Atheists shut down school Bible club for 1st and 2nd graders

[Boomboom521]

I don't doubt that boom, and I think you're probably a very good teacher because you do at least appear to care about what you're teaching.

Good for you.

But let me go one step further with you on this to gauge how much intellectual curiosity you are willing to spark in your classroom for your students?

Do you instruct them to at least reach "no conclusion" on the topic? In other words, do you at least allow them to consider the possibility that your belief in some "other" form of Spirituality could be in error, and that in fact those who believe in the Spiritual God of the Bible is also at least worth investigating?

Are both intellectual pursuits given equal weight in your classroom without your opinions slanted Pro or Con one way or the other?

Do you consider the investigation of Christianity's claims to be a valid intellectual pursuit worth your student's effort, even if you don't personally believe it to be a valid conclusion they will ever reach? Do you promote that?

Your answer isn't as crucial to me as it is to the entire construct of public education and what in my opinion is so wrong with it.

That is, conclusions about social justice, environmental stewardship, racial equality, economic fairness, and a host of other socially Leftist positions are often taught to Government controlled students without an aggressive comparison to competing or alternative philosophies.

Free market capitalism is not taught as the basis of our economic system, but rather as a way for the masses to be exploited by evil rich companies. Racial equality (inequality) based on our common connection as created human beings is not taught as a fundamental underpinning of our Judeo Christian heritage, but rather as a result of our history of discrimination and unfairness by Religious zealots who used their beliefs to oppress lower classes of people.

In summation, teaching "conclusions" or making "statements" about how our our society is organized or even should be is not encouraging intellectual diversity or curiosity boomer.

Rather in my opinion, it is normalizing Leftist ideology and encouraging sensitivity of students toward only one way of thinking, which inevitably places the supremacy of Man and the State above all other possibilities of Truth for students.

Which do you encourage?

When discussing current event (political or otherwise) I always try to bring in multiple perspectives. Making a point to find a legitimate viewpoint that is in opposition to my own view of the event or happening. When discussing historical events, I always try to get students to see the event from multiple perspectives. (For example: when discussing manifest destiny, I don't just teach the horrors inflicted upon the Native tribes, I also teach the spiritual motivation to bring Christianity to all people of the world.) I make a concerted effort to not preach righteousness as an educator......it's my job to ensure that my students know facts, and develop critical thinking. We discuss Republican views, Democratic views, minority and majority views, Christian and Islamic views .....it's important that Americans are educated and able to use logic and analysis to make decisions.....then they can pursue their own spiritual and political ideology.

The only thing I feel motivated to teach is environmentalism. Although I do try to refrain from asserting anything definitive about climate change. I teach the need to stop pollution, the dangers of plastics, chemicals, and air pollution. The need for recycling. The importance of conservation. It is surely a biased take on environmentalism, but I'm pretty confident that it's a justified stance.

 

[Boomboom521]

[QUOTE="Boomboom521, post: 1556641, member: 14642"]I don't discuss the existence of a higher being!

Because any discussion of the existence of a higher being would surely lead to a right versus wrong debate on the subject. And it's not the place of the classroom to discuss spirituality in terms of right and wrong. We discuss its influence on history and politics, but we do not discuss the righteousness of any religious ideology on any level. That's for people that are more versed in scripture or the spiritual teachings of a specific religion.

 

[WVPATX]

Yeah, let the club be. Proud of the kids for forming it.

Boom, you are one of the few liberals that actually has an open mind. I know you're an atheist and I respect your decision, though I hope and pray you change, but you're willing to listen and even change your mind.

You've talked about not indoctrinating your students with your ideology. I now believe that is likely true.

 

[WVPATX]

Actually the school district shut down the club.

After being threatened. They did not want to spend money on a lawsuit.

 

[WVPATX]

I don't think that anyone had to fight them but they were going to have to bring in non-school personnel to oversee club meetings and apparently that was too big of a hassle or they couldn't find anyone.

That is not true according to our Constitution. The teachers volunteered after hours. They were not "on the clock" and therefore not government employees. They have first Amendment rights.

 

[Boomboom521]

OK, I'll accept that.

What about free market entrepreneurial capitalism?

What do you teach them about profits? What they are for? What are stocks, investments, risk, dividends?

Good, bad?

Why do businesses exist? What are costs? How do they grow? What is a market? How does it operate? How is it regulated? How do businesses respond to it?

