LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   Teacher sued for remarks "hostile" to religion (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=197525)

Rake 05-05-2009 12:17 AM

Teacher sued for remarks "hostile" to religion
 
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/c...4-farnan-selna

Well, I was searching the OC register's website when I came across this. Basically about a kid filing a lawsuit against his AP euro teacher, claiming the teacher was hostile towards religion. The judge already ruled that one of the teacher's comments violated the establishment. The comment was, ""I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense."

Was the right decision made? What is your opinion on the teacher's comments, did he violate the establishment clause?

Achilles 05-05-2009 12:23 AM

Yeah, based on what we have here, he was out of line. As a teacher, he should have handled it differently.

Q 05-05-2009 03:32 AM

I agree with Achilles, while also recognizing that a teacher spouting pro-religious dogma in a public school classroom would be in equal violation of the First Amendment.

Totenkopf 05-05-2009 04:52 AM

I third the motion.

Darth Avlectus 05-05-2009 06:04 AM

Agreed: teachers are supposed to be neutral, their beliefs and biases notwithstanding. They are there to teach, not indoctrinate--whatever direction thy're following.

Tommycat 05-05-2009 02:55 PM

Well this is just great... a topic on religion we all agree on. Guess that means the world is going to end soon.

A teacher in a public school should neither raise up nor degrade religion in the classroom.

EnderWiggin 05-05-2009 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2621281)
Well this is just great... a topic on religion we all agree on. Guess that means the world is going to end soon.

A teacher in a public school should neither raise up nor degrade religion in the classroom.

*world ends*

:xp:

_EW_

kipperthefrog 05-05-2009 10:39 PM

I am amazed to see that we are willing to recognize that what that teacher did was wrong, even though that teacher shares some of our point of view on religion. If it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, would religious fundamentalists think that was wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2621117)
Yeah, based on what we have here, he was out of line. As a teacher, he should have handled it differently.

How would you have handled it?

Achilles 05-05-2009 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog (Post 2621454)
I am amazed to see that we are willing to recognize that what that teacher did was wrong, even though that teacher shares some of our point of view on religion.

If you wait long enough, people will eventually surprise you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog (Post 2621454)
If it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, would religious fundamentalists think that was wrong?

I wouldn't count on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog (Post 2621454)
How would you have handled it?

"We don't discuss religion in this classroom" probably would have been sufficient. :)

kipperthefrog 05-06-2009 12:02 AM

f it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, I doubt he would have got in trouble.

Totenkopf 05-06-2009 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog (Post 2621454)
......If it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, would religious fundamentalists think that was wrong?


Perhaps you should do some research of your own. I'm sure there are fundamentalist websites out there. Join one and take an informal poll.

Darth Avlectus 05-06-2009 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2621281)
Well this is just great... a topic on religion we all agree on. Guess that means the world is going to end soon.

A teacher in a public school should neither raise up nor degrade religion in the classroom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnderWiggin (Post 2621342)
*world ends*

:xp:

_EW_

:rofl:


Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog (Post 2621454)
I am amazed to see that we are willing to recognize that what that teacher did was wrong, even though that teacher shares some of our point of view on religion.

Well, sharing a pov is one thing, stepping over clearly drawn lines of respect, and I dresay professionality, is quite another. Those bounds are there for the very reason of avoiding stuff like this from happening in the first place, no?

Quote:

If it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, would religious fundamentalists think that was wrong?
I would not think so, but even fundamentalists are human...anyone who can make mistakes and be wrong. So there is a... chance to the contrary.
Would it really matter in a public school? There are guidelines to be adhered to. Teachers are expected to follow them. They don't and this is what happens.
If it intrigues you...why not find out more? :)

Achilles 05-06-2009 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog (Post 2621482)
f it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, I doubt he would have got in trouble.

It depends. There have been more than a handful of cases where a theist teacher has been busted for violating the establishment clause. I really don't know if there is enough data to establish anything conclusive (if someone knows differently, please jump in). The way the statistics break down though, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the 90-something percent of theists are more likely to jump on the ~10 percent of non-theists than vice versa. Again, I'm totally guessing here.

Totenkopf 05-06-2009 02:02 AM

Something tells me that a greater % of atheists would be likelier than than theists to make noise in such an event. Now, whether more theists in raw numbers would complain is something else entirely.

Q 05-06-2009 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kipperthefrog (Post 2621482)
f it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, I doubt he would have got in trouble.

The religious would stand just as much of a chance of insulting the wrong person as the non-religious.

Achilles 05-06-2009 12:33 PM

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the math doesn't make sense. Again, ~90% theists, ~10 non-theists. With numbers like this, I don't see how the odds are 50/50.

Q 05-06-2009 12:39 PM

Not every religious person follows the same religion. ;)

And within each religion there are doctrinal differences between different denominations.

