Teacher taped preaching God in class

[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.

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?

i think that teachers should leave their personal beliefs out of the classroom because they are there to present the children facts and let them make up their own minds.
as far as freedom of speech. when i was in school/highschool we had religion classes. i personally don't believe in god but i had to learn about christianity and all that it implies so i can pass.

[pilferk]

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.

I'll take a crack at that.

The teacher is employed by, and a spokesperson and representative of, the federally, state, and locally funded public school.  In espousing their PERSONAL beliefs while leading a state, locally, and federally funded (and "approved")  curriculum, they are, in fact, in a de facto manner, establishing a religion for the state.  They have no right to do this (obviously) or even give the appearance of doing it.  Thus, they should be fired.

In addition, the teacher is, in general, discouraging the practicing of alternate faiths by preaching theirs as an absolute.  You have a government employee who is, again in a de facto manner, telling those with alternate viewpoints, as part of their job to educate, that their views are "wrong" and will send them to eternal damnation.

[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.

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

But tenure in high schools really means job security as I understand it, whereas in colleges it is tied up with academic freedom as well. I would think there is very little tolerance in high schools for (even tenured) teachers expressing far left or far right political opinions in class, much less than for expressing religious opinions. So I respectfully disagree with your substitution claim.

[guns_n_motley]

I go to college, and professors ALL the time try and slant liberal propoganda to us... I mean in my history class when discussing the fall of the cold war in my professors words "the russians kinda just turned around and started to fall apart, Reagan had nothing to do with it and just took credit for it"

yea sure, the arms race that made the Russian economy go bankrupt during reagans presidency had nothing to do with it


kinda getting off topic, but I do understand how it can be said that college professors have more protection..

[pilferk]

I go to college, and professors ALL the time try and slant liberal propoganda to us... I mean in my history class when discussing the fall of the cold war in my professors words "the russians kinda just turned around and started to fall apart, Reagan had nothing to do with it and just took credit for it"

yea sure, the arms race that made the Russian economy go bankrupt during reagans presidency had nothing to do with it


kinda getting off topic, but I do understand how it can be said that college professors have more protection..

They do in other respects, too.  Mostly, I think, because college is viewed as "voluntary education", while the majority of the "public education process" is mandatory.  It's the difference between lecturing to a captive audience and a non-captive audience.

My issue with (and I know, this is slightly off topic) those that complain that college professors "preach" too liberal of an agenda is this:  Why aren't there more conservatives teaching? 

The profession, itself, is more attractive to liberals...that's certainly true.  But if conservatives really want their viewpoint better represented (and I'm talking political views, not religious ones), they need to get more involved in the process.

And please..spare me the conspiracy theories about "there are plenty of conservative applicants but administrations ask about ideology and don't hire them".  I've seen the selection process of hiring faculty first hand at a variety of institutions, from piddly community college to Ivy League school.  It's just not (widely) true.

[Guns N RockMusic]

There was a paper that suggested conservatives that complete levels of education required for professorship(PhD level) are much more likely to work in the private sector, whereas liberals were more likely to pursue a career in academia.  I'll try to find the paper and link it.

But let's be honest, the 60s was a total sweep in colleges.  Leftist of that era made it their agenda to take over college.  No one can dispute that college is overwhelmingly liberal, I believe some 90% of professors are affilated with the Democratic party or other more extreme socialist ideals. 

The most balanced was an economics department, but even that favored Democrats.  Again, I'll try to find the article.

[pilferk]

There was a paper that suggested conservatives that complete levels of education required for professorship(PhD level) are much more likely to work in the private sector, whereas liberals were more likely to pursue a career in academia.  I'll try to find the paper and link it.

But let's be honest, the 60s was a total sweep in colleges.  Leftist of that era made it their agenda to take over college.  No one can dispute that college is overwhelmingly liberal, I believe some 90% of professors are affilated with the Democratic party or other more extreme socialist ideals. 

The most balanced was an economics department, but even that favored Democrats.  Again, I'll try to find the article.

I know I'm resurrecting here, but...

Your above statements prove my point, pretty much.

Conservatives complain that the educational system, and college in particular, are overwhelmingly liberal in their viewpoints and attitudes....

But then, when  presented with the opportunity to TEACH, choose, instead, not to.

So, the whole basis for their complaints are based on their own actions (or inaction).

[AxlsMainMan]

The only time a teacher would ever told me his, or her personal opinion would be afterclass if there wasn't anyone else left in the classroom.

