The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Texas-sized liar

Posted 15 December 2007 by PZ Myers

Take a look at this interview with Lizzette Reynolds, the Bushite behind the resignation of Chris Comer. The unbelievable claims come out in the second question.

Were you surprised she resigned?

Yes, because I had asked her supervisor to look into the e-mail issue. But I wasn't kept in the loop. I was at a meeting some time later when someone mentioned, "By the way, she (Chris Comer) is resigning today."

Oh, she was surprised? Lizzette Reynolds is the person who wrote this in response to the email:

This is highly inappropriate. I believe this is an offense that calls for termination or, at the very least, reassignment of responsibilities.

They're getting burned on this, which is why they're trying to back away with a pretense of wide-eyed innocence now. Keep the pressure on these dishonest anti-scientific frauds, Texas!

39 Comments

dhogaza · 15 December 2007

The little-known 11th commandment, found in the Book of Fundamentalism ... Lie for Jesus, and heaven is yours.

Paul Burnett · 15 December 2007

The Dishonesty Institute's fingerprints are all over this one. Lizzete was home on "sick leave" when some brown-nose in her office alerted to Chris' e-mail - Lizette wrote the "terminate her!" e-mail from home...while sick. What do you bet Casey Luskin was there coaching her?

This is rich. McLeroy can address Baptist churches on the record about the evils of evolution and use code phrases like "teach the controversy" - and keep his job. Texas is a sick joke.

Doc Bill · 15 December 2007

Reynolds gets BURIED in the comments on the Statesman site (interview with Lizzette Reynolds link above).

She comes off as either incompetent (didn't realize that evolution had become politicized) or a liar (knew full well, but is covering up).

George Deutsch the Second.

Ron Okimoto · 15 December 2007

These guys claim the moral high ground, but for themselves it is whatever they can get away with at the moment.

They are morally indifferent. Morals only apply to the other guy, just as long as they can do what they want, and can get a way with it. When they get caught they just claim that they are forgiven. This is the wrong message to send about Christianity.

Lee H · 15 December 2007

How about this from a story in the Thursday edition of the Dallas Morning News?

" The Science Teachers Association of Texas has issued suggested curriculum standards that keep evolution but eliminate the specific requirement to teach the strengths and weaknesses of theories.

Dr. McLeroy said he wouldn't vote to approve the change. He said he supports the current wording and also could support an addition that requires teaching the strengths and weaknesses specific to evolution.

'I'm a Christian, and I think about how this impacts everything,' Dr. McLeroy said. 'Religion is not just something you put on the side. It's everything. I see us all created in the image of God. I don't believe nature is all there is.'"

raven · 15 December 2007

Crosspost from PZ board. 1. Reynolds would be facing criminal perjury charges if she said what she said under oath in court. 2. If Ms. Comer pursues a religious discrimination suit, IMO she would have an excellent chance of winning. The Texas Taliban and the DI have left dinosaur sized footprints all over this flagrant abuse of the US constitution.
Lizette Reynolds would make a great witness in court. It isn't the crime that nails these folks. It is the coverup. What is the probability that the paper shredders are working overtime in Texas, home of Enron and Arthur Anderson? 100%. Clunk!!! That sound was just a few dozen hard drives accidently getting tossed into the garbage bin. Perjury and obstruction of justice can be felonies. She seems really stupid. A good lawyer could probably demonstrate enough lies under oath to put her away for a while. "Are you now or have you ever been an acceptor of the fact of evolution." The Texas Taliban

Ravilyn Sanders · 15 December 2007

Let us get the TEA/ID/DI logic straight.

The ninth graders should be given a chance to hear all sides of an issue and the strength and weaknesses of a theory so that that poor child can come to an informed conclusion.

Would that logic not apply to the education administrators working for TEA? Should they not be informed about all sides of the issue? Would it not be Chris Comers job to not only tell them about Forrest lecture, but also make sure every one of them attend it?

