Teacher taped preaching God in class

[Guns N RockMusic]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18kearny.html?ex=1324098000&en=87af8b74af1e13cc&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I have to agree with the student on this.  Although the teacher is entitled to his beliefs, to confuse faith with science in an academic setting is unprofessional to say the least.  I think serious action should be taken to assure that religion isn't forced on students.  I personally accept Evolution, but understand its shortcomings.  I have no problem identifying those shortcomings in a classroom, but to tell someone they're going to hell for having different beliefs is crossing the line.  Our taxes go to educate and better these children, not to tell them they're condemed to hell.

[25]

I don't think it's a big deal. If the class was paying attention then it would be unforgivable but this was in New Jersey - half the class was probably stoned and the other half was probably pregnant.

Using the word "probably" makes it not-defamation right?

[D]

Teachers have no right to preach politics or religion in school.


This country was founded on Freedom of Religion.

so to now act like One religion is the only religion is ignorant.

No Ten Commandments, No Prayer in school and respect everyone's religion.


If you want to believe in what you believe that is great, but don't preach to me like I am some sort of freak who is on a one way ticket to hell cause I dont believe how you believe.


Fire that Teacher.


There was a jewish Girl in my High School, and when someone mentioned Jesus or started praying, she would leave.

Needless to say, the juvenile idiots in my school would ridicule her.


At ballgames, I do not pray as I find it is ignorant to pray at something as trivial as a sporting event and I would never push my beliefs on someone else.

[25]

This country was founded on Freedom of Religion.

Yes, but those words were written into law in a particular context. That context being that the founders sought to be free to practise protestant flavors of Christianity free from the persecution of other brands of that faith, specifically from the Catholic Church. Had the colonists been persecuted at that time  by some other religion,  such as Judaism or Islam, the wording would likely have been a little different. Moral of the story; Centuries-old words on paper only have as much power as the influence of the underlying ideas at any given time. I don't see too many white christians complaining about the racial profiling of brown muslims when they're being pulled out of the line at airport security, so maybe the idea of freedom of  religion holds less power today than 230-ish years ago. Maybe that particular example is flawed, it could be argued that it's more of a racial divide than a religious one. Though I'm sure there's something in the constitution about all men being equal. . . ?

Besides which, I'm pretty sure that the country was actually founded on more of a "no taxation without representation" platform. I'm pretty sure that the war of independance was about that, more than which hymns should be sung on sundays.

[Guns N RockMusic]

But we ended up paying more taxes than when we were under British control. 

[25]

On the plus side; better dentistry.

[D]

Another thing that destroys this country is bi partisan politics.


If i walked into a restaurant and there was a sign on the counter that said "We serve Republicans, or We Serve Democrats Only"

I wouldn't be shocked.


These Days people dont even care about the idea or the logic.

If you are a democrat, Democrats will agree.

If you are republican, Republicans will agree.

If you are a democrat, a republican will automatically dislike you, if you are a republican, democrats will automatically dislike you.

Nothing gets solved that  way.

If anyone goes into an election booth and pulls  a straight lever for either party, I think you are doing a huge injustice to the country or your state.

Same with religion, If you cant love someone cause their religion is different, or can't be friends or what have you, to me that is ignorant.

[25]

Another thing that destroys this country is bi partisan politics.

I think you meant partisan politics    Bi-partisan suggests two groups working together, as opposed to against each other.

And yeah, it's ridiculous. It's kindergarten politics.
"Ew, liberal ideas smell!"
"Conservatives have cooties!"

It's a sign of the times that the last issue to divide the nation so severly was the ethicacy of the slave trade, whereas today it's whether gays are people too, or whether Presidents should get blow-jobs. Really, we're at war right now because Bill Clinton got head from an intern. Even before then, the parties were looking for more ways to seperate themselves and divide their supporters - because apparently people are more interested in your stance on flags (Wave them? Burn them? Does anyone really care?) than your ability to run a country.  They're picking sides just for the sake of it, and claiming the middle ground  has become akin to waving a burning flag while getting head from a gay intern.

[Axl4Prez2004]

I want to echo D's comments.  He's absolutely right.  People who vote straight line for one party or the other are morons.  More importantly, D made great points about the rights of minorities.  Too often people in this country want to view democracy as freedom of the majority to shove whatever they want into the mouths of the minority.  That's not America, or any democracy/republic. 

Understand all the issues.  Vote based on what you think is best for the country, state, county, or town you live in. 

