Plaintiffs Granted Anonymity in Florida Church/State Case

Here’s some good news. The plaintiffs in an Establishment Clause lawsuit in Florida involving school prayer have been granted the right to remain anonymous by the judge in the case. And in this case, the school rightly did not contest the motion for anonymity.

In the order signed by Senior U.S. District Judge William O’Kelley, challenging government activity on religious matters represent two factors in support of anonymity.

In addition, O’Kelley ruled that while a threat of hostile public reaction doesn’t usually warrant anonymity, “hostility expressed through threats of violence weigh in favor of allowing plaintiffs to proceed anonymously.”

The humanist association’s attorneys claimed in December court filings that they were “flooded with hate mail and threats” after the Aug. 12 letter was sent. One was serious enough to be reported to police, though the agency is unspecified in court documents.

An attorney received a Facebook message stating, “You are a demon straight from the pit of hell” in all capitalized letters, according to court documents.

Another attorney “received a voice message from a person threatening

to ‘secretly inject’ the attorney with ‘HIV’” if the humanist association filed suit, according to court documents.

“The court recognizes that threats against the AHA are not threats against the anonymous plaintiffs,” according to the order. “But the identity of anonymous plaintiffs remains unknown to defendants and the general community.”

It’s very unusual for the defendants in such a case to not argue against anonymity, mostly because they know that if the plaintiffs are identified they are almost certainly going to be the target of threats and maybe much worse and that this makes it more likely that they’ll drop the case due to the intimidation.

"Oh Sarah, don't you realise that in the age of Trump you're barely an afterthought? ..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"Well, that could have happened too. Lord knows its possible"

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"The "questions at hand" are whatever I want them to be.Spoken like a True Christian, ..."

Lively: Gay Judges Can’t Be Impartial
"Psst Sarah - a word in your shell-like about the Streisand Effect..."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • theDukedog7 .

    Granting these atheist scum anonymity is the logical next step in the suppression of our First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion. Now informants rat out their neighbors to sympathetic courts, just like in East Germany, and their identities are kept secret.

  • flex

    @1 theDukedog7 . says,

    Calling them atheist scum is certainly an unbiased, responsible, way to refer to the plaintiffs without inducing in them any apprehension of retaliation.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    As usual, I’m with theDukedog7. If we grant you people anonymity in an Establishment Clause case it will lead to the suppression of the Free Exercise rights of Our Christian Coach in our public school to force your children on Our Football team to pray to our God, as well as crushing on our First Amendment right to threaten non-anonymous plaintifs who disagree.

    When will you bullies understand?

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    I really, really, want a Dukedog attack puppy filter. “[A]theist scum,” and he doesn’t approve of anonymity? Way to prove the point little doggie.

  • theDukedog7 .

    “Atheist scum” is a bit unfair.

    My apologies to scum.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Yea, in a trial, who said that you have the right to confront your accuser?

    Anonymous informants, anonymous plantiffs, anonymous allegations.

    Who do these atheists think they are–at a liberal college campus rape trial?

  • Sastra

    theDukeDog7 #1 wrote:

    Now informants rat out their neighbors to sympathetic courts, just like in East Germany, and their identities are kept secret.

    And if their identities are revealed now their neighbors can get together in an angry mob and beat the crap out of them, just like in Nazi Germany.

    “Sympathetic courts” must be code for “following the Constitution.”

  • theDukedog7 .

    In East Germany, folks would have beat the crap out of Stasi informers, ergo anonymity.

    Informers who take away people’s rights aren’t really popular anywhere. Big surprise.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Sastra Stasi:

    “just like in Nazi Germany.”

    Actually, the Nazi’s were the ones who used anonymous informers. Make a note of that.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Wow, recent events must have really rattled poor Dukedog — he’s not even coherent anymore, just raving indiscriminately like he’s smoked a bit too much meth. The shame of seeing the results of his backward mindset must really burn.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Hey puppy, just a little info for you, the defendant does get to confront his accusers. In court. Further, the Constitution does not contemplate that confronting your accuser means the defendant — or defendant’s litter mates — are allowed to harass, or issue death threats to the plaintiff.

  • zenlike

    theDukedog7 . says

    Informers who take away people’s rights aren’t really popular anywhere. Big surprise.

