quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
This whole thread is hilarious. Everyone know the Flying Spaghetti Monster invented the earth in his laboratory 9 weeks ago.

May his noodle appendage be upon you.

My next-door neighbour is a Pasta in the church of the FSM.

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:
Question - If you were having chest pain and shortness of breath, would you go to a church to pray or to an Emergency Room so that they could perform a heart cath procedure? It’s a free country and people can do what they want, but for me, I would go to the ER.

The prayer option is what is mandated by the Christian Science church. To my mind, the name is a misnomer as I don't think they qualify as mainstream Christian and they certainly aren't scientific.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: maladat,

By your own logic, all of you in this thread who are so hostile towards mainstream Christian creationist beliefs (particularly those whose arguments are buttressed by sophomoric name calling) should also believe lock, stock, and barrel in the truth of anthropogenic, catastrophic global climate change. Because “science”. And Greta.

Climate change deniers have no place in schools. Right?

-Rob

Para would have locked this shit down by now.

Y’all are showing the very worst you can be.

Nonsense is nonsense, and 6000yo Earth stories are are utter fucking nonsense that deserve nothing but ridicule and derision. Frankly, I'm being exceptionally polite given its actual absurdity.

Shamefully stupid nonsense, it is. Nearly beyond words. Scientology-level stupid.

What happened to mutual respect?

Agree to disagree?

What happened to not being a dick?

At what point in Para’s absence did people feel it was okay to be blatantly disrespectful toward someone’s religious beliefs?

You’re on a right wing, conservative, gun forum. Common sense would say that a good portion of the membership is religious in one way or another. Calling someone’s beliefs “foolish” and “nonsense”, is just damned rude.

quote:

powersurge
I’m not a believer, but wow, I’ve lost a lot of respect for some people in this thread.

That’s an understatement. I am pretty shocked at how some of the people here are conducting themselves. It’s times like this that I wish Mike would come in here and throat punch those that need it.

It is interesting to ponder what this thread demonstrates about parabellum’s lack of participation and the obvious changes in how the forum is being moderated. I still wonder if the changes will be permanent or are just temporary.

Despite the fact that I obviously disagree with many members about certain things, I nevertheless try to avoid being offensive. One of the ways I do that is to avoid derogatory words such as “nonsense.” We can express our disagreement with arguments and assertions of supposed facts without being inflammatory, and I encourage my fellow nonreligionists to make that effort. But I also ask those who disagree with me and the others here who express similar views to read our statements carefully and respond to what we say rather than to distorted interpretations of our comments.

I will also point out that just as “Science has no vicar on the earth to reveal doctrine and no central committee to proclaim dogma,”* the same is true of atheism and other forms of religious unbelief. Unbelievers don’t all unbelieve the same things or in the same ways.


* Irving M. Klotz, “The N-Ray Affair,” Scientific American, May 1980.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:. . . Unbelievers don’t all unbelieve the same things or in the same ways. . .

Tidbit. Our former neighbor was a cross between atheist and agnostic, somewhat outspoken in his views. He was once going in for some surgery, knocked on our door, asked us to pray for him - "just want to cover my bases".

And thank you for your rational respectful conduct.

Also, thank you Beancooker for your rational and respectful conduct.

Critical thinking is severely lacking in society these days. Usually the discussion devolves into name calling. I don't think this forum is any different. Many will argue to get their way and if they don't then they start calling people names and insulting. I don't think Sigforum is any different than society with the exception of a good percentage that can actually have critical thinking discussions. Sad but true.

In the 18 years I've been a member here, I've blocked exactly one member. I blocked them because of their absolute lack of respect towards members who have views different than theirs. And, not surprisingly, I see you in this thread going full force.

Despite the religious overtones, the OP's original question is, at its heart, a legal one. The answer is speak with counsel and follow their advice.

I agree. We here always seem to claim some moral superiority to the "other side." The last four years has been nothing but post after post about the other side's intolerance. But that same intolerance is just as present here in its own forms. We're exactly the same as them with respect to tolerance, They and us, we're two sides of the same coin.

I enjoy many things about this forum. But humility and tolerance are in very short supply.

This thread has been enlightening.

I think I would ensure that the curriculum that the school expects to teach is clearly defined, and then inform that if he isn't going to teach the approved lessons, then perhaps he should.no longer teach there.

That way he is free to have his beliefs, regardless of the fact that you or anyone else may find them silly, or inaccurate.

quote:

Originally posted by houndawg:
As for your first question, it's how the teacher business works. As for your second question, where in my reply did you see where I said anything of the sort?

Still didn't answer my first question, and it's very specific, so the nebulous generalized answer is not going to do. But, whatever. It's clear that I'm not going to get it.

About my second question, you said, "where in my reply did you see where I said anything of the sort?" Who are you kidding? This thread is asking about firing a teacher that OP has a problem with, and you stated, "You don't need a reason". If it's not a reason to fire him, then what is it? Take him out to lunch?

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
By your own logic, all of you in this thread who are so hostile towards mainstream Christian creationist beliefs (particularly those whose arguments are buttressed by sophomoric name calling) should also believe lock, stock, and barrel in the truth of anthropogenic, catastrophic global climate change. Because “science”. And Greta.

Climate change deniers have no place in schools. Right?