Politicians like Lizzette Reynolds are simply plainly opportunistic. They think ID is an issue that harvests them Christian votes so they play it like a fiddle. The moment it costs them more votes than it gets them, they will drop it like a hot potato. (oops sorry, potatoe, Thanks for the correction Dan Quale).

When the coldly calculating campaign honchos figure out that this issue energizes the left like legal abortions energize the right, they will tone down the rhetoric and make ID in schools a non issue.

So let us keep at it and make sure it costs votes. Like it happened in Dover PA. That heart of Bible belt in Pennsylvania threw out the entire school board. How much swing does it take for Texas Republicans to pay a political price?

What would stir the Texans up and stop being so apathetic? Would a big name univ decide to derecognize Texas high schools credentials and require Texas grads to pass an independent examn to be considered for admission?

David Stanton · 15 December 2007

Is everyone who claims to love Jesus a morally bankrupt lying hypocrite, or is it just the anti-evolution nut-cases? Enquiring minds want to know.

No, seriously, can anyone think of even one anti-evolution cretin who hasn't lied about something while at the same time claiming that they are trying to preserve the morals of everyone else? If they would just take the time to read the Bible they profess to believe in, they would see that Jesus had some pretty harsh things to say about people like that. Oh well, at least lies can easily be exposed in court. Still, not a very good strategy for those who try to claim the moral high-road.

Henry J · 15 December 2007

I thought the eleventh commandment was "thou shalt not get caught". Then again, it looks like they broke that one, too.

Henry

cronk · 15 December 2007

Ravilyn Sanders: ... they will drop it like a hot potato. (oops sorry, potatoe, Thanks for the correction Dan Quale).
Quayle/Quale potato/potatoe Let's call the whole thing off.

JJ · 15 December 2007

Lee H - Do you have a link to the DMN article that you can post. I tried to access it on Friday, but was unable. We need the quotes from the article....thanks

Paul Burnett · 15 December 2007

JJ said: "Lee H - Do you have a link to the DMN article..."

Here you are: "Teaching of evolution to go under microscope"

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/121307dnmetevolution.2af0951.html

Frank J · 15 December 2007

OK, I'm not a fan of Bush, but let's remember that Judge Jones and science advisor John Marburger (who defended evolution at leat twice against ID) are also "Bushites." Bush himself only said that he thinks ID should be taught along side evolution. There's no indication that he has a clue as to what that would entail other than it sounds fair on the surface.

Frank J · 15 December 2007

The little-known 11th commandment, found in the Book of Fundamentalism … Lie for Jesus, and heaven is yours.

— dhogaza
I don't think that Michael Medved, Orthodox Jew and DI fellow, would be too keen on that. For him and the rest of the new age anti-evolution activists it's more like "Spin for Leo Strauss, and authoritarian Utopia is yours."

Dale Husband · 15 December 2007

As a native of Texas and dedicated to defending evolution, I'm gearing up for WAR now!

ndt · 15 December 2007

A "Bushite" is not merely someone appointed by Bush. A Bushite is someone appointed by Bush for solely political reasons.