    Which rights are taken away again?

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #8 wrote:

    In East Germany, folks would have beat the crap out of Stasi informers, ergo anonymity. Informers who take away people’s rights aren’t really popular anywhere. Big surprise.

    Mob violence which subverts the law doesn’t come under the heading of ‘rights.’ The trial will hinge on the evidence and our rights under the Constitution. Do you really think the Constitution of the United States of America is just another version of Mein Kampf?

  • theDukedog7 .

    There’s been no ‘mob violence’ here.

    There’s been an anonymous accuser who is dragging his/her neighbors into court and denying them the opportunity to confront their accuser.

    Grossly unconstitutional (denial of right to due process). This is totalitarian stuff.

    And the Constitution does not prohibit prayer in school or in any government building. They say prayers in Congress, the military, etc. This is just anti-Christian bigotry.

  • zenlike

    theDukedog7 . says

    And the Constitution does not prohibit prayer in school or in any government building.

    The supreme court says otherwise, you ignoramus.

  • zenlike

    Actually, you are right, you are totally free to say prayers in schools or government buildings as a private person. No one is contesting that, you moron.

  • whheydt

    Re: theDukeDog7…

    What part of the legal consequences of “witness intimidation” are you unfamiliar with?

  • Quantum Mechanic

    whheydt:

    Re: theDukeDog7…

    What part of the legal consequences of “witness intimidation” are you unfamiliar with?

    The part that it’s bad, apparently.

  • whheydt

    Re: Quantum Mechanic @ #18…

    I wish I could dispute your point, or even disagree with it.

    I find it puzzling that someone can go through (presumably) 4 years of college in a pre-med program, and then through medical school without emerging with rather more appreciation of humanity than tDD7 shows. I must surmise that he learned very little in all that time, rejects much of what he did learn, and is little more than a glorified mechanic. I am given to understand that inflated egos are pretty common among surgeons, but one might hope for at least a little humility when it comes to topics outside their actual specialty.

  • theDukedog7 .

    It’s nice to see that we’re finally getting what we need in America– a network of anonymous informants who become anonymous plantiffs ratting out Americans who are committing prayer-crimes.

    I hope they use one of those voice-garblers so the atheist stool-pidgeon doesn’t take any chances of being not invited to someone’s garden party. Don’t want your totalitarianism to interfere with your social life.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Just curious: Has anybody verified that the Dukepuppy actually is Dr. Egnorant? If not, comments like whheydt @ 19, might be a little unfair. What if the Dukepuppy really is just a mechanic — of lawnmowers and weedwackers.

  • colnago80

    Re whheydt @ #19

    Glorified mechanic is an apt description of many surgeons who know as much about the biology of humans as auto mechanics know about the physics of internal combustion engines.

  • colnago80

    Re eoraptor @ #21

    Egnorance identified himself as Michael Egnor in a comment on PZ’s blog.

  • colnago80

    Re eoraptor @ #4

    Get blog killfile, which is available as an extension for Firefox and Chrome and which will block comments by the likes of Egnorance.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    colnago: there’s no need to start bashing surgeons, or the profession of surgery, just because one of them happens to be a dimwitted denialist of almost flat-Earther proportions. There’s some damn good surgeons out there, one of whom showed MAD skills in removing some tumors from my girlfriend’s abdomen. Calling them “glorified mechanics” is just plain ridiculous: surgeons fix systems that are orders of magnitude more complicated than cars, with serious constraints that mechanics simply don’t have. (For starters, mechanics can turn off the machines they’re working on, and swap parts in and out at will just to see what works; surgeons, needless to say, can’t do either of those things.)

  • Pierce R. Butler

    … an Establishment Clause lawsuit in Florida …

    Sorry: this case comes out of Georgia. Admittedly, the source cited is the Gainesville Times, and the Gainesville in Florida gets more publicity than all the other Gainesvilles in the US put together, so people tend to make that jump – but General Edmund Gaines, due to relentless slaughter of native Americans in many locations, was considered a Brave Hero across the antebellum southeastern US, and had towns named for him in at least four states, including that one with all the peaches.

  • http://www.facebook.com/eo.raptor.3 eoraptor

    Colagno80, thanks for the info, and for the tip on lockable doggie doors.

  • theDukedog7 .

