Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you aware this teacher was involved in another lawsuit involving school & religion? And there were 20 other such remarks that were allegedly made by this teacher. And, although the student, himself, may have not been mocked with a personal attack, his religion was. That , in itself, is against the First Amendment. This statement certainly does not appear to pertain to the teaching of history.
"Referring to his former colleague, Corbett told his class, "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense."
So on the one hand, Creationists keep telling us that Creationism isn't religion, it's science and therefore doesn't violate the constitution by teaching it in public schools, and belongs in science classes along with teaching evolution.
Then, if Creationism is criticized by a teacher, the teacher is mocking religion.
^ Doesn't sound tolerant to me in the least.
Sounds mocking.
Don't want to mess with your agenda, though.
I didn't see any mocking. All I read was a person's perception of what religion is to him/her. However... something like the following is an example of mocking a religion:
Catholics must be zombies as they eat the flesh of the dead and drink his blood
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro
Once hearing the whole story, not just oversensitive people thinking anything negative said about Christianity is "mocking", the teacher did nothing wrong in this classroom.
Yeah. That's what I'm seeing. Apparently if you say anything negative about x,y, or z, then you're automatically mocking it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasy Tokoro
IN fact, he made what was going to happen in the class quite clear.
The party suing (the kid) was just too stupid to actually prepare himself.
Methinks that he's of the type who gets his mommy and daddy to do his work for him.
That is suuuuper apparent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maja
Are you aware this teacher was involved in another lawsuit involving school & religion? And there were 20 other such remarks that were allegedly made by this teacher. And, although the student, himself, may have not been mocked with a personal attack, his religion was. That , in itself, is against the First Amendment. This statement certainly does not appear to pertain to the teaching of history.
"Referring to his former colleague, Corbett told his class, "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense."
The teacher makes it quite clear what happens in the classroom. The Sheeple in history will be get outwardly called Sheeple. He doesn't pussyfoot around and doesn't seem too fond of political correctness.
I don't. But this link talks about it. He won the other law suit. Lost this one first time around. You can probably Google it if interested.
It's the same lawsuit. The student didn't win the first time around. He won on one utterance out of 20, meaning the teacher won on nineteen utterances out of 20. The teacher took it to the next level, and won on all counts. The student (or his attorney) is planning on taking it further. Why? Because the lawyer wants to establish a new right, the right of students to not be offended.
Are you aware this teacher was involved in another lawsuit involving school & religion? And there were 20 other such remarks that were allegedly made by this teacher. And, although the student, himself, may have not been mocked with a personal attack, his religion was. That , in itself, is against the First Amendment. This statement certainly does not appear to pertain to the teaching of history.
"Referring to his former colleague, Corbett told his class, "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense."
I'm sorry, maja, but the facts of this case do not support your argument. In this case, the student's religion was not under attack - the comment was made during a discussion of religion in the context of history. Seriously, read the court transcripts.
ETA: As for your quote and the other case you refer to - when Corbett's colleague lost a case requesting that he not be required to teach evolution- I think Corbett wasn't involved in separate cases but in separate comments in the one case. In one instance the judge found that Corbett's remark re: nonsense served no secular purpose and was in violation of the First Amendment, and in another, found that he was talking about using the process of deduction with respect to creationism as scientific nonsense (no violation of the First Amendment). I found the article interesting, BTW, in that it addresses some of the pitfalls that come from addressing certain topics with students in the context of their studies.
And in case you're wondering, if the facts of this case were exactly the same but instead of "religion" we substituted "homosexuality," I would have exactly the same opinion. We do ourselves a disservice if we try to ignore or twist facts to fit an agenda.
I didn't see any mocking. All I read was a person's perception of what religion is to him/her. However... something like the following is an example of mocking a religion:
Catholics must be zombies as they eat the flesh of the dead and drink his blood
Something tells me you delighted in typing the above sentence.
Yeah. That's what I'm seeing. Apparently if you say anything negative about x,y, or z, then you're automatically mocking it.
Perhaps you need to get your vision checked because that is not the case.
Saying something negative would be: "There is no scientific evidence for Creationism. There is scientific evidence for evolution. If you disagree, please speak up." Mocking would be calling Creationism, superstitious nonsense. (That isn't even demonstrating a logical argument!)
The teacher makes it quite clear what happens in the classroom. The Sheeple in history will be get outwardly called Sheeple. He doesn't pussyfoot around and doesn't seem too fond of political correctness.
I'm sorry, maja, but the facts of this case do not support your argument. In this case, the student's religion was not under attack - the comment was made during a discussion of religion in the context of history. Seriously, read the court transcripts.
ETA: As for your quote and the other case you refer to - when Corbett's colleague lost a case requesting that he not be required to teach evolution- I think Corbett wasn't involved in separate cases but in separate comments in the one case. In one instance the judge found that Corbett's remark re: nonsense served no secular purpose and was in violation of the First Amendment, and in another, found that he was talking about using the process of deduction with respect to creationism as scientific nonsense (no violation of the First Amendment). I found the article interesting, BTW, in that it addresses some of the pitfalls that come from addressing certain topics with students in the context of their studies.
And in case you're wondering, if the facts of this case were exactly the same but instead of "religion" we substituted "homosexuality," I would have exactly the same opinion. We do ourselves a disservice if we try to ignore or twist facts to fit an agenda.
Thanks for your rational, thoughtful, civil arguments. Wish we had teachers like you in the public schools! (Or maybe you are a teacher? Or an attorney?)
Thanks for your rational, thoughtful, civil arguments. Wish we had teachers like you in the public schools! (Or maybe you are a teacher? Or an attorney?)
Thanks and we do, I know some of them!
I was an instructor at the undergrad level at two public universities, teaching a variety of undergrad psychology courses. And then a behavior therapist. So I have a little experience in addressing touchy subjects.
ETA: It's tough to keep our opinions and emotions out of debates, especially when we feel strongly about the topic, but I find they tend to be more satisfying dialogues when we do.
Something tells me you delighted in typing the above sentence.
Not really. T'was merely providing an example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maja
Perhaps you need to get your vision checked because that is not the case.
Saying something negative would be: "There is no scientific evidence for Creationism. There is scientific evidence for evolution. If you disagree, please speak up." Mocking would be calling Creationism, superstitious nonsense. (That isn't even demonstrating a logical argument!)
Perhaps you're mixing up your responses. The comment "Apparently if you say anything negative about x,y, or z, then you're automatically mocking it" was referring to Alltheusernamesaretaken's response to JazzyTallGuy's statement. Not the original story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wish we had teachers like you in the public schools! (Or maybe you are a teacher? Or an attorney?)