Should it be "controlled"? How? Why?

Do you think I teach economics?

When we discuss politics, it is a discussion of specific legislation. I make sure to teach both political party's perspective of the bill. When business or economics are brought into the discussion, I am sure to teach that the nation was founded on capitalism and free market concepts. If I need to discuss deeper aspects of protectionist strategies or socialist approaches to problems initiated by legislation, I always try to present the opposite view than my personal view....and it is usually followed by a initiated debate of which only the students participate.

 

[moe]

That is not true according to our Constitution. The teachers volunteered after hours. They were not "on the clock" and therefore not government employees. They have first Amendment rights.

I'm just going by what's in the provided article. I'll leave it to you to file the lawsuit.

 

[atlkvb]

When discussing current event (political or otherwise) I always try to bring in multiple perspectives. Making a point to find a legitimate viewpoint that is in opposition to my own view of the event or happening. When discussing historical events, I always try to get students to see the event from multiple perspectives. (For example: when discussing manifest destiny, I don't just teach the horrors inflicted upon the Native tribes, I also teach the spiritual motivation to bring Christianity to all people of the world.) I make a concerted effort to not preach righteousness as an educator......it's my job to ensure that my students know facts, and develop critical thinking. We discuss Republican views, Democratic views, minority and majority views, Christian and Islamic views .....it's important that Americans are educated and able to use logic and analysis to make decisions.....then they can pursue their own spiritual and political ideology.

The only thing I feel motivated to teach is environmentalism. Although I do try to refrain from asserting anything definitive about climate change. I teach the need to stop pollution, the dangers of plastics, chemicals, and air pollution. The need for recycling. The importance of conservation. It is surely a biased take on environmentalism, but I'm pretty confident that it's a justified stance.

Thanks for admitting that boomer (btw, I don't believe it's possible for any person to be totally objective)

However, you don't realize it but you are "indoctrinating" your students.

How?

You don't teach them NOT to believe as you do, but you don't encourage them to actually think opposite of your views do you.

Your admission on the environment is one such example. How do you know there is pollution they can control?

Could be, but do you teach them anything about how pointless or futile most of the ongoing efforts to stop it have been?

Probably not.

You say you try to bring in all perspectives and I can't disprove that. However I know you aren't nearly as "open minded" making your arguments to us here on the OT board as you claim you are in your classroom.

Color me skeptical boomer, but I just find it hard to believe you are that adroit at turning "off" your bias once you enter that classroom...but hey I could be wrong ya know?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and just hope your are also as honest as you are objective standing in front of those kids OK?

 

[moe]

After being threatened. They did not want to spend money on a lawsuit.

If the article is accurate there will be no lawsuit (over this specific issue) and they'll have their club next year. Perhaps they will be sued for some other reason but that's not addressed in the article.

 

[WVPATX]

If the article is accurate there will be no lawsuit (over this specific issue) and they'll have their club next year. Perhaps they will be sued for some other reason but that's not addressed in the article.

They were threatened with a lawsuit. They successfully scared the district. The teachers that volunteered may not be running the program next year to avoid the lawsuit which essentially deprives them of their first Amendment rights.

Atheists bullies.

 

[atlkvb]

any discussion of the existence of a higher being would surely lead to a right versus wrong debate on the subject. And it's not the place of the classroom

You're right...it would lead to such a discussion and I disagree with you the classroom is no place for such a discussion.

It in fact is the perfect place for it boomer!

Why?

Because it encourages thought, opens your students up to other possibilities and ignites their intellectual curiosity to examine the diversity available for consideration.

This is what "education" means. Question, learn, investigate, explore, discover, reach new vistas of understanding.

Isn't that what you always insist Scientists are doing? Except when it comes to considering if we were "created" or just suddenly "appeared" in the Cosmos.

Lots of intellectual inquiry on that right boom?

 

[moe]

They were threatened with a lawsuit. They successfully scared the district. The teachers that volunteered may not be running the program next year to avoid the lawsuit which essentially deprives them of their first Amendment rights.

Atheists bullies.

As the article states, they're seeking non-school employees to run the club next year and assuming that they find them, the club will resume. Your amateur legal opinions are all very interesting but forgive me if I leave legal matters to lawyers.

 

[Boomboom521]

Thanks for admitting that boomer (btw, I don't believe it's possible for any person to be totally objective)

However, you don't realize it but you are "indoctrinating" your students.

How?

