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.

 

Teacher suspended from the job for expressing dislike to gays on facebook

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Nogard2012
 


They are not wasting money on an "investigation." Last I heard he has been transferred to a desk job in administration. The school has to be P-C if it is publicly funded, would be the same if a public school teacher expressed their dislike of Black people or Hispanics in an online blog or social media profile. There are gay kids in public schools, if they can not guarantee that one of those kids will be treated equally with regards to their heterosexual peers they are going to yank the teacher and avoid a lawsuit.

I'm not defending the state of things, but the teacher was obviously an idiot. Whether that is due to his views on another human being's sexual preference or his negligent posting of those views in a public place, I will leave up to you. I personally believe he is an idiot on both counts.




posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 


No, if you had read my post, you would understand.

I could care less if this teacher liked to go to meetings where people had verbal gaybashing fests (though I would be reluctant to want him to teach my children if that were the case). The problem is that social media is not the same a social club. Unless the teacher is responsible enough to exclude students from his personal life, then he deserves to be condemned for making statements that affect their judgment outside of the realm of his classroom contact with them.

As far as inside the classroom, it's not his role to impress his opinions about unrelated matters onto students who might value his judgment or at least respect his authority. His role is to show students how to be critical thinkers and make their own decisions. If this had happened in the classroom, it'd be grounds for some sort of review. If it had happened amongst friends, it should have been of no consequence.

It happened, however, in the gray area of social media, where - if his page had only been linked to adult friends and family - there wouldn't necessarily have been a problem. But, he chose to have students as friends on his page...you can't have it both ways.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I would say that there is no problem, unless the church was advocating violence. Again, the teacher should be allowed his bigotry. Also, going to church is not necessarily a proclamation of opinion. Making an exact, unequivocal statement on social media that you share with people including students is different.

The main issue here is that he had students on his friends list on the facebook profile where he made the comments.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Originally posted by beezzer
I wonder what would happen if a teacher went to a church that was against things like gays, abortion. . . .

This would be in the public also, wouldn't it? I mean, a gay student or a student that might want an abortion someday might see that teacher go into the church.

Hmmmm.

Yeah, and god forbid if the teacher wants to paint their livingroom green and one of the students is offended by green paint!!

Great Sig by the way, made me laugh!


That's not the same at all. We're comparing apples and oranges with that comment. In his home, he can do monkey dances to an Amazonian god of heterosexual fertility in his birthday suit for all I care and still be a teacher by day.

He was friends with his students on his page. It was inappropriate. He could have said, "I got totally wasted last night" or "Jesus thinks aborting Mexican anchor babies is kosher" or "Black people were left out to dry too long by God" or "Barack Obama sacrifices white children to worship the spirit of Chairman Mao". Instead, his ridiculous choice of words were: "...the story about New York okaying same sex unions came on and I almost threw up." Anyone of those silly statements could be deemed inappropriate. The guy has a weak stomach for discussing social policy?

I guess he can't help himself from doing mental gymnastics and ending up with a thought of someone tossing his salad or making him wear leather chaps and phallus ring. Really? Is it normal to jump from "the wedding march" to "graphic, stomach-churning porn" in your mind? Do normal, sane people make such leaps? Marriage leads to sex (or from stand up comedians, perhaps it doesn't), but that's not anyone else's business.

**My point for using this graphic sexual imagery is that he did not need to make the comment the way he did. In fact, he could have stated it in a more logical way, supported by some belief he has or biblical verse or whatever other moralistic stance. He just chose to sum it up with vomiting. Still, the kids should not be on his facebook page in this case.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Man where are we going to draw the line on this sort of thing? I don't think employers should have any say over what is posted on facebook. In certain circumstances I understand when someone loses a job over a Facebook post but this is not one of them. Just because a teacher does not support homosexuals does not mean that she is going to bring that to work with her. It's too bad she isn't more tolerant but she shouldn't have t oworry about her job because of something said outside of work.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
reply to post by drsin
 


Correct.

The wool has been pulled over our eyes for too long!

We now find ourselves criminalized for what we choose to like or dislike, nothing more than that. It... I was going to say it is our right but it seems no more, so it SHOULD be our right to like or dislike who we choose. Some people are dicks, some people will always be dicks, that's their choice.


I agree with you, but I don't think this is a case of that. This is a case of the teacher having freedom, but in a professional capacity we have to give up some freedoms when forced to share a common space. You can't work at a restaurant and say the food sucks to the customers (though you are perfectly fine thinking it and saying it off shift). You can't work in the Police and say that all Black people deserve to be locked up (though if you believe that your actions will probably give you up eventually). And you can't be a teacher who teaches hate or bigotry or stereotypes (though you can have those opinions on your own time - the reason facebook wasn't his own time was because he was friends with students and/or colleagues).