Teachers are supposed to be indifferent, and unbiased, however if your really curious about your teacher's opinion on something, there not afraid to tell you, it's just that they might only do it when its appropriate, or under suitable circumstances.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Most of my professors were very professional.? They were always willing to discuss other views and never "punished" me because my views were different.? In fact, I think I may have gotten slightly better grades, a few points here and there, because my views were in the minority of the social science classes.? The only blatanly biased professor I had was a Philosophy professor who also was the worst professor I had.? ? She had no control over the class and was always nervous and stuttering in lectures - never made eye contact.? I did well in the class, but she crossed the line of intellectual debate by stopping students who used certain examples of a philosophy gone too far - like slavery and the holocaust - under the excuse that it offends some students.? Nothing pisses me off more than when a 20 year old black person or Jew claims they should be lumped in with the millions of slaves or holocaust victims for special treatment.? No Black in America was ever a slave and very few Jews had to suffer the attrocities of the concentration camps - none of which are in college classes.  It's an insult to those who suffered those events to equate yourself, someone in college in a 400 level class, as one in the same or even having some remote similarity.

[Guns N RockMusic]

There was a paper that suggested conservatives that complete levels of education required for professorship(PhD level) are much more likely to work in the private sector, whereas liberals were more likely to pursue a career in academia.? I'll try to find the paper and link it.

But let's be honest, the 60s was a total sweep in colleges.? Leftist of that era made it their agenda to take over college.? No one can dispute that college is overwhelmingly liberal, I believe some 90% of professors are affilated with the Democratic party or other more extreme socialist ideals.?

The most balanced was an economics department, but even that favored Democrats.? Again, I'll try to find the article.

I know I'm resurrecting here, but...

Your above statements prove my point, pretty much.

Conservatives complain that the educational system, and college in particular, are overwhelmingly liberal in their viewpoints and attitudes....

But then, when? presented with the opportunity to TEACH, choose, instead, not to.

So, the whole basis for their complaints are based on their own actions (or inaction).

You bring up a valid point, but you have a bunch of people teaching with no real world experience in the fields they teach.  I don't know too many people that start college (education majors aside) that intend on entering academia.  Most people goto college to gain a skill to be more financially successful - or they should at least.  I myself was a dipshit and have a degree in a field that is worthless in a civilian occupation.

I don't think that conservatives are bitching that professors are overwhelmingly liberal, just that they offer views not pertinent to their class.  An example being a biology professor using class time to go on a rant on the war in Iraq.  They're supposed to teach objectively and be a professional, not serve as a mouth piece for moveon.org.   Now that being said, in my experience most professors were very professional and would welcome counter arguments to what they said.  A chemist calling George Bush a moron in his professional life isn't what his students are paying for.  I believe that is the argument most "conservatives" make.  Wouldn't you be bothered if Pat Robertson was given a professorship in Latin and spent his class time spouting off religous drivel?

[pilferk]

You bring up a valid point, but you have a bunch of people teaching with no real world experience in the fields they teach.  I don't know too many people that start college (education majors aside) that intend on entering academia.  Most people goto college to gain a skill to be more financially successful - or they should at least.  I myself was a dipshit and have a degree in a field that is worthless in a civilian occupation.

By and large, most professors publish and teach...with some consulting on the side (the difference being in the legal and medical fields).  It would be no different, if conservatives went into teaching directly, than it is now, except the viewpoints given would be more balanced.

I don't think that conservatives are bitching that professors are overwhelmingly liberal, just that they offer views not pertinent to their class.  An example being a biology professor using class time to go on a rant on the war in Iraq.  They're supposed to teach objectively and be a professional, not serve as a mouth piece for moveon.org.   Now that being said, in my experience most professors were very professional and would welcome counter arguments to what they said.  A chemist calling George Bush a moron in his professional life isn't what his students are paying for.  I believe that is the argument most "conservatives" make.  Wouldn't you be bothered if Pat Robertson was given a professorship in Latin and spent his class time spouting off religous drivel?

Those are not the arguments I typically see made and certainly not the one I was addressing.  The arguments made (and if you look back to the original post which sparked my comment you'll see a typical one) are much more about acedemia, in general, being too "liberal" in their viewpoints and, consequently,  biasing and shaping "young minds".  That the teachers try to "slant liberal propaganda to the students all the time".  Note that the argument wasn't "slanting propaganda"...it was "slanting LIBERAL propaganda".  And they used an example of a history teacher.  That's tied up, largely, in the types of arguments I see given.....not a biology professor calling GW an idiot out of turn...but a biology professor espousing the benefits of stem cell research and talking about the politicos blocking it's use.  Not a history teacher randomly screaming the conservatives are the devil, but the history teacher saying the cold war ended because the Russians went bankrupt and fell apart, minimizing Reagan's involvement. 

