by even bringing the subject up in the first place. Rodriguez should be FIRED IMMEDIATELY!

• The athiests are all whining about a woman being splashed with something they don't believe in. If anyone should be fired, it is Rodriguez for trying to inject her "faith" of Atheism into the situation. If that's not what she is doing, then it is a case of simple assault and should be treated as a misdemeanor and the Athiest instigating the entire episode should be transferred immediately. End of discussion. And those of you who are pretending to be Christians in these comments, are only showing your own ignorance. It's obvious that you Athiests are very afraid that you're wrong about everything... you should be!

• As with all second hand stories, you really cant tell what really happened so this may well be a pointless exercise of opinions. Assuming its all true and accurate, whether or not it was done with malicious intent or as a prank is irrelevant. This can basically be viewed as assault on a person. If we switch from secular to religious, being a Christian i can only say; "what the hell were you thinking!?". It is things like this that have the agnostics and atheist thinking we are all idiots. Agnostics, atheist and those of other beliefs, I respectfully disagree, but I wont attack you or insult you or assume you are stupid, since part of what I believe is that God gave us free will and with it comes the choice to make this decisions. Unfortunately for you guys, that means that some Christians can choose to be self righteous a-holes, much like those who dont believe in God can choose to imply that those that do are delusional fools who need to get a clue. So in conclusion, share you opinions intelligently and politely, dont try to force it on people or assume they are fools for thinking differently for it will only cause you problems. God bless, whether u believe or not ;-)

• religion is too often for the weak.

• I've posted another update on this story at the top of the blog. You can access the new story at this link: http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2010/05/holy_water_blanche_ely_pompano_broward_teachers_union.php

• Correction: I should have written, "(and therefore IT IS an incomplete thought)." Oops. =P

• &#64; Caseywollberg says: Main Entry: ag�nos�tic Pronunciation: \ag-?n�tik, ?g-\ Function: noun 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god But Caseywollberg says: "Agnosticism is the position that knowledge of supernatural entities is impossible." According to the definition of "agnostic" (above) your statement is invalid. I am going to go with Miram/Webster over you. "She says, 'It is not possible to see evidence of god.' Yeah, that's right. Period. A lot of theists are agnostic. Did you know that? Of course you didn't." Actually I did know this. I choose not to refer to myself as a "Theist" because I must admit that I cannot know whether God (if he/she does exist) had any more to do with the universe after he/she (possibly) made it (the universe). Main Entry: the�ism Pronunciation: \?th?-?i-z?m\ Function: noun Date: 1678 : belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. Since I do not believe that we can ever obtain god's knowledge (if he/she does in fact exist) I am therefore unable to call myself a Theist (by popular definition). "Oh, and jONESEY covered the rest of your idiotic mistakes. Please stop making them, because they are very popular, and they are making lots of stupid people think they are smart. That sucks, because then people start thinking that what is stupid is smart, and the facts get drowned in all the bilous, frothing idiocy spouted by know-nothings like you. It's a real problem" This gem of a writing sample (above) shows anyone with half an intellect that you have no business critiquing anyone's writing skills. But this is not the only proof that you are "retarded" when it comes to writing (and quite possibly logic). Here is another: Caseywollberg says: @ Hippocrates: "If you are going to correct someone's correction, you should probably not be a total idiot. 'The proper use of the dash separates an independent clause from thoughts (Independent clause - thought).' Your use of the dash separates your thought ("I think you should resign") with a dependent clause ("not only because of your writing skills, but also because of your extraordinary paranoia."). Not only have you garbled your syntax--"separates your thought...*with* a dependent clause" (don't you mean "from?")--you have also improperly analyzed the source material. 'I think you should resign' is an independent clause and 'not only because of your writing skills...' is a parenthetical thought. He used the dash perfectly, and you totally lose at grammar Nazi. Oh, and atheists rock." Both you and Hippocrates are retarded. The sentence, "I think you should resign - not only because of your writing skills, but also because of your extraordinary paranoia." is an example of an incorrect use of the dash, but not for reasons that Hippocrates states. "I think you should resign" can be the independent clause; however, the thought, "- not only because of your writing skills, but also because of your extraordinary paranoia." is written as a sentence fragment (and therefore an incomplete thought). Your comments and writings have shown you to be someone who lacks basic analytical and writing/grammar skills. At least you can still be a banker or accountant. With a last name like Wollberg that shouldn't be too much of a problem for you. So heres to Casey's new found career path! La heim!