-Rob

Not to wade too deep into the argument of others, but your “logic” here doesn’t hold up. One can believe long standing scientific principles and still recognize when a political agenda is put forth as science.

I can quite easily believe that the continents were once a single land mass millions of years ago and that ice, at times, has covered most of the globe and absolutely reject the horse shit about man made climate change. In fact, the more one understands about the history of the earth and climate the more ridiculous the climate hoax seems.

The whole climate change hoax depends on emotional idiots to buy in, not the minority who are capable of critical examination of science.

Sorry for the drift, carry on.

So I went back over OP comments including the opening one here:

quote:

I went into his class for an observation and he was telling students that the earth is only 6000 years old, he was telling them that evolution, geology, plate tectonics and carbon dating are lies.

I spoke with him, he stuck to his guns, whenever I asked him about how he came to these conclusions, his answer was "my faith" but no substance or evidence to challenge anything.

He basically said the earth was created the way it is now and anybody who doesn't believe that isn't a Christian.

So he "basically" but not did "actually" say it?
AND did he "actually" say he would NOT offer alternative views or qualify his comments to the students?

IF he refused orders ~ you many have a case.

FWIW, id I were a teacher and ordered to teach there are multiple genders or climate change aka global warming is the only answer > I would mostly get fired too unless also able to offer the truth which is to the contrary.

Otherwise I see a clear anti-Christian bias.

Additionally, it questions the OP's ability as an administrator and also judgment by discussing legal issues publicly before any settlement was made.

IMO

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:

I enjoy many things about this forum. But humility and tolerance are in very short supply.

To be fair, I don't recall the membership here as a whole ever claiming otherwise.

Back on page one I responded to the op with regards to firing an individual based on my past experience. I didn't weigh in on the "christian evangelical" aspect at all. The reason was two fold.

A) It was completely irrelevant to the question. The real story as presented was an individual went off curriculum, was counseled, and refused to adjust. If the powers that be dictate that the toilet paper goes over and not under, well that's how you do it at work.

B)Christians, Christian Evangelicals, Scientists, atheists, and Spaghetti Monsters,et al, all get painted with absurdly large brushes in this kind of thread. At best it's ignorance and at worst it's intellectual dishonesty. I've learned long ago that particular kind of prejudice is well curated by those who hold it. It's not for me to change their mind nor do I care to.


Just for reference, the experience I spoke of consists of twenty years of teaching and co-directing a Christian School that can be best described as Evangelical. We taught Earth Science on many levels including 7th grade and a 6000yo Earth was not taught. Neither was Global Warming outside of the fact of natural cycles. So those who insist on absolutes of belief can stick that in their proverbial paradigms and smoke it.

There are those in this thread who have tried to maintain some decorum...thanks for that.

These topics are good for discussion but difficult in this type of setting. Anyone who wishes to honestly discuss some of these issues without all the vitriol, please feel free to email. It's in my profile.

The teacher in question presented personal opinion as curriculum. He is not paid to teach religious views. He is paid to present material applicable to all.

The difference between "faith" and science is that science revolves around known facts, and the inherent assumption is that all conclusions are subject to review, and may be wrong. Science, by nature is required to be open-minded. "Faith" by nature begins with the assumption that all is directed by a higher being and while that being may not have provided the answers, the higher being has them. The faith is in the higher being.

The problem with teaching concepts such as a 6,000 year old earth, particularly based on the bible, is that the bible does not state, nor even imply, a 6,000 year old earth (any more than it teaches that Eve ate an apple). Those are myths, interpretations, and one cannot imply that these are "christian" precepts as different faiths or groups interpret those things differently. There are many ways to interpret, and many different views on what is written, to say so many differing translations as to render the concept of interpretation questionable, at best.

To infer "mental illness" is to make a medical diagnosis. Unless the original poster has a medical diagnosis in hand for the teacher in question, or unless the original poster is qualified to make a medical diagnosis, then it is inappropriate to suggest the teacher has a "mental illness." It's offensive to suggest that belief or opinion equates to mental illness. Or to suggest that a religious point of view is "mentally ill."

There's far too much dismissiveness today. Don't ride that train.

If the teacher has not performed to the standard expected, then don't renew the contract. It's that simple. Don't bring religion into it. Don't bring unsubstantiated medical inferences into it. The teacher has been counseled on what he may or may not teach. The teacher has been given an opportunity to conform to the guidelines provided by his supervisor. If the teacher is unwilling to abide the terms of the job, then it's a simple matter to not invite him back for another contract term.

The teacher should save his preaching for a church. I'd have no tolerance for that in a school where my kids attended. That said, were the teacher to present differing views; to state that this is what some believe, compared to this is what others believe, and this is the current standard of science today, I'd be fine with that. If the teacher presumes that his job as a public educator is an evangelical platform for his own brand of missionary work, on public tax dollars, then it's time for him to go find his own privately sponsored platform, and to avoid the door striking him too firmly, on the way out.

I for one was brought up believing in creation and it's stuck with me to this day even though I'm not overly religious anymore. However some of the comments on here are insane. Not following the curriculum aside many of you sound like Dems/libs/snowflakes/LGBTQABC123,blm,antifa and any other woke person who bashes others for not believing exactly what they do. Starting with the OP...