No one ever said freedom of speech didn't come with consequences and repercussions. I could say "Hey, I think beheading kittens is great!" or "We should nuke all the 3rd world countries", but that doesn't mean people aren't going to look at me as a twisted individual and potentially question my validity in an organization on mental grounds.



To choose who is to be a part our society or not by FORCING your own moral standards is wrong, can't you guys advocating that see it??


They ARE already part of your society. There is nothing you can do about that. Hitler had a concept for what to do about it, but we saw how that went. You don't get cry for freedom but then complain that you want to micromanage society. Yes, you are allowed to not be gay. No one is forcing you to be gay. No one is forcing you to be gay-married. No one is forcing you to like gay-marriage.

Likewise, no one was forcing the teacher to like gay-marriage, but also no one forced him to friend a bunch of his students of which some might be gay. He should have known better.


This teacher has lost their place in society and is demonized because they choose to like or dislike someone or something?? Seriously??

Pathetic.


What's pathetic is that you cannot make a distinction between a "place in society" for him (the teacher) and a "place in society" for them (the gays). What's pathetic is that you conflate "place in society" with "role in society". He (the teacher) has his own place in society. He has his home, his circle of friends, his job, his family, his neighborhood. He also has roles in each of those places (or spaces, the preferred term by sociologists). He is not going to act the same in the classroom as he would in the park, at a friend's home, at a bar or with his wife in the bedroom.

Any person with common sense knows not to mix their actions and behaviors between their different roles. You are allowed your opinions, but so our other people and when we agree to disagree, the spaces we chose to share have to become spaces of consensus.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Absolute travesty of justice, which is why it doesn't surprise me at all. Is it your position that teachers cannot have political opinions, even outside the classroom? He is being punished because his political opinion does not match the accepted political opinion of the school/liberal thought police. If you disagree with that you are a liar.

He had a political opinion which is that he was sickened by same-sex marriages. Being against same-sex marriage is an absolutely justifiable position and is not even necessarily anti-gay. I know because it is one I share. I am not 'sickened' by gay behavior or lifestyles, in fact I believe adults should be able to do anything they want with their bodies, with ANY other consenting adults or even consenting creatures(!). Yep! I have no ethical problem with adult incest or animal stuff either. Or drug use. Or suicide. Adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as there is consent, it's not society's job to say otherwise. Still think I am closed minded?

However, I also believe that gay marriage or any marriage other than 1 man + 1 woman should not be held or treated as equal, because it is not. It is not equal from a biological standpoint, nor is it equal from a sociological or human behavioral standpoint. Pretending it is equal is a lie, and it is a lie that further cheapens the foundations of family and society. That, by the way, is exactly what TPTB have been wanting to do for decades, and is also the reason they 'liberated' women. Listen to Aaron Russo and what he knew about the NWO involvement in that.

A hundred million people believing the same wrong thing doesn't make it right. I cannot be bullied or pressured into changing my opinion of what is best for society, which I know to be correct.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
...if this teacher had posted on facebook that he was into cyber-sex with minors, everyone that is now behind this teacher screaming "freedom of speech" would be behind him trying to stick a knife in his back...

...does this school district have teachers sign an ethics agreement?... probably so since its fairly standard... if so, freedom of speech has nothing to do with this deal now since, by signing the agreement, he agreed to the restrictions...



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99
Absolute travesty of justice, which is why it doesn't surprise me at all. Is it your position that teachers cannot have political opinions, even outside the classroom? He is being punished because his political opinion does not match the accepted political opinion of the school/liberal thought police. If you disagree with that you are a liar.


Teachers such as myself are allowed political opinions and many of us have them. It is precisely that: outside the classroom. But the classroom is a metanymy...what we really mean when we say outside of the classroom is "outside of the educating process and away from students". When he chose to friend his students, he crossed the line.

In Mt. Dora, Florida? Are you kidding me? Maybe y'all aren't familiar with Florida and that's fine. But, it's only a "blue" state south of West Palm Beach. I live in Fort Lauderdale, I can tell the difference just driving the three and 1/2 hours to Mt. Dora where my grandmother lives. You don't see too many stars and bars down here, you see them all over the place up that way. In a way, I will give you that tolerance plays a role, but it's the same tolerance that is alloted to people of different races and faiths within institutional society. But Mt. Dora and central Florida are hardly bastions of liberalism. You don't have to maintain the tolerance in your home or family/friend circles as you do in civic arenas.


He had a political opinion which is that he was sickened by same-sex marriages. Being against same-sex marriage is an absolutely justifiable position and is not even necessarily anti-gay.