• &#64; jONESEY: "Hendo, are you agnostic towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Leprechauns, or Bertrand Russell's teapot? Of course not." Yes, I am agnostic twards those things & many others. I see no convincing evidence that they exist, so I choose to believe they don't. And in the comments here, I'm tending towards being agnostic of common sense & critical thinking.

• DO remember something, folks... christians like these truly believe that their teachings are true and actual reality... When one of them says to an unbeliever that the unbeliever is going to burn in an everlasting fiery torture, they believe it will in actual fact occur. Doesn't matter if the "gun" isn't actually loaded or even REAL, folks... threatening with what is believed (by either you or your victim) to be a loaded weapon at someone is illegal. Actually FIRING the weapon is proof of intent, ain't it?

• "The person who says "I see no evidence of a god, therefore I believe no gods exist" is an agnostic. Note that this is a statement of belief or opinion, not of authority." Retard. Agnosticism is the position that knowledge of supernatural entities is impossible. The agnostic doesn't say, "I see no evidence of god, therefore I *believe* no gods exist." She says, "It is not possible to see evidence of god." Yeah, that's right. Period. A lot of theists are agnostic. Did you know that? Of course you didn't. Oh, and jONESEY covered the rest of your idiotic mistakes. Please stop making them, because they are very popular, and they are making lots of stupid people think they are smart. That sucks, because then people start thinking that what is stupid is smart, and the facts get drowned in all the bilous, frothing idiocy spouted by know-nothings like you. It's a real problem.

• &#64; Hippocrates: If you are going to correct someone's correction, you should probably not be a total idiot. "The proper use of the dash separates an independent clause from thoughts (Independent clause - thought)." Your use of the dash separates your thought ("I think you should resign") with a dependent clause ("not only because of your writing skills, but also because of your extraordinary paranoia."). Not only have you garbled your syntax--"separates your thought...*with* a dependent clause" (don't you mean "from?")--you have also improperly analyzed the source material. "I think you should resign" is an independent clause and "not only because of your writing skills..." is a parenthetical thought. He used the dash perfectly, and you totally lose at grammar Nazi. Oh, and atheists rock.

• Who was looking after the students that these two women were supposed to be teaching? There's 20-22 students to a classroom, so there were 40-44 students either left to their own devises or with an aid. Why were they off wasting time criticizing someone for their personal beliefs instead of doing their jobs. Are we really paying them taxpayer money to act like middle schoolers with squirt bottles? If they had stayed in their own classrooms, teaching their own students, none of this would have occurred.

• Atheism, in vernacular, has come to mean the belief no god(s) exist. However, if you break it down into a- and -theism, it very simply means "not or without theism", and theism is the belief in an revealed and intervening god, in contrast to deism. You can very well have an atheist who is a deist. And that does not make the person agnostic.

• &#64; Pastor Bobby Dufrane - LOL! note: Holy Water doesn't work

• &#64;Zmidponk I don't see how they are ignorant of religion. I think you missed the symbolism behind the 'holy' water. If someone has religious symbols forces on them the fact that they don't believe isn't a reason not to be offended, the fact that they don't believe IS the reason why Ms. Rodriguez took offense. The other two are generally ignorant.