Mike Elzinga · 16 December 2007

Is everyone who claims to love Jesus a morally bankrupt lying hypocrite, or is it just the anti-evolution nut-cases? Enquiring minds want to know.
I have a partially formed hypothesis about that. I suspect that, because of the fact that religious freedom is protected by the constitution in this country, a lot of religion, especially fundamentalism, has become a refuge for crooks, hucksters, and political scoundrels. If they get caught in their deceits and meddling, they can howl religious persecution. These jerks can make good money, rip people off, get name recognition, jockey for political influence, lie, cheat, and engage in every other kind of deceitful behavior. Just having their churches and freedom to worship as they please is not enough for them. Instead of encouraging church members to improve their educations, learn science, become informed, they exploit the naïveté and paranoia of the members of these sects to whip them into blind armies of the night warring against other churches and secular society to impose their sectarian dogma on everyone else. I know a number of people and their families who belong to some of these sects. They would otherwise seem like reasonably decent people; however they are in constant fear of everything secular and not of their sect. They are bombarded with crap every Sunday as well as during mid-week meetings. Instead of searching for solutions to life’s problems and gaining deeper insights into human relations and other knowledge, they spend most of their time blaming everyone else for their own problems. They fear the textbooks in the public school and hence fall prey to hucksters selling them school books with “Christian values” scattered through out the text. And they have local State Representatives in their midst stoking their fears and pushing legislation that attempts to advance their agendas. We have seen how some of the people gunning for leadership positions in these sects train for their positions right here on PT and on campus quads. They go up against “the enemy” and polish their shtick until it is impervious to any evidence or reason. Then they carry it back to their churches and impose it on an already fearful congregation. They have a lot of power and authority within these sects. And there is no law against it. No requirements to be sane, honest, responsible, and well educated in dealing with the lives of others.

Inoculated Mind · 16 December 2007

If they get caught in their deceits and meddling, they can howl religious persecution.
No! Those are good god-fearing people - I would never expect a politician to hide behind religion for any of their ideas. I mean, what would Bush do... uh.... uh oh.

FL · 16 December 2007

If Ms. Comer pursues a religious discrimination suit, IMO she would have an excellent chance of winning.

I would love to see that hypothesis tested in court, Raven. You might be right, of course.....but you might also be wrong. And as I said previously, Ms. Comer would still have to do some 'splainin about things, no matter what verdict is rendered. So c'mon folks, send Ms. Comer an email to help her git started. Tell her to call those good ole boys down at the ACLU, git that big lawsuit filed pronto, and answer a few measly questions under oath. Like David Stanton said, enquiring minds want to know! FL

snaxalotl · 16 December 2007

hmmm ... Bushite is interchangeable with Bullshite

David Stanton · 16 December 2007

Mike wrote:

"And there is no law against it. No requirements to be sane, honest, responsible, and well educated in dealing with the lives of others."

Maybe Mike is right. Maybe most prople aren't really religious in the truest sense. Maybe they just want to use religion as a tool to control other people for their own neferious ends. That view seems a bit cynical, but it does seem to be supported by a lot of evidence. That would certainly explain the consistent lack of morals in the most outspoken segment of the demographic.

However, I must respectfuly disagree with the statement above. While it is technically correct, there are no such laws as stated, there are laws protecting individuals in the workplace from religious discrimination. So, I guess I agree with FL. I want this to go to trial. I want Comer to have the chance to prove that she was essentially terminated by a bunch of religious zealots who totally disredarded the law and common decency. I want her to be reinstated and the scum who fired her dismissed and put in jail (if she can prove that she was discriminated against). I want a clear message sent that religious discrimination cannot be used as a tool in the fight against good science. We simply cannot allow the anti-evolution wing-nuts to get rid of everyone who stands up for good science, at least not without a fight.

And before you go howling at me, yes, I think the same principle applies to the Gonzlalez case. If he was indeed denied tenure based solely on his personal religious views, he should sue and he should win. I seriously doubt that that is the case, but he does deserve his day in court. I think that it will be much easier for Comer to prove her case, but we could argue about it for centuries and unless the cases go to trial and the evidence is presented, we will never know for sure. And yes, I think the losing side should pay all court costs in any case.

There is a desperate culture war going on in this country and there will be casualities. However, if we allow the anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-evidence nut-cases to claim the moral high ground and then blatantly engage in religious discrimination against anyone who does not share their views in order to remove the opposition and then cover it up by lying without consequences, we will lose big time. We must make them accountable for their actions, especially since they have such a hard time keeping their big fat mouths shut about their true motivations.

