PDA

View Full Version : Is it legal for teachers to speak mind on religion?




GeorgiaAvenger
10-16-2012, 04:24 PM
Just what the question says. Some teacher is catching heat in my county for talking about his religious beliefs in class, and may get fired.

I have some of my own views but I was wondering if RPF had any opinions on what constitutes separation of church and state in this context.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-16-2012, 04:38 PM
No, it's not illegal in my opinion - he's not hurting anyone.

Men in robes tend to give different interpretation of crime however, so I'll leave that to the legal experts. Like Romney says, "ill let the lawyers figure it out."

One question: Was he doing this on a regular basis? Only way I could see him being justified in being fired is if he was preaching everyday about religion when he should of been teaching history. In that case it's negligence to his duties.

torchbearer
10-16-2012, 04:41 PM
depends, was he being paid to teach on the topic of theology?
was the discussion germaine to the class?
as a owner of a private school, that is what would matter-
if the student is paying for a class, and you end up using that time to teach about something other than the education purchased, that could be fraud.

Legend1104
10-16-2012, 04:42 PM
Shouldn't be denied in my opinion. There is no restriction or seperation of church and state so to speak at the state level. Those that would say the 14th amendment forces the bill of rights (i.e. the 1st amendment) on the states are wrong because the 1st amendment specifically says that congress shall make no law. Since it is directed solely at the congress means that the 14th amendment could never be applied to the states. Further, teachers are not federal employees but rather state. Plus, the whole seperation of church and state arguement is a misunderstanding of what the Constitution really means.

James Madison
10-16-2012, 04:42 PM
Reason No. 4,356,823 to end public education.

DamianTV
10-16-2012, 04:46 PM
The Popular Thing will never need the Protections of the First Amendment. The First Amendment is there to protect the Unpopular Thing.

If schools thumped the bible in school as much as they taught any other subject, it would probably be widely accepted, and shunned by a few. If schools promoted evolution and said the bible is fiction, entire commuities would be up in arms, and the opinion would be defended by a few. The thing is that BOTH points of view are protected by the First Amendment, and the opinions expressed should not be up to mob rule.

If a parent finds that the opinions being expressed in the schools are in conflict with their own opinions, then either put the student in a different classroom, a different school, or teach their children themselves. Free Market solution.

Qdog
10-16-2012, 04:46 PM
legal? yes. Can you be fired for it? yes

The Free Hornet
10-16-2012, 05:22 PM
Shouldn't be denied in my opinion. There is no restriction or seperation of church and state so to speak at the state level.

That's an anti-liberty perspective. Do you favor every constitutional encroachment on freedom or just the religious ones?

Also, do you support taking my money to teach religion?




Just what the question says. Some teacher is catching heat in my county for talking about his religious beliefs in class, and may get fired.

I have some of my own views but I was wondering if RPF had any opinions on what constitutes separation of church and state in this context.

The key word is "talking". Sounds like an on-going issue of obstinance. Do you want to pay his pension in perpetuity? He will have far more time to proselytize after he stops taking a government paycheck.

nobody's_hero
10-16-2012, 07:06 PM
That's an anti-liberty perspective. Do you favor every constitutional encroachment on freedom or just the religious ones?

It's more of a 'separation of powers' perspective. For example, I don't really care if nuts in Chicago ban gun ownership. They just need to keep their gun-grabbing schemes within their jurisdiction and the rest of us can point and laugh at the choice of leaders the voters in Chicago have selected.

Part of liberty is accepting the fact that some folks may vote to enslave themselves. The practical solution is to limit their jurisdiction so that they are able to enjoy their right to self-government at the local level without making the rest of us suffer for their idiotic choices.

Someone mentioning their religious beliefs in a school in Georgia that you will never enter in your life is essentially no threat to your freedom.

Another example:
Delaware recently banned spanking and at first I was rather upset about it, but then I remembered that I don't live in Delaware (I'm putting it in the same category as San Franciso banning happy meals--I don't live there either and they're constantly supplying more reasons for me to never want to live there).

Understanding separation of power is a crucial part of promoting liberty. Once power over an issue becomes centralized, there's very little hope for the liberty-side of the argument.



Reason No. 4,356,823 to end public education.

That would be the root of the issue, yes.

ronpaulfollower999
10-16-2012, 07:38 PM
Most of my professors talk about their religion/political views.

ronpaulfollower999
10-16-2012, 07:39 PM
Reason No. 4,356,823 to end public education.

Will also solve the creation vs. evolution in classroom debate, plus prayer in schools.

GeorgiaAvenger
10-16-2012, 07:44 PM
All I know is that some kid was making fun of Christianity, and he stood up and defended it. Never claimed to be representing the government.

The Free Hornet
10-17-2012, 12:02 AM
It's more of a 'separation of powers' perspective. For example, I don't really care if nuts in Chicago ban gun ownership. They just need to keep their gun-grabbing schemes within their jurisdiction and the rest of us can point and laugh at the choice of leaders the voters in Chicago have selected.

This is a fucked-up attitude. If you don't give a damn when other people's liberty is violated, don't be surprised when the feeling is mutual. You know damn well there are people among the millions in the city who oppose gun control. Nobody is saying give them money or fight their battles.