• Separation of Church and State. Those teachers should be fired and blackballed, period. Honestly, I don't understand the extremist view that 'god' and Christianity have ANY place in government or government supported/provided services... there is no logical argument for it. Religion belongs in church and at home, not at work and not in government. The US is founded by people fleeing religious persecution and a state that was forcing one religion on others for 'gods' sake and our founding fathers realized that to incorporate religion into government was setting up a flawed system. Christians need to get over themselves, end of story. They are one of any number of 'god' fearing religions and this is a nation built on tolerance for all faiths, whether Christians like them or not. It is NOT a Christian nation, it is a nation for all people. Personally I find Christian fundies to be more dangerous than any other religious fundamental sect in any religion. They sicken me and drive away the middle and left and create more divide for no gain than any other group in this country. Live your own life to your moral code within the structure and legal framework of the nation or GTFO, don't push your religious agenda onto those who don't want it or don't care and worry about you and your own. I swear, Religion... all of them, will be the death of this nation and perhaps all of humanity and right at the front you will have these secular fundies waving their flag on the march straight into 'hell'.

• Hmm, interesting story. Because Ms. Rodriguez is an atheist, other than getting her a bit damp, it would mean nothing to her, as her lack of belief would make this 'Holy Water' just water, from her point of view. In Christianity, the only use for sprinkling someone with Holy Water is to baptise them - but that requires they voluntarily accept Christ into their heart, which, given Ms. Rodriguez is an atheist, hasn't happened. So, if these allegations are true, it would seem that both Ms. Robinson and Mrs. Rainer are very ignorant of both atheism and Christianity.

• what those teachers did should be considered a hate crime, and should be charged as so. im an atheist and proud, not just because i like evolution, but because its hard to be openly atheist in this world and not be judged by people hiding behind big religion. it takes a strong person to admit they're atheist and then to be treated like that in front of her students, what is that saying to her students? that hatred is ok if the person doesnt believe in god when are we going to be treated with same respect as big religion?

• some of the comments here are deeply disturbing and makes me wonder what the heck happened to American Christianity. Then again, I already do know. The evangelicals and fundies ruined it. Or perhaps it was just always that way. I suspect the latter.

• "Let me restate my point for those who don't seem to understand logic or language. The atheist position says "No gods exist": 'a theos' i.e. 'no god'. But without infinite knowledge, it is impossible to *know* that no gods exist. No man has infinite knowledge, thus no man can truly, by definition, be an atheist. The person who says "I see no evidence of a god, therefore I believe no gods exist" is an agnostic. Note that this is a statement of belief or opinion, not of authority. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong in their position, I am simply trying to get them to see the logical consquence of the terms they use, & to use the *correct* terms." This would come as quite a surprise to the scholars, theologians, and philosophers who covered this topic centuries before you were born. The word doesn't say anything about absolute knowledge, and no atheist claims such knowledge. In fact, if we take this tortured logic to its logical ends you would also be saying that theists can't exist because they too can't have infinite knowledge. Hendo, are you agnostic towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Leprechauns, or Bertrand Russell's teapot? Of course not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus of proof is on the ones making the extraordinary claims, absent this evidence, one is completely in the right to dismiss the outlandish claim. And they sure as hell don't need infinite knowledge to do so. You can try all you like to use that tortured logic to define atheists out of existence, but we'll still be here laughing at what a pompous idiot you are.

• "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

• Main Entry: ag�nos�tic Pronunciation: \ag-?n�tik, ?g-\ Function: noun 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god "The person who says 'I see no evidence of a god, therefore I believe no gods exist' is an agnostic." Since agnostics are "not committed" they would never say "gods don't exist." Saying, "god(s) don't exist" is essentially making a commitment. My personal agnosticism tells me that god does exist; but after that, who knows? In other words, I believe in god, but that there is no way of knowing "god's truth" or his/her reasoning. This is why religious people have Faith and scientists have knowledge.

• Let me restate my point for those who don't seem to understand logic or language. The atheist position says "No gods exist": 'a theos' i.e. 'no god'. But without infinite knowledge, it is impossible to *know* that no gods exist. No man has infinite knowledge, thus no man can truly, by definition, be an atheist. The person who says "I see no evidence of a god, therefore I believe no gods exist" is an agnostic. Note that this is a statement of belief or opinion, not of authority. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong in their position, I am simply trying to get them to see the logical consquence of the terms they use, & to use the *correct* terms.

