View Poll Results: Should public school teachers be able to call creationism "superstitious nonsense"?

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes; they have freedom of speech and academic freedom

    33 56.90%
  • No; this amounts to the state picking sides on a religious matter

    14 24.14%
  • Other

    11 18.97%
Page 37 of 42 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 412

Thread: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

  1. #361
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Suddenly, you're not being so pedantic!! Suddenly, words don't have just one meaning and just as suddenly, context is important!!
    You still fail to understand the concept of context, which has been your continued problem this thread.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #362
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You still fail to understand the concept of context, which has been your continued problem this thread.
    That was ironic, but I do appreciate that you've dropped the "words have one meaning" rant

    Now, instead of criticizing me, do you think you could address what I said? Or maybe address what scourge said? Or what TuckerCase said? Or what Jerry said? Or what Kandahar said?
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  3. #363
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    For me to know whether the ruling is the right one, I need to understand what "qualified immunity" means, since that is the basis for the ruling. I might look into that later, but right now I don't understand what is meant by that, and I bet most of the people answering don't know either, which begs the question of how did they make their determination if they don't understand the ruling.

    However: I would consider it inappropriate for a teacher to say things like that and the local school board should reprimand the teacher for the comment.
    Qualified immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights.

    ~~snip~~

    As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[1] qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

    In 2001, the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz established a rigid order in which courts must decide the merits of a defendant's qualified immunity defense. First, the court determines whether the complaint states a constitutional violation. If so, the next sequential step is to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the official's conduct. The Court subsequently overruled Saucier in Pearson v. Callahan, holding that the two-step procedure was no longer mandatory.
    Qualified immunity | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Qualified Immunity Law & Legal Definition

    ***
    Unless there is a law explicitly stating that teachers may not express an opinion on any religious view, a teach falls under qualified immunity and may express said opinion.

    Even when we would have chosen a different response, "creationism is superstitious rubbish" still falls within the range of acceptability.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-24-11 at 11:08 PM.

  4. #364
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    That was ironic, but I do appreciate that you've dropped the "words have one meaning" rant

    Now, instead of criticizing me, do you think you could address what I said? Or maybe address what scourge said? Or what TuckerCase said? Or what Jerry said? Or what Kandahar said?
    I never claimed words have only one meaning. I have addressed the problem with your comment, at length. You have failed to come up with an actual rebuttal except this little lie, which did not work well.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  5. #365
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Qualified immunity | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Qualified Immunity Law & Legal Definition

    ***
    Unless there is a law explicitly stating that teachers may not express an opinion on any religious view, a teach falls under qualified immunity and may express said opinion.
    Yeah, I looked it up later and commented. What the ruling does is leave intact that it was inappropriate for the teacher to say, but that they cannot nail him for this because he had no reason to think based on prior rulings it would be inapropriate. Since the prior court did rule that it was inappropriate, and that was not overturned, then in the future, teachers would not have such protection. Or so I gathered from my reading.

    Edit to add: It's not that teachers can express that in a classroom, it is that in the absence of a ruling that they should not, they have immunity.
    Last edited by Redress; 08-24-11 at 11:10 PM.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #366
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I never claimed words have only one meaning. I have addressed the problem with your comment, at length. You have failed to come up with an actual rebuttal except this little lie, which did not work well.
    I weill repeat: instead of criticizing me, do you think you could address what I said? Or maybe address what scourge said? Or what TuckerCase said? Or what Jerry said? Or what Kandahar said?
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #367
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Yeah, I looked it up later and commented. What the ruling does is leave intact that it was inappropriate for the teacher to say, but that they cannot nail him for this because he had no reason to think based on prior rulings it would be inapropriate. Since the prior court did rule that it was inappropriate, and that was not overturned, then in the future, teachers would not have such protection. Or so I gathered from my reading.

    Edit to add: It's not that teachers can express that in a classroom, it is that in the absence of a ruling that they should not, they have immunity.
    What was the question the student asked and how would you have answered it?

  8. #368
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,361
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    What was the question the student asked and how would you have answered it?
    I answered the latter part in thread. It depends on what class it is in. In a science class, a question about creationism should be answered something like this: "creationism is outside of the realm of science and as such not really appropriate for discussion here". In a theology or philosophy class a teacher could explain what creationism is, without expressing a for or against view. In a history class, discussing how the creationism concept came about would be appropriate, again without taking sides.

    Since public schools are part of the government, under the first amendment, teachers should not, in their roll as teacher take sides on religious matters.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #369
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I answered the latter part in thread. It depends on what class it is in. In a science class, a question about creationism should be answered something like this: "creationism is outside of the realm of science and as such not really appropriate for discussion here". In a theology or philosophy class a teacher could explain what creationism is, without expressing a for or against view. In a history class, discussing how the creationism concept came about would be appropriate, again without taking sides.

    Since public schools are part of the government, under the first amendment, teachers should not, in their roll as teacher take sides on religious matters.
    What if the child responded "But why isn't creationism science? I've read a lot about it and there is evidence to support the claims about Intelligent Design?"
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #370
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I answered the latter part in thread. It depends on what class it is in. In a science class, a question about creationism should be answered something like this: "creationism is outside of the realm of science and as such not really appropriate for discussion here". In a theology or philosophy class a teacher could explain what creationism is, without expressing a for or against view. In a history class, discussing how the creationism concept came about would be appropriate, again without taking sides.

    Since public schools are part of the government, under the first amendment, teachers should not, in their roll as teacher take sides on religious matters.
    In this case it was an honors history class. I'm disappointed the teacher couldn't address the lineage YEC is based on.

    As a point of trivia: according to that lineage, Adam was alive to know Noah for a few hundred years before finally dying of age before the flood.

    As a day-age creationist I enjoy having no such conflict between creation and known science.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-24-11 at 11:23 PM.

Page 37 of 42 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •