judges rule for teacher who called creationism 'superstitious nonsense'Did hostile classroom remarks about creationism violate the mandate that the government remain neutral on religion? An appeals court says the teacher has immunity from being sued.

Don't you just love it? Superstitious Nonsense.

River

I am not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I am happy that the teacher is allowed to have his own thoughts on the creationism issue, and I just happen to agree with him. But on the other hand, I am totally sick and tired of "teachers" or "educators" who use their extremely important and powerful positions of influence to further their own personal views, choices and beliefs. To me, an "educator" is an extremely important person, many of them have great influence on what a society does, their job is sort of "the holy of holies," and should be FIERCELY protected against political hacks, religious zealots, and any other sort of lunatic who wants to take a teacher's podium and turn it into their own political soap box, or worse, their pulpit. So I am actually more than a bit PISSED OFF that any professional educator would allow his or her personal opinions on politics or religion to come into the class room.

So, I agree, most everything about any religion is just a bunch of superstitious nonsense, but if I were a teacher, I would be terribly ashamed if I ever let my (or anyone's) faith (or lack of faith) or my political views taint the most holy of holies, that being my lesson plans.

DeaconBlues (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:17 pm I am not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I am happy that the teacher is allowed to have his own thoughts on the creationism issue, and I just happen to agree with him. But on the other hand, I am totally sick and tired of "teachers" or "educators" who use their extremely important and powerful positions of influence to further their own personal views, choices and beliefs. To me, an "educator" is an extremely important person, many of them have great influence on what a society does, their job is sort of "the holy of holies," and should be FIERCELY protected against political hacks, religious zealots, and any other sort of lunatic who wants to take a teacher's podium and turn it into their own political soap box, or worse, their pulpit. So I am actually more than a bit PISSED OFF that any professional educator would allow his or her personal opinions on politics or religion to come into the class room.

So, I agree, most everything about any religion is just a bunch of superstitious nonsense, but if I were a teacher, I would be terribly ashamed if I ever let my (or anyone's) faith (or lack of faith) or my political views taint the most holy of holies, that being my lesson plans.

Alas, unlike scientology, creationism isn't a religion, which is religious nonsense that bills itself as religious nonsense, it's religious nonsense that claims to be science and when it is introduced into biology, any real teacher has to call it what it is. If a pupil insisted that the earth was flat in a geography class, it is the teacher's obligation to point out that however sincerely held, the view is unsupported by scientific fact. Schizophrenia is not the result of demonic possession and men don't have one less rib than women and to allow such nonsense to remain unchallenged would allow politics or religion to taint the most holy of holies, the subject being taught.

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:14 am Alas, unlike scientology, creationism isn't a religion, which is religious nonsense that bills itself as religious nonsense, it's religious nonsense that claims to be science and when it is introduced into biology, any real teacher has to call it what it is. If a pupil insisted that the earth was flat in a geography class, it is the teacher's obligation to point out that however sincerely held, the view is unsupported by scientific fact. Schizophrenia is not the result of demonic possession and men don't have one less rib than women and to allow such nonsense to remain unchallenged would allow politics or religion to taint the most holy of holies, the subject being taught.

Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself.

DeaconBlues (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:17 pm I am not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I am happy that the teacher is allowed to have his own thoughts on the creationism issue, and I just happen to agree with him. But on the other hand, I am totally sick and tired of "teachers" or "educators" who use their extremely important and powerful positions of influence to further their own personal views, choices and beliefs. To me, an "educator" is an extremely important person, many of them have great influence on what a society does, their job is sort of "the holy of holies," and should be FIERCELY protected against political hacks, religious zealots, and any other sort of lunatic who wants to take a teacher's podium and turn it into their own political soap box, or worse, their pulpit. So I am actually more than a bit PISSED OFF that any professional educator would allow his or her personal opinions on politics or religion to come into the class room.

So, I agree, most everything about any religion is just a bunch of superstitious nonsense, but if I were a teacher, I would be terribly ashamed if I ever let my (or anyone's) faith (or lack of faith) or my political views taint the most holy of holies, that being my lesson plans.

How is this even close to attempting to further "...

DeaconBlues (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:17 pm their own personal views, choices and beliefs?

" This is simply a teacher attempting to educate students about the reality of things. Even if we were talking about a religion, there is a difference between saying "religion is stupid and vapid and should not exist" (which I happen to agree with) and saying "Religion is superstitious nonsense" (which I also happen to agree with). All this teacher was saying is that the idea that God created the universe 6000 years ago is akin to saying a leaf that has an unusual number of lobes is somehow going to grant you "good luck". (That was a four leaf clover reference, by the way.)