• The school is a place to learn science, math, english etc not the place to worship or deny the existence of an imaginary being who lives in the sky, I find the belief in god childish and ridiculous , but that's my opinion the two religious nutjobs should be fired and for the atheist an investigation should follow to see if she was advocating atheism in the clasroom.

• Steve_C says: (Quote) Student: Do you believe in Zeus? Teacher: No. Student: Mithras? Teacher: No. Student: Vishnu? Teacher: No. Student: Jesus? Teacher: No. I don't believe in any gods. Student: Ooooo you're gonna burn in hell! I'm telling my parents. You forgot to list the others...... Not far short of a million different Gods that people once believed in. Heaven must be VERY crowded with that lot in charge, or did they disappear in a puff of smoke as people stopped believing in them ?

• If you believe in the Christian God, how come your belief depends upon where you were born ? Hey Pastor - If you'd been born in a Muslim country you'd be totally convinced that Allah and Mohammed are the true path, NOT God and Jesus....... Likewise, there's several thousand OTHER religions in OTHER countries. If you'd been born in one of those you'd be equally CERTAIN that the local religion that had been hammered into your infant brain was the ONE TRUE RELIGION. Obviously, if there IS a God, then there can only be ONE. Personally, I reject the lot of them as ALL being rubbish.

• This is why I'm embarrassed I'm an Ely alum. I was in 10th grade and one of my teachers (who shall remain nameless) would spend hours upon hours of class time over the entire semester bashing Democrats, other countries (especially one to be specific), and those who opposed slavery by implying that slavery was just and fair. On more than one occasion he called the Democrats "asses." And again, on more than one occasion, he FALSELY claimed that in my native country, the government cuts your hand if you steal. When I spoke up and told him I was from there and that was absolutely false, he at first looked puzzled, then told me that another student gave him that information. At that time, there was only one more student from my country at Ely (whom I knew) so when I asked who told him that lie he told me he couldn't remember "their name." This kind of stuff happens all the time people, it's no surprise to me that such ignorant and intolerant behaviors are still going on in our public schools by these so called teachers. Mind you, after I told him that his claim was absolutely untrue, he continued to give the same story to the students who came in years after me. I know this because one day a friend of mine who took the same class asked me if the government in my country cuts your hand when you steal. When I asked him where he got this bs from, he told me the name of the same teacher. I'm seriously thinking of filing a lawsuit against him. I didn't know any better at the time. I just don't know if it would be valid after 7+ years.

• On one hand, it is tempting to dismiss it as "hilarious" and "just a little water". But what does this water symbolize to delusional people, and what does it tell you about what else they might do? If someone splashes you with a liquid fully expecting it to injure you, even though it is water, would you continue to feel safe around them? What if next time they try to use some other method prescribed for exorcism (there are some pretty scary ones)? You never know how religious people's minds work.

• This is why I'm embarrassed to live in Florida.

• &#64;Rabo "Is Robin William's evil twin currently orbiting the sun in a hot air balloon? I don't know. Do you believe that Robin Williams's evil twin is currently orbiting the sun in a hot air balloon? No. See how that works? Just because I don't believe in an outlandish claim doesn't mean that I'm claiming knowledge that I can't possibly possess." Except..it's not physically possible for Robin Williams' evil twin to be actually orbiting the sun in a hot air balloon. Logic fail.

• Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair colour.

• &#64;Tony S: I dearly hope you are kidding. No matter whether it is illegal or not should not matter. I'm an atheist myself and I'd assume you are too, but I hope you would at least realize that burning someone is sick and cruel, illegal or not. If the incident happened, the teachers who assualted their fellow teacher should deal with the consquences. And if they brought religious matters into it, the consequences should be more severe. As to the assaulted teacher, she is innocent and did not deserve to be assaulted no matter what she said. However, if she did say something out of line to her students, she should also deal with the consequences. It is called taking responsibility for your actions, obeying common-sense rules, and being a pleasant person. Those teachers are in more need of a lesson then the children!

• Holy water only works on vampires.