Achilles 05-06-2009 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2621620)
Not every religious person follows the same religion. ;)

And within each religion there are doctrinal differences between different denominations.

But all that takes place within the ~90% theistic group. :confused:

Q 05-06-2009 12:56 PM

Did I say that the wrong person had to be non-religious?

Achilles 05-06-2009 01:09 PM

No, you didn't, but I don't see how that matters.

If I have 100 people in a room, ~90 of them are going to have some religious belief and ~10 of them won't. I don't get how that group of 10 is just as likely to offend "the wrong person" as the group of 90 (i.e. your argument in post 15). Especially considering the very valid point you raised in post 17.

Q 05-06-2009 01:14 PM

Because each group thinks that any belief system other than theirs is false, regardless of their particular belief system.

Achilles 05-06-2009 01:20 PM

Right, which means that someone in the group of ~90 is far more likely to offend someone than someone in that group of ~10.

Which is completely consistent with post 17, but would seem to pose a problem for post 15 (which is what I originally asked you to clarify).

Q 05-06-2009 01:28 PM

Not when one of that group of 10 declares that all religion is superstitious nonsense. In doing so, he's just offended 90 people, or a good percentage of that 90.

Achilles 05-06-2009 01:45 PM

I'm still not sure how that makes 50/50 viable.

Totenkopf 05-06-2009 02:33 PM

What does 50/50 have to do with anything? We already know that the theistic crowd outnumbers the antitheistic/atheistic in America. Question, based on your WAG, was which side was more likely to jump down the other's throat. I'd wager the latter group would make a much bigger noise if the situation were reversed as a % of it's size. Even if only 10 out of 100, I'm sure more of those 10 as a % than of the 90 as a % would make a bigger stink. Minority groups may be smaller in size, but many of them are much more vocal than majority groups.

Q 05-06-2009 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2621641)
I'm still not sure how that makes 50/50 viable.

Well, I guess that's your problem, given the fact that I never said anything about 50/50 and that you're the one that introduced it into the conversation.

You're insisting on looking at 10 vs. 90. I've been looking at any 1 vs. the other 99 since the beginning.

Achilles 05-06-2009 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2621669)
Well, I guess that's your problem, given the fact that I never said anything about 50/50 and that you're the one that introduced it into the conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2621607)
The religious would stand just as much of a chance of insulting the wrong person as the non-religious.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2621669)
You're insisting on looking at 10 vs. 90. I've been looking at any 1 vs. the other 99 since the beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2621607)
The religious would stand just as much of a chance of insulting the wrong person as the non-religious.

:rolleyes:

Carefully what you say on the interwebz. Copy/pastes pwns all.

Q 05-06-2009 03:56 PM

Where do I say 50/50? Nowhere. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Thank you.

Oh, and try practicing what you preach for once. :dozey:

Achilles 05-06-2009 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qliveur (Post 2621674)
Where do I say 50/50? Nowhere. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Thank you.

Oh, and try practicing what you preach for once. :dozey:

One more time:
"The religious would stand just as much of a chance of insulting the wrong person as the non-religious."

The odds of something happening can only go up to 100%. Therefore if two things have an equal (your exact words were "just as much") chance of happening, then they have to be 50/50. So please stop blaming me for your error, own that may have misspoke, and let's move on.

Because your current tack = fail.

Achilles 05-06-2009 05:23 PM

Sure, if it's closer to what you actually meant to say, then that's great.

The new statement is so obvious as to be devoid of value, but hey, at least we cleared up the whole "what you say you meant isn't what you said" thing. :thumbsup:

Tommycat 05-07-2009 05:41 PM

Honestly Q, I thought your original post made more sense. Disparaging the wrong religion has a good chance of causing an uproar. Teaching Christianity in a Muslim dominated area is as likely to garner attention as dogging religion. Imagine a Muslim teacher in the bible belt pushing Allah and Muhammad. Or a Jewish teacher in the same area saying Jesus does not exist.

It's too bad Achilles had to nit pick it to death.

Rake 05-07-2009 06:24 PM

It seems like most of you are agreed on the fact that he violated the establishment clause. Recently (don't have a source yet), the dean of law at UCI (or some such), came forward to this teacher and offered to represent him in an appeal, for free. Do you think an appeal will turn out with the same result?

Achilles 05-08-2009 12:28 AM

I would have to know his basis for appeal. Does he think he was given the wrong verdict or does he think there was a procedural error with the case?

Without knowing that, we're only guessing.

Rake 05-08-2009 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles (Post 2622210)
I would have to know his basis for appeal. Does he think he was given the wrong verdict or does he think there was a procedural error with the case?

Without knowing that, we're only guessing.

The basis, I believe, is that the judges decision was illogical, and wrong. However, I'd probably have to wait for another article to be 100% positive.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.