In other words, there is nothing wrong with believing creationism as long as you understand it not based on any form of reality. I applaud the teacher's guts in such a matter. In fact, I wish MORE teachers would stand up against such nonsense in the classroom. The world would a better place if more of us would be willing to side with reason and logic over blind faith obedience and superstitious nonsense.

DeaconBlues (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:17 pm I am not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I am happy that the teacher is allowed to have his own thoughts on the creationism issue, and I just happen to agree with him. But on the other hand, I am totally sick and tired of "teachers" or "educators" who use their extremely important and powerful positions of influence to further their own personal views, choices and beliefs. To me, an "educator" is an extremely important person, many of them have great influence on what a society does, their job is sort of "the holy of holies," and should be FIERCELY protected against political hacks, religious zealots, and any other sort of lunatic who wants to take a teacher's podium and turn it into their own political soap box, or worse, their pulpit. So I am actually more than a bit PISSED OFF that any professional educator would allow his or her personal opinions on politics or religion to come into the class room.

So, I agree, most everything about any religion is just a bunch of superstitious nonsense, but if I were a teacher, I would be terribly ashamed if I ever let my (or anyone's) faith (or lack of faith) or my political views taint the most holy of holies, that being my lesson plans.

Hi DeaconBlues,

You know this is not the first time that the U.S. Courts has ruled against religion being called anything that resembles science.

I know how students 'set up' teachers, college professors and those in authority and take the argument out of context and try to present it as something that it is not. It is not about religion so much as it is about POWER and who controls it, the student and their family or the teacher and the SCHOOLS. Teachers are, in most cases, unlike college professors, bound to teach certain curricula by law. This means that the LAW is on their side. It never used to be that way.

College Professors at REAL COLLEGES have Tenure and they believe what they DECIDE to believe, and it is usually some sort of scientific reason why they believe the way that they do.

During the days of the SCOPES MONKEY TRIAL (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... evolut.htm), evolution was a relatively new scientific concept and NOT widespread.

The whole argument is summarized in a song. Maria Muldaur and the "Even Dozen Jug Band" on track number 5 (http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/mus ... d,+The.htm) had a song called "Evolution Mama" that is as contemporary as the recurring issue of Creation verses Evolution.

Despite how much you hate to hear it, this controversy will not go away. This, my friend, is what FAITH is all about. Faith needs NO justification and regardless of what anyone says it is a folksy, homey and admirable trait that is strong in Americans, but not unique to them.

However, science is science. You cannot teach ANY religion in school as science and serve your students well. Science is science and Religion is religion. To pollute one with the other does a disservice to those who seek knowledge. Think about it, and do not give up your religion for science OR your science for religion. (If you get sick, go get medical help first and prayed for second.)

In the mean-time, watch THIS VIDEO (http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807) and see what happened when a community of religiously faithful took control of a school board and forced the introduction of "Intelligent Design" into a public school system. This is a TWO HOUR LONG video and I would advise watching it in its entirety before you form an opinion.

It is these arguments that taint the "VOUCHER" idea. If the Charter School tries to teach religion as science they should lose their charter and their ability to utilize "vouchers". However, the Indiana "Voucher" law does not state that.

There is also a movement to eliminate all HIGH STAKES TESTING (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-stakes_testing) in Charter Schools thus eliminating the need to teach the public school curriculum and eliminating the need to perform academically for the student. This bothers me because it is exactly what is done to indoctrinate Fundamentalist extremists. If this is, indeed, what ends up happening we will be paying for the indoctrination of extremists with our tax dollars. Do we really want this?

In Indiana this legal dispute is hitting the courts. The challenge has been filed in Indiana state courts using the Constitution of Indiana as a legal framework. It would make no sense to file it in a Federal Court because federal monies DO NOT make it into vouchers. Federal monies are only used by Public School Corporations.

So the battle goes on. In another post I also illustrated how "THE SHRUB" and buddies used Katrina as an excuse and vehicle to replace the New Orleans Public Schools with Charter Schools.

If we do not respect education and educators we will soon lose our scientific edge and world dominance in science. In short, this will make us a third world nation and we will evolve into a country on the same economic par with Saudi Arabia. We will have ONLY the very, very rich (educated) and the very, very poor (uneducated) and the Middle Class will disappear.

It is a horrible thing... but YOU have a good day!

This got me thinking about a teacher I had in High School long ago, he was totally into telling his opinion on politics, then again it was US Government.

It all started the first day of class, we came in sat down and waited for this short heavy set man with blue tinted glasses to start the day. The bell rang and he said "Hello, my name is Mr Katz, I am Jewish, I am a Democrat, lets argue". then he put all the republican on the right side of the room and all the democrats on the left. Being an election year he gave out assignments, all the right wing arguments he gave to those sitting on the left and the left wing arguments to those on the right. It was the fall of 1964, although we could not vote yet, it was maybe the single best class I ever had.

The teacher had an opinion and used it to teach.

River