specific beliefs aside, I believe the issue comes down to a simple choice

teach or preach

you were hired to do one

you chose to do the other

you chose poorly

thats a good enough reason for termination

quote:

Originally posted by houndawg:
Do you know what at-will means? It means a reason doesn't need to be given for dismissal or renewal. As for my knowledge of how the system works, my wife is a teacher. And I've seen it happen. 1st year teacher? Well we don't need you anymore. Don't come back next fall.

If you can't understand that, then oh well.

Yes, I know what "at-will" employment means. I live in such a state. See, I answered your question. But, for my question, all I got from you is dancing around with "it's how the business works", "my wife is a teacher"...

You (originally): He doesn't need a reason.
Me (originally): You have detailed knowledge of the hiring and firing at his place of employment?

Do you even understand my point there? The OP said he wanted "to make sure I do it the right way." Reason or no reason is irrelevant. The right way, as several on here have pointed out, is to get legal/HR involved. Even more important now that OP has labeled him mentally ill.

Damn, wasting too much time on this. I'm outta here. Y'all have fun.

It is good to recognize the limitation of “science”.
What some may consider settled science, may only be settled in their own mind.

None here know factually the age of the earth.
We all have theories.
We all have been taught theories.
Most of the theories have been taught to us as factual which is a disservice to “science”.

May I present to you Face Masks and Hydroxychloroquine.
Are we not taught that the politicians know the settled science.
Do not the politicians fund our education system, albeit with your tax money.
Is there not just a wee bit of bias in our education system.

She blinded me with science.

None here know factually the age of the earth.
We all have theories.
We all have been taught theories.
Most of the theories have been taught to us as factual which is a disservice to “science”.

So, because we can’t go back in time to make observational studies, are we supposed to discard science and let public schools teach that creationism is a fact?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Despite the fact that I obviously disagree with many members about certain things, I nevertheless try to avoid being offensive.

Hmmm, disagree without being disagreeable. What a novel concept. Too bad there isn’t more of that floating around these days...

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:

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.

Reminds me of Voltaire. As I recall he was an atheist most of his life, but “discovered God” in his later years. Seems his thinking was something along the lines of “Who knows, and it can’t hurt.” (at least that is my [poor] recollection from close to forty years ago.)

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Orndorff:
You gotta have faith!

Mr. Orndorff wins the Internet!

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:
None here know factually the age of the earth.
We all have theories.
We all have been taught theories.
Most of the theories have been taught to us as factual which is a disservice to “science”.

So, because we can’t go back in time to make observational studies, are we supposed to discard science and let public schools teach that creationism is a fact?

Seems a couple of issues in this thread. One is science vs religion. The other is, what is the appropriate curriculum to be taught in school?

I might ask, just who determines what that appropriate curriculum should be? Should I let others determine, and even force, what my children learn in school, and actively work against home schooling and school choice?

Maybe I ask as all my children were raised in public schools in Silicon Valley (where I also taught at a state college, I have seen it from all sides). The curriculum there is quite avidly socialist, notably counter to founding American principles, and in general, counter to Judeo/Christian values. That's what my children were taught for 12+years.

If your children go to public schools, then someone else most certainly will decide what they learn. If you want to home school them, that is fine. But you should not expect the public schools to teach everything that YOU want them to learn. It’s not your call.

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:
If your children go to public schools, then someone else most certainly will decide what they learn. If you want to home school them, that is fine. But you should not expect the public schools to teach everything that YOU want them to learn. It’s not your call.

My point was, who does, and who should, determine what is taught in public schools?

A rhetorical question (to think about, no answer expected). What if said teacher in the opening post was teaching that all religion is false, nonsense, from deranged minds and should be rejected. How many would take the position that such was inappropriate and the teacher should be fired, vs, just ignore it?

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
Voltaire ... “discovered God” in his later years. ... “Who knows, and it can’t hurt.”

I’m not enough of an authority on Voltaire to know whether he did decide to become a theist in late life, but that approach to belief, i.e., it can’t hurt, is more commonly known as “Pascal’s wager” for Blaise Pascal who famously advanced it. At one time a dear relative who was concerned about me proposed a version of it to me.