Part of liberty is accepting the fact that some folks may vote to enslave themselves. The practical solution is to limit their jurisdiction so that they are able to enjoy their right to self-government at the local level without making the rest of us suffer for their idiotic choices.

Containing their idiocy is a good approach but it doesn't solve the problem. I'm not here so other can "enjoy their right to self-government". The only self-government I support is the free, sovereign individual. What you speak of is people enslaving each other. It is good to limit the damage, but the damage itself is not good.


Someone mentioning their religious beliefs in a school in Georgia that you will never enter in your life is essentially no threat to your freedom.

Marines jailed for speaking their mind: no affect on me. Pot smokers going to jail (I don't do MJ), no affect on me. Dogs and grandmas getting shot by cops... no affect on me. My grandmothers are already dead and I have no dogs.

Speaking of public schools, in general, I would like that my tax dollars no longer support them.



Another example:
Delaware recently banned spanking and at first I was rather upset about it, but then I remembered that I don't live in Delaware (I'm putting it in the same category as San Franciso banning happy meals--I don't live there either and they're constantly supplying more reasons for me to never want to live there).

OK, so you are filled to the brim with "don't give a fuck". You picked the right user name. I support freedom and the quest for freedom even in jurisdictions unknown to me. Sadly, I care.

The Free Hornet
10-17-2012, 12:04 AM
All I know is that some kid was making fun of Christianity, and he stood up and defended it. Never claimed to be representing the government.

:( Maybe that detail could have been in the top post?

Edit: I suppose it doesn't matter. The sooner they are not supported by tax dollars, the sooner they are free to speak as they wish.

fr33
10-17-2012, 01:01 AM
No the teacher should not talk about religion in our current public school system. I pay school taxes and there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. A teacher teaching religion must either teach every single existing religion plus atheism or teach none of the above. It's much easier and fair to have a secular government.

I'd love to be free of paying taxes for a school districts so people could educate however they see fit.

tod evans
10-17-2012, 05:31 AM
It's more of a 'separation of powers' perspective. For example, I don't really care if nuts in Chicago ban gun ownership. They just need to keep their gun-grabbing schemes within their jurisdiction and the rest of us can point and laugh at the choice of leaders the voters in Chicago have selected.

Part of liberty is accepting the fact that some folks may vote to enslave themselves. The practical solution is to limit their jurisdiction so that they are able to enjoy their right to self-government at the local level without making the rest of us suffer for their idiotic choices.




This is a fucked-up attitude. If you don't give a damn when other people's liberty is violated, don't be surprised when the feeling is mutual. You know damn well there are people among the millions in the city who oppose gun control. Nobody is saying give them money or fight their battles.

Containing their idiocy is a good approach but it doesn't solve the problem. I'm not here so other can "enjoy their right to self-government". The only self-government I support is the free, sovereign individual. What you speak of is people enslaving each other. It is good to limit the damage, but the damage itself is not good.


I agree with Nobody's Hero, having a centralized government that assures one of the many different interpretations of a "sovereign individual" is protected would seem to assure an even larger federal government.

I cannot in my right mind ever support a larger or more intrusive federal government.

If cities vote for and fund ridiculous laws for their citizens I don't have a problem with that so long as they don't violate a layman's interpretation of the constitution.

The state in which a city exists would be responsible to provide funding, not the residents of the other 49 states, keeping both the money and responsibility much closer to the citizen who's affected.

nobody's_hero
10-17-2012, 06:30 AM
OK, so you are filled to the brim with "don't give a fuck". You picked the right user name. I support freedom and the quest for freedom even in jurisdictions unknown to me. Sadly, I care.

Look,

I just don't see myself as a savior on a white horse out to set the world free. Some people don't seem to even want freedom and I'm not going to be a tyrant by forcing it on them. I'm doing what I can to defend it on the local level, so at this point there is at least somewhere to run to when shit hits the fan. That's sort of what the free state project is about, right?

So, just an example, if there's anyone in Chicago who opposes gun control, then the practical solution is to 'vote with their feet'. You can't just sit there and put up with that shit as a citizen and expect the sympathy to just keep flowing in. We have separation of powers so there's somewhere to take refuge, by surrounding ourselves with people who share similar beliefs on what the role of government should be, and it's not a fucked up idea at all.

It may be what keeps our republic from collapsing in one fell swoop.

moostraks
10-17-2012, 07:39 AM
This is a fucked-up attitude. If you don't give a damn when other people's liberty is violated, don't be surprised when the feeling is mutual. You know damn well there are people among the millions in the city who oppose gun control...

OK, so you are filled to the brim with "don't give a fuck". You picked the right user name. I support freedom and the quest for freedom even in jurisdictions unknown to me. Sadly, I care.

I can sympathize with the sentiment except this is the same logic used to drive the emotional appeal to bomb foreign countries who do not have our same supposed freedoms. When fighting for the freedom of others one has to step back and wonder if you aren't being used as a tool to give the power of deciding what freedoms are legitimate to a different entity. The world is so diverse that one person's view of freedom differs from anothers. The right to associate with those of like mindedness would then mean that by leaving the decisions to the smallest local gov't possible it allows the highest possibility for personal liberty to be obtained. Imo this is the best route to take excepting matters of life or death.

jbauer
10-17-2012, 07:53 AM
All I know is that some kid was making fun of Christianity, and he stood up and defended it. Never claimed to be representing the government.