On topic for me now...this teacher needs to be fired immediately.  Unfortunately, this kind of crap happens all the time.  Let's imagine the reverse happening, and a teacher was in front of class launching a diatribe against organized religion (especially the major religion of that particular area).  I would agree with that teacher's immediate dismissal as well.    

[bazgnr]

As a teacher - science, among other subjects - that's just crazy to read about.  That guy has no business being in the profession (at least at a public school), and I'm sorry his students had to endure that.  Having said that, I've often been asked religious questions in science class - especially when discussing evolution, and some questions are much more challenging to respond to than others.  It's a fine line to walk at times, especially when questions are geared towards personal beliefs, but it's a line that no teacher can afford to ignore.  I would agree with the article in that it's really rare to find a teacher who would protmote his or her beliefs to such an extreme in a classroom setting...he needs to go.

[Mama Kin]

Here's a better idea, this Matt kid is now allowed to stand on the pulpit and read from an array of science text books during his teacher's Sunday school classes.........

[Prometheus]

This country was founded on Freedom of Religion.

Yes, but those words were written into law in a particular context. That context being that the founders sought to be free to practise protestant flavors of Christianity free from the persecution of other brands of that faith, specifically from the Catholic Church. Had the colonists been persecuted at that time? by some other religion,? such as Judaism or Islam, the wording would likely have been a little different.

im sorry.. but persecution by the CC.... in a land that was largely founded from the UK, a land 99% devoid of catholics.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

dont see anything there that says its for christian relgions there.

Moral of the story; Centuries-old words on paper only have as much power as the influence of the underlying ideas at any given time. I don't see too many white christians complaining about the racial profiling of brown muslims when they're being pulled out of the line at airport security, so maybe the idea of freedom of? religion holds less power today than 230-ish years ago. Maybe that particular example is flawed, it could be argued that it's more of a racial divide than a religious one. Though I'm sure there's something in the constitution about all men being equal. . . ?

Besides which, I'm pretty sure that the country was actually founded on more of a "no taxation without representation" platform. I'm pretty sure that the war of independance was about that, more than which hymns should be sung on sundays.

racial profiling s what it is..... midle eastren descent is what is targeted not muslim in general... i know of several jewish people that are constantly pulled aside for closer inspecion... granted i do find it funny that you singled out white christians... and not including black christians..... as they are closing the gap rather quickly....... nor did you mention mexicans, or any other christian based minoriy of the country. beyond that one should ask...... does it ake sence to target white amercians...... black amercians...... when the precived threat is from middle eastren men.... the system is flawed, but untill it really is cost effective to screen everyone, then pofiling is what will happen.... its what should happen.

[Surfrider]

Teachers have no right to preach politics or religion in school.


This country was founded on Freedom of Religion.

so to now act like One religion is the only religion is ignorant.

No Ten Commandments, No Prayer in school and respect everyone's religion.


If you want to believe in what you believe that is great, but don't preach to me like I am some sort of freak who is on a one way ticket to hell cause I dont believe how you believe.

Well, there are two specific clauses in the Bill of Rights that deal with religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
This first clauses relates to a government established religion such as "the Church of England."  Most people are unaware that at the time the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was ratified many states did have established religions.  This clause was only originally understood and intended to apply to the federal government.  However, through a misreading of the 14th Amendment, we now apply this across the board.  The Supreme Court has also developed what is called a "coercion" type test to determine whether people are being coerced to follow a certain religion.  Many have read this clause to mean "a complete separation of church and state."  That statement, however, is merely from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote from France while the Bill of Rights was being ratified.  That statement contradicts what many people believed the establishment clause to mean.  Nevertheless, somehow Jefferson's quote has become the meaning of a clause that was actually intended to mean something quite different.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
This clause prevents the government preventing someone to practice their religion.  This the reason Muslims can pray on planes and Christians can wear tee religions tee shirts to schools. 


How does this teacher's actions violate either two of these clauses?  How does the teacher's actions disrupt the freedom of religion?  People have the freedom to speak or believe whatever they want, we don't censor people because of that.  People also have the freedom to believe or speak whatever religion they want, we should not necessarily censor that either.  I will agree, however, that we do need to stand by some sort of cirriculum or else our elementary and highschools will turn into our colleges where each teacher has their own specific agenda no matter how wacky it may be.

[supaplex]

he can preach his religion all he wants but not everywhere. school is not the right place to do it except if there are religion classes. but, if not, personal belief should be kept to one's self. a child that maybe does not agree with the teachers beliefs might be afraid to say his opinion because of the repercussions. that is limiting his freedom of speech. he has no choice but to listen to that teacher.

[Surfrider]

This country was founded on Freedom of Religion.