    What we need now is networks of anonymous atheists who inform on their neighbors who are committing prayer-crimes. It’s best to make the trials secret too–don’t want any “mob violence” against the informants. The judges who enforce the “constitutional” prohibition against prayer-crimes should wear hoods too–seems to fit the spirit of the thing.

  • ShowMetheData

    “a network of anonymous informants”

    The perpetrators of these so-called “prayer-crimes” are not private individuals being ratted on. Nope, these prayer-actions were done by a governmental authority and the constitution applies to them most of all. Practically all the constitutional restrictions, beside the state-federal splits of powers, are to restrict the powers of the government against the individual. It is good to constrict the government – it was was made Ronald Reagan great.

    And all of this done on governmental property that belongs to all Americans – including both atheists and Christian scum (who are the savages making the threats and obstructing justice through intimidation.)

    The anonymity granted comes not from the pages of a commie manual but from the experience that decades of judges have with these cases – practically ALL these cases have violent threats coming from Christians. Go back to the earliest tests – it’s a fact.

  • John Pieret

    As usual, Dukedog knows nothing about the law. First of all, this is not a criminal trial where the right of confrontation applies. It’s a civil case where no one is facing jail time.

    In any event, the only relevance of who the plaintiffs are is on the question of “standing.” The school district’s lawyers will be given sufficient information about them to enable them to confirm that standing (probably that they are students in the school). After that, it is a simple question of whether school employees were leading and participating in prayers with students. If they were, that is unconstitutional. In the complaint, reference is made to pictures of such prayers, some of them gleaned from the school employees social media accounts.

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #14 wrote:

    There’s been no ‘mob violence’ here.

    But in #8 you were agreeing that folks would be justified in “beating the crap” out of “informers” who are “taking away rights.” You’re supporting potential mob violence or public shaming so that some favored people can break the law with impunity.

    There’s been an anonymous accuser who is dragging his/her neighbors into court and denying them the opportunity to confront their accuser.

    But the identity of the actual “accuser” in a case like this is technically irrelevant because this isn’t about a crime committed against a particular victim where it’s someone’s word against another’s — it’s a claim concerning a church/state violation done in public where a lot of people saw what was done. One (or more) people formally objected. It doesn’t matter who objected because that’s not the issue. Did the school prayer violate the Establishment Clause? That’s the question.

    Are you also opposed to anonymous tip hotlines, where people call to report a neighbor beating his wife or a brother-in-law selling crack to school children? People may not want their identity revealed because of the fear of violence or retaliation.

    The anonymous tipster is ignored if there’s no other evidence. An accusation alone won’t bring anyone to court.

    And the Constitution does not prohibit prayer in school or in any government building.

    True, it doesn’t. But the State can’t be used to provide the person or people who are praying a captive audience, because that’s government imposing prayer on citizens regardless of their religious beliefs.

  • throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble

    Egnoramus:

    What we need now is networks of anonymous atheists who inform on their neighbors who are committing prayer-crimes. It’s best to make the trials secret too–don’t want any “mob violence” against the informants. The judges who enforce the “constitutional” prohibition against prayer-crimes should wear hoods too–seems to fit the spirit of the thing.

    Relax, Egnoramus, it was Muslim prayer they were leading them in, so it’s not oppression of the only True Religion!

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Dukedog’s use of the phrase “these atheist scum” conclusively prove he’s nothing but a rabid stupid bigot — we don’t even have to move on to his gratuitous reference to East Germany.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #25

    Bee, Bee, did you not see my qualifier of many in the comment in question? Of course, not all surgeons are like Egnorance and Ben Carson (see David Gorski, an oncology surgeon who blogs under the sobriquet Orac and who is a vigorous critic of the likes of Egnorance and Carson).

    And by the way, modern car engines sporting multiport fuel injection systems are pretty damn complex and nobody in his right mind would allow shade tree mechanics to work on them.

  • Sastra

    eoraptor #21 wrote:

    Just curious: Has anybody verified that the Dukepuppy actually is Dr. Egnorant?

    What? I find that very unlikely, regardless of whether or not he’s self-identified himself as Dr. Egnor. And even if he was Dr. Egnor, I hope he would want us to be skeptical.