With this addtional nuget I think it was probably appropriate if it was a get in, get out conversation. If the teacher talked religion during math time for days or weeks then its another topic. I'm all about seperation of church and state but it depends on the situation. If the child was hostile toward religion it was the teacher duty to stop it. If they were talking about history religion is certainly part of it. Now if the teacher stopped class and forced all the kids to pray with him I think thats something I woudn't support.

erowe1
10-17-2012, 08:05 AM
It's impossible not to.

Not a single teacher, teaching a single subject, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, has ever taught anything that wasn't based on their religious opinions.

TonySutton
10-17-2012, 08:10 AM
//

tod evans
10-17-2012, 08:11 AM
Very well written.


I can sympathize with the sentiment except this is the same logic used to drive the emotional appeal to bomb foreign countries who do not have our same supposed freedoms. When fighting for the freedom of others one has to step back and wonder if you aren't being used as a tool to give the power of deciding what freedoms are legitimate to a different entity. The world is so diverse that one person's view of freedom differs from anothers. The right to associate with those of like mindedness would then mean that by leaving the decisions to the smallest local gov't possible it allows the highest possibility for personal liberty to be obtained. Imo this is the best route to take excepting matters of life or death.

Sola_Fide
10-17-2012, 09:03 AM
I don't think it is legal, which is why secularists are always drawn to statism.

In statism, secularists have the already existing neutrality and pluralism needed to deny the objective truths of Christianity.

Even secular "libertarians" lose all their principles when it comes to state-education, I've seen. State education is the perfect vessel for atheism...its difficult for them to turn against it.

Sola_Fide
10-17-2012, 09:07 AM
It's impossible not to.

Not a single teacher, teaching a single subject, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, has ever taught anything that wasn't based on their religious opinions.

Absolutely. And secularists will do anything to keep their churches (the schools) alive to inculcate the gospel of humanism to impressionable minds.

Sonny Tufts
10-17-2012, 09:13 AM
Not a single teacher, teaching a single subject, anywhere in the world, at any time in history, has ever taught anything that wasn't based on their religious opinions.

What's the religious basis of calculus?

moostraks
10-17-2012, 10:04 AM
What's the religious basis of calculus?

Waldorf maths teach the spiritual aspect of maths and if one delves into the history it can overcome many frustrations people have in performing the functions. Sort of like one can love without understanding all the qualities of love, but the more one embraces the essence of love the easier one finds it to love. :p Clear as mud? Anywho try here:http://www.jamieyorkpress.com/free-high-school-downloads/ for higher maths Waldorf style. A good beginner book is:Teaching Mathematics in Rudolf Steiner Schools for Classes I-VIII Ron Jarman http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Mathematics-Steiner-Schools-Classes/dp/1869890922/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350489764&sr=1-1&keywords=jarman+mathematics

moostraks
10-17-2012, 10:05 AM
Very well written.:) thank you...

Sola_Fide
10-17-2012, 10:22 AM
What's the religious basis of calculus?

From a Christian perspective, one religious aspect of mathematics is that God has created a logical world that is ordered around laws that exhibit uniformity. Mathematics and logic are related in that sense...in that the foundations of them comport with a Christian worldview.

Atheists must attempt to explain how a completely random existence exhibits such uniformity. Appealing to "the nature things" to explain uniformity is not adequate because it commits the naturalistic fallacy.

PaulConventionWV
10-17-2012, 10:26 AM
Just what the question says. Some teacher is catching heat in my county for talking about his religious beliefs in class, and may get fired.

I have some of my own views but I was wondering if RPF had any opinions on what constitutes separation of church and state in this context.

I had a science teacher in my high school that would show creationist videos of Kent Hovind in class. As far as I know, she didn't take much heat from the other staff, but she she made sure to warn everyone that she knew her rights and seemed to know the law well enough to defend herself from any legal repercussions that may have come from her showing the videos and presenting the creationist side. Nobody seemed to complain too much.

PaulConventionWV
10-17-2012, 10:29 AM
depends, was he being paid to teach on the topic of theology?
was the discussion germaine to the class?
as a owner of a private school, that is what would matter-
if the student is paying for a class, and you end up using that time to teach about something other than the education purchased, that could be fraud.

Or it could just be grounds for getting fired. It doesn't have to be a legal offense. If it is a private school, no legal action is required to remove a teacher. I'm sure this is not actually the case these days, but I am operating under the assumption of a hypothetical free market in education.

PaulConventionWV
10-17-2012, 10:32 AM
Shouldn't be denied in my opinion. There is no restriction or seperation of church and state so to speak at the state level. Those that would say the 14th amendment forces the bill of rights (i.e. the 1st amendment) on the states are wrong because the 1st amendment specifically says that congress shall make no law. Since it is directed solely at the congress means that the 14th amendment could never be applied to the states. Further, teachers are not federal employees but rather state. Plus, the whole seperation of church and state arguement is a misunderstanding of what the Constitution really means.

"Congress" has been redefined as all levels of government. That is what the Supreme Court has ruled, so that is the precedent, and yes, it does mean the BoR applies to the states and local governments. This doesn't mean that all teachers are necessarily doing anything illegal by speaking their mind on religious issues. I'm sure there is a line there somewhere in the smorgasbord of regulations.

