It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Students walk out in protest of teacher suspension

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Nice Dirty Devil! I fully agree! I'll tell everyone hear, that Hitler wouldn't have sold Germany out for all the money in the world. Atleast Hitler believed in what he did, Germany. Hitler a crazy man, I think not. Bush will/has sold US for 100 million in his pocket? Probably! World today is run on money, nothing else. And anyone who thinks different, doesn't know Sh*t from shampoo!




Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Bush is a lot like Hitler. Glad to see a teacher teaching
www.commondreams.org...




posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Not the majority, though; he's talking about what a small minority of archaeologists have reported.


So? You're reaching for straws, it would seem. Because he quotes a minority of archaeologists instead of the majority... ? What? What's the point here?


Originally posted by junglejake
Religion wasn't a special case, either, until 1962 in the court case Engel v Vitale.


And...? Again, does this have relevence here?

I'm sorry jake, these points don't make sense to me in light of this case.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Here I figured out a way that links direct to the MP3 file from another student he taught around 2000 or 2001 that graduated in 2002.

Please download and listen to it before commenting further. The thread is going way OT and I do not think SO will like that.

Link to another student reacts mp3 file



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Thanks, shots, for that audio link.
The young man. Brad, sounded very sincere. His testimony will hopefully go a long way in the resolution of this situation.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I think Tommio may have it figured out. The statement was probably to stimulate a conversation. Little did the teacher guess that some Republican agenda influenced student (and I use the word 'student' figuritively) was doing to him what that Horse-Faced Republican "Soccre Mom" did to Monika Lewinski.
FlyerFan is apparently a blind follower of the current Reich, sorry! Did I say Reich? I meant regime.
Turn over a statement or question like this to air-heads and we get the furor we now have.
The Principal is obviously weak-kneed and politically correct. Next they will be posting two story likenesses of Dubya on the outside of school buildings. Maybe Dubya will have a little Red Book with his gems of wisdom.
But back to the subject, How do Dubya and Adolpho the Hitler compare?
A simple look at history will inform anyone who cares that Hitler was not a guy one would want to give bad news to. Hummmm! Does this remind us of anyone? Let me thimk!
skep



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Link to another student reacts mp3 file


Thoughts:

Brad was the only kid who ever stood up to Bennish
He was always allowed to have his say
He got the highest grade in the class
He remembers test questions from Bennish's class
This was 11th grade
This kid sounds extremely well-educated and credible
It almost sounds (and I wish they'd asked) like Brad had a high degree of respect for Bennish, even though they disagreed.
And he's a die hard Republican.

Now, you tell me that class had a negative effect on that kid.

Bennish is anti-establishment, there's no doubt. I'm assuming he has calmed down in the years since Brad's class, so I hope he's not still discussing illegal activities with his class.

Bennish will probably lose his job and the high school will lose an excellent, caring passionate teacher, who just needs to reign in his passion a bit, all because of some political differences of opinion.

I think it's a shame.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So? You're reaching for straws, it would seem. Because he quotes a minority of archaeologists instead of the majority... ? What? What's the point here?


Reaching for straws? I don't follow. The archaeologists that I've heard of who support that theory all make theological ties to this evidence. Some blatantly saying they were seeking to disprove the Bible and have done so by developing a shaky theory, others are more subtle.

Let's turn this around, shall we? What would your response have been if he started presenting archaeological evidence supporting the historical nature of the Bible, and supporting the Gospels, then tied that together by stating that this means that the Bible is a trustworthy document?



Originally posted by junglejake
Religion wasn't a special case, either, until 1962 in the court case Engel v Vitale.


And...? Again, does this have relevence here?

I'm sorry jake, these points don't make sense to me in light of this case.


That's why I'm here to explain
It has relevance here because I see this case akin to teaching a particular religion in a classroom. You cited the Declaration of Independence as evidence that this is acceptable, but then cited the Bill of Rights as evidence that religion is a special case and has no place where political indoctrination does. I was pointing out that religion hadn't been a special case until the secular humanistic movement started in America and attempted to make itself the national religion (and succeeded).