You are correct that it is valid as a choice of opinion, though I would say it is still anti-gay to say that people cannot have benefits entitled to other people simply based on their choice of cohabitation.


I know because it is one I share. I am not 'sickened' by gay behavior or lifestyles, in fact I believe adults should be able to do anything they want with their bodies, with ANY other consenting adults or even consenting creatures(!)


Please stop tying in bestiality. Creatures cannot consent, let's not be silly.


Yep! I have no ethical problem with adult incest or animal stuff either. Or drug use. Or suicide. Adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as there is consent, it's not society's job to say otherwise. Still think I am closed minded?


No, not closed minded, just confused. If then two people have consented to be each other's cohabitant and work together in a relationship of love and economic union then where is it your role or society's role to say that they can't.


However, I also believe that gay marriage or any marriage other than 1 man + 1 woman should not be held or treated as equal, because it is not. It is not equal from a biological standpoint, nor is it equal from a sociological or human behavioral standpoint.


Funny, on a biological standpoint it's not exactly natural for a rabbit to hump a volley ball or a dog to hump my leg, but I've seen both happen. From a biological standpoint, bonnobos seem to have no qualms about getting it on with the same sex.

From a sociological standpoint, the Greeks and Romans had no problem with gay coupling and their "marriage" was nothing like ours...hard to have a Christian marriage before Christianity. We could also look at the economic bent of African tribes where widows take a wife. Or the Papua New Guinea tribes where young men come of age by fellating an elder tribesman. It's hard to take such a firm sociological standpoint when there are examples that contradict yours.

Finally, from a human behavioral standpoint, I'm pretty sure they are human...so, if it's their behavior...???? I mean, I'm not getting your point of bringing that up? Behavior is observable conduct, not something genetically predisposed or written down as a rule? You must have meant "not what you would do".



Pretending it is equal is a lie, and it is a lie that further cheapens the foundations of family and society. That, by the way, is exactly what TPTB have been wanting to do for decades, and is also the reason they 'liberated' women. Listen to Aaron Russo and what he knew about the NWO involvement in that.


Please, do not drag the New World Order into this. If you really feel that there is an orchestrated movement to "infiltrate" society with gayness, then why have provisions like DADT and DOMA in the first place? Why have bilionaires like the Koch Brothers who surely must be part of the NWO.

Churches have the right to say who they will or will not marry. I think that is 100% true. The State, when not a Theocracy, has no valid footing whatsoever to deny rights to someone because a sector of the society does not want to do that. If you and your church do not want to "gay marry" someone, then don't. But you cannot say that the State, which is our common institution, must prohibit such things or not recognize two people cohabitating on the same footing. It's ridiculous. What about non-religious straight people who just go to city hall and get married by a judge. Is that really married? It must be as they now can file taxes jointly, can merge their economic situations, can visit each other in the hospital, etc. Yet, you mean to tell me that two other people who happen to be gay cannot have that same privilege.

Religion is not the issue because religion has not always and still does not always play a role in heterosexual marriage in every place on this planet. I would question the need for a gay person to remain in a faith that did not accept him or her. If they don't marry you, it wasn't meant to be. If you don't have a problem with Black people, don't join the KKK. If you don't want to shoot guns, don't join the NRA. If you like being an alcoholic, don't go to an AAA meeting. I don't know what to tell you...



A hundred million people believing the same wrong thing doesn't make it right. I cannot be bullied or pressured into changing my opinion of what is best for society, which I know to be correct.


KEEP YOUR OPINION. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU OTHERWISE. What people like me are saying is it is your opinion does not get to rule over my life when it has to deal with my home and my situations and my relationships. Can you not get that?



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


I would ask that members disregard this post. I'll take the blame but I have been hosting some ne'er do wells at my condo that seem to enjoy stirring the pot. Mods, I am sorry this is probably the 3rd time. Some a__ is about to get a new crack! I tried to edit but it appears time has expired.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota
KEEP YOUR OPINION. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU OTHERWISE. What people like me are saying is it is your opinion does not get to rule over my life when it has to deal with my home and my situations and my relationships. Can you not get that?


Polyamorists have just as much right to have their relationships recognized as marriage as gays do. Can you not get that? You can't, because you've been enjoying protected status in the media for the last 30 years. If you actually could be objective about your own lifestyle, you'd have to come to the conclusion that hetero + homo is not the end-all be-all of allowable lifestyles. And that the arguments that so enrage you when they infringe on YOUR desired legal status, are the same ones you use to infringe on the legal status of others. What gives you the right to tell 1 man and 3 women who all love each other than they cannot have a group marriage? What gives you the right to "rule over their lives"? How about a brother and sister? If they love each other, why not? As long as they agree not to have kids, they're not hurting anyone. Just like as long as gays use a condom, they won't spread aids and aren't hurting anyone. But you'll use another glib excuse as to why they, also, must be denied the status that you want to enjoy.

