Birdy

I still have a leg or two. In a really long and disturbingly convoluted way I was trying to touch upon how some of us sensitize, or desensitize these issues. The real article shows proof, and admittedly that part of my argument sucks. Yet i still wouldn't have taken it to the level this kid has. To me it shouldn't come down to being between reason and belief and I see and can understand the reasonable side of your argument. What I'm looking for is a way that can represent us all, those who look to reason and those who look to belief for answers. And think that possibly, such a way has the potential to make everyone more accepting of each other, regardless of where our differences lie. Bradm offered up suggestions and I only wish I was able to do the same. I hear what's been said against my argument in this thread. I guess the method to the madness here is that maybe I just need to agree to disagree and carry on for another day.

You're gorgeous Pt.

PT, and i admit, the evidence in this article is far more compelling.

Noone needs to quit anything. It is what it is. The thread is dead... let's move on. Thanks for posting the NYTimes article Pt... but i'm really, really done with this one. Maybe my mission would be complete if the yayyyy god thread were to be locked after all. KIDDING!

my two cents is about politics. you're great. see ya.

Thank you d_jango. I guess i'm not granted the same rights as those in the echo chamber.

That's what I've been saying for over two years!! There is no room for anyone to breath in the politics forum due to the constant battle with Birdy in every thread. Spare me your insults Ollie. How f'ing tiring you are sometimes.

Maybe if those who disagreed with my interpretation would come out and offer a different interpretation we could all carry on merrily. I'm stuck here defending myself against an entity whose side or interpretation I'm not really sure of. That would help me out quite a bit, i think. Phishtaper - the article was a he said/she said case. It just was. We don't have any direct quotes do we? We have this kid who provides a subjective intepretation of what the teacher said in the classroom. He then goes on to make an even bigger implication over the teacher's sick child. I see what many have 'sensed' here and by all means, sense away. I sensed differently. I also think, as I mentioned earlier, that maybe you sense the way you do because these types of occurences have led the very utterance of god-talk make people more 'sensitive'. I really don't see sufficient evidence in existence here. It's all very subject to interpretation to take it to the level it was took to. In my opinion, of course.

Brad you continually get my vote with every one of your ideas. I'm not so sure I agree with your second paragraph explaining the idea, but the first is great. Seems to me things along these lines would make us so much more accepting of each other as a religious and non-religious culture. hahah... thanks Kev!! I know the WORD!

Yah I know. Hence the problem, as I see it. Kev - sorry, I don't mean to imply you're a bully... that was the wrong phrase to use when I was feeling frustrated.

Oh, I totally agree. I guess i'm not on the side of those who think in order to appease we must eliminate all traces of religion from our sight. I'd rather we have some kind of buffet of choice where people can freely and openly discuss their beliefs and be able to be challenged. Thing is, I don't know how to accomplish this and nor does anyone really and probably why this continues to go case by case in how to deal with it. And then I further go on to wonder if this sensitivity is heightened because of how we deal with it. So the reason I don't like it is that it creates this sensitivity in people that I think for the most part shouldn't exist. Why care if your teacher talks about his God? You can surely talk about your God, can't you? That kind of thing. I know it becomes super sticky when say a teacher would insist upon a belief that say, all non-christians are going to hell. But I guess i'd rather have some kind of divisionary line drawn up to say what takes it too far, rather than assume EVERYTHING takes it too far. Ya know? Hopefully that wasn't too confusing.

I’m not trying to argue with myself. And I’m not trying to believe one person over another. I don’t even really know anymore how to get across what I’m trying to say. Agh. I guess I’ll just say this: I think it sucks that we assume the worst in people (this teacher). I think it sucks that the New York Times would feel the need to make this an issue when this particular case is nothing but a ‘he said/she said’ argument. I find it pretty interesting that most people in this forum didn’t read the story as I had read it and think it says something about how we tend to get our backs up when stuff like this gets mentioned. Especially considering that we acknowledge we can’t believe one or the other because we weren’t there and we don’t know them. I find this kind of trend (not being critical, the need to make a story, the getting defensive) increasing as we continue to promote secularization. And I don’t like it. That’s all I’m trying to say. And I don’t think I’m mis-interpreting anything.

Am i still totally misinterpreting? Yah, bad choice of words. However, that is a much more appropriate definition of the word 'wanker'.

hahaha... ok! tell me what i've mis-interpreted, please. my point is, nothing in this article would tell me this teacher has done anything WRONG based on what 'I' consider wrong. Yes, he talked about his beliefs and Noah's Ark, but did he come right out and say 'you're all going to hell if you don't convert'? i don't think so. then we have a kid who for some reason gets offended because his teacher leaks his beliefs into a classroom and talks about his own god. why? really, why? i guess i've never understood why people get so uptight and defensive about people who are in some position of authority talking about god(s). to the point where we feel comfortable with saying what this particular teacher was 'implying' WITHOUT even hearing or reading a single word. i find that unbelievable and a testament to where secularization has advanced our collective mindframes and how far we take it. please don't get me wrong, i'm not defending this teacher, but criticizing the action of the student.