The Free Hornet
10-17-2012, 10:34 AM
I agree with Nobody's Hero, having a centralized government that assures one of the many different interpretations of a "sovereign individual" is protected would seem to assure an even larger federal government.

I cannot in my right mind ever support a larger or more intrusive federal government.

I'm not supporting a larger Federal government.

I'm asking that people drop this "don't give a fuck" attitude when other people's liberty is threatened. Sorry if this wasn't clear. Of course, at no point did I suggest a central or Federal authority enforce sovereign individual rights nor would I expect that to work well or long term.



So, just an example, if there's anyone in Chicago who opposes gun control, then the practical solution is to 'vote with their feet'. You can't just sit there and put up with that shit as a citizen and expect the sympathy to just keep flowing in.

I don't oppose "vote with their feet", rather I have one million times more admiration for this guy:



http://www.ldjackson.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Otis_McDonald.jpg
Otis McDonald: Chicago resident who challenged and won in a landmark gun control case. (http://www.ldjackson.net/chicagos-2nd-amendment-challenge-before-the-supreme-court/)

He didn't vote with his feet.

Sola_Fide
10-17-2012, 10:36 AM
I went through the standard state-education in high school. When I graduated, I had to re-learn everything (from economics to science).

But one of the things that I always remember is that my high school biology teacher would make these little quips against creationism, and she thought she was making these profound points, but she didn't think through her arguments enough.

She would say "creationism doesn't make sense because if Eve was made from the rib of Adam, we would all be missing a rib". Um....what? Hello. If we get in a major accident and lose our rib, when we have kids, our kids still have all their ribs.

It was these little things that sounded perfectly reasonable to me back then that I look back upon and question.

ClydeCoulter
10-17-2012, 10:45 AM
I don't mind discussion on topics. If the teacher allows the students points of view also.
My son outwardly discusses politics, law, science, religion, etc. with teachers in highschool. Fortunately, he's allowed to speak his mind, also. Allowing discussion in the class helps with critical thinking skill, imho.
But I don't support forcing an opinion down someones throat, without free discussion, no matter what the subject.

PaulConventionWV
10-17-2012, 10:46 AM
That's an anti-liberty perspective. Do you favor every constitutional encroachment on freedom or just the religious ones?

Also, do you support taking my money to teach religion?

I don't believe it's anti-liberty. Nobody here prefers public schools (at least, very few do), but why not allow more freedom in education so that public schools start behaving more like private schools? A teacher is already required to teach a certain view, so why should I be forced to pay just for that view? Why not let teachers shake the system by introducing their own beliefs? It is impossible to be completely unbiased in subjects like history and science. At the very least, I don't blame someone for holding this view. Supporting liberty is supporting the liberty of the teacher. If everyone is required to teach communism, then why not let teachers teach other things as well? There is no reason that we should see communism as the only legitimate result of our tax dollars.


The key word is "talking". Sounds like an on-going issue of obstinance. Do you want to pay his pension in perpetuity? He will have far more time to proselytize after he stops taking a government paycheck.

What do you prefer he teach? Why should I be forced to pay for it? Even if he teaches nothing but straight facts without fail, why should I be forced to pay for it? I say let the teachers express their beliefs so that we can expose kids to a variety of views. It's not their fault they receive a government paycheck for entering into a legitimate profession. If the government started paying you for fixing cars, would you stop doing it because it offends your sense of justice that someone who doesn't think fixing cars is a legitimate profession is paying your salary? Even if you aren't particularly good at it, it's not your fault that you still receive a paycheck. Who would refuse one?

erowe1
10-17-2012, 11:18 AM
What's the religious basis of calculus?

This might be an interesting point to mention Euler's proof for the existence of God (which may be an apocryphal story, but if so is apparently still based on things he actually wrote), which is that in order for his equation e^(i*pi)+1=0 to be true, it must be the case that God exists.

But I will try a more thoroughgoing answer.

All of mathematics itself could be denied to have any correspondence to actual truth on religious grounds. A person might have a religious conviction that there is no god, nothing supernatural, no reason or purpose for existence. This person might believe that thoughts, including mathematical thoughts, are merely the byproducts of irrational physical processes that owe nothing to any design or order. They might believe that the markings the teacher is putting on the board (if they trust their senses that the teacher and board exist at all), as well as the sounds coming from the teacher's mouth, are all meaningless responses to meaningless stimuli that no one could ever hope to understand, such that if they try to attribute meaning to these things they are doomed to fail.

The teacher's entire endeavor is built on the assumption that the above religious dogma is false. And in denying that religious belief, the teacher is relying on their own religious belief, whatever it may be, and teaching the material accordingly.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-17-2012, 11:33 AM
I don't mind discussion on topics. If the teacher allows the students points of view also.
My son outwardly discusses politics, law, science, religion, etc. with teachers in highschool. Fortunately, he's allowed to speak his mind, also. Allowing discussion in the class helps with critical thinking skill, imho.
But I don't support forcing an opinion down someones throat, without free discussion, no matter what the subject.

You said it well Clyde, I agree.

I think that banning speech in a place of learning is un-human, especially religion and politics. I think anything that makes the masses question their existence and deeper philosophical questions is important. I respect people who try to answer these big questions even if they disagree with me, because that's the road to enlightenment.

ClydeCoulter
10-17-2012, 12:52 PM
You said it well Clyde, I agree.