TomS · 16 December 2007

‘I’m a Christian, and I think about how this impacts everything,’ Dr. McLeroy said. ‘Religion is not just something you put on the side. It’s everything. I see us all created in the image of God. I don’t believe nature is all there is.’”
To follow the line suggested by this quote (1) If something is done by God, then science should not study it (2) Each of us is a creature of God The conclusion would seem to be (3) Deny reproductive biology as a study of the origins of the individual After all, reproductive biology gives a scientific explanation for where we came from. It is reproductive biology that this line is relevant to, not evolutionary biology (which is about populations, not individuals). Genetics says that chance is involved in reproduction, not Divine direction for each mutation and crossing.

Mike Elzinga · 16 December 2007

And yes, I think the losing side should pay all court costs in any case.
This appears to be one of the main problems in the case of the ID/Creationists; they seem to manage to avoid personal responsibility while sticking the public with the bill. They do it by worming their way into public offices or boards and then get sued as public officials. The law suits get aimed at the office, or board, and not the perpetrators. It wouldn’t be surprising that this is part of their strategy. It is happening on science advisory panels for the government also, thanks to the current administration. So it appears as though the scam artist tendencies are well-honed in this crowd, and it is not by accident that this crap goes on.

raven · 16 December 2007

The last Comer type case I saw was some years ago. The victim won and was awarded court costs and legal fees.

Some religious bigots got elected to the county government and went after the local librarian. Who was your typical middle aged lady, probably with a couple of cats. They wanted to toss out a lot of books and restock it with their own selection and promptly fired her.

She sued and set up a defense fund to which I contributed a modest amount among many others. Religious judge, short trial. She got her job back, judge awarded her legal fees and court costs to be paid by the county. He also had some scathing things to say about the wannabe fascists.

She sent my check back with a nice note. The voters tossed the fanatics in the next election.

These days things might have gone differently or maybe not. All depends on how far down our civilization has gone on the slope to the new Dark Ages.

MPW · 16 December 2007

Raven, can you give us a name or some other googlable details about this librarian case? I'd love to read more about it and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Re. the comments at the Statesman interview - the relatively few pro-Reynolds commentors are enlightening. By which I mean, they would be if they weren't telling us things we already know.

Examples: They can't talk about this subject without proselytizing for God and Jesus at the drop of a hat. They don't understand even the fundamentals of evolutionary theory. To make their case, they have to tell blatant falsehoods, mistakenly or purposely, about the story (Comer wasn't fired, she voluntarily resigned; Comer spammed a bunch of people with an anti-ID email; Texas education administrators are neutral about evolution/ID, except for Comer; evolutionists are censoring alternative viewpoints; etc.). And they can't spell atheist.

Anyone else think the interviewer should have challenged Reynolds a lot more strongly? I posted a longer comment to that effect over there.

NGL · 16 December 2007

FL:

If Ms. Comer pursues a religious discrimination suit, IMO she would have an excellent chance of winning.

I would love to see that hypothesis tested in court, Raven. You might be right, of course.....but you might also be wrong. And as I said previously, Ms. Comer would still have to do some 'splainin about things, no matter what verdict is rendered. So c'mon folks, send Ms. Comer an email to help her git started. Tell her to call those good ole boys down at the ACLU, git that big lawsuit filed pronto, and answer a few measly questions under oath. Like David Stanton said, enquiring minds want to know! FL
The idiot persists.

Stanton · 16 December 2007

FL:

If Ms. Comer pursues a religious discrimination suit, IMO she would have an excellent chance of winning.