You don't teach them NOT to believe as you do, but you don't encourage them to actually think opposite of your views do you.

Your admission on the environment is one such example. How do you know there is pollution they can control?

Could be, but do you teach them anything about how pointless or futile most of the ongoing efforts to stop it have been?

Probably not.

You say you try to bring in all perspectives and I can't disprove that. However I know you aren't nearly as "open minded" making your arguments to us here on the OT board as you claim you are in your classroom.

Color me skeptical boomer, but I just find it hard to believe you are that adroit at turning "off" your bias once you enter that classroom...but hey I could be wrong ya know?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, and just hope your are also as honest as you are objective standing in front of those kids OK?

I'll say one thing here. To think YOU of all people on this board has any legitimate basis to judge impartiality is laughable. I mean it, I just laughed pretty hard out loud. I literally just posted that environmentalism is my one biased approach (other than love of America). But I hold back from teaching climate change as a fact (even though I personally think it is) just because of slight skepticism from a very small amount of scientists.

But recycling? The dangers of chemicals, plastics, air and water pollution on health? The benefits of conservation of energy and water? The fact that you would want me to try to discourage students from being aware of these things....shows me how absolutely partisan and misinformed you are. These are not political viewpoints....facts are that we use many carcinogens in everyday material, we ARE better off as a planet when we recycle and conserve, and air and water pollution can cause extremely dangerous health complications.

 

[Boomboom521]

You're right...it would lead to such a discussion and I disagree with you the classroom is no place for such a discussion.

It in fact is the perfect place for it boomer!

Why?

Because it encourages thought, opens your students up to other possibilities and ignites their intellectual curiosity to examine the diversity available for consideration.

This is what "education" means. Question, learn, investigate, explore, discover, reach new vistas of understanding.

Isn't that what you always insist Scientists are doing? Except when it comes to considering if we were "created" or just suddenly "appeared" in the Cosmos.

Lots of intellectual inquiry on that right boom?

And there isn't when discussing history or civics? Spirituality is NOT the subject I am tasked with helping my students understand. I evoke plenty of intellectual stimulation and debate. I don't need you to tell me what education is, and frankly I don't think you have any clue about what this nation is at it's heart. You are a self righteous, condescending person whose own beliefs dominate your ability to critically think about any subject. YOU would be a horrible educator, imo.

 

[atlkvb]

I'll say one thing here. To think YOU of all people on this board has any legitimate basis to judge impartiality is laughable. I mean it, I just laughed pretty hard out loud. I literally just posted that environmentalism is my one biased approach (other than love of America). But I hold back from teaching climate change as a fact (even though I personally think it is) just because of slight skepticism from a very small amount of scientists.

But recycling? The dangers of chemicals, plastics, air and water pollution on health? The benefits of conservation of energy and water? The fact that you would want me to try to discourage students from being aware of these things....shows me how absolutely partisan and misinformed you are. These are not political viewpoints....facts are that we use many carcinogens in everyday material, we ARE better off as a planet when we recycle and conserve, and air and water pollution can cause extremely dangerous health complications.

OK boom, so you tell your students how inaccurate all of the climate change forecasts are? You inform them that there is a wide body of Science that not only questions climate change assumptions but debunks them?

 

[atlkvb]

And there isn't when discussing history or civics? Spirituality is NOT the subject I am tasked with helping my students understand. I evoke plenty of intellectual stimulation and debate. I don't need you to tell me what education is, and frankly I don't think you have any clue about what this nation is at it's heart. You are a self righteous, condescending person whose own beliefs dominate your ability to critically think about any subject. YOU would be a horrible educator, imo.

What do you teach them about the failure of Socialism? Do they know it's track record in world affairs? Is it ever critically analyzed or simply promoted as a "better" way to organize society?

 

[Boomboom521]

OK boom, so you tell your students how inaccurate all of the climate change forecasts are? You inform them that there is a wide body of Science that not only questions climate change assumptions but debunks them?

I tell them the majority of climate scientists agree that there is catastrophic climate change caused by man, some believe in climate change but assert it is not caused by man, and some believe there is really no significant change. We really do not discuss the findings thoroughly in my classes, I defer to science. We discuss political impacts, actions taken, actions advocated, and potential political implications. It is never a session proving or disproving a social or political issue.