I think that banning speech in a place of learning is un-human, especially religion and politics. I think anything that makes the masses question their existence and deeper philosophical questions is important. I respect people who try to answer these big questions even if they disagree with me, because that's the road to enlightenment.

Yes, how many times have we heard that it's a no-no to discuss religion and politics in public or at a party? They wish (They as TPTB).

Sola_Fide
10-17-2012, 01:22 PM
This might be an interesting point to mention Euler's proof for the existence of God (which may be an apocryphal story, but if so is apparently still based on things he actually wrote), which is that in order for his equation e^(i*pi)+1=0 to be true, it must be the case that God exists.

But I will try a more thoroughgoing answer.

All of mathematics itself could be denied to have any correspondence to actual truth on religious grounds. A person might have a religious conviction that there is no god, nothing supernatural, no reason or purpose for existence. This person might believe that thoughts, including mathematical thoughts, are merely the byproducts of irrational physical processes that owe nothing to any design or order. They might believe that the markings the teacher is putting on the board (if they trust their senses that the teacher and board exist at all), as well as the sounds coming from the teacher's mouth, are all meaningless responses to meaningless stimuli that no one could ever hope to understand, such that if they try to attribute meaning to these things they are doomed to fail.

The teacher's entire endeavor is built on the assumption that the above religious dogma is false. And in denying that religious belief, the teacher is relying on their own religious belief, whatever it may be, and teaching the material accordingly.

Yes, and how is the existence of the blackboard and the markings established by empiricism? By a circular appeal to the senses?

The atheist's axiom of knowledge (the infallibilty of the senses) is not a rational premise, and it is inadequate as a theory of knowledge.

nobody's_hero
10-17-2012, 03:03 PM
"Congress" has been redefined as all levels of government. That is what the Supreme Court has ruled, so that is the precedent, and yes, it does mean the BoR applies to the states and local governments. This doesn't mean that all teachers are necessarily doing anything illegal by speaking their mind on religious issues. I'm sure there is a line there somewhere in the smorgasbord of regulations.

Eh, use caution when referencing Supreme Court rulings. Since its inception, the SCOTUS has often rendered well-intentioned rulings which were ultimately flipped once the power to consider an issue was established. When a SC justice rules that the U.S. government has the power to rule in favor of freedom, they also inadvertently establish a power to rule in favor of tyranny, further down the road. It's the power, which can be used for 'good' or 'evil', that was intended to be limited.

Let me play devil's advocate here and suggest that each state has its own Bill of Rights in each state's respective constitution. If the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights was intended to apply at every level of government (as ruled by our wise elders in black robes), why would each state have felt it necessary to have their own Bill of Rights? Isn't that a bit redundant?

nobody's_hero
10-17-2012, 03:21 PM
I can sympathize with the sentiment except this is the same logic used to drive the emotional appeal to bomb foreign countries who do not have our same supposed freedoms. When fighting for the freedom of others one has to step back and wonder if you aren't being used as a tool to give the power of deciding what freedoms are legitimate to a different entity. The world is so diverse that one person's view of freedom differs from anothers. The right to associate with those of like mindedness would then mean that by leaving the decisions to the smallest local gov't possible it allows the highest possibility for personal liberty to be obtained. Imo this is the best route to take excepting matters of life or death.

You said it better than I could.

Sonny Tufts
10-18-2012, 09:30 AM
Atheists must attempt to explain how a completely random existence exhibits such uniformity. Appealing to "the nature things" to explain uniformity is not adequate because it commits the naturalistic fallacy.

Why is appealing to "God did it" not just as inadequate?

PaulConventionWV
10-18-2012, 09:45 AM
This might be an interesting point to mention Euler's proof for the existence of God (which may be an apocryphal story, but if so is apparently still based on things he actually wrote), which is that in order for his equation e^(i*pi)+1=0 to be true, it must be the case that God exists.

But I will try a more thoroughgoing answer.

All of mathematics itself could be denied to have any correspondence to actual truth on religious grounds. A person might have a religious conviction that there is no god, nothing supernatural, no reason or purpose for existence. This person might believe that thoughts, including mathematical thoughts, are merely the byproducts of irrational physical processes that owe nothing to any design or order. They might believe that the markings the teacher is putting on the board (if they trust their senses that the teacher and board exist at all), as well as the sounds coming from the teacher's mouth, are all meaningless responses to meaningless stimuli that no one could ever hope to understand, such that if they try to attribute meaning to these things they are doomed to fail.

The teacher's entire endeavor is built on the assumption that the above religious dogma is false. And in denying that religious belief, the teacher is relying on their own religious belief, whatever it may be, and teaching the material accordingly.

I don't know why, but I found that funny. I envision a kid sitting in class staring at a board of meaningless figures listening to the teacher emit meaningless sounds when the teacher asks him a question and he sits drooling, not knowing what to make of the world. Not sure why, but it tickled my surrealistic funnybone to read that post.

Sonny Tufts
10-18-2012, 09:49 AM
This might be an interesting point to mention Euler's proof for the existence of God (which may be an apocryphal story, but if so is apparently still based on things he actually wrote), which is that in order for his equation e^(i*pi)+1=0 to be true, it must be the case that God exists.

