yayyyyyy God

[Hal Johnson]

Aaaaand, that article, nor the kid, is trying to say religion cant be taught (in schools), not sure how you came up with that.

Not to mention, how frustrated would you be if you were taking a course on , oh say air quality in major urban centres and all the teacher did was talk about how awesome his Hummer was and that everybody should get a Hummer? Even that is more excusable than having a teaching professional preach religion when he's supposed to be educating the children on a pretty important historical event.

hoping to learn how the founding fathers, among other things, framed the U.S. Constitution to guarantee that the government would be free of religious influences.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

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'.

[Hal Johnson]

"According to Mr. LaClair, Mr. Paszkiewicz, during class time, advocated the theory of creationism, denigrated the beliefs of Muslims, and said that only Christians were destined for heaven. In one discussion, Mr. Paszkiewicz observed that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s Ark.

“He basically said that if you didn’t follow Jesus you’d go to hell,†Mr. LaClair said. "

I dont see what any of this has to do with the topic of the course.

Naturally, you'd want to talk about christianity when teaching such course, but the article clearly shows that the teacher went over and above what would be generally accepted as pertinent information.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Guest

[Birdy]

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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

How dare he talk about creationism.

[ollie]

If you're going to take that literally I'd be more concerned with the "all men" part.

[phishtaper]

"According to" = key words.

so, you calling the kid a liar?

[Birdy]

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?

[Birdy]

so, you calling the kid a liar?

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:

Mr. LaClair said his teacher said that he needed his job because he had four children dependent on him, including one with kidney disease.

“It was almost like he was saying that I’d be killing the kid, if I continued to push forward with my complaint,†said Mr. LaClair.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Guest

[Hal Johnson]

So you dont believe the kid. Fine then. In a completely hypothetical situation that has nothing to do with this article, a teacher at a public school should not preach their religion to their students. They should be able to, hypothetically of course, get through a lecture on the Seperation of Church and State, without having to tell the students how awesome christianity is, and/or make any of the students feel as though they are having their religous views comprimised. Is that too much to ask?

[ollie]

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?

Reminds me of my grade 12 english teacher who would slyly mention that he might not be in class come Monday as he was going to participate in an anti-abortion rally on the weekend, implying that he might get busted for it. Wanker.

[bradm]

Furthermore, can someone please tell me what is so wrong with a person in a state-sanctioned position of authority saying he believes in a Christian god? Why does the very mention of a belief mean that they are trying to prosetylize?

When the "mentioning" happens during the performance of the teacher's state-sanctioned role, and when it's said from the teacher's state-sanctioned position of authority over the children, then it's proselytizing.

Aloha,

Brad

[phishtaper]

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?

well, the salem trials and accusations of witchcraft have some historical importance as well. would you be comfortable with someone in class talking all about casting spells and drawing pentograms?

besides birdy, sounds like buddy was doing a little more that "mentioning" his belief?

[Birdy]

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.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Guest

[Hal Johnson]

There's a reason they seperated church from state Birdy...

[hamilton]

A believer still has it within their power to teach alternatives. But for some reason, we are so quick to judge.

But it doesn't sound like he was teaching alternatives, does it? If you aren't Christian you're going to hell. Doesn't look like there's much wiggle room there.

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.

Again, it doesn't sound like he was "mentioning" a belief, as in "Many Christians believe that you can only achieve salvation through Jesus," which I would have no problem with. But this guy is implying that some of his own students (assuming that at least some of them aren't Christian) are inadequate humans for not believing in Jesus - which is an attempt to persuade. Which, as an employee of the state, is unacceptable. If he wants to stand on street corners in his spare time, that's fine - but this is too much.

[Birdy]

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.

[Birdy]

Again, it doesn't sound like he was "mentioning" a belief, as in "Many Christians believe that you can only achieve salvation through Jesus," which I would have no problem with. But this guy is implying that some of his own students (assuming that at least some of them aren't Christian) are inadequate humans for not believing in Jesus - which is an attempt to persuade. Which, as an employee of the state, is unacceptable. If he wants to stand on street corners in his spare time, that's fine - but this is too much.

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.

[hamilton]

If the tapes hadn't shown that what he teacher did was improper, why would the school have "taken corrective action"? If the kid was full of shit, then the story would be very different, wouldn't it?

[d_rawk]

Birdy, I can't help but feel like you've stepped off into the deep end of the pool here. I hate to just pile on, and am always happy for those times when we end up on the same side of a debate, but whoa, I think this is an argument that can't be won.

[Birdy]

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.

[Birdy]

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

[Thorgnor]

wow...

I had a chemistry teacher who raged for hours about his lowlife brother who was drug addict. He kept saying that if he caught wind that you were doing drugs on the weekend even you could pretty much kiss your future goodbye, because you were obviously an idiot. He said that people who believed in God were evn more stupid. At the time I was an atheist and I was taken aback by his intolerance. I ended up failing the class and getting an A in the summer school make-up.

I don't think his opinions helped anyone feel any better about themselves, and somehow it doesn't seem to me as if he was teaching chemistry.

Likewise, this guy was teaching religion. That would be A-OK if it was in a class called "Religion" or "World Religions" or "Christianity". American History on the other hand, which would specifically deal with the seperation of church from state, need not be sprinkled with the rationalizations of religions to explain the inequity that has resulted from religious coercion of the state. The idea that we need to tell kids that unless they accept Christ we aren't teaching them History is ridiculous.

Goes a little something like this, "This is what they believed..." and viola, we've avoided giving our own view. Simple as that.

If I say to you that you are wrong for any reason other than a factual one, I'm morally judging.

Teachers aren't judges for a reason, no offence to any teachers out there, but they do different things. To say that, "the founding Fathers of our nation felt that the church and it's legacy of violence in Europe, should be limited in it's political influence" is not to say "the Christians who founded this nation think that unless you believe in their god you're going to hell".

Being accurate isn't being anti-religious and being religious often IS being anti-accurate, dig.

Debating the meaning of the word secular is silly.

Wiki - "Secularity (adjective form secular) is the state of being separate from religion." Therefore, it doesn't matter which God, or what that God's rules were other than to make distinctions between influence and no influence.

[Birdy]

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?

[SaggyBalls]

Holding to Secularism as people hold to Religion is entirely anti-effective and serves to polarize peoples.

To Govern and influence society solely based upon religion or secularism while not taking into account the important messages and values in both, whichever be the case, ultimitely serves to be caustic, nearsighted, and narrowminded, as rules and directives often stand in the way of genuine progress and community support.

Diversity and prosperity follow few hard rules and generally follow ethics over morality.

I hope I see a day where people can prosper by acting morally and having little need for ethics-based lifestyle guidelines.

[SaggyBalls]

God bless all of you.

And if you don't believe in God, I hope you get some nice surprises tomorrow.