All the criticism I routinely see is that they are teaching their political viewpoints intertwined within the curriculum, as fact....not that they go on wild political tangents uninvolved with what they're teaching.  It's the line where fact and opinion gets blurred that seems to cause conservative out cry.

And that goes directly to my point:  If you want more conservative viewpoints represented in the classroom, get more conservatives at the head of the classroom.  If you want a more balanced education system, then balance it.

[Guns N RockMusic]

You bring up a valid point, but you have a bunch of people teaching with no real world experience in the fields they teach.? I don't know too many people that start college (education majors aside) that intend on entering academia.? Most people goto college to gain a skill to be more financially successful - or they should at least.? I myself was a dipshit and have a degree in a field that is worthless in a civilian occupation.

By and large, most professors publish and teach...with some consulting on the side (the difference being in the legal and medical fields).? It would be no different, if conservatives went into teaching directly, than it is now, except the viewpoints given would be more balanced.

I don't think that conservatives are bitching that professors are overwhelmingly liberal, just that they offer views not pertinent to their class.? An example being a biology professor using class time to go on a rant on the war in Iraq.? They're supposed to teach objectively and be a professional, not serve as a mouth piece for moveon.org.? ?Now that being said, in my experience most professors were very professional and would welcome counter arguments to what they said.? A chemist calling George Bush a moron in his professional life isn't what his students are paying for.? I believe that is the argument most "conservatives" make.? Wouldn't you be bothered if Pat Robertson was given a professorship in Latin and spent his class time spouting off religous drivel?

Those are not the arguments I typically see made and certainly not the one I was addressing.? The arguments made (and if you look back to the original post which sparked my comment you'll see a typical one) are much more about acedemia, in general, being too "liberal" in their viewpoints and, consequently,? biasing and shaping "young minds".? That the teachers try to "slant liberal propaganda to the students all the time".? Note that the argument wasn't "slanting propaganda"...it was "slanting LIBERAL propaganda".? And they used an example of a history teacher.? That's tied up, largely, in the types of arguments I see given.....not a biology professor calling GW an idiot out of turn...but a biology professor espousing the benefits of stem cell research and talking about the politicos blocking it's use.? Not a history teacher randomly screaming the conservatives are the devil, but the history teacher saying the cold war ended because the Russians went bankrupt and fell apart, minimizing Reagan's involvement.?

All the criticism I routinely see is that they are teaching their political viewpoints intertwined within the curriculum, as fact....not that they go on wild political tangents uninvolved with what they're teaching.? It's the line where fact and opinion gets blurred that seems to cause conservative out cry.

And that goes directly to my point:? If you want more conservative viewpoints represented in the classroom, get more conservatives at the head of the classroom.? If you want a more balanced education system, then balance it.

Well it seems like  a nice idea, but how would we balance it?  I'd be damned if good professors who had liberal views were denied jobs because the school needed conservatives to balance it out.  I'm against affirmative action, regardless of those being considered.  I have a friend who has finished his masters and is trying to get into a doctorate program for History, but is facing resistance.  Partly I believe because he was the chairman of the College Republicans for a few years and has been vocal and active with the county party.  He has a 3.8 GPA, so grades surely aren't an issue.  In all fairness, this  is his observation, not mine, and even if it's true it's not indicative of the entire system.

In a subjective subject as all social sciences are, personal bias plays a factor.  In the cut-throat world of graduate level and professorships, that little bias can be a deal breaker.  I think the effect that professors have on students is overhyped anyway.  I believe that wrongs do happen, but they're few and far between.  I like the idea of the Students for Academic Freedom, but I wonder how it would be enforced.  I don't want to see a Communist silenced in debate just because he is in the majority of a Sociology class. 

In the end it's all about being responsible.  Someone's political affiliation shouldn't even be a factor for 90% of college professors.  I think it merits some attention for Political Science and Economics.  I want true diversity; which is diversity of opinion.  But I don't want to hire sub-par conservative professors over qualifed and better "liberal" professors.  Until someone can show that qualified conservatives are being discriminated against for tenure and professor positions, I think it's alot of hog wash.  My complaint isn't what these professors are saying, but the fact that they're saying anything related to it.  A biology professor who addresses politicos in stem-cell research should be open to educated and responsible responses that disagree.  I'm not talking about some red neck idiot quoting scripture or what his momma told him, but an educated person who has a different opinion.  I've seen it happen where professors make a blatant biased and often inaccuarte comment, and when questioned ignore it.  An example being in 2004 when the Assault Weapons Ban failed to pass through Congress.  A sociology prof came into class atacking Bush for vetoing it and all the dangers it would provide.  I raised my hand and corrected her on the status of the bill and the fact it never made it to Bush's office to be vetoed.  She shut up, stood there, and replied I'm not here to discuss what bills were passed and not passed.

