• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teachers suspended for spraying non-Christian teacher w/ squirt bottle

So you approve that this Christan teacher assaulted a person, because of their beliefs? I thought the continuation was something that the conservatives fought for instead it looks like you are someone who is a hypocrite.

Of course I never said that either. Please try reading what I said not what you want it to say.
 
It is Liberal to interpret the Constitution is a loose constructionist way, which is exactly what you are doing.

Be extremely specific. How am I doing this?

I've got my popcorn ready :D
 
If you can prove God doesn't exist feel free to display it :rofl

There's no scientific evidence that God exists which is why it doesn't really require faith to NOT believe. There's also no scientific evidence that Space Monkeys are inhabiting Jupiter, so it's not an act of faith to disbelieve that they exist. Nobody claims proof that God doesn't exist, at least nobody intellectually honest does. God can't be proved scientifically one way or the other.... that's kindof the whole idea of God anyway. That there's something behind those things we can't explain. That there's a point to all of this beyond our understanding. Belief that there is no God is not the same thing as faith that there is no God. There's really no reason to debate semantics here.

More on-topic, the teacher does not appear to have been "teaching Atheism in class," at least not in the way you think it was happening. Discussing atheism is not the same thing as trying to convert people. If we can't even discuss things academically in school anymore we're pretty screwed because our children are going to have large gaps in their knowledge. There's also some controversy over nuclear energy. Maybe we shouldn't tell our children it exists?
 
There's no scientific evidence that God exists which is why it doesn't really require faith to NOT believe. There's also no scientific evidence that Space Monkeys are inhabiting Jupiter, so it's not an act of faith to disbelieve that they exist. Nobody claims proof that God doesn't exist, at least nobody intellectually honest does.

I understand it makes you unconfortable to accept the facts but that isn't my conscern.

Of course its an act of faith to believe something doesn't exist without being able to prove it. There is no way you can get around that fact.

God can't be proved scientifically one way or the other.... that's kindof the whole idea of God anyway. That there's something behind those things we can't explain. That there's a point to all of this beyond our understanding. Belief that there is no God is not the same thing as faith that there is no God. There's really no reason to debate semantics here.

Yes it is. Both require faith since neither can function on fact.

Agnostics are the only ones with no religion because they neither believe nor disbelieve.

More on-topic, the teacher does not appear to have been "teaching Atheism in class," at least not in the way you think it was happening.

You have zero evidence of that. You are basing conclusions off nothing. We do not know either way since we have no specific information.

Discussing atheism is not the same thing as trying to convert people. If we can't even discuss things academically in school anymore we're pretty screwed because our children are going to have large gaps in their knowledge. There's also some controversy over nuclear energy. Maybe we shouldn't tell our children it exists?

As I said which you obviously failed to read discussing atheism is not an issue. Teaching it, is.
 
Last edited:
Texmaster you are trying to defend this teacher actions, so in other words you do approve of what this teaher did.
 
What these women did to the atheist teacher was wrong and not what Christ would do.
 
"Spraying" someone with water ("magic" or not) uninvited, is called battery, by law. As such, the violators should have been arrested for their crime and prosecuted.
 
"Spraying" someone with water ("magic" or not) uninvited, is called battery, by law. As such, the violators should have been arrested for their crime and prosecuted.


I watched the video. I seriously doubt we have full information on exactly what happened. The Christian teachers deny spraying her with anything.

My question is this: if a Christian teacher is not allowed to expound upon her beliefs to a classroom full of public school children, why would an atheist teacher be allowed to do so? If we allow the one, we must allow the other.
 
I watched the video. I seriously doubt we have full information on exactly what happened. The Christian teachers deny spraying her with anything.

My question is this: if a Christian teacher is not allowed to expound upon her beliefs to a classroom full of public school children, why would an atheist teacher be allowed to do so? If we allow the one, we must allow the other.

If it is found out that the atheist teacher was trying to turn her students to atheism I would expect either the principal or school board to do something about it. However if she was teaching about atheism then I think those in charge will have to look at what she was saying to determine if a punishment should be handed down. Either way it does not excuse the Christian teacher to do what she did and she also deserves the punishment she has been given.
 
I watched the video. I seriously doubt we have full information on exactly what happened. The Christian teachers deny spraying her with anything.

My question is this: if a Christian teacher is not allowed to expound upon her beliefs to a classroom full of public school children, why would an atheist teacher be allowed to do so? If we allow the one, we must allow the other.

A Christian teacher can discuss Christianity.
 
You have zero evidence of that. You are basing conclusions off nothing. We do not know either way since we have no specific information.

As I said which you obviously failed to read discussing atheism is not an issue. Teaching it, is.

You don't have any evidence she was "teaching" atheism either. So, aren't you also "basing conclusions off of nothing?"
Me, I'm basing my conclusion off what the teacher said.
 
The TEA PARTY: We support the constitution! (or a version of the document void of legal precedent, federal law, and common sense)

Look, it wasn't a movie house, and they were throwing water not fire, so it's covered, right?:roll::roll:
 
I understand you can't debate it. Its ok, you aren't the first :)

You are very quick to jump to conclusions. I simply asked a question and you did not give me a proper answer. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.
 