I would love to see that hypothesis tested in court, Raven. You might be right, of course.....but you might also be wrong. And as I said previously, Ms. Comer would still have to do some 'splainin about things, no matter what verdict is rendered. So c'mon folks, send Ms. Comer an email to help her git started. Tell her to call those good ole boys down at the ACLU, git that big lawsuit filed pronto, and answer a few measly questions under oath. Like David Stanton said, enquiring minds want to know! FL
Says the guy who is physically incapable of providing proof of his own alleged "hypotheses" when asked repeatedly, and is physically incapable of demonstrating how Intelligent Design is not religious in nature.

raven · 16 December 2007

MPW: Raven, can you give us a name or some other googlable details about this librarian case? I’d love to read more about it and I’m sure I’m not alone.
That is an excellent question. A few minutes on google yielded nothing. Some time ago was a long time ago. The early 1980's, preinternet as we know it. The details as I remember them. It was in northern Utah above SLC. The religious bigots were Mormons. For all I know the librarian was also a Mormon. Being Mormon in Utah is like being American in the USA. That she got her job back and was awarded court and legal fees is for sure. She sent my check back with an explanation that the court ordered her persecutors to pay her lawyers. The county politicians lost the next election. If anyone knows or finds anything out, please post it. After all this time, I'm curious myself.

raven · 16 December 2007

From highbeam encyclopedia: For example, in 1979, Utah county discharged a library director for refusal to remove a book but, in due course and after considerable expense, she was vindicated (see Krug & Harvey, 1992; Layton v. Swapp, 1979). In this setting, it appeared that the library director held legal authority and acted within that authority.
Not going to find much on the net from a 1979 case. The librarian's name was Layton, the Mormon bigot was Swapp and the city might have been Logan or Cache county. The Swapps aren't very nice people.
Addam Swapp, who considered Singer a martyr and married two of his daughters [and their mother!], had a revelation from God to blow up the Marion LDS stake center in 1988 to bring Singer back from the dead.[My note. He did blow it up but Singer is still dead.] A 13-day siege ended in a shoot-out with Swapp wounded and a corrections officer killed.[My note. The dead cop is also still dead.]
I don't know the relationship between the Swapp in the court case and the homicidal polygamist, if any. Given the history of Utah, they are most likely very, very, closely related.

Matthew Lowry · 17 December 2007

FL:

If Ms. Comer pursues a religious discrimination suit, IMO she would have an excellent chance of winning.

I would love to see that hypothesis tested in court, Raven. You might be right, of course.....but you might also be wrong. And as I said previously, Ms. Comer would still have to do some 'splainin about things, no matter what verdict is rendered. So c'mon folks, send Ms. Comer an email to help her git started. Tell her to call those good ole boys down at the ACLU, git that big lawsuit filed pronto, and answer a few measly questions under oath. Like David Stanton said, enquiring minds want to know! FL
Wow, I seem to recall the Disco Institute and other creationists begging for ID-creationism to be given its day in a federal court - in fact, it was part of their Wedge Strategy to have ID confirmed as valid science in open court. Of course, before the court case there was a lot of "smack-talk" like what FL is stating here. But when the rubber hits the road, such as in the Dover case, they put forth their best efforts and they get beaten to a pulp. Judge Jones, a church-going Republican and Bush appointee, saw through their arguments easily and issued an embarassing 139-page ruling against the creationists in the Dover case. Now all the Disco Institute and creationists can do is cry like whiny little babies when they got the "smack-down" in an open federal court case that they wanted in the first place. Oh, boo-hoo... Seems to me like FL is carrying on this creationist tradition. Be careful what you wish for FL, you might just get that court case.

FL · 17 December 2007

Hey, I already said that Raven just might be right. Or Raven just might be wrong. What is certain is that the usual verbal ping-pong on PT ain't settling the issue. Not providing the information that's needed. Therefore, win or lose, ya gotta take it to court, boys! Put all of 'em on the witness stand and let 'em explain a few things (especially Ms. Comer, tee-hee!). ***************

....physically incapable of demonstrating how Intelligent Design is not religious in nature.