• It is very interesting how the media eloquently instigates between Atheists and Christians. There is clearly more to this story. That is the first problem. If atheism (or any other belief system) was being imposed on any students, then that is the second problem. Given the incident, I suspect it was just as easily an issue for both parties. The third problem was the interruption of the class. The fourth being the action of the claimed holy water. The first problem was to conveniently omit any information that would might prevent the infamous shock factor and consequent sensationalized journalism. There is no way that these two got along perfectly and all of a sudden, this happens. The school either knew or should have known this was a eventuality and ignored it. Hey, schools do it all the time with students until a student starts shooting. When I get the whole story (not just what the media feels will stir up conflict) than that is when I can give an unbiased opinion; however, in all cases, the students still lose. In closing, I suspect they are both committed to ensuring compliance with the separation of church and state under the constitution and both are excellent teachers that found themselves taking matters in their own hands when the school failed to address their concerns.

• "I'm melting!! MMMMEEEEELLLLLTINNNNGG!!!!!"

• &#64;cyan Regardless of religious beliefs it would be illegal to throw anything at anyone even water. I would think in a case like this it would depend on the prosecutor and how far he would take things if this is assault and/or battery. It really doesn't take much to be either; I don't think most people realize that.

• &#64;Big Tom Why would they hate God if they don't even believe in him!? If they don't believe in him they probably don't believe in hell either.

• &#64;jacobian I wouldn't think so. Not believing in God or holy water tend to go hand in hand.

• &#64;Larseau Re-stating what has already been said does not make an argument. Do you usually blame the victim? The one teacher didn't do anything, the other two have themself to blame. Yes, it was just water. It makes it that much more ridiculous that these two teachers have nobody else to blame for THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

• First of all, is it legal for anyone to throw something on another person. (A parent comes to the school, and a teacher throws water on them, or that parent throw water on a teacher, or a person throws water on a judge or policeperson: any of that okay?) Sceondly, is it legal for someone to throw something on another person because that person does not share their religious views. (if a Muslim threw water on a Christian because the Christian is not a Muslim - is that legal? Vice-versa? If an atheist threw soemthing on a Christian because that person is a Christian instead of an atheist, is that legal?) The people who threw something on the other person should be judged according to the law which applies to all.

• All right, for all the people saying atheism takes faith, you are wrong. Atheism takes no faith because it is merely the position that until proof of any gods existence is presented then there are no gods. To address the obvious "but there is no proof god doesn't exist" it is all too simple really. One cannot prove a negative or, in this instance, one cannot prove the non-existence of a god. This is known as the burden of proof, it means the person making the claim must be the one to produce the evidence. This is how courts work for example, Person A claims that Person B murdered Person X. Now Person A must use evidence that supports that claim, like a knife with Person B's finger prints that was found by Person X. At first it seemed as though Person B is innocent but now it seems Person B is the killer but the defense does not seek to prove their client is innocent merely invalidate the evidence. Person B was in Hawaii when Person X was murdered and the murder happened in Iowa, there is no way that he killed Person X even though the knife had his finger prints on it. Person B now has an alibi rendering the evidence invalid ergo Person B is still innocent. It works the same with gods existence only much quicker because no evidence for is presented there is no need to invalidate it and if there was evidence for god then there would be no atheists.

• I think if it ever becomes legal to torture theists like they once did to non-theists... We should sprinkle some gasoline on them set it on fire. Then we can do ring a round the rosy and laugh as they scream, beg and pray while their god does nothing. Until torturing theists is legal obviously I would not support this type of action under any circumstances - ever. I assure regardless of how stupid, pathetic, delusional and dangerous Christianity is it is absolutely illegal to set them, their children or friends on fire then laugh when their god does not save them. I would never support such a thing, not on moral standards. But, it is a clear cut violation of the law. Hopefully we can come together as an intelligent and forward moving society and make such things legal.