Yes, but those words were written into law in a particular context. That context being that the founders sought to be free to practise protestant flavors of Christianity free from the persecution of other brands of that faith, specifically from the Catholic Church. Had the colonists been persecuted at that time? by some other religion,? such as Judaism or Islam, the wording would likely have been a little different. Moral of the story; Centuries-old words on paper only have as much power as the influence of the underlying ideas at any given time. I don't see too many white christians complaining about the racial profiling of brown muslims when they're being pulled out of the line at airport security, so maybe the idea of freedom of? religion holds less power today than 230-ish years ago. Maybe that particular example is flawed, it could be argued that it's more of a racial divide than a religious one. Though I'm sure there's something in the constitution about all men being equal. . . ?

I don't see how a catholic discriminating against a protestant is any different than a muslim or Jews doing the same? ?I also think your statement about muslims being pulled out of line is pure BS. ?I fly all of the time, as do some of my friends that have middle eastern decent, we have found that a white person (being me) is more likely to be pulled out of line for a security check than they are. ?It happens all of the time, and we laugh about it. ?

Nevertheless, nothing in the Constitution is absolute. ?One just needs a compelling purpose to override provisions in the Constitution.

Besides which, I'm pretty sure that the country was actually founded on more of a "no taxation without representation" platform. I'm pretty sure that the war of independance was about that, more than which hymns should be sung on sundays.

[TAP]

How does this teacher's actions violate either two of these clauses?  How does the teacher's actions disrupt the freedom of religion?  People have the freedom to speak or believe whatever they want, we don't censor people because of that.  People also have the freedom to believe or speak whatever religion they want, we should not necessarily censor that either. 

The kids are legally obliged to be in school, and the teacher is paid by the government. I'm not claiming that legally violates the clauses but it certainly goes against the spirit of it in my opinion.

[Surfrider]

he can preach his religion all he wants but not everywhere. school is not the right place to do it except if there are religion classes. but, if not, personal belief should be kept to one's self. a child that maybe does not agree with the teachers beliefs might be afraid to say his opinion because of the repercussions. that is limiting his freedom of speech. he has no choice but to listen to that teacher.

I agree that this stuff should be left out of school; although I disagree that the Constitution commands that this be so. ?I don't see how this inhibits the students freedom of speech. ?How is this any different than attending a college where a professor expresses opinions on the far left or the far right? ?Does that also inhbit one's freedom of speech?

[Surfrider]

How does this teacher's actions violate either two of these clauses?? How does the teacher's actions disrupt the freedom of religion?? People have the freedom to speak or believe whatever they want, we don't censor people because of that.? People also have the freedom to believe or speak whatever religion they want, we should not necessarily censor that either.?

The kids are legally obliged to be in school, and the teacher is paid by the government. I'm not claiming that legally violates the clauses but it certainly goes against the spirit of it in my opinion.

You raise a good point on the possible coercion issue.  I think you are right that this may violate the spirit of the rules as they are interpreted today, but I don't think they violate the spirit of the rules as they were originally understood to mean. 

[TAP]

he can preach his religion all he wants but not everywhere. school is not the right place to do it except if there are religion classes. but, if not, personal belief should be kept to one's self. a child that maybe does not agree with the teachers beliefs might be afraid to say his opinion because of the repercussions. that is limiting his freedom of speech. he has no choice but to listen to that teacher.

I agree that this stuff should be left out of school; although I disagree that the Constitution commands that this be so.  I don't see how this inhibits the students freedom of speech.  How is this any different than attending a college where a professor expresses opinions on the far left or the far right?  Does that also inhbit one's freedom of speech?

College is not compulsory, and (I would assume) professors have more legal protection than teachers for what they can say via the tenure system. Though I don't see why the student's freedom of speech is inhibited either.

[Surfrider]

he can preach his religion all he wants but not everywhere. school is not the right place to do it except if there are religion classes. but, if not, personal belief should be kept to one's self. a child that maybe does not agree with the teachers beliefs might be afraid to say his opinion because of the repercussions. that is limiting his freedom of speech. he has no choice but to listen to that teacher.

I agree that this stuff should be left out of school; although I disagree that the Constitution commands that this be so.? I don't see how this inhibits the students freedom of speech.? How is this any different than attending a college where a professor expresses opinions on the far left or the far right?? Does that also inhbit one's freedom of speech?

College is not compulsory, and (I would assume) professors have more legal protection than teachers for what they can say via the tenure system. Though I don't see why the student's freedom of speech is inhibited either.

You can substitute the word "high school" for "college."  Furthermore, elementary and high school teachers are also tenured.