I see these two situations, a teacher preaching to the classroom about either God or politics, as the same kind of thing. Religious discussion doesn't cause people to think? Is it forcing a religion if someone stands in a position of authority and preaches about God, but encouraging thought if someone stands in a position of authority and preaches about their political beliefs? I see hypocrisy, not a special case.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Reaching for straws? I don't follow.


Jake, he's talking about history. He was making a point by saying 'some say this and some say that - who is right?' He wasn't trying to sell one side or the other.

You're taking this section of the transcipt (when talking about 9/11)...



And so this whole idea of who attacked who first, how far back in time do you wanna go!? This is the whole thing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Well, who was there first? Well, if you believe the Bible, you say, well, God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites. But who was in that land when they got there? The Canaanites, who some archeologists would argue are the ancient descendants of the Palestinians. You know.

Other archeologists say the Hebrews didn't really come from Egypt. They were actually a group of Canaanites who decided they didn't like the other Canaanites and developed this story afterward to justify how they killed all their neighbors and took over the land.


...and saying that is akin to teaching a particular religion in the classroom?


YES, grasping at straws!



I see these two situations, a teacher preaching to the classroom about either God or politics, as the same kind of thing.


Well, fortunately the law doesn't agree with you and neither do I.




Religious discussion doesn't cause people to think?


Sure it does, but so does discussion about many things, and religious discussion is not permitted in the classroom by law.



Is it forcing a religion if someone stands in a position of authority and preaches about God,


It's not "forcing a religion" necessarily, but if that position of authority is a public school, it's against the law.




but encouraging thought if someone stands in a position of authority and preaches about their political beliefs? I see hypocrisy, not a special case.


There is no way you can convince me that Bennish was talking about religion. You see hypocrisy. Like I said a page or so ago, take it up with the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This kid sounds extremely well-educated and credible


Good we agree on that point.



It almost sounds (and I wish they'd asked) like Brad had a high degree of respect for Bennish, even though they disagreed.
And he's a die hard Republican.


I do not know about the first part but he avoided answering as to his political stance. According one other post (it might have been the original blog) it stated one of his parents a republican the other democrat not sure who was which but they both had their own parties. So to say he is a die hard republican would be just an assumption since he left that open.



Now, you tell me that class had a negative effect on that kid.


No he did not appear to have a negative affect on him however it made it very clear he did not like him and his rants, something you left out




Bennish is anti-establishment, there's no doubt. I'm assuming he has calmed down in the years since Brad's class, so I hope he's not still discussing illegal activities with his class.

Bennish will probably lose his job and the high school will lose an excellent, caring passionate teacher, who just needs to reign in his passion a bit, all because of some political differences of opinion.

I think it's a shame.


Excellant caring teacher?

Give me a Break the guy is clearly a jerk.

Let me ask you this since it is clear you listened to the tape. Do you want teacher telling your kids about their personal sexual experiences in class? I know I don't


You also left out the fact he hates his father yet loves to use his resort for parties. Oh and let us not forget how freely he spoke of using marijuana. Do you want teachers teaching your kids about the use of drugs? I know I sure don't and no it is not a shame, he deserves to be fired and has no place in our education system with his radical view points.



.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I do not know about the first part but he avoided answering as to his political stance.


He did not. Listen again. He said he is a republican.



No he did not appear to have a negative affect on him however it made it very clear he did not like him and his rants, something you left out

I didn't leave it out, I just didn't have a comment on it. But if you insist... I've had plenty of teachers I didn't like. Life's a bitch.



Let me ask you this since it is clear you listened to the tape. Do you want teacher telling your kids about their personal sexual experiences in class?


I certainly do not.



You also left out the fact he hates his father yet loves to use his resort for parties.


