Jib 0
QuoteQuoteQuotethere are schools where "God" cannot be said and I suspect this is one of them.
The complaint that you supposedly read makes it clear that this is not the case.
Once again: other teachers are allowed to reference god and religion. This single teacher is not. Therefore the teacher did something that the administration feared crossed the line between /teaching in context and prosyletizing.QuoteNice personal attack.
What personal attack is that?QuoteYes, I am a trial lawyer and as such, I am an advocate for my client. Once again you make assumptions that have NO basis in fact and claim that they are the only conclusion possible; that's how you get your ass handed to you in court.
What unsupported assumptions have I made? None that I'm aware of.
Further I didn't ever state that my conclusions were the only ones possible.
How does making false statements in court work for you?Quote
I would be interested to see how you supprt your view that courts tend to side with schools in this context
I derived that statement from this website:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx
-JoshIf you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
kallend 1,679
QuoteQuoteQuotethere are schools where "God" cannot be said and I suspect this is one of them.
The complaint that you supposedly read makes it clear that this is not the case.
Once again: other teachers are allowed to reference god and religion. This single teacher is not. Therefore the teacher did something that the administration feared crossed the line between /teaching in context and prosyletizing.
Nice personal attack.
Where? I don't see one.
Then you said:
Quote
Yes, I am a trial lawyer and as such, I am an advocate for my client. Once again you make assumptions that have NO basis in fact and claim that they are the only conclusion possible; that's how you get your ass handed to you in court.
followed shortly by
Quote
From my perspective, the equally likely distinction is that he was discussing the document in its historical context and the administration does not like our judeo-christian roots which they are charged with teaching in this class.
Which looks to me like you just did the exact thing you said would get you your ass handed to you in court.
Since the full details of why this particular teacher, and no other was enjoined from discussing the DOI have NOT been revealed, I don't see much point in building a debating position on what these details may be and why.
However, the statement in the title of the thread does not appear to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
Quote
Dollar bills didn't have that slogan on the until 1957.
Other currency did almost 100 years before. For a history of In God We Trust: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
That still leaves us with nearly 100 years of no such references. If we're going to roll back revisionism, we have to roll it all the way back.
-Josh
Ok...so then we're back to the 1860s and "In God We Trust"... where's the problem?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
JohnRich 4
QuoteDollar bills didn't have that slogan on the until 1957.
That's irrelevant since we are dealing with what is on our money now. If you have any old silver certificates without the "god" phrase, then feel free to have your children spend them at school for lunch, without fear of recrimination from the god-ban.
QuoteRe: zero tolerance for god
No one involved in this legal case is suggesting such a policy.
It's a strawman argument
I'm just taking the debate to the logical future extension. Schools have already adopted such zero tolerance policies for other things, like "weapons" and "drugs", which have led to numerous stupid actions on the part of administrators. Given that, it's not hard to predict what could easily happen with this one-teacher god ban.
JohnRich 4
Homework time. I looked up the Declaration of Independence, to see just how often the word "god" (or variations thereto) appears, and the context, so we can judge what someone finds so offensive about it. It was good to read it again - it's been a while. Here are the references:
When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.There you go - just four references. It's history - that's how the founding fathers thought of things. History should not be offensive to anyone. It just is what it is. You don't have to like history, but you shouldn't try to omit the facts that existed at the time.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...
We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States...
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
billvon 2,471
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I'm just taking the debate to the logical future extension.
No one else in this discussion thinks that _is_ a logical extension. It's like you claiming that a certain restriction on handgun purchases is bad, and having someone else claim "Oh, so 2 year olds should be able to buy guns? It's the logical extension." It's a strawman argument i.e. one that you create so you can knock it down easily.
No one else in this discussion thinks that _is_ a logical extension. It's like you claiming that a certain restriction on handgun purchases is bad, and having someone else claim "Oh, so 2 year olds should be able to buy guns? It's the logical extension." It's a strawman argument i.e. one that you create so you can knock it down easily.
JohnRich 4
QuoteNo one else in this discussion thinks that _is_ a logical extension.
I don't think you have a proxy from everyone else to speak on their behalf.
QuoteIt's like you claiming that a certain restriction on handgun purchases is bad, and having someone else claim "Oh, so 2 year olds should be able to buy guns?
Since we already have numerous examples of schools making stupid decisions regarding weapon and drug bans, I don't find the extrapolation that far-fetched. Who would have thought that a weapon ban would get a kid suspended for a 1-inch G.I. Joe plastic toy gun, or a bread knife in his lunchbox in the cafeteria?
Never underestimate the power of bureaucrats to create stupid rules...
kallend 1,679
QuoteQuoteNo one else in this discussion thinks that _is_ a logical extension.
I don't think you have a proxy from everyone else to speak on their behalf.
He has my proxy.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteQuoteNo one else in this discussion thinks that _is_ a logical extension.
I don't think you have a proxy from everyone else to speak on their behalf.
He has my proxy.
Are you "everyone else"?
billvon 2,471
>I don't think you have a proxy from everyone else to speak on their behalf.
Perhaps not; but I can read, and have not seen anyone on this thread espouse the view you claim they have. Which means you're making up a position and then claiming it's stupid. It's quite easy to do, but doesn't demonstrate much.