Actually, that particular demonstration has already been done and done. But if you want to see some MORE proof, just join us over at KCFS. You gonna love it! http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=751&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 FL :)

Bill Gascoyne · 17 December 2007

raven: Being Mormon in Utah is like being American in the USA.
Actually, less than 61% and shrinking.

raven · 17 December 2007

Raven: Being Mormon in Utah is like being American in the USA. Bill: Actually, less than 61% and shrinking.
Yes, saw that on Wikipedia. Utah is on track to be less than 50% LDS by 2030. It was higher in 1979, IIRC around 75%. The statistics don't really tell the whole story. Most of the gentiles (Mormon term for nonmembers) are clustered in a few places, SLC and southwestern Utah. In the area north of SLC where the library attack occurred, the Mormon population was probably around 80-90%. I never knew the religion of Ms. Layton. She was very likely a Mormon based on geography and the position she held, library director. Didn't care either. The small number of documents online don't really capture the ambiance of the case. A middle aged lady librarian being bullied by religious bigots for doing her job. They also did to her what they did to Ms. Comer. Fired her for one reason and then made up a bunch of secondary reasons when the public noticed. Those reasons apparently didn't even make it into court.

NGL · 17 December 2007

FL: Hey, I already said that Raven just might be right. Or Raven just might be wrong. What is certain is that the usual verbal ping-pong on PT ain't settling the issue. Not providing the information that's needed. Therefore, win or lose, ya gotta take it to court, boys! Put all of 'em on the witness stand and let 'em explain a few things (especially Ms. Comer, tee-hee!). ***************

....physically incapable of demonstrating how Intelligent Design is not religious in nature.

Actually, that particular demonstration has already been done and done. But if you want to see some MORE proof, just join us over at KCFS. You gonna love it! http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=751&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 FL :)
Seriously? You're citing yourself rehashing the same discredited drivel you keep bringing up as "proof"? That's retarded. The impotence of your intellect is astounding. Your tired arguments are nothing more than polished excrement. You have contributed nothing whatsoever to the discussion. You are a fetid, disgusting, worthless bridge dweller whose ego is maintained solely by the negative attention he draws to himself by pretending to be clever. Nothing you ever say or do will ever convince anyone otherwise. I advise you get off the internet and seek psychiatric help so the two brain cells that still work inside that festering lump you call a head don't kill each other. Stop posting.

jasonmitchell · 17 December 2007

FL is funny, (like a clown)
seriously, he makes me laugh - read the comments a little downstream from the link - FL's stance is ripped to shreds.

FL - IANAL but here's something to think about:
In a court case, a policy (action, whatever) can be judged religious in nature if it's intent or effect is religious. The Wedge Document and Dembski's own words reveal that their promotion of ID is to further their version of Christianity, not science for science's sake. IOW it DOESN'T really matter if ID Prima Facie is a non-religious concept. (as it turns out ID isn't scientific either)

here's an analogy:
raising money for hurricane Katrina victims, most people would agree is a charitable thing to do, and on it's face - not religious.

raising money for ministries to hurricane Katrina victims - is religious activity. The difference is the intent of the people asking for the money.

Even though the act of asking for contributions is not inherently religious; the intention of using the money to pay for the expenses of a minister vs. say food for victims makes a difference. (the federal gov't can fund the former but not the latter regardless of the fact that some would argue that both are needed/beneficial)

Ichthyic · 17 December 2007

There’s no indication that he has a clue

truer words have never been spoken about GW.

Ichthyic · 17 December 2007

You’re citing yourself rehashing the same discredited drivel you keep bringing up as “proof”? That’s retarded.

again, truer words...

Dale Husband · 19 December 2007

I would submit that FL is the REAL Texas-sized liar around here.

Vernita · 7 January 2008

Vernita:
Vernita: Links to Dr. Forrest's You Tube Videos entitled, "Barbara Forrest: The Woman Texas Creationists Really Don't Want You to Hear" 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwvE0owTmk 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_OLlAfmrQs 3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-AT4unW4Q 4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXxB7JEOOI 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E97GFmYNaFI