For the unbeliever, though, there are at least three major problems with the “Just believe; it can’t hurt and it might be your salvation” approach to religion.

The first is that many people cannot just start believing something that they doubted before. It may be possible for someone who never gave the question much thought, but that is more adopting than changing a belief. Beliefs about subjects that one has given a lot of time and attention to, however, aren’t so easily changed like switching a light on or off.

Second, God would know if we started “believing” or at least acting as if we did, and therefore it seems unlikely that he would be fooled as to our sincerity. But even if we convinced ourselves and him that we were really, truly, sincere, what about our original motive? “Okay: You changed your beliefs because you thought it was a good bet‽” As I understand it, Pascal wasn’t quite that cynical about his “wager” (and which may be misnamed). He may have rather thought that if we started acting like a devout Christian, including the rituals, etc., we would learn the truth and become sincere converts. That might avoid this particular problem that I described, but most people who promote the idea aren’t as sophisticated as Pascal and don’t see that as part of the process.

Even bigger than those two problems, though, is a classic begging the question fallacy: the assumption that by becoming a Christian “just to be sure,” we’re putting our money on the right horse. People worship and have worshiped countless gods throughout history, so it’s an assumption in the absence of any independent evidence that the God of the Christians (and his manifestations) are the ones we should be directing our attention to. Ask a devout Muslim if becoming a sincere Christian is a good idea, and we know what his answer would be.

Christians of course assume that their choices are correct, but a majority of the planet’s people would disagree, and how can we know that they are all wrong? What if whatever true almighty god that exists is more inclined to forgive someone who withheld judgment about all the Big Questions (because it’s impossible to know their answers in this life) than someone who deliberately made what turned out to be the wrong choice?

I don’t offer all this as any attempt to convert anyone, but to show how the question isn’t quite as simple as it may seem at first thought.

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:
If your children go to public schools, then someone else most certainly will decide what they learn. If you want to home school them, that is fine. But you should not expect the public schools to teach everything that YOU want them to learn. It’s not your call.

As long as that someone else holds YOUR religious or atheist views correct.
So it should not be YOUR call either.

Imagine the reverse was true and our public school system taught that the earth and all inhabitants were created by intelligent design, would your answer be the same?

Why do you insist that YOUR beliefs be taught as fact.

What I suggested, was that age of the earth be presented as theories not fact.

I did not suggest that creationism or religion be taught in school.
In-fact I would oppose religion being taught in school outside of as an elective.

From your response it would seem you support a parents choice to decide.
Thank you for your support for school vouchers, so that parents can make the choice regardless of financial status.

quote:

Originally posted by bogeyman:
If your children go to public schools, then someone else most certainly will decide what they learn. If you want to home school them, that is fine. But you should not expect the public schools to teach everything that YOU want them to learn. It’s not your call.

Is it practical for me to expect a public education institution to teach my children everything that I want them to learn? No, of course not. However, I do want children to know how to think and problem solve. I want them to have a firm foundation in the basics.

Someone else is most certainly choosing what they are learning, and that someone else, in far too many cases, is someone with a far left political bent. Public education is becoming a social engineering, or indoctrination center for Marxists beliefs and it needs to be recognized and stopped.

The OP did not go into enough detail to know exactly what the teacher in question told those students, or how it was presented. Obviously, I agree with him in how old I believe the earth probably is. At the same time, Christianity cannot be rammed down anyone's throat either. That isn't how it works. I do like the fact that he gave those kids something else to think about. I would be interested in knowing exactly how he went about doing it.

Like others have suggested, in a public school, how about teaching the basics of science and informing them of the different theories that exists that can be drawn from the data, and how to properly apply scientific method. As a Christian parent I'm going to heavily influence and expose my children to Christian beliefs and build on basic scientific principles.

It isn't just science we are talking about here. The leftists have completely destroyed the humanities and other areas of study as well. The Marxists in charge of Black Lives Matter are actively getting their twisted ideas into public education curriculums. Do you want that organization deciding how your child's history book reads? You say it isn't our call. Well then who's call is it? Somebody is making these decisions, and increasingly it is people who want to shape our children into dogmatic little leftists robots.