• <I>THERE IS ONE TRUE GOD said: Look, the teachers did the right thing. They were trying to save her soul, don't you people realize that? She's upset about some water but she should be more upset that she will spend eternity with Lucifer...I really don't understand why this is such an issue.</I> <P> So how far do you think this little lesson of theirs should have gone? A gallon of water maybe? Or perhaps you think she should have been tied to a ducking stool and lowered into a lake until she repented? Or in modern terms, some waterboarding to extract a confession of faith? Small steps lead to big steps, lead to atrocities such as those in the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials. The whole tone of your comments is that of someone with the mentality of a medieval lunatic, and you would surely be more at home in those times. <P> The teacher is upset 'about some water' because nobody, not ANYBODY should be allowed to throw ANY substance onto another person without their permission. The law calls this assault. It is also religious persecution - they are religious people persecuting someone who does not share their faith. <P> I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if the followers of Poseidon turned up and threw gallons of seawater over the preacher your church just because he'd 'Finned against Cod' :)

• My, what a storm in a teacup! Surely, if the two sprinklers caused offense to the sprinklee, they should apologise publicly; and if the Sprinkled One had any sense at all, she would graciously accept the apology without further comment. Then they could all get on with teaching children, which is (presumably) what they trained for and are paid for. Why bring lawyers into it? What good will result?

• Stupid comments to date: <i>An atheist has no grounds to complain if Christians splash them with holy water - it's not like they believe in it</i> a) Anyone may have grounds to complain if anyone splashes them with any sort of water. This can e.g. cause damage to fabrics. b) On-duty public school teachers are (legally) acting as government officials. An overtly religious activity by government officials is a direct breach of the US constitution, so is definitely a cause for complaint. <i>Atheism isn't a faith so it wouldn't be an Establishment breach if Ms Rodriguez had been proselytising.</i> My understanding is that the case law in this area treats atheism as a sort of honorary religion (this is good for atheists as it stops them being discriminated against, in theory anyway). So promulgating atheism would be considered a breach of the Establishment Clause just as much as preaching Christianity. <i>I'm a teacher at the school and blah blah</i> a) We have no idea if you are indeed a teacher at this school. We have no idea if your knowledge is reliable. Given this, unless you actually gave us your name (which would be rather reckless of you) all we can do is ignore your information as unverifiable. b) However, thank you for reminding us of a very important fact: at this point in time the general public simply does not have enough data to form a reasonable conclusion as to what the hell is going on here. On that note, I would suggest that lynch mobs on both sides of the debate lay off the tar and feathers. The first step in doing good is to make sure you do no harm.

• Wow, from the story it's really hard to tell just what was going on. Did these two teacher have a bottle marked as holy water that they were splashing on the atheist teacher? Was Ms. Rodriguez advocating atheism to the students, or merely explain that she is one? I mean, I had a few teachers say they were Christian when I was growing up and no one was bothered (that I know of). I am an atheist myself and I'd be rather upset if someone did this to me. But in this case I really need more information to determine what actually happened.

• I don't understand why there's such an uproar over what a non-believer calls themself. I call myself an atheist. I don't think there are any gods or supernatural phenomena. Easy. But then I hear someone complain about agnostics, and hard vs. soft atheism, and on and on. Seriously guys? We're gonna end up as bad as the Protestant religions and their multitude of hair-splitting dogmas (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, etc.). If you don't think there's a god, you're an atheist. If you think that there could be a god, but that the evidence isn't in, you're agnostic. If you think there's a god, you're a theist.

• Most of the worlds evil is caused by religion. The sooner all religion dies the better the world will become.

• Look, the teachers did the right thing. They were trying to save her soul, don't you people realize that? She's upset about some water but she should be more upset that she will spend eternity with Lucifer where she will thirst for just a drop of any kind of water but no water will come. They should be applauded for trying to teach the most important lesson anyone can ever learn. I really don't understand why this is such an issue.