To me, the highlights the problem with some professors in college.  They just happen to be liberal, so it's labeled as a liberal problem.  But as the original article I posted pointed out, conservatives are just as capable of being biased and unprofessional.

[pilferk]

Well it seems like  a nice idea, but how would we balance it?  I'd be damned if good professors who had liberal views were denied jobs because the school needed conservatives to balance it out.  I'm against affirmative action, regardless of those being considered.  I have a friend who has finished his masters and is trying to get into a doctorate program for History, but is facing resistance.  Partly I believe because he was the chairman of the College Republicans for a few years and has been vocal and active with the county party.  He has a 3.8 GPA, so grades surely aren't an issue.  In all fairness, this  is his observation, not mine, and even if it's true it's not indicative of the entire system.

1) You balance it by, as a conservative, choosing to go into the profession.  You don't need affirmative action, mandates, etc, etc.  You just need qualified applicants.  You cited numbers, yourself, that would seem to indicate conservatives gravitate to a different direction.  My assertion is, was, and always will be: Don't complain unless you're willing to work to fix the problem.  Conservatives, as a whole, don't seem to want to do that.  If they don't like the current climate, change it.  But don't simply bitch about it.  It's just not productive.

2) I'd advise your friend that he is, perhaps, projecting more than a bit.  Having been involved in selection committees, having discussed the process with others who are constantly involved in selection committees, and knowing just how competitive acedemia is at that level of scholarship......I'd say his politics have very little to do with any "resistance" he's facing.  Of course, I can't comment on the specific institution he's applying to, but I can say that at the Ivy League level it's not even considered for a split second. 

In a subjective subject as all social sciences are, personal bias plays a factor.  In the cut-throat world of graduate level and professorships, that little bias can be a deal breaker. 

Politics aren't even considered during the interview process.  I supose on a cursory, roundabout level when discussing curriculum, but...unless the applicant brought it up in some obvious manner (the best example I could think of would be discussing creationism being a large part of the curriculum over evolutionary theory), it woudn't, in all the committee's I've been involved in, hdirectly or in an ancillary fasion, be a factor.

I think the effect that professors have on students is overhyped anyway.  I believe that wrongs do happen, but they're few and far between.  I like the idea of the Students for Academic Freedom, but I wonder how it would be enforced.  I don't want to see a Communist silenced in debate just because he is in the majority of a Sociology class. 

In the end it's all about being responsible.  Someone's political affiliation shouldn't even be a factor for 90% of college professors.  I think it merits some attention for Political Science and Economics.  I want true diversity; which is diversity of opinion.  But I don't want to hire sub-par conservative professors over qualifed and better "liberal" professors.  Until someone can show that qualified conservatives are being discriminated against for tenure and professor positions, I think it's alot of hog wash.  My complaint isn't what these professors are saying, but the fact that they're saying anything related to it.  A biology professor who addresses politicos in stem-cell research should be open to educated and responsible responses that disagree.  I'm not talking about some red neck idiot quoting scripture or what his momma told him, but an educated person who has a different opinion.  I've seen it happen where professors make a blatant biased and often inaccuarte comment, and when questioned ignore it.  An example being in 2004 when the Assault Weapons Ban failed to pass through Congress.  A sociology prof came into class atacking Bush for vetoing it and all the dangers it would provide.  I raised my hand and corrected her on the status of the bill and the fact it never made it to Bush's office to be vetoed.  She shut up, stood there, and replied I'm not here to discuss what bills were passed and not passed.

To me, the highlights the problem with some professors in college.  They just happen to be liberal, so it's labeled as a liberal problem.  But as the original article I posted pointed out, conservatives are just as capable of being biased and unprofessional.

You're sort of dragging us off the point and in a new direction (at least on the point I was trying to make to the poster I responded to...I realize it's on topic in relation to the article you posted).  I don't disagree with anything you say, above.   And I certainly agree that some profs are pigheaded, obstinate, and unwilling to discuss or entertain alternate viewpoints.  THAT does come from tenure, and it stagnates the education process, not just in terms of political views, but in new acedamia that progresses and changes their fields.

 My point (and you supported it earlier with the numbers you posted) is that the problem with arguing that a liberal viewpoint pervades the educational system is that those arguing the point aren't willing to do anything to change it.  They just bitch.  Those conservatives decrying the "liberalization" of our youth and educational system could very easily help change it...by becoming, or encouraging other conservatives to become, teachers themselves.  Then, their viewpoints could be presented right along side those of the liberal profs.

[Robman?]

If a teacher did that to me in class, I'd tell her to fuck off and then I'd get up and leave

 

[Guns N RockMusic]

If a teacher did that to me in class, I'd tell her to fuck off and then I'd get up and leave

 

I'd bet you'd sit there and bitch quietly amongst your friends.

[Robman?]

If a teacher did that to me in class, I'd tell her to fuck off and then I'd get up and leave

 

I'd bet you'd sit there and bitch quietly amongst your friends.

Maybe I would, I'd point and laugh at her.

[GeorgeSteele]

The behavior of the teacher in the original post is unacceptable, but in other parts of the country, teachers are subject to ridiculous scrutiny. ?

My wife teaches Italian and in a class exercise where students were asked to recite simple sentences using an adjective, one student says "George Bush e' stupido." ?My wife didn't say anything positive or negative in response, just called on the next student to recite his/her sentence.

So what happens? ?A kid in the class takes offense, goes back to his parents and tells them what happened. ?The parents, amazingly enough, are also offended, so they complain to school administration, demanding to know why my wife did not lecture the student for being so disrespectful of the President. ?The administration officials then have a "talk" with my wife and instruct that in the future she should require students to use "positive" adjectives. ?So in the next exam, one of the students wrote "Satan e' fantastico." ?OK, I made that last sentence up. ? But, unfortunately, the rest really happened. ?

[Axl4Prez2004]

Mr. Steele, what kind of woman did you marry?  Just kidding.    On your case, my only problem was that she didn't correct the child for calling any adult "stupid."  That's disrespectful in my eyes coming from the mouth of a minor.

Back to the original post, no teacher should be preaching religion, any religion, in class.  I don't care if it's a class on religions of the world.  The curriculum should be absolutely objective.  This is what Group A believes and why.  This is what Group B believes and why.  Etc., etc.  God damn it's not rocket science.  It's not, "Group D believes this, and this is why they are wrong."  Those a-holes need to be tossed on their ass from public schools over to the lower-paying private schools.

[Surfrider]

Well it seems like? a nice idea, but how would we balance it?? I'd be damned if good professors who had liberal views were denied jobs because the school needed conservatives to balance it out.? I'm against affirmative action, regardless of those being considered.? I have a friend who has finished his masters and is trying to get into a doctorate program for History, but is facing resistance.? Partly I believe because he was the chairman of the College Republicans for a few years and has been vocal and active with the county party.? He has a 3.8 GPA, so grades surely aren't an issue.? In all fairness, this? is his observation, not mine, and even if it's true it's not indicative of the entire system.

1) You balance it by, as a conservative, choosing to go into the profession.? You don't need affirmative action, mandates, etc, etc.? You just need qualified applicants.? You cited numbers, yourself, that would seem to indicate conservatives gravitate to a different direction.? My assertion is, was, and always will be: Don't complain unless you're willing to work to fix the problem.? Conservatives, as a whole, don't seem to want to do that.? If they don't like the current climate, change it.? But don't simply bitch about it.? It's just not productive.

2) I'd advise your friend that he is, perhaps, projecting more than a bit.? Having been involved in selection committees, having discussed the process with others who are constantly involved in selection committees, and knowing just how competitive acedemia is at that level of scholarship......I'd say his politics have very little to do with any "resistance" he's facing.? Of course, I can't comment on the specific institution he's applying to, but I can say that at the Ivy League level it's not even considered for a split second.?

I'm sorry Pilferk, but I completely disagree.  I am involved with several prominent academic institutions, and I am close with several of my former professors who will tell you quite the opposite.  When I get a chance - and remeber where it is - I will point you to an interesting discussion on the subject.

[freedom78]

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.

Whether it's a violation of the establishment clause is completely dependent on your interpretation of the US Constitution.  If you're a textualist or formalist, then it does not.  They tend to believe that the exact words are important, and the words are interpreted (by them) as meaning the establishment of a state church, like the Church of England.  If you're a believer in functionalism, then it is a violation.  The majority opinion in the McCollum case, for example, argued that, over time, public schools and education had become an important secular symbol and, because school is compulsory, teaching religion as fact is a violation of the establishment clause.