The version I heard involved the visit of Dennis Diderot, an atheistic French philosopher, to the court of Catherine the Great in St. Petersburg, where Euler was living at the time. Diderot knew nothing of mathematics, so Euler confronted him with something along the lines of "Sir, (a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply!" Because of his mathematical ignorance, Diderot had no answer.


The teacher's entire endeavor is built on the assumption that the above religious dogma is false. And in denying that religious belief, the teacher is relying on their own religious belief, whatever it may be, and teaching the material accordingly.

Is this really what you had in mind in claiming that every subject is taught from a religious perspective? Why not simply say that the the teacher is denying the student's solipsism on philosophical grounds, such that there is no need to bring religion into the matter?

Incidentally, there is a famous quote from Leopold Kronecker, a 19th century German mathematician: "God made the integers; all else is the work of man."

erowe1
10-18-2012, 09:55 AM
Is this really what you had in mind in claiming that every subject is taught from a religious perspective? Why not simply say that the the teacher is denying the student's solipsism on philosophical grounds, such that there is no need to bring religion into the matter?

Yes, it is an example of the kind of thing I had in mind.

The student's belief is a religious one. The question of whether or not it is a true belief is a religious question. However one answers it, and on whatever grounds, they are still encroaching on religion.

I also wouldn't distinguish "philosophical grounds" from religion the way you are here. Every epistemology is ultimately based on faith.

I can't agree with Kronecker there. Humans don't create the laws of mathematics, they discover them.

PaulConventionWV
10-18-2012, 09:55 AM
Eh, use caution when referencing Supreme Court rulings. Since its inception, the SCOTUS has often rendered well-intentioned rulings which were ultimately flipped once the power to consider an issue was established. When a SC justice rules that the U.S. government has the power to rule in favor of freedom, they also inadvertently establish a power to rule in favor of tyranny, further down the road. It's the power, which can be used for 'good' or 'evil', that was intended to be limited.

Let me play devil's advocate here and suggest that each state has its own Bill of Rights in each state's respective constitution. If the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights was intended to apply at every level of government (as ruled by our wise elders in black robes), why would each state have felt it necessary to have their own Bill of Rights? Isn't that a bit redundant?

Oh, I agree that it is redundant. Unfortunately, however, attention and power have been shifted away from the state and toward the federal government. The Fedgov now has the power to override basically any state laws, no matter what its own BoR says, or no matter what that state's courts say their BoR says. The BoR was obviously not intended to apply to every level of government, but that is just the way things have turned out. It clearly mentions "Congress" in the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the US Constitution, but the Supreme Court has ruled that decisions made by the Supreme Court apply to all the states, and so we have all these wars over speech in public school, religion, etc. on and on and on. It's because of the 14th amendment which laid the groundwork for redefining "Congress" as all levels of government.

PaulConventionWV
10-18-2012, 09:58 AM
Why is appealing to "God did it" not just as inadequate?

Because it's not appealing to anything. Uniformity and randomness are two opposing ideas. If uniformity exists, and randomness cannot explain it, then the uniformity must be the result of non-randomness, or in other words, intelligent design.

PaulConventionWV
10-18-2012, 10:01 AM
The version I heard involved the visit of Dennis Diderot, an atheistic French philosopher, to the court of Catherine the Great in St. Petersburg, where Euler was living at the time. Diderot knew nothing of mathematics, so Euler confronted him with something along the lines of "Sir, (a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply!" Because of his mathematical ignorance, Diderot had no answer.



Is this really what you had in mind in claiming that every subject is taught from a religious perspective? Why not simply say that the the teacher is denying the student's solipsism on philosophical grounds, such that there is no need to bring religion into the matter?

Incidentally, there is a famous quote from Leopold Kronecker, a 19th century German mathematician: "God made the integers; all else is the work of man."

Religion and philosophy are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are, in many ways, the same thing.

Sonny Tufts
10-18-2012, 12:26 PM
Because it's not appealing to anything. Uniformity and randomness are two opposing ideas. If uniformity exists, and randomness cannot explain it, then the uniformity must be the result of non-randomness, or in other words, intelligent design.

It's appealing to the existence of a supernatural being. In other words, when theists can't explain something they bring in God as the answer. Why is this hypothesis any more probable than one that simply says, randomness produced this particular example of uniformity, however unlikely that was to have occurred?

erowe1
10-18-2012, 12:39 PM
It's appealing to the existence of a supernatural being. In other words, when theists can't explain something they bring in God as the answer. Why is this hypothesis any more probable than one that simply says, randomness produced this particular example of uniformity, however unlikely that was to have occurred?

When you say that, isn't the word "randomness" a proxy for something supernatural?

Sonny Tufts
10-18-2012, 12:46 PM
Every epistemology is ultimately based on faith.

I can't agree with Kronecker there. Humans don't create the laws of mathematics, they discover them.

I agree that epistemology proceeds from certain unprovable assumptions, which you can call "faith" if you wish. But to me the word "religious" connotes something narrower than "philosophy".

I tend to agree with you about Kronecker, although some mathematical truths seem to me to be completely artificial (e.g., quaternions and maybe noneuclidean geometry).

erowe1
10-18-2012, 12:53 PM
I agree that epistemology proceeds from certain unprovable assumptions, which you can call "faith" if you wish. But to me the word "religious" connotes something narrower than "philosophy".