We need to teach kids how to think. We need to give them a very sturdy foundation in the basics of reading, writing, and math. We need to teach them history that isn't colored in leftist, America, Founding Fathers, hating tripe. How about we expose them to the original journals and writings of our Founding Fathers? It will soon be apparent what type of character these men had, and what they stood for. It will also become apparent that we are a nation founded upon Biblical Christian values. They will figure that out for themselves if they are taught to think and problem solve correctly.

In my first post I asked the OP where his line in the sand was? I don't expect him to respond. Like many other here, I think he shouldn't have taken this situation to a public forum for discussion. However, assuming that he is somewhat conservative in his beliefs I have to think that leftist indoctrination is (and likely already has) started to heavily influence the curriculum being taught in his school. What is the OP going to do when this happens? Are you going to sit back while something like Critical Race Theory is the marching order for the day in your school?

Pi: I've told you two stories about what happened out on the ocean. Neither explains what caused the sinking of the ship, and no one can prove which story is true and which is not. In both stories, the ship sinks, my family dies, and I suffer.

WRITER: True.

PI: So which story do you prefer?

WRITER: The story with the tiger. That's the better story.

PI: Thank you. And so it goes with God.

Would have posted the video scene but karmanator is down.

I do support school vouchers. You’re welcome.

As for the curriculum, most school board meetings are public. If you don’t like what is being taught to your children, go to a school board meeting and complain. Better yet, take your friends that think like you do and complain together. You could even run for a seat on the school board to have more of a say as to what is taught in the schools.

I am all for teaching critical thinking skills to students. What I am not for is teaching religion in the public schools. You say that the country was founded with Biblical Christian values, but be careful what you wish for. If you teach Christian theology in schools, what about the students that are Muslim? Are you okay with the tenets of Islam being taught to your children? What about Hindu? Or Shinto? How many religions do your teach, and which one do you say is correct?

Let religion be taught in churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. I have a (Protestant) cousin who sent her children to parochial school. She was more than a little upset when one of the teachers told her kids that they were going to Hell because they were not Catholic. You teach your children to respect authority figures like teachers, then one of them tells your child that they will condemned for all eternity. No thank you. There is no place for the teaching of religious doctrine in the public schools.

Your point about school board meetings and my, and others participation, or the lack there of, is a good one.

To clarify, I said to expose students to the writings and journals of our Founding Fathers. In doing so they could make a determination of the character of the men and what they stood for.
It should become obvious that Judeo Christian values are largely what guided these men and shaped the foundation of our country. I didn't say, preach Christianity in schools. Hopefully, among other things, they can see the amazing success and prosperity of our country and how relatively quickly that was achieved and maintained, and put two and two together.

Increasingly, our children are being taught that our Founding Fathers were a bunch of suppressive, slavery loving, old white men, with nothing but their own selfish interests in mind, and evil in their hearts. Just look at all of the statues coming down.
I'm saying, just teach them what they actually wrote and said. The truth will come out.

I think this thread has been focused simply on the age of the earth.
Don’t believe anyone advocated teaching religion in public schools.

Publicly funded teachers should not be teaching religion, nor should they be discounting the religion being taught by mom & dad.

The controversy I see here is not specifically what is taught, simply that there be a disclaimer.
Much like on Facebook.
The birth and age of the earth are contested by scientific and religious scholars.

Both theories should be presented as theories, not fact.
And yes this can be done without teaching religion.

To Sigfreund

The assumption that Christianity is just one of the many religions is, or course correct. It is one of many. But there is a distinct difference between the Christian faith and every other religion. That is that every other religion one helps himself to heaven by their deeds. If you're good enough, God will accept you into heaven. But the Christian faith is entirely different in that respect. In the Christian faith, the Christian believes (as he is told to believe through the Bible) that there is absolutely nothing he can do to get into heaven. Zero. Our best efforts to be righteous are as dirty rags in the sight of God.