Again, I didn't leave it out. I don't care who he hates. Or if he parties.

(To be fair, you didn't specify what you'd like me to comment on.)



Oh and let us not forget how freely he spoke of using marijuana. Do you want teachers teaching your kids about the use of drugs?


I said I hope he's not still discussing illegal activities with his class. What do you want?



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I do not know about the first part but he avoided answering as to his political stance. According one other post (it might have been the original blog) it stated one of his parents a republican the other democrat not sure who was which but they both had their own parties. So to say he is a die hard republican would be just an assumption since he left that open.

BH is correct on this one. Brad was asked about his political leanings and specifically stated he was a Republican. It happened right before he stated he was now a military man.

Now Sean, he has a Republican father and a Democratic mother. I got that from TV.

Interestingly. Bennish's attorney is the same guy who represented Ward Churchill. It means nothing, just one of those little factoids.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Apparently Bennish won't be filing a lawsuit after all...

Source



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   
You guys are hillarious. The bottom line is this kid along with the others, knew the course description which partly states that this course is subject to have issues and controversy.

ITS WHAT THE CLASS IS ABOUT.
I bet if the subject had been CLINTON IS HITLER, there wouldnt be an issue at all.


The teacher was telling the truth. It is the world's opinion, that Bush resembles Hitler in his iron fist demands. We do live in this world together and not on a different floor.......Its important to have the "world's" perspective and their take on this issue with wars and domination. DOMINATION. He also will go down in history in a negative way. He sets the course for the history he leaves behind.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Jake - There are just a few clarifications I'd like to make.
Especially since my brilliant but unorthodox husband and I have been discussing this further. And the word ‘hypocrisy’ actually came out of his mouth!


On Religion in School:

The thing is, in an ideal world, the teacher would be able to give his or her opinion about anything, including religion, and there would be an open discussion about different religions and spiritual beliefs. And if the teacher wanted to put a Jesus Saves banner across the front of the class, she could.

And when student Sally wanted to put up her Pentagram in the classroom, the teacher would gladly abide, and would place it next to the banner. And when student Sid wanted to hang his Star of David, it would also be displayed in a place of honor in the classroom.

And if the teacher got into ‘preachy’ mode, a student would be allowed to raise his hand and ask that they get back on subject of the class without repercussion.

But past experience shows that too often, this is not the way it goes when religion is discussed in school (or anywhere else for that matter). The person in authority has the intimidation and power factors and a captive audience and does not allow or encourage the students to represent their religion. So, instead of accommodating all religions (as guaranteed by the first amendment) the law has made a blanket statement of NO religion in schools.

I hate blanket laws

Ideally, all religions would have equal representation or equal opportunity for representation, but it is the nature of religious followers (especially fundamentalists of all stripes) to have the mind-set that it’s “my way or the highway”. That is most likely why a blanket law is being put into place as regards teacher participation in religion in schools.

I must concede that I agree that disallowing any religious activity in school is a suppression of freedom and is a step away from, rather than toward, the freedom that I hold so dear. And I would support religious expression in schools if all religions had the same representation.

The Worst Part

Mr. Bennish is an opinionated, passionate liberal (and I mean that in a good way). He requires his students to think, to question, to be curious. And he allows and encourages them to confront him with their opinions and ideas. He is what I consider to be a rare commodity in public schools (or any schools) today. He should be recognized and awarded for his contribution to the world.

Yet in the world in which we live today, he will be squelched, because of his expression. Because of his opinions, because of his passion, his contribution to free thought and a future generation who really thinks about issues instead of conforming, will be wiped out. Another one bites the dust. Thank you, conservative leadership for shutting down yet another hope for the future.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
On Religion in School:

The thing is, in an ideal world, the teacher would be able to give his or her opinion about anything, including religion, and there would be an open discussion about different religions and spiritual beliefs. And if the teacher wanted to put a Jesus Saves banner across the front of the class, she could.