• I really hate it when agnostics act like theirs is the most defensible position. Really? Having no stance on something is the only correct position? I also hate it when people try and say that only "hard" atheists (ie I know there is no god, these don't actually exist) are atheists and that soft atheists (ie I don't think there is a god because I see no evidence) are actually agnostics. This is bullshit. The problem is that agnostics act like this is such a big question that it is reserved some special state. Its not. If there is evidence for something then believe in it, if there is no evidence, then don't believe in it. Dawkins breaks it down to probabilities. I don't believe there is a god because I see the probability of its existence as being very low. I'll never be absolutely sure, but I am sure that that probability will get lower and lower for me as I continue to see no evidence for it. An agnostic would be someone who sees the probability of gods existence or non-existence as 50/50. I don't believe these people actually exist. And those who claim that agnostics are people who think this is a question that just can never be answered are wrong. If you believe that then it means you have elevated this question to a special state above all other questions. You have essentially made the question religious by claiming it is outside of the possibility of knowledge. This is a supernatural position and definitely not agnosticism.

• Student: Do you believe in Zeus? Teacher: No. Student: Mithras? Teacher: No. Student: Vishnu? Teacher: No. Student: Jesus? Teacher: No. I don't believe in any gods. Student: Ooooo you're gonna burn in hell! I'm telling my parents.

• "the question is whether she was advocating atheism to her students. In a public school setting, that would seem to be improper." Why? Atheism is not a religion. It's a rational thought expressed. I think that's protected under the 1st amendment. Look it up.

• Dear concerned teacher, Although I can sympathize with your belief that an injustice was committed against the two teachers because of their past behaviors, that does not permit them to act as children by spraying another teacher with holy water. The entire problem with this whole incident is the fact that these are two teachers who should be mature and open-minded in their judgement and actions against others with different values and beliefs. Teachers need to be placed on a higher standard because they are essentially role models of children who look up to them. These types of actions are discouraging, narrow-minded, and completely immature.

• Religion: The worst thing humans have ever invented. Please use your reason and scepticism. That is our only hope for a future.

• &#64;Hendo, Is Robin William's evil twin currently orbiting the sun in a hot air balloon? I don't know. Do you believe that Robin Williams's evil twin is currently orbiting the sun in a hot air balloon? No. See how that works? Just because I don't believe in an outlandish claim doesn't mean that I'm claiming knowledge that I can't possibly possess.

• Robespierre, explain how atheism is thoughtless nonsense.

• They should all be sacked. Typical of them all the try and enforce their beliefs onto others, especially thoughtless nonsense like atheism.

• <blockquote>The teacher who<b>m</b> made the complaint </blockquote> I hope you're not an English teacher!

• *chuckles* These people seem to confuse Helsing with hellsign.

• Hehe. Holy water burning someone's skin? It's water not acid. One too many creature double features for this lot. The teachers should be fired for being superstitious nutjobs. It's one thing to have "faith" it's another to go around slinging magic water to cure someone of their lack of faith. Everyone is an atheist of some sort. Do you religious people accept all gods? Or just your special personal one? All atheists do is go one further than you. I don't believe in Thor or Zeus or Jesus. There's no evidence for any of them. Hey hendo anything and everything is possible. But only evidence sorts it out.

• In a state funded public school setting, between two state paid government employees, dousing someone with water, whether they believe it's holy or not, can constitute as assault if the person being doused felt threatened or victimized due to their religious or non-religious affiliation. It's discrimination plain and simple. If they had doused the teacher with water and left religion out of it it would've been fine, but once you bring religion into a public setting between government employees the rules change. If the teachers had thrown matzo balls at a Jewish teacher the same rules would apply. This isn't about the religious artifact (holy water or matzo balls), its about intent, and clearly, the intent of dousing or spraying someone with holy water, whether it's "holy" or not, is to discriminate against their beliefs.

• If someone purposely splashed or sprayed me with water (holy or secular, makes no difference) in protest of my religious beliefs or lack thereof, I'd inform the authorities and present the splashers with a dry cleaning bill.

• I'm happy to be European living in Europe!

• so does the atheist burned when sprayed with a holy water? I surely hope so.

• As an atheist I wouldn't complain about being doused with holy water any more than I'd complain about being doused with distilled water. It's exactly the same stuff. Water.