 

[atlkvb]

I tell them the majority of climate scientists agree that there is catastrophic climate change caused by man, some believe in climate change but assert it is not caused by man, and some believe there is really no significant change. We really do not discuss the findings thoroughly in my classes, I defer to science. We discuss political impacts, actions taken, actions advocated, and potential political implications. It is never a session proving or disproving a social or political issue.

The discussion was do you somehow manage to keep your biases out of your lesson plans? Apparently you do not

 

[Boomboom521]

What do you teach them about the failure of Socialism? Do they know it's track record in world affairs? Is it ever critically analyzed or simply promoted as a "better" way to organize society?

Of course socialism is discussed. We discuss Marx, we discuss Kant, we discuss democracy, communism, totalitarianism......you seem to think that in education there is always a right and wrong. You seem to think that the role of an educator is to "teach" the right way and the wrong way. It simply isn't. Educating high school kids is more about teaching to analyze and critically think. I do not seek to "teach" my students that socialism or communism or democracy is right or wrong. I teach them to analyze work from writers, I teach them historical perspectives, I teach them the processes of our government, and I teach them to be open, articulate, honest with themselves, respectful of others, and accepting of multiple perspectives and cultures. Get off the self righteous desire to win all the time. On a db, you can debate and try to be right, in a classroom.....the well being of the students is absolutely the only thing I care about.

 

[Boomboom521]

The discussion was do you somehow manage to keep your biases out of your lesson plans? Apparently you do not

And how is that?

 

[atlkvb]

Of course socialism is discussed. We discuss Marx, we discuss Kant, we discuss democracy, communism, totalitarianism......you seem to think that in education there is always a right and wrong. You seem to think that the role of an educator is to "teach" the right way and the wrong way. It simply isn't. Educating high school kids is more about teaching to analyze and critically think. I do not seek to "teach" my students that socialism or communism or democracy is right or wrong. I teach them to analyze work from writers, I teach them historical perspectives, I teach them the processes of our government, and I teach them to be open, articulate, honest with themselves, respectful of others, and accepting of multiple perspectives and cultures. Get off the self righteous desire to win all the time. On a db, you can debate and try to be right, in a classroom.....the well being of the students is absolutely the only thing I care about.

I asked you if you teach them of its universal failure? You never answered the question.

 

[Brushy Bill]

Separation of Church and State arguments regarding public schools never revolve around the salient point which is, THE FKING "STATE (in this case the federal government)" HAS NO BUSINESS BEING INVOLVED IN THE EDUCATION OF THE STUDENTS OF THE VARIOUS STATES (in this case the 50 United States).

 

[atlkvb]

And how is that?

boomer you stated that you start with the conclusion that man is responsible or at least causes a significant amount of climate change. That's not fact, its debatable. If you teach students how to determine where the facts lie, then that is indeed instruction. However if you merely teach them how they are to react to the issue as non debatable fact, that is indoctrination.

 

[Boomboom521]

I asked you if you teach them of its universal failure? You never answered the question.

It's not a subject we study in depth, but we do discuss the problems with every form of government.

 

[Boomboom521]

boomer you stated that you start with the conclusion that man is responsible or at least causes a significant amount of climate change. That's not fact, its debatable. If you teach students how to determine where the facts lie

No I didn't, I said if we talk about it.....we talk about how the majority of scientists believe there is catastrophic climate change caused by man, that some believe there is climate change but it is not caused by man, and some do not believe in climate change on any real significant level. I'm not a science teacher, we do not examine evidence, we look at political impacts only. You see what you want in posts....am I not supposed to tell my students what the majority of scientists believe? Am I supposed to treat a small minority as the truth?

 

[Boomboom521]

Separation of Church and State arguments regarding public schools never revolve around the salient point which is, THE FKING "STATE (in this case the federal government)" HAS NO BUSINESS BEING INVOLVED IN THE EDUCATION OF THE STUDENTS OF THE VARIOUS STATES (in this case the 50 United States).

Weak.

 

[atlkvb]

No I didn't, I said if we talk about it.....we talk about how the majority of scientists believe there is catastrophic climate change caused by man, that some believe there is climate change but it is not caused by man, and some do not believe in climate change on any real significant level. I'm not a science teacher, we do not examine evidence, we look at political impacts only. You see what you want in posts....am I not supposed to tell my students what the majority of scientists believe? Am I supposed to treat a small minority as the truth?

You're supposed to spark their curiosity and develop their ability to think, reason, inquire, and assess facts for themselves.

 

[Brushy Bill]

Weak.

That's not an argument.