  • colnago80

    Re Sastra @ #35

    Anyone who has read Egnorance’s comments over at Larry Moran’s blog where he actually uses his name, Megnor as a sobriquet would recognize the the style. And no, he doesn’t want us to be skeptical, he revels in his arrogance and ignorance and is proud of them.

  • Richard Smith

    Looks like Ol’ Yeller’s starting to get kinda frothy…

  • theDukedog7 .

    It’s actually kind of exciting.

    What would be great is a network of informants always on the watch for prayer-crimes. The informants would be identifiable only by a number maintained in a confidential file, and trials would be confidential as well–you don’t want mob violence against the prayer-courts!

    The judges should wear hoods, of course. And it’s best not to inform the defendants until they have already been convicted–reeducation is easier that way, and less risk of mob violence!

    A fine atheist scenario, with a long and illustrious history in every nation atheists have ever governed. Some things never change.

  • throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble

    Poor egnor can’t tell fantasy from reality. Some things never change, indeed. Right wing authoritarian goon is so afraid that the scenario they would act out if they were in charge will be flipped on them. Poor, poor, egnor.

  • Larry

    Birds gonna fly

    Fish gonna swim

    Trollers gonna troll

    That’s just the way it is.

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #38 wrote:

    What would be great is a network of informants always on the watch for prayer-crimes. The informants would be identifiable only by a number maintained in a confidential file, and trials would be confidential as well–you don’t want mob violence against the prayer-courts!

    Your analogy here (I’m assuming it’s an analogy) is too far off to make your point. Absolutely nobody is demanding any sort of secrecy which has to do with the judicial process itself. The plaintiffs in Establishment Clause cases aren’t acting as witnesses whose credibility or character is relevant. They’re not testifying. The only issue regarding them is standing and that can be determined by a judge.

    Consider instead an analogy where a public high school is accused of allowing atheists to use the Beginning Announcements to lead students in a ‘voluntary’ recitation that there is no God. WHO objects isn’t important — the name of the student, the name of the parents, and so forth. If they are Christians who fear retribution due to angry letters and public denouncements against “Jebus scum” (and past history of violence against people who object to the State promoting atheism to public school children) then there’s no legal problem with their identity being concealed. The trials are not automatically in danger of being held in secret because of some bizarre slippery slope.

    The ‘prayer-crime’ could just as well be an ‘atheism-crime.’ Separation of church and state would rule both out for the same reasons — and wouldn’t effect whether or not student individuals can pray or blaspheme on their own in school as much as they want (assuming they’re not disrupting class, of course.)

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Stazi Sastra:

    “The only issue regarding them is standing and that can be determined by a judge”

    But in due process defendants are allowed to challenge standing of the plaintiff. But you can’t if you don’t know who the plaintiff is. But what does due process matter, when the verdict precedes the trial? As lefty barrister Pieret says: all that matters is “whether school employees were leading and participating in prayers with students”. So who needs due process. Prayer = guilty. It’s too simple for due process.

    What we really need is informants in families–the school could recruit children to inform when their parents are praying illegally. The kiddies could get a prize for turning mom and pops in–maybe a copy of Jerry Coyne’s new book or a one year membership in the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They could start a club in school–the Junior Prayer Police. They could denounce their parents in front of the entire school in assembly.

    This stuff has always happened in nations governed by atheists.

    Eternal vigilance is the price of atheism.

  • theDukedog7 .

    After all, if you don’t have prayer police and secret informants and anonymous plaintiffs and verdicts before trial, who is gonna protect you from theocracy?

  • John Pieret

    There are, of course, no “prayer-crimes” involved. The suit simply seeks to have government officials follow the Constitution.

    Why do you hate the Constitution, Egnor? You some sort of commie?

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Stazi Sastra:

    “Consider instead an analogy where a public high school is accused of allowing atheists to use the Beginning Announcements to lead students in a ‘voluntary’ recitation that there is no God.”

    That’s not a hypothetical. Whenever students in biology class are force-fed “life evolved by an unguided process of natural selection”, they are led in an (involuntary) recitation that “there is no God”.

    You object to school prayer because you realize the threat it poses to your indoctrination.

  • John Pieret

    Stop trolling. As I said before, the didtrict”s lawyers will be given enough information to determine if the plaintiffs have standing.

