What is this, amateur hour?

[Gnomesmusher]

What a bunch of crap. I don't think he showed any religious hostility; all he just did was criticize the Bible; which is allowed under the first ammendment giving people the ability to criticize others religions or philosophical belief. If you cannot handle the ability of criticizm then you have no right to open your mouth in advocation of free speech.

And besides, the teacher was not a representative of government; teacher's are exempt from such statutes when giving opinions of religion. Only when they teach religion may they get into trouble. They are perfectly allowed to give comments on religion. This is why I believe religion will eventually go the way of the way of the god's of old.

Sorry, as much as I agree with the teacher that religion is nonsense, he violated the establishment clause which states that government have no involvement in the topics or religion for or against. As a teacher of a public school he was not allowed to speak out against religion. He is allowed, however, to teach whatever is in the curriculum and any reason and logic that happens to contradict religion. It's a fine line to tread I know.

I don't quite like it since it gives religion special immunity from criticism in the classrooms but that's part of the price we pay for separation of church and state. It cuts both ways. It also demonstrates the undeserved respect that religion has. If the teacher had called toad licking superstitious nonsense, there would be no problem at all...... until toad licking became a religion.

Anyway, as much as I hate to say it, the teacher violated the law. But it's the same law that protects us from the creationist retards from teaching in our schools.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Sorry, as much as I agree with the teacher that religion is nonsense, he violated the establishment clause which states that government have no involvement in the topics or religion for or against. As a teacher of a public school he was not allowed to speak out against religion. He is allowed, however, to teach whatever is in the curriculum and any reason and logic that happens to contradict religion. It's a fine line to tread I know.

I don't quite like it since it gives religion special immunity from criticism in the classrooms but that's part of the price we pay for separation of church and state. It cuts both ways. It also demonstrates the undeserved respect that religion has. If the teacher had called toad licking superstitious nonsense, there would be no problem at all...... until toad licking became a religion.

Anyway, as much as I hate to say it, the teacher violated the law. But it's the same law that protects us from the creationist retards from teaching in our schools.

I think you misread the specifics of the case... the teacher was cited for referring to the teaching of creationism as science as "superstitious nonsense." Hardly the sort of thing that qualifies as an anti-religion statement.

 

[Ozymandyus]

The depressing thing is that it sounds like he is mostly aiming his statements AT a creationist teacher in a school. That teacher sued him and is still there, teaching his nonsense.

Indeed, the specific statement that the teacher got fired for was calling that teacher's espousing of creationism 'superstitious nonsense'. If I as a biology teacher am not allowed to say this about creationism which is what the SCIENCE tells me, I'm pretty sad.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I think you misread the specifics of the case... the teacher was cited for referring to the teaching of creationism as science as "superstitious nonsense." Hardly the sort of thing that qualifies as an anti-religion statement.

Hmm. It's a fine line but I still think it qualifies as a violation of the establishment clause, it was still a criticism of religion. The fact that he called it superstitious means he was directing the insult towards the belief. As a teacher in a public school, what he can say is severely restricted. But thankfully, it's not the case outside of the classroom setting.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really like it but I feel that the ruling was fair under the law. The real tragedy here is that we even have to institute a separation of church and state instead of just ignoring the stupidity that is religion. But of course, since religion likes to shove itself down people's throats we have to have the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Now, if some other teacher at that school is teaching creationism and hasn't gotten fired, then I'd say they're abusing the law by picking and choosing. The anti-creationist teacher gets fired but not the creationist retard? Also, now it's been established in court that creationism is indeed a religious belief, it should make it that much harder for them to try to teach it alongside evolution.

 

[Ozymandyus]

The idea that the earth is 6000 years old IS superstitious nonsense. I am not allowed to teach that its silly to believe the earth is the center of the universe, that thunder is caused by the hammer of a powerful son of a God, etc, just because people have religious beliefs about them? NO. In a science class, you should be allowed to teach science no matter what religious beliefs someone has about it.

I suppose I don't NEED to call those beliefs nonsense, but otherwise I'm just implying it. I think I should be clear to the students... but yeah its sad that this is the way the law works.

 

[GoodKat]

The idea that the earth is 6000 years old IS superstitious nonsense. I am not allowed to teach that its silly to believe the earth is the center of the universe, that thunder is caused by the hammer of a powerful son of a God, etc, just because people have religious beliefs about them? NO. In a science class, you should be allowed to teach science no matter what someone believes about the science.

I don't know if religious beliefs should even be mentioned in science class, unless it's a behavioral science class.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Unless it comes up when a student or students talk about another class where a teacher is teaching such things - which seems to be the context of this case.

If students are thinking about something in relation to the subject I am teaching that is wrong, it is my duty as a science teacher to correct them - whether their thinking is based on religion or any other source of misinformation.

 

[JacobEvans]

Joy was right.... OMG someone on the view.... was right? :shock: :?

 

[Gnomesmusher]

The idea that the earth is 6000 years old IS superstitious nonsense. I am not allowed to teach that its silly to believe the earth is the center of the universe, that thunder is caused by the hammer of a powerful son of a God, etc, just because people have religious beliefs about them? NO. In a science class, you should be allowed to teach science no matter what religious beliefs someone has about it.

I suppose I don't NEED to call those beliefs nonsense, but otherwise I'm just implying it. I think I should be clear to the students... but yeah its sad that this is the way the law works.

That's why I said it's a fine line. And yes you should teach science no matter what religious beliefs it contradicts but yeah you don't need to call those beliefs nonsense or even bring them up at all. Yeah I know this tap dancing is silly.