Maybe, if you define it that way. But my fear, when somebody says things like that is that what they're up to is to say that there's a religiously neutral "philosophical" starting point that we all should be able to agree on in our education, and that with a little poking around, we find that their idea of religious neutrality is atheism.

Sonny Tufts
10-18-2012, 01:00 PM
When you say that, isn't the word "randomness" a proxy for something supernatural?

Not at all. For example, if I deal a thoroughly shuffled deck of cards and they come out AAAA222233334444, etc. then randomness has produced something that appears to us to be highly uniform, but I wouldn't say there's anything supernatural about it. It was just a freak occurrence. (By the same token, of course, ANY sequence of the 52 cards that might be dealt would be a freak occurrence, since the probability of any particular sequence being dealt is astronomical.)

Sonny Tufts
10-18-2012, 01:05 PM
Maybe, if you define it that way. But my fear, when somebody says things like that is that what they're up to is to say that there's a religiously neutral "philosophical" starting point that we all should be able to agree on in our education, and that with a little poking around, we find that their idea of religious neutrality is atheism.

If you're going to teach science, for example, you have to assume that our sense perceptions generally reflect reality, and I think 99.99% of us would agree. But such an assumption is hardly based on atheism.

erowe1
10-18-2012, 01:06 PM
Not at all. For example, if I deal a thoroughly shuffled deck of cards and they come out AAAA222233334444, etc. then randomness has produced something that appears to us to be highly uniform, but I wouldn't say there's anything supernatural about it. It was just a freak occurrence. (By the same token, of course, ANY sequence of the 52 cards that might be dealt would be a freak occurrence, since the probability of any particular sequence being dealt is astronomical.)

But your former statement was about that which produced all the order of the universe itself, in other words, that which produced all that is natural. If it produced all that is natural, than it must be excluded from the natural, and thus be supernatural.

To apply this to your card shuffling analogy. Random shuffling could produce something that looks orderly, but the act of shuffling itself cannot be part of that order, it must be outside it.

Sonny Tufts
10-18-2012, 01:29 PM
But your former statement was about that which produced all the order of the universe itself, in other words, that which produced all that is natural. If it produced all that is natural, than it must be excluded from the natural, and thus be supernatural.

To apply this to your card shuffling analogy. Random shuffling could produce something that looks orderly, but the act of shuffling itself cannot be part of that order, it must be outside it.

I disagree. The act of shuffling and the dealing of the cards is all part of a system that produces something that looks orderly. Similarly, the universe could theoretically be traced back to something (call it a singularity) that exploded and that eventually resulted in the universe. Why wouldn't the singularity be just as much a part of "nature" as its results?

erowe1
10-18-2012, 01:44 PM
I disagree. The act of shuffling and the dealing of the cards is all part of a system that produces something that looks orderly.
I agree. And whatever produced that system is not part of it.

What you said before, though, when you gave that analogy, was that it was the order aaaa11112222.... that was orderly, and that the shuffling produced that. I agreed with that too. But the shuffling itself was not part of the orderly system that the shuffling produced. And if you do wish to expand the boundaries of the system to include the shuffling itself, then whatever produced that system was not the shuffling, but something outside the system.



Similarly, the universe could theoretically be traced back to something (call it a singularity) that exploded and that eventually resulted in the universe. Why wouldn't the singularity be just as much a part of "nature" as its results?
That sounds like semantics to me. Yes, you could say that. You could also say that God is part of nature, and that, on account of God being part of nature young-earth creationism does not appeal to the supernatural. But where that would leave you is with the need to come up with some other way of categorizing things, such that this uncaused first cause (or singularity) belongs to one category, and all that resulted from it belongs to another.

One reason I think it's better to use the categories of "natural" and "supernatural" for those distinctions is that we already customarily apply the word "natural" to all those regularities of the universe that can be studied by the scientific method and systematized into what we think of as the laws of physics and other physical sciences. But whatever produced these laws cannot be the laws themselves. Therefore, it is not natural in the sense of being subject to being described by those laws.

alucard13mmfmj
10-18-2012, 01:50 PM
For me, they can talk about it.. I wouldn't be offended unless they say their religion is the best and mine or my lack of religion sucks. Or not being punished for dissaggreeing.

DamianTV
10-18-2012, 02:03 PM
Religion is a Group Superiority Complex.

PaulConventionWV
10-19-2012, 07:39 AM
It's appealing to the existence of a supernatural being. In other words, when theists can't explain something they bring in God as the answer. Why is this hypothesis any more probable than one that simply says, randomness produced this particular example of uniformity, however unlikely that was to have occurred?

Because if there are only two options and you eliminate one, the other is the de facto conclusion. I thought it would be pretty easy to understand, but apparently you are having some trouble. Let me try one more time.

There is uniformity and order in the universe. There are only two options. Either it arose by chance or by design. If random chance cannot explain the uniformity, then design must explain it. If we denied that design explained it, then we would be denying that any uniformity really exists. Since uniformity does exist, we must conclude that design is the most logical explanation for the uniformity and order in the universe, not random chance.

There is no third option because the two are diametrically opposed.

I didn't appeal to a supernatural being. I used logic to reach the conclusion that nature arose by intelligence.

PaulConventionWV
10-19-2012, 07:51 AM
I disagree. The act of shuffling and the dealing of the cards is all part of a system that produces something that looks orderly. Similarly, the universe could theoretically be traced back to something (call it a singularity) that exploded and that eventually resulted in the universe. Why wouldn't the singularity be just as much a part of "nature" as its results?