    Your ignorance of the law is not evidence in favor of your delusions!

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Inspector Javert Pieret:

    “There are, of course, no “prayer-crimes” involved. The suit simply seeks to have government officials follow the Constitution.”

    I must have missed the “no school prayer” clause. Is it tucked in the Establishment Clause or the the Free Exercise Clause?

    Obviously not the latter, but not the former either, unless you deem voluntary school prayer as establishing a federal religion.

    That’s one hell of a prayer. Must be a bigger prayer than the ones that presidents pray, or congressmen pray, or senators pray, or judges pray, or soldiers pray, or that are written on government monuments across the nation.

    A little voluntary prayer in a little school is a federal religion. Since we had millions of prayers in the dark ages before Engel, we must have had millions of Establishments of Religion.

    Oh the Theocracy!

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Prosecutor Pieret:

    “As I said before, the didtrict”s lawyers will be given enough information to determine if the plaintiffs have standing.”

    In other words, the judge will tell the defendants all they need to know about the standing, which the defendants will then recite back to the judge who just told them so the judge can decide what he already decided based on the arguments he gave to the defendants.

    How, may I ask , do you think the judge will rule, based on his own arguments he provided to the defense?

    Sounds like due process to me.

  • colnago80

    I really get a kick out of Schmucknor arguing with John Pieret about the law. Pieret is a lawyer and the only interaction with the law that Schmucknor has is when he gets sued for malpractice, probably a frequent occurrence.

  • whheydt

    I am reminded of the story told by detective fiction writer Margery Allingham. Just on the eve of WW2, she sold a story to a US magazine. When the war started, the editors wanted to make some changes to reflect the changed conditions. Allingham sent a telegram telling her agent to agree to the changes. British counter-intelligence came to call because of the wording of the telegram with was about “telling Colliers” to go ahead with their plans. The counter-intelligence agent didn’t know that Colliers was a US magazine and he had trouble with the idea that the story was *fiction*…that is, not true. This leads me to the following observation for the benefit of tDD7…

    The book 1984 is *fiction*. it is *not* a history book.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Looks like the Junior Police have already been practicing. Good little scouts for the new agenda. Gives me chills.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtGrp5MbzAI

  • theDukedog7 .

    @whheydt:

    “The book 1984 is *fiction*. it is *not* a history book.”

    Tell it to the people of Russia, and eastern Germany, and Poland, and Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, and China, and North Korea, and Vietnam, and Cuba, asshole.

    Anywhere you atheist scum gain power, it’s the same thing.

  • whheydt

    Re: tDD& @ #47…

    If the prayer is led by, or otherwise instigated by the school authorities…it’s an Establishment Clause issue and is barred.

    If the prayer is just one or more students, *completely* voluntary, then it’s the Free Exercise clause and totally permissible.

    It’s when the school is doing the former and trying to pass it off as the later that it takes an actual trial to sort out.

    Bear in mind, please, that both clauses protect *you* and *your* religion every bit as much as (and in some cases more than) they protect others. Look around…you will find Christians that think that Catholics are NOT Christians, and would bar Catholic prayers or other activities while permitting their own versions while claiming to be in defense of Christianity.

    People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and your “house” has a lot more glass than many others.

  • skinnercitycyclist

    So DD7, when you’ve got nothing else you pull an old campaign video from 2008 to prove….what exactly?

    I have to figure you are just trolling and cannot possibly believe what you are writing. Doctor or not, I find it difficult to believe anyone can be bipedal and have opposable thumbs and believe the things you say you believe about this and similar cases. I include all of the lower primates in this assessment along with the great apes.

  • whheydt

    Re: tDD7 @ #52…

    Hmm… Given the gratuitous insults, it appears that I struck a nerve.

  • John Pieret

    Egnor the Propagandist:

    Is it tucked in the Establishment Clause or the the Free Exercise Clause?

    Actually, it is in both. The Establishment Clause says that the government (as in public schools) cannot use taxpayer money to promote a particular religion (in this case Christianity) or religion in general and the Free Exercise Clause guarantees the students the right to practice any religion or no religion free of government compulsion.

    unless you deem voluntary school prayer as establishing a federal religion

    But that’s the problem. The allegation is that coaches and teachers (who can determine playing time and grades) are leading and participating in the prayers. That is obvious compulsion that many teenagers may not be able to resist.

    we must have had millions of Establishments of Religion

    Why did you think the Catholics set up their own schools? It was to escape the relentlessly Protestant preaching and prayers that were common in the public schools before Engle. I knew you were ignorant of civil history but I didn’t know you were ignorant of the history of Catholics in America.