Perhaps not; but I can read, and have not seen anyone on this thread espouse the view you claim they have. Which means you're making up a position and then claiming it's stupid. It's quite easy to do, but doesn't demonstrate much.
Jib 0
QuoteNo one else in this discussion thinks that _is_ a logical extension.
There are lots of people who want to ban a variety of "offensive" words from our schools and even entire books i.e. Huck Finn. While I do not think they are being logical in their position, I cannot agree with Bill that it is not a logical extension of their misguided efforts to include the word God within that umbrella of offensive words.
--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt
JohnRich 4
Quote>I don't think you have a proxy from everyone else to speak on their behalf.
Perhaps not; but I can read, and have not seen anyone on this thread espouse the view you claim they have. Which means you're making up a position and then claiming it's stupid.
First of all, I never claimed that anyone else thought that way - go back and look. It was entirely my own fun and whimsical musing. And doing "what if" scenarios is quite valid in debating the efficacy of a proposal.
JohnRich 4
QuoteThere are lots of people who want to ban a variety of "offensive" words from our schools and even entire books i.e. Huck Finn. While I do not think they are being logical in their position, I cannot agree with you that it is not a logical extension of their misguided efforts to include the word God within that umbrella of offensive words.
(Bolding above is mine.)
Let's see, that's a double-negative statement, which means that you do agree with me. I think. That sure is a difficult way to say it.
Quote
That still leaves us with nearly 100 years of no such references. If we're going to roll back revisionism, we have to roll it all the way back.
-Josh
Ok...so then we're back to the 1860s and "In God We Trust"... where's the problem?
No.
We're back to 1776. According to the link you provide, 'In God We Trust' didn't appear until the 1860's. As I noted, that's nearly 100 years without such a reference.
-Josh
If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
QuoteQuoteQuoteDollar bills didn't have that slogan on the until 1957.
That's irrelevant since we are dealing with what is on our money now.
It's not clear to me why you think that's irrelevant.
At anyrate, while related tangentially to this thread, it's a separate topic. If you want to discuss it, can we start a new thread?QuoteRe: zero tolerance for god
No one involved in this legal case is suggesting such a policy.
It's a strawman argumentQuoteI'm just taking the debate to the logical future extension.
Given that the school administration made a point of limiting a specific teachers use of these materials, and still allow others to make similar references, the logical assumption is that they don't want to go down the path you describe.
Whether or not the actions the school chose were a reasonable reaction to this teachers as yet unknown behavior remains to be seen.
It would appear that they are at least trying to find some happy middle ground in the political minefield they've been thrust into.
-JoshIf you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
Quote
There you go - just four references. It's history - that's how the founding fathers thought of things. History should not be offensive to anyone. It just is what it is. You don't have to like history, but you shouldn't try to omit the facts that existed at the time.
Another strawman argument. The school district hasn't omitted the facts, with the notable exception of one teacher's class. Perhaps they were attempting to choose the lesser of two evils.
It's painfully obvious to most that their isn't enough info to draw valid conclusions yet.
It's also clear that you're not letting that stop you.
I think that's a shame.
-Josh
If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.
br0k3n 0
Quoteyou can teach about multiple religions while still claiming one religion is the truth.
Quote
What gives anyone the right to claim to a child in a classroom that any particular religion is “the truth”….
When I was at school we had Religious Education once a week, which wasn’t Religious Ed but Christianity Ed, which was claimed to be the true religion.
Now call me old fashioned but if my child is going to be taught Religious education I want all religions covered, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Sikhism, Confucianism, Neopagan Religious Faiths, and Organised Religions i.e Caodaism, Druse, Gypsies, Native American Spirituality, Scientology etc etc etc etc
Then when my child is informed, he can make his “OWN” decision which one, if any he decides to accept, believe or follow.-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+
that's exactly what I was saying. Someone else was arguing that the teacher couldn't be pushing his own religion because he taught about others. I said it was possible that someone could teach about other religions, and still claim theirs is true and the others aren't.
I don't think a teacher has a right to claim that any particular religion is the truth while in a classroom, but the teacher referenced in this thread, while he does teach about other religions, may be claiming that his religion is the truth.
I don't think a teacher has a right to claim that any particular religion is the truth while in a classroom, but the teacher referenced in this thread, while he does teach about other religions, may be claiming that his religion is the truth.
Nice personal attack. Yes, I am a trial lawyer and as such, I am an advocate for my client. Once again you make assumptions that have NO basis in fact and claim that they are the only conclusion possible; that's how you get your ass handed to you in court.
While other teachers are permitted to use the Declaration of Independence for example, you cannot conclude that they are allowed to make any reference to god or religion in discussing that document. The only assumption that can be made is that he is doing something differently from other teachers, which you point out but chose to ignore in your earlier assumption that the administration thinks he must be preaching. From my perspective, the equally likely distinction is that he was discussing the document in its historical context and the administration does not like our judeo-christian roots which they are charged with teaching in this class.
I would be interested to see how you supprt your view that courts tend to side with schools in this context as opposed to saying God during speeches and the pledge of allegiance.
--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites