|
National Mission Statement Column of smoke Good immigration policy Teacher on paid leave Hwy 58 closure Leap year Merry Christmas Freedom of speech/religion Gold Star For Golden Hills El Truth in Blogs and Reporting October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
Freedom of speech/religion
I read and article in the Californian of a teacher in Mission Viejo who is getting sued by a student. It seems the teacher, James Corbett a history or social studies teacher of 19 years, likes to let his students know that he thinks Christians are just plain wrong. He was taped lecturing his students to "take off your Jesus glasses and see the truth". The student got offended and has files a law suit on the teacher for violation of the First amendment to the Constitution. That one says that the state cannot back a religion but neither can it be against a religion. Now put this in the context of the recent turmoil in Kern County Board of Education where a Board member wanted to put up posters quoting the national motto "In God We Trust". There were quite a few people who thought that Board member was promoting Christianity. Now I wonder what those folks would think of Teacher James Corbett in their School System. A teacher does have freedom of speech but in the classroom that speech should not include personal bias. A teacher does influence the future but so does a preacher. I have had atheists for teachers and I disregarded those teachings, those classes were harder for me because I caught myself editing what the teacher was teaching. I would like to hear the views of Liberals (you know who you are - you can't play baseball because youd would have to run to the right). 125 comments from 20 users
posted by
Starbucks1
on Dec 20, 2007 at 10:35 AM
bigdog, I don't consider saying happy holidays an attack, what I mean by attack is what you see in the news alot from secular progressive groups trying to change alot of traditions in this country. take art for example, you can take a cross, or statue of Mary and put feces all over it and display it as art, and that's fine with the left, you know, its freedom of speech, but, do that with a picture of a famous black person or gay person, and it is outrageous!, you cant do that!!!
posted by
bigdog
on Dec 20, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Starbucks i do agree with you. I don't like seeing our traditions changed because someone is offended by it. How about the majority of the people that are offended by the tradition being changed, do they not matter. I still see it as more of the political correctness BS. America is slowly losing its identity by giving into this PC crap.
posted by
Colitas
on Dec 20, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Like bigdog said, I don't it's so much about religious persecution, as it is politically correct bs. There is always going to be something out there that is ok today and not tomorrow. There is always going be someone getting offended by something. Someone suing someone over something stupid. Can't we all just get along.
posted by
oohchild
on Dec 20, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Starbucks1, the student you speak of didn't sound too downtrodden to me; he's still a Christian, right? It more sounds to me that he was looking to start a lawsuit against this teacher by bringing in a recording device. It sounds like the students of this school were well aware of how this teacher prods his students into critical thinking. And I asked this question before without anyone addressing it: this teacher pointed out how faith has been used in the past to control the European population. "Jesus glasses" really did affect how the general population viewed their Kings & Queens & other leaders, and they did allow many atrocities in the Church's name in Europe over the centuries. Does anyone deny this? Did anyone read what the teacher actually said, or are you all jumping on the bandwagon of what is alleged to have been said? The teacher also pointed out that conservatives are generally against women's privacy & BC instruction. Again, does anyone deny this? George, how long have you lived in this country? You have some very mistaken ideas about the founders of the US as well as how state laws & federal laws regulate health care in this country. Abortion legislation doesn't occur in schools; sex isn't imposed in schools; local school boards control school policy, not the state. You also are very mistaken about BC & the rates of breast cancer in women. Not only is this particular mistaken idea wrong, but it's dangerous. Stop spreading false medical information. Please learn a little about what "seperation of church & state" really means in this country, not what the neocons want you to believe. Read the actual words of Thomas Jefferson, or the Treaty of Tripoli. Read the writings of Franklin & Payne & Adams & Washington, not what has been regurgitated for you to swallow like pablum. The neocons have tried repeatedly to twist those founders' words into what they desperately want them to say (truthiness), not the real meanings behind them. http://www.auok.org/jeffers... http://72.14.205.104/custom... Thomas Jefferson writes: "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions" Take note, Mitt Romney! posted by
Starbucks1
on Dec 20, 2007 at 11:39 AM
oohchild, I disagree with the lawsuit, but, I stand on my point of teachers should not ridicule any child in the class for their beliefs or lack thereof, "The teacher is a representative of the state and the Constitution requires government neutrality toward religion,he also said, "I compared Christians to “Muslim fundamentalists” who want women to “stay pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen and have babies until your body collapses”; and suggested that churchgoers are more likely to commit rape and murder. This teacher’s conduct and words clearly show he is hostile toward religion and is indoctrinating these kids, who are a captive audience. This is wrong oohchild, anyway you slice it, like I said, if it was a gay child, you would be all over the teacher, well, all children are the same to me, don't ridicule any of them in front of the class for any reason period. posted by
oohchild
on Dec 20, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Thanks for not answering any of my questions to you, Starbucks1. Would anyone else like to try?
posted by
George
on Dec 20, 2007 at 11:49 AM
>You also are very mistaken about BC & the rates of breast cancer in women. Not only is this particular mistaken idea wrong, but >it's dangerous.
It is difficult to respond to propaganda. The facts are clear: contraceptive pill increases breast cancer risk. On average 24%, in women with mutated BRCA1 (breast cancer gene) 33%. Let's serve it to children without parental consent... One of 4 or 5 women with breast cancer, will suffer that because of contraception pill. http://info.cancerresearchu... >Abortion legislation doesn't occur in schools; sex isn't imposed in schools; local school boards control school policy, not the state. Abortion views are imposed on children. Abortionist activists have unlimited access to public schools, while more mature views expressed by many religions are kept out. Over time it translates into legislation. I didn't even mention what kind of nonsense is pushed in the history textbooks... posted by
Starbucks1
on Dec 20, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Thank you too oohchild, for not commenting on any of the points I made about if it were a gay child or black child, you would be against the teacher, I did read what the teacher said, I posted several quotes, didn't you read them?,
posted by
oohchild
on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:19 PM
I was willing to ignore your post about what you think my reaction would be Starbucks1, but if you insist on reading my mind: the gay child & the black child have no choice about those particular characteristics. Again, I'll point out that both of those children are truly in the minority. Christians are not. I support the rights of the minority over the wishes of the majority. If a teacher were to blame atrocities in European politics on "gay glasses" or "black glasses" I'd question the scholarship of the teacher. In this case, the instructor was correct. I'd also like to point out that the US Supreme Court ruled that religious texts can be used in public schools when teaching History or Literature or even comparative religion. So, the teacher was also within the scope of "separation of church & state." Funny how some neocons want to use that concept when it suits them (like in this case), but derides the same notion when it limits the way in which they proselytize their religion. George, stop pushing bad research & twisted science. There are very few studies which back up your assertion (not a fact), and most studies refute your claim. http://www.webmd.com/breast... "Studies that have examined the use of oral contraceptives as a risk factor for breast cancer have produced conflicting results. Some researchers think this might be due to the fact that the level of hormones in birth control pills has changed since they were first studied. Early birth control pills contained much higher levels of hormones than today's low-dose pills. [...] In general, most studies have not found an overall increased risk of breast cancer due to the use of oral contraceptives." ETA: From your very own link, George: "The pill remains one of the most effective forms of contraception, and in the long term the small increases in risk for cervical and breast cancers are outweighed by reduced risks for ovarian and womb cancer." Hahahahaha...hahahaha....haha...ha.......... ;-) posted by
Starbucks1
on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:24 PM
oohchild, you answered excatly how I thought you would, you say , in this case, the teacher was correct, when he said, "I compare Christians to “Muslim fundamentalists” who want women to “stay pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen and have babies until your body collapses”; and suggested that churchgoers are more likely to commit rape and murder. you think this is correct?, ridiculing Christians is totally acceptable in your view, but no one else, I find that very sad,,I would hope you would have more compassion for children in school, perhaps you will learn more compassion in the future.
posted by
oohchild
on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:29 PM
If that's how you need to view it in order to build yourself up Starbucks1, be my guest. Since you seem incapable of grasping the concept of rational discourse & critical thinking as a cornerstone of learning, I'll just be glad you're not instructing any students in a "captive audience" setting.
posted by
Starbucks1
on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM
The teacher is a representative of the state and the Constitution requires government neutrality toward religion,, what don't you understand about this oohchild?, teachers should not be doing this!, I dont need to build myself up, if you ignore this fact and don't even own up to what you say yourself, when you say the teacher was correct in what he said, then there's really no point in going further with this discussion, stand by what you say, I do, the teacher in this case was wrong, legally and moraly, Dont ridicule children in the classroom period.
posted by
George
on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Let's talk about big studies by reputable institutions:
http://www.cancer.gov/cance... "In a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored study published in 2003, researchers examined risk factors for breast cancer among women ages 20 to 34 compared with women ages 35 to 54. Women diagnosed with breast cancer were asked whether they had used OCs for more than 6 months before diagnosis and, if so, whether the most recent use had been within 5 years, 5 to 10 years, or more than 10 years. The results indicated that the risk was highest for women who used OCs within 5 years prior to diagnosis, particularly in the younger group (4)."
posted by
George
on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Your sources:
"The WebMD content staff blends award-winning expertise in medicine, journalism, health communication and content creation to bring you the best health information possible. Our esteemed colleagues at MedicineNet.com are frequent contributors to WebMD and comprise our Medical Editorial Board. Our Independent Medical Review Board continuously reviews the site for accuracy and timeliness." No scientific studies or any recent science mentioned. posted by
countygirl
on Dec 20, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Wow,George! I would just like to say welcome to the blogs. You are an extremely intelligent person and I've really enjoyed reading your posts so far( I'm still reading some). A little something about this site. Christians and conservatives are the minority here. Not in our whole community ( I don't think) but definitely on this site. Do you live here? While I respect many of these bloggers views, religious discussions and political debates quickly turn into bashing sessions for those that lean to the right and are Christian. I'm sure you noticed this already, but I just want to say WELCOME and Merry Christmas! Oh and Starbucks I see you too! Keep up the good work! ;) |