    In other words, the judge will tell the defendants all they need to know about the standing

    No, the judge will insure that the district’s lawyers will have all the information about the plaintiffs necessary so they will be able to independently check the plaintiffs’ standing and challenge it if they think it is appropriate. And if they don’t like the judge’s decision on standing, the district can appeal. In other words, due process.

    Really, Egnor, you should get the tires on your delusionmobile rotated. They are wearing unevenly.

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #42 bwrote:

    But in due process defendants are allowed to challenge standing of the plaintiff. But you can’t if you don’t know who the plaintiff is.

    My understanding is that the defendants may challenge standing through their lawyers — as John Pieret explained in #30. “The school district’s lawyers will be given sufficient information about them to enable them to confirm that standing (probably that they are students in the school.)”

    But what does due process matter, when the verdict precedes the trial? As lefty barrister Pieret says: all that matters is “whether school employees were leading and participating in prayers with students”.

    That’s the law and you don’t like the law. Right. But that’s a different complaint than saying the trial is unfair because the plaintiffs have been granted anonymity.

    What we really need is informants in families–the school could recruit children to inform when their parents are praying illegally.

    We’re not talking about parents doing something in private, we’re talking about school officials doing something in public schools while acting in their role as employees of the government. I think you’re going off-topic.

  • John Pieret

    I missed this Egnorance before:

    As lefty barrister Pieret says: all that matters is “whether school employees were leading and participating in prayers with students”. So who needs due process. Prayer = guilty. It’s too simple for due process.

    Not “guilty” (again it isn’t a criminal trial) but a violation of the Constitution, which it certainly is by the terms of the Constitution and numerous state and Federal court cases. Just as if a public school teacher insisted on leading your children in a Muslim prayer … which I’m sure you’d be perfectly fine with …

  • Sastra

    theDukedog7 #45 wrote:

    “Consider instead an analogy where a public high school is accused of allowing atheists to use the Beginning Announcements to lead students in a ‘voluntary’ recitation that there is no God.”

    That’s not a hypothetical. Whenever students in biology class are force-fed “life evolved by an unguided process of natural selection”, they are led in an (involuntary) recitation that “there is no God”.

    I don’t think the word “unguided” appears in any public high school texts — do you have actual examples? I could be mistaken. If so, then even though it’s scientifically accurate it may indeed fall afoul of the Establishment Clause. The problem for you there is that excellent scientific evidence for the existence of God would also be excluded by the same rule.

    In citing this example you seem to understand and agree here that public schools have no business telling children what they ought to believe about God. Leading them in prayer — whether it be to Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, Spirit, or a “generic” placeholder — is interfering with the rights of the parents to make such decisions.

    It also places conclusions and beliefs about the existence of God into the hands of the State (or the majority.) If, like me, you abhor what happened in regimes which were officially atheistic then you should also be in favor of a secular government.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    And how many times have John or Jane Doe been in court, anyway? It seems suspicious, too me. I think they’re in it for the money and fame.

  • Die Anyway

    Ooh, ooh… prayer police. Can I join? I’m so radical I’ll even report my neighbors if I think that they are thinking about Jesus…whether they really are or not. Can’t be too careful.

  • Anri

    What was actually said in the OP:

    In addition, O’Kelley ruled that while a threat of hostile public reaction doesn’t usually warrant anonymity, “hostility expressed through threats of violence weigh in favor of allowing plaintiffs to proceed anonymously.”

    (emphasis added because duh)

    What theDukedog7 @ 38 thinks was said in the OP:

    What would be great is a network of informants always on the watch for prayer-crimes. The informants would be identifiable only by a number maintained in a confidential file, and trials would be confidential as well–you don’t want mob violence against the prayer-courts!

    … hard of reading or hard of thinking?

    Also, at 42:

    As lefty barrister Pieret says: all that matters is “whether school employees were leading and participating in prayers with students”. So who needs due process. Prayer = guilty. It’s too simple for due process.