There must be an original cause. What caused the singularity to explode? You cannot have an un-caused cause within a system and you cannot have an infinite regression of causes. You cannot have something within nature that caused everything in nature to happen. It must have come from outside nature in order to be the original cause for nature because to say that something within nature caused itself to happen would be to deny that any natural laws even exist.

Sonny Tufts
10-19-2012, 03:56 PM
You cannot have an un-caused cause within a system and you cannot have an infinite regression of causes.

But you posit an uncaused deity -- in other words, if I were to ask who or what created God, you'd answer that God is not part of the system of the universe but exists outside of it. But if the universe is defined as everything that there is, it would necessarily have to include God since God IS. Thus, the assumption that there is something that exists but that is not part of the sum total of all things that exist is self-contradictory. Therefore God must be a part of the system of the universe, and if God created the universe, then it follows that the universe is self-creating. But positing a deity is an unnecessary step (Occam's razor, don't you know), so why not simply say that the universe created itself?

However, let's assume for the sake of argument that God exists outside of the space and time of the universe -- in other words, the "is" that describes God is different from the "is" that describes the universe (I'll refrain from a Bill Clinton joke). This allows you to exempt God from your initial assumption that everything in the system of the universe must have a cause. So if God isn't part of the system of our universe, let's say that He is part of a meta-system. But what created the meta-system? If you arbitrarily posit that causation isn't required in the meta-system and that God has always existed, than why can't I posit that there's a meta-system in which an eternal meta-singularity caused our universe's singularity to come into being? If you want to refer to this meta-singularity as "God" so be it, but please recognize that it doesn't come with the connotations that the word "God" normally possesses.

See, all you've done by positing an uncaused deity whose existence is somehow different from the existence of the universe is to move the question up one level and arbitrarily stopping there. I'm not convinced that such a step up is necessary as a matter of logic.


because to say that something within nature caused itself to happen would be to deny that any natural laws even exist.

I don't see how this follows at all. And what do you mean by "natural laws" -- gravity, conservation of mass/energy, special and general relativity?

DamianTV
10-19-2012, 04:13 PM
Laws of Common Sense apparently no longer apply.

erowe1
10-19-2012, 04:21 PM
But positing a deity is an unnecessary step (Occam's razor, don't you know), so why not simply say that the universe created itself?

It seems to me that you're still positing a deity and just not calling it one.

Sonny Tufts
10-22-2012, 08:42 AM
It seems to me that you're still positing a deity and just not calling it one.

Unless one is pantheist, I wouldn't characterize the universe as a deity.

jmdrake
10-22-2012, 09:05 AM
All I know is that some kid was making fun of Christianity, and he stood up and defended it. Never claimed to be representing the government.

If students were bashing gays or muslims or jews or any other group and the teacher stood up and defended said group that teacher would be on "The View" tomorrow as a cause celeb.

jmdrake
10-22-2012, 09:15 AM
Sorry, but who's liberty was threatened by a teacher defending his faith when students were mocking it? And as for the (weak) "He's using my tax dollars to do it" argument, if you don't realize that public schools routinely use your tax dollars to teach things you disagree with then you probably haven't looked very deeply into public school curricula. ;) Flip the script. Imagine some students were attacking another student with a Ron Paul baseball cap on (assume a school without a strict uniform code) by saying Ron Paul was "crazy" and "supported terrorists" and imagine this same teacher simply trying to set the record straight.


I'm not supporting a larger Federal government.

I'm asking that people drop this "don't give a fuck" attitude when other people's liberty is threatened. Sorry if this wasn't clear. Of course, at no point did I suggest a central or Federal authority enforce sovereign individual rights nor would I expect that to work well or long term.




I don't oppose "vote with their feet", rather I have one million times more admiration for this guy:



http://www.ldjackson.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Otis_McDonald.jpg
Otis McDonald: Chicago resident who challenged and won in a landmark gun control case. (http://www.ldjackson.net/chicagos-2nd-amendment-challenge-before-the-supreme-court/)

He didn't vote with his feet.

jmdrake
10-22-2012, 09:16 AM
Waldorf maths teach the spiritual aspect of maths and if one delves into the history it can overcome many frustrations people have in performing the functions. Sort of like one can love without understanding all the qualities of love, but the more one embraces the essence of love the easier one finds it to love. :p Clear as mud? Anywho try here:http://www.jamieyorkpress.com/free-high-school-downloads/ for higher maths Waldorf style. A good beginner book is:Teaching Mathematics in Rudolf Steiner Schools for Classes I-VIII Ron Jarman http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Mathematics-Steiner-Schools-Classes/dp/1869890922/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350489764&sr=1-1&keywords=jarman+mathematics

Thanks for the info! I'll check that out.

tttppp
10-22-2012, 09:22 AM
Just what the question says. Some teacher is catching heat in my county for talking about his religious beliefs in class, and may get fired.

I have some of my own views but I was wondering if RPF had any opinions on what constitutes separation of church and state in this context.


If the education is private, your teacher should be allowed to say whatever his company allows. But not in government funded schools. We shouldn't be forced to listen to that crap...other than stating this is a theory, nothing more, and to make up your own mind.