The Christian bible tells us that the words in it are God's revelation of himself to us, written by men inspired by God. That revelation tells us that God is perfect in every way. That his creation was perfect, and that man was intended to be perfect. But it tells us that man corrupted himself and became imperfect and that imperfection (sin) is inherent in us all from the very first man. It's impossible to escape, and it cannot be shed, only covered. God doesn't allow imperfection into his home (heaven). But man is expected to dwell with him there for all eternity. So that's the conundrum. God is perfect, heaven is perfect, and nothing but perfection is allowed in. And we aren't perfect, and can never be perfect on our own. And the bible tells us that anyone that does not end up in heaven will be subjected to an eternity of his wrath and separation from him. It's not a threat, it's just the way it is. So how do we reconcile the requirement to be perfect when we can't be on our own? Our imperfection can't be shed, they can only be covered. Well, it comes through sacrifice.

Throughout the Old Testament (OT) God teaches man that the covering of sin comes through the shedding of blood. Not blood from just anything, but the shedding of blood from whatever God says. And whatever it is, it must be perfect. In the OT God demanded the shedding of blood from "spotless" animals as a sin sacrifice. But it wasn't the actual animal's blood that did the saving. The blood of an animal could never cover sin. But it did teach man that something better was coming. It was a foreshadowing of the future. The in the future, a perfect man would be sacrificed, and his blood could cover sin. And, that actually came to pass in the the New Testament (NT).

So how were men saved from sin and covered with the perfect blood of Christ even before Christ was born (the OT)? Through faith that God was telling the truth in his promise that such a one would be sent. Belief that God's word was righteous and true.

Genesis 15:6. "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness."
Hebrews 11:39. "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised." [regarding the saved before Christ]

You see, the whole of the Bible is about Christ. Even the books written thousands of years before he was born. They were about Christ. Even in Genesis, there is a reference to the coming Christ. Loosely translated from the Hebrew, "I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between you and her son, and you will strike him on the heel, and he will crush your head." This was God's plans from "before the foundation of the earth."

Christ is now, and always has been, man's means of salvation. He was perfect in every way. His blood was the only blood ever worthy to cover the sins of all mankind. But it's not a blanket salvation. His blood was enough to save all mankind, but only those that believe will receive the gift. Without faith that what God has told us is true, then there is no life line to Christ. We're lost and doomed.

So how does one believe? Well, I'll tell you this, it's not from evangelism. The Christian's duty is only to spread the Gospel - the Good News of Christ. But it's not to make Christians. Oh, flawed "Christians" have tried to make other Christians in the past, sometimes with a sword, but the bible tells us only God makes Christians.

It's God that leads man to Christ: John 6:44 "“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him."

And no one goes to God except through Christ: John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

I can not convince you to become someone that only God can produce. But I can share the good news with you. And perhaps, if it's God's will, he will work something in your life to change you. But God has to do it, not man. And in contrast, once man is a true Christian, he cannot unconvert.

John 10:28: "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand."

Oh, "Christian" men have renounced their faith, but they were never among us to begin with.

1 John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they did not belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But their departure made it clear that none of them belonged to us."

So there it is. No other religion, anywhere, has these assertions as their foundation. The bible is clear. If you don't believe them, they haven't been given to you to believe. If God intends for you to believe them, you either do, or will - and you won't be able to stop it. If you never do, it's because it was intended that way. The bible will always be gibberish to you.

1 Corinthians 1:18: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

I've been accused many time of being "Holier Than Thou." Actually, the Christian acknowledges that he is anything but holy. But, nonetheless, we are hated for our beliefs. So, some of the comments in this thread aren't surprising, they are actually expected. The bible speaks to that, too:

John 15:18-25: "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."..."they hated me without a cause."

Doctor Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a Welsh preacher from the 1950s to the 1980s. I recommend him to anyone who hears that first, indistinct, subtle, nearly silent voice of God. Or even from an academic perspective. This sermon is particularly helpful. Though, it will seems silly to most. At 18:30 he talks about that first, indistinct call of God.

Browndrake - I completely agree with you that the Founding Fathers are not being adequately or correctly taught in our schools. And I am not a fan of much of the politically correct horse dung that is being taught in schools either.

But remember that many of our founding fathers were deists, not theists. As such, they would probably not want religious doctrine taught in our schools. Remember, Thomas Jefferson was the creator of the so called “Jefferson Bible”, where he (Jefferson) went through the Bible and cut out all references to supernatural events involving the life of Jesus, including the resurrection. Jefferson believed that Jesus was a great moral philosopher, but not the son of God.