• &#64; Hendo says: "Here's an argument I heard a while back... An atheist does not acknowledge the possibility of the supernatural, thus claims to KNOW there is no supernatural." There is your mistake, Hendo... you do not actually understand what an atheist does or does not acknowledge :-)

• The issue is not whether it was holy water or not. The issue is not whether the two actually splashed Rodriguez with it or not. The issue is that the two teachers believe they have a "first amendment right" to step inside another teacher's classroom to berate and belittle her in front of her students. If they really thought she was advancing the idea of atheism in her classroom, they should have reported her to the administration; NOT interrupted her classroom to mock her with a bottle of perfume they claimed was holy water. And the two teachers do not even deny that they interupted the class to mock her with the bottle of liquid. They just whine that it wasn't really holy water and they didn't really splash her with it... as if that even matters. And based on what "Concerned Teacher" claims, it is obvious that these two teachers already had it in for Ms. Rodriguez long before this incident. These teachers deserve to be suspended, and the fact that they are trying to hide behind their christianity for their behavior is disgusting.

• &#64;all the people calling the victim a hypocrite... if it was just water then it still constitutes assault... if the people spraying her identify it as holy water, then that shows a purposeful act of religious intolerance because they are using their "holy water", part of their religious belief, on her... and the victim has every right to bring that up in her complaint.

• The very late theologian Paul Tillich would say that the one sprinkled upon has more faith than the sprinklers. Doubt is in integral and is absolutely necessary in having faith. You do not have faith without doubt! Ignorance is dangerous indeed! More churches and clergy know little about, nor do they show evidence of faith! To those throwing the water: Beware lest your cross becomes the devil's mousetrap. Pascal

• &#64;concerned teacher first off... spraying water on someone does constitute assault! second... anyone who decides they have the right to force their religion on others in a physical manner such as this can (and will) be considered a religious nutjob! This country is supposed to be "the great melting pot" however christians in particular think they are the only religion that should be allowed and they can force their beliefs on everyone else. We have freedom of religion in this country for a reason... and if we choose our religion to be no religion then thats our choice to make. As usual the christians have no tolerance for anything other than their own mythology... these 2 teachers definitely need to be fired!

• although i will never support a person that does not acknogledge my SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST I do think that the other two ladies should have used self restraint and reported the ungodly one for telling her students anything about her religous beliefs

• &#64;Dan Wait. So you are blogging on taxpayer time? Really? Nice!!! Stickin' it to the man - which in this case is the public.

• "Chaz Stevens, Genius says: @Dan the Man says: What you propose is known as an Argument From Authority. From Wiki: The claim that the speaker is an expert, and so should be trusted. There are degrees and areas of expertise. The speaker is actually claiming to be more expert, in the relevant subject area, than anyone else in the room. There is also an implied claim that expertise in the area is worth having. For example, claiming expertise in something hopelessly quack (like iridology) is actually an admission that the speaker is gullible." I am an employee at Blanche Ely High School. According to the definition you lifted from Wikipedia, this fact would make me more of an expert than you on this given topic. Let us say for the sake of charity that I did not work at Ely. All of the information that I have provided is available through news reports that are accessible via the internet. Instead of pulling random quotes from the Bible you ought to try doing some meaningful research. Thanks for your support (i.e. the wiki-quote)! Thanks for the support!

• If there is a God... ...then why come the holy water didn't do anything to the atheist woman?

• I concur with hendo, the use of "holy water" in the [/i]asperges[\i] is a Catholic practice; if the identified individuals are truly Baptists and are using that action in some deliberate effort to effect an exorcistic change in their colleage, (and affirming it as such), they are practicing a sacrament their own church does not uphold. Tying ethics to faith is a fascism that needs to be re-examined. Ones experiential arrival at beliefs and at a way of living and being that are consistent with the wider needs of other humans need to be consistent with each other. And what of the students? Has any counselling taken place for them? Basically, if this event occurred as reported, they have witnessed an assault by adults they are supposed to be able to trust on another adult they are supposed to be able to trust. They should be afforded counseling help and a chance to debrief their own experiences and feelings at this exposure to violence in a setting in which they could neither effect a change themselves or leave. And they probably don't have a union to back them up.

TotalComments: 100