You are very quick to jump to conclusions. I simply asked a question and you did not give me a proper answer. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

No you asked a childish attack question not a question of substance. If you want to start actually debating, try explaining your claim of "massive fallacy" and I'll be happy to tear it apart :)
 
You don't have any evidence she was "teaching" atheism either. So, aren't you also "basing conclusions off of nothing?"
Me, I'm basing my conclusion off what the teacher said.

You are basing it off of what one side said. The other teachers have a different story and I just told you neither side knows what really happened. How did you miss this when you quoted me saying exactly that?
 
Okay let's face it.... we don't know what happened.

1. The suspended teachers claim the atheist teacher was teaching atheism to the children. We don't know exactly what was going on, whether she was simply saying "Yes I'm an atheist, that is someone who doesn't believe in any god or gods," or whether she was saying "All religion is stupid, and everyone who believes in God is an idiot, including your parents", (as some here are prone to say, lol), or something in between. We have no knowlege what she said.

2. The atheist teacher says the suspended teachers sprayed her with "holy water". The suspended teachers deny that they sprayed her with anything. We have no knowlege of what actually happened and whether anyone was sprayed with anything.

All we really know is there was some kind of confrontation, based on something the atheist teacher was teaching about atheism in class, and as an end result two teachers were suspended.

Anything else we have to say on this is assumption, based on who we want to believe... so it gets a little pointless.
 
A Christian teacher can discuss Christianity.

Maybe. It depends.

It depends on the state and the district, and existing policies. It depends on exactly what she say and how she says it. It depends on whether one student's parents (out of 1000) decide to call in the ACLU and sue over it. It depends on whether the principal of the school allows it and whether the teacher is willing to go to court over it.

Yes, a teacher can say "Christianity is one of the larger religions in the world, divided into many different organizations and categories. All trace their primary beliefs to the teachings of an alleged Jew named Jesus of Nazareth, whom some believed to be divine and a direct representative of God sent to save mankind. Various Christian denominations include Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Episcopalian..." Etc.

If on the other hand she starts telling the kids why SHE is a Christian, asserts that Jesus WAS God the Son and the Savior, and suchlike as that.... someone is almost bound to decide that is some kind of violation of "seperation Ch V State" and sue to stop it.

If the atheist teacher was discussing Atheism in a detached and academic fashion such as the first paragraph above, then it might be all right. If she was attempting to sway the children in her classroom to accept atheism in any fashion, then we've left the realm of acceptible behavior by most standards.
 
You are basing it off of what one side said. The other teachers have a different story and I just told you neither side knows what really happened. How did you miss this when you quoted me saying exactly that?

The other teachers denied spraying holy water, nowhere in the news clip did they mention preaching. "Talking about it" was used twice, and "having a discussion about Atheism" was said once. Do you have another news source of which I am not aware?
 
No you asked a childish attack question not a question of substance.
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my post.

If you want to start actually debating, try explaining your claim of "massive fallacy" and I'll be happy to tear it apart :)
I find it hard to believe that you have no knowledge of the equivocation fallacy: Logical Fallacy: Equivocation

You are equating "faith" based on empirical data(measurable, objective, mutually agreed upon) to "faith" based off of religious views, gut feelings, experiental facts(subjective, unverifiable, anecdotal). You use the same word but they do not apply to both sides. This is equivocation.
 
Last edited:
No you asked a childish attack question not a question of substance. If you want to start actually debating, try explaining your claim of "massive fallacy" and I'll be happy to tear it apart :)

The fallacy lays in the fact that you are asking for negative proof. The burden of proof is on those who believe there is a God. Not those who do not admit it as a fact without any evidence. It's not about "faith". It's about "evidence". You say there is a God. I say sure, show me proof that can withstand scrutiny. You can't. So I conclude that there isn't. Welcome to the world of rational thought.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my post.

Actually I didn't but keep on squirming :)


I find it hard to believe that you have no knowledge of the equivocation fallacy: Logical Fallacy: Equivocation

You are equating "faith" based on empirical data(measurable, objective, mutually agreed upon) to "faith" based off of religious views, gut feelings, experiental facts(subjective, unverifiable, anecdotal). You use the same word but they do not apply to both sides. This is equivocation.

Now this is amusing. You think because you don't believe in God that is basing it on empirical data?

What "mutually agreed upon" theories are you citing?

What experiments have you performed proving their is no God?

How do you know what God would look like or do if He existed?

Its sad to watch someone try to rationalize their faith as factual data. You cannot prove God does not exist yet you believe it to be so.

That is the very definition of faith.

As I said before, Agnostics are the only ones without religion because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
 
Actually I didn't but keep on squirming :)




Now this is amusing. You think because you don't believe in God that is basing it on empirical data?

What "mutually agreed upon" theories are you citing?

What experiments have you performed proving their is no God?

How do you know what God would look like or do if He existed?

Its sad to watch someone try to rationalize their faith as factual data. You cannot prove God does not exist yet you believe it to be so.

That is the very definition of faith.

As I said before, Agnostics are the only ones without religion because they neither believe nor disbelieve.

Always on the attack. Oh well.

For what it's worth, I do believe in God.
 
Back
Top Bottom