And in an ideal world, Jews and Arabs would walk hand in hand. Too bad we have to live on this world.


But past experience shows that too often, this is not the way it goes when religion is discussed in school (or anywhere else for that matter).

And we have the liberals to thank for that. And they're not done yet... In God We Trust is still imprinted on our currency.



I hate blanket laws

Ideally, all religions would have equal representation or equal opportunity for representation, but it is the nature of religious followers (especially fundamentalists of all stripes) to have the mind-set that it’s “my way or the highway”. That is most likely why a blanket law is being put into place as regards teacher participation in religion in schools.

I must concede that I agree that disallowing any religious activity in school is a suppression of freedom and is a step away from, rather than toward, the freedom that I hold so dear. And I would support religious expression in schools if all religions had the same representation.

Agreed, if you change "religious followers" to "anti-Christian activists". This is most evident in the banning of nativity scenes from school while at the same time allowing displays of the Jewish menorah and Islamic star and crescent .



The Worst Part
Mr. Bennish is an opinionated, passionate liberal (and I mean that in a good way). He requires his students to think, to question, to be curious. And he allows and encourages them to confront him with their opinions and ideas. He is what I consider to be a rare commodity in public schools (or any schools) today. He should be recognized and awarded for his contribution to the world.

Yet in the world in which we live today, he will be squelched, because of his expression. Because of his opinions, because of his passion, his contribution to free thought and a future generation who really thinks about issues instead of conforming, will be wiped out. Another one bites the dust. Thank you, conservative leadership for shutting down yet another hope for the future.

Oh no, not the worst part by far. Mr. Bennish is an adult, albeit a rich, spoiled, immature adult, who one the one hand hates his father and on the other is more than happy to spend his daddy's money. To top it off, he is a poor example of what a teacher should be, since his opinions are half-baked and his "facts" that he feeds to these young minds are false.

The worst part is that there are people, supposedly adults, who try to blame the student for doing what is right. People who question the boy's motives, as if they were sinister. People who ignore the history of similar transgressions by this teacher. Yet these same adults support the "whistleblower" in the Diebold case I cited earlier. Why? My guess is it that they have not moved past the "all conservatives are bad, and all liberals are good" stage in their intellectual development.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Agreed, if you change "religious followers" to "anti-Christian activists".


So... basically, you're saying you'd agree with me if I said something completely different than what I said.

Well, fortunately for me, your agreement is neither expected, required nor even desired.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
Agreed, if you change "religious followers" to "anti-Christian activists".


So... basically, you're saying you'd agree with me if I said something completely different than what I said.

Well, fortunately for me, your agreement is neither expected, required nor even desired.

Nope. Your opinion matters not to me. I was merely trying to point out that the silencing of the religious voice in schools, etc., was not the work of the religious followers, but was the work of those who are anti-religious. I gave further evidence that it seemed to be the work of a particular subset of the anti-religious, the anti-Christian.

Had I been seeking your approval, I would've said something anti-Christian or pro some other religion.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

BH is correct on this one. Brad was asked about his political leanings and specifically stated he was a Republican.


It was just the way BH worded it that I was actually objecting too. Bad choice of words on my part. Saying you are a republican does not mean you are a Die Hard republican. In future threads I will try and make it clearer.



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   


These are high school students. They have NO RIGHT to leave school in protest. -sportyMB


I don't know what the hell that's supposed to mean but they have every right in the world to protest anything they want. What country are you from?



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by jsobecky

BH is correct on this one. Brad was asked about his political leanings and specifically stated he was a Republican.


It was just the way BH worded it that I was actually objecting too. Bad choice of words on my part. Saying you are a republican does not mean you are a Die Hard republican. In future threads I will try and make it clearer.

Nothing wrong with being a die-hard Reublican, or Democrat, shots. The problem is, too many people here assume that if you say you are a Republican, then they assume that you are a die-hard. Then they start with the insults.

Sorry for going off-topic.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join