This guy wasn't teaching religion, he was teaching the formation of the American consitution and what it's principles meant and were founded upon. Just so happens religion plays a large part of that. So (and I'm assuming here) the talk of Christianity, in context of this course, led to a more freer discussion of his own personal beliefs. There is no telling kids that if they don't accept Christ we aren't teaching them history. Suggesting that is ridiculous. I think moreso what is being taught is that we must acknowledge Christ to be taught history and there's a huge difference which gets very muddled/distorted by the secularists. Because a teacher launches into a diatribe about his own beliefs and/or what he did on the weekend and/or his dysfunctional family, shouldn't be used against him as an attempt to sell his students. Obviously your teacher thought he was trying to teach an important lesson about drug use, which I think for the most part is expected of our teachers as they become more and more of a socializing unit (more than parents themselves.) Saying that people who believe in god are more stupid is just plain stupid. If he talked about his belief in atheism without trying to insult those who are believers, it would be something different in itself. This particular case that I'm arguing here, there really exists no concrete evidence that the teacher did anything of the sort. We have an admittedly humanist student who also admittedly took the course to discover just how little religion did play a role in the formation of the US Constitution, who got a little upset when low and behold, religion crept it's way into the classroom, not only in the context of history, but in his own teacher's beliefs. And no, i don't 'dig' that being accurate isn't being anti-religious, and being religious often IS being anti-accurate. You can't control a person's beliefs and you, nor I, nor any other living being, can fundamentally prove without a doubt one thing from another. I'm not arguing secularization itself. I'm arging what secularization does to our collective consciousness, dig?

Where's my friend theophrastus bombastus during this particular conversation? I would think he'd have a lot to say on this subject.

In your eyes, my friend! It's not even really a debate, i don't think. Just different ways of viewing what secularization means to most and 'should' mean to most and how certain actions get taken vastly too far to aid the proponents of secularization in their cases. Ok, maybe it is a debate. I don't feel though that anything I've said should be construed as stepping off into the deep end, and if it is, then thank god i'm a good swimmer. I just tire really, really easily of the countless things that those in favour of secularization do and think for the most part, they are entirely unnecessary. Like I said, if I had a teacher (which I have had) who exposed their faith to me in a classroom, I wouldn't in a trillion years do what this kid has done. I would raise my hand and challenge this teacher on his beliefs and use his answers to learn more. But to each their own. Our world seems to increasingly deny people's rights to express themselves through this vehicle known as secularization and I find it appalling just how far people take it. I'm all for the separation of the church and state, but I also respect the rights of my teachers to hold faith and to talk about that faith freely and openly (even in a classroom) without being critized as trying to proselytize. When did talking about your beliefs to others suddenly and unequivocally mean you are trying to sell them on them? I find something so disturbingly wrong about that. Hamilton - corrective action wasn't taken by this particular school UNTIL the New York Times started to cover the case. I think if anything the school was trying to avoid bad press and having a situation blow too far out of proportion. I certainly don't think the kid was full of shit, but I do think he implied things that simply weren't implied.

What do you mean it doesn't sound? Are you taking this kid's word straight up? Does the teacher not get a say? The kid taped the lectures, yet nothing is said about those tapes. Just what the kid's opinion of what was said during un-taped lectures. He then went on to say that by the teacher mentioning he has a child with kidney disease implied that he (the kid) would be killing his teacher's child if he pursued. Am I the only one being critical of this kid's hearsay?? How can you say what he is implying if you weren't there to listen to the words being spoken and no actual words spoken were cited? Wow.

There's also a reason they protected fundamental freedoms Hal. Having a teacher who expresses himself/herself as a Christian is NOT advocating de-secularization.

hehe... look at all the quotes! Let me just say this, religion wouldn't be religion if it weren't for the believers. There would be nothing to learn. If a teacher is a believer, all the better in my opinion. If you're learning about the witch hunt and your teacher can talk about casting spells and drawing pentograms, all the better in my opinion. Learning history would be so much better if we learnt it from a believer, rather than someone with a text book coughing up dates. A believer still has it within their power to teach alternatives. But for some reason, we are so quick to judge. Proselytizing is the act of trying to convert. How does mentioning a belief as a state-sanctioned employee apply? Are we to say that teachers do not have it within their rights to self-express? Could we go all consitutional here and talk freedom of expression, thought, religion, belief? I'd go there. Does it really come down to calling people 'wankers' for self-expressing? Posting up derogatory photos on a web forum? Consider suing people for self-expression? Fuck me. I hate what this world has become. Should our schools better serve us if all state-sanctioned employees (aka, teachers) were yesmen teaching nothing but the facts? Or do you think just maybe that someone with a belief or two has the power to inspire to the positive or the negative of an argument for people to learn more. I vote on the latter.

No, i'm calling the kid an exaggerator/taker-out-of-contexter. Not that he didn't do it a little later on in the article:

There's nothing to be 'concerned' with here. It is what it is within a certain period in our history. Fact is, it says men. Fact is, it says creator. This kid signed up for a HISTORY course. You can't revise history to suit your own ideals. Furthermore, can someone please tell me what is so wrong with a teacher saying he believes in a Christian god? Why does the very mention of a belief mean that they are trying to prosetylize?

I don't see how any of that isn't probably taken out of context. "According to" = key words. Funny how the actual taping of the teacher's words didn't turn up any of this stuff. Which *seems* to be an increasing trend in the fight for those who want to see this stuff taken out of schools. How dare he talk about creationism.

He took an American History Class excited to hear about how his forefathers framed the American constitution and then was pissed "to the point of considering suing" that Christianity leaked it's way into the classroom? I'm a student of history, and the American constitution was framed on the principles of Christianity! I find it odd that you use the word 'excusable' in your vocab talking about this, as it is a 'pretty important historical event' and without religious talk in the classroom, you wouldn't be getting the whole picture. Perhaps this humanist shouldn't have signed up for a course in American History if he fails to realize how much of a role Christianity played. Talk about revisionary aspirations. *shudder* A teaching professional talking about religion doesn't necessitate the use of the word 'preach'.

from the telegram.com "I could have sued". Wow. How does anyone learn about religion if it can't be taught? We advocate the separation of the church and state, but i can't help but think we're taking away a valuable educational resource. To think that a teacher can't express what he believes irritates the fuck out of me.