    Quick replace with:

    As lefty barrister Pieret says: all that matters is “whether school employees were stealing”. So who needs due process. Theft = guilty. It’s too simple for due process.

    Ok, leaving aside the obvious point that this is a civil, not criminal trial, and therefore no-one is actually facing criminal charges, and that the plaintiff in this instance is the school system rather than any given individuals, and that there appears to be pretty decent reason for anonymity in this case because of, yanno, death threats and all…

    (deep breath)

    … the trial IS due process, you lackwit!

    Yes, it really is time to get it through your head that a teacher leading a class in a ritual of bowing to Mecca on prayer mats five times a day is illegal and unconstitutional. If it happened, a law was broken. Really and for true. The trial is to determine if that happened, not it it’s illegal – we already know that last bit.

    (Yes, it would be equally illegal to have them lead a class in a prayer to your god also.)

  • Anri

    …. and I’m hard of writing. Defendants, not plaintiffs, of course.

    Duh.

  • http://www.clanfield.net janiceintoronto

    I keep looking for the /sarcasm tag on Dukedogs post.

    POE?

  • StevoR

    @ ^ janiceintoronto Indistinguishable from one certainly but sadly prob’ly not.

    Apparently Dukedogshithas identified himself as a certain Dr Egnorance Egnor a “famous” ~ish creationist.

  • StevoR

    Also Dog shit is still here?!

  • StevoR

    If you are reading this Dogshit can I just ask ya why?

    Oh well, stick around ya may learn something even if it is by accident! 😉

    (Of course, my opinion here is almost in as much disrepute as yours is -for a certain value of almost!)

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Anywhere you atheist scum gain power, it’s the same thing.

    …in most cases, not that different from how those countries were either before, or after, the atheists took power. Case in point: Russia — a corrupt backward tyrannical mess when the Tsars were allied to the Russian Orthodox Church, and a corrupt backward tyrannical mess when (ex-KGB-stooge) Putin is allied to the Russian Orthodox Church today.

    Then there’s Latin America, where the Roman Catholic regimes aren’t any better (and sometimes worse) than the “atheist” commies.

    Kinda hard to blame atheists when the theists weren’t (and aren’t) doing any better.

    I see Dukedog’s all-powerful, all-wise god hasn’t made him (or any of his followers) any more intelligent.

  • colnago80

    Re Raging Bee @ #68

    Case in point, Raping Children Church stooge Batista wasn’t much better then Soviet stooge Castro in Cuba.

  • blf

    Egnorance identified himself as Michael Egnor in a comment on PZ’s blog.

    But why believe it ?

    As her/his comments in this thread show, she/he has a tenuous grasp of reality and a worse one of truth. She/he does, however, seem to have had an education, so it’s not impossible that apparent-signature at Pee Zed’s was actually a misdirection for some reason. It’d fit the general behaviour.

    Having said that, she/he has not, to the best of my knowledge, denied the belief or even commented on it. And I am aware of the argument her/his style / idiomatic seems quite similar to that of the genuine Dr Egnor, albeit I myself can neither confirm or deny there is a match.

    My point is just to be careful about believing anything a known liar says, especially when it lacks independent verification.

  • whheydt

    Re; blf @ #70…

    tDD7 also admitted to being Egnor in a thread on this blog, and notice that in this thread, as soon as someone claimed that a different nym on another blog was him as well, he was quick to deny it.

    While his ignorance and denial of science and history is palpable, there is no specific evidence that he is a deliberate liar, unless you think that he is faking his historical or science denying claims. Even so, I don’t generally post the association, let alone use dismissive variations on his name.

    When there were enough comments to make is a reasonable conclusion that the identification is provisionally correct, I noted that and moved on. It doesn’t really matter to me.

    I am willing to give nearly anyone a reasonable degree of civility, no matter how much I may disagree with them or think they are fools for expressed beliefs. When someone starts resorting to personal attacks and abusive language, I try to be even more civil, allowing others to decide who they would rather agree with based on how a position is expressed. Besides, being polite in the face of abusive language often truly enrages those who attempt to “win” arguments by using strong language.

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    Yea, in a trial, who said that you have the right to confront your accuser?

    The school board didn’t oppose the motion, you fucking moron.