You see, there must remain a difference between the rights of the individual to make personal choices in their lives, and the rights of society itself to maintain standards. There is no justifiable logical defense of allowing gay marriage and not allowing many other types of marriage. It is your delusional belief of protected status that I take the most issue with. If you want to advocate that all of these types of unions should be allowed and recognized as marriage, at least you would have a consistent argument. But then you might finally see and realize that being fair and allowing all of those things to become legally recognized marriage might actually degrade society and hurt humanity as a whole.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observer99

Originally posted by Sphota
KEEP YOUR OPINION. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU OTHERWISE. What people like me are saying is it is your opinion does not get to rule over my life when it has to deal with my home and my situations and my relationships. Can you not get that?


Polyamorists have just as much right to have their relationships recognized as marriage as gays do.
Can you not get that? You can't, because you've been enjoying protected status in the media for the last 30 years. If you actually could be objective about your own lifestyle, you'd have to come to the conclusion that hetero + homo is not the end-all be-all of allowable lifestyles.


No. Again, I could care less. In fact, if the Mormons, within their religion want to practice polygamy, then so be it. They should get the same benefits In fact, why should their be such limitations put there by the State anyway. Why should tax breaks exist for this or that union. I made the argument because, just like Republican and Democrat, we're always pushed into a "This or That", "Black or White", "Coke or Pepsi" arguments. What happened to "the other thing", "gray" and "RC cola"?

Again, if a church has set standards for religious unions, I see no problem. I question the whole matter within the State's boundaries.



And that the arguments that so enrage you when they infringe on YOUR desired legal status, are the same ones you use to infringe on the legal status of others.


I get enraged because the argument always degrades to "natural" when there is nothing of the sort within human culture. Human cultures are societal adaptations on top of more societal adaptations, feeding off of each other. I get enraged by people who think that because it is the way it is means it's the end all be all, the absolute pinnacle of progression, of society. They exclude alternatives because they haven't grown up with them.


What gives you the right to tell 1 man and 3 women who all love each other than they cannot have a group marriage? What gives you the right to "rule over their lives"? How about a brother and sister? If they love each other, why not? As long as they agree not to have kids, they're not hurting anyone.


I never assumed any of those "rights"...not sure why you are putting words in my mouth. From an evolutionary standpoint, brother and sister is problematic, but not impossible. Have kids...the nature that produced such offspring will have a harder time reproducing itself if what you get out of the union is not an effective human being for reproductive purposes.


Just like as long as gays use a condom, they won't spread aids and aren't hurting anyone. But you'll use another glib excuse as to why they, also, must be denied the status that you want to enjoy.


What glib excuses did I use anywhere to deny any of the things you mentioned above? I only took a shot at humans with animals. If, by some miracle, a dog or spider monkey was able to consent to a relationship with a human being, then by all means, be happy. But, without a language faculty and all the societal trappings that come with it, I don't see that happening soon.



You see, there must remain a difference between the rights of the individual to make personal choices in their lives, and the rights of society itself to maintain standards.


Correct. It was the right of the teacher to have the opinion he so expressed. It was his right to express it freely outside of a communal space to which he had a social contract binding his actions and speech. It is the right of society to say that within the bounds of schooling, a teacher is not to take advantage of his position of authority to not infringe on the rights of others, students or colleagues. I don't see a problem with this point.


There is no justifiable logical defense of allowing gay marriage and not allowing many other types of marriage.


Agreed. There's no reason that the state should chose one broken system over another.


It is your delusional belief of protected status that I take the most issue with. If you want to advocate that all of these types of unions should be allowed and recognized as marriage, at least you would have a consistent argument. But then you might finally see and realize that being fair and allowing all of those things to become legally recognized marriage might actually degrade society and hurt humanity as a whole.


Again, I don't understand why you keep thinking I said any thing of the sort regarding other types of "marriage". We use the term "marriage" to mean a "union of one man and one woman", but "marriage" is a religious union and not one provided by the State or society at large. If a society so choses, I suppose it could be governed by religious rule, in which case, the State and the Religious doctrine would be inseparable. In which case, I could see the union of one man and one woman being the only sort that is accepted.

But it is not up to someone else's religion to dictate my belief system at this point in time. I do not have entitlement or a "delusional belief of protected status". I don't know why you think I have this. I would like to know why, so please respond.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
youre either entitled to your opinion, and your right to express that opinion in a free society or youre not.

apparently the qualifier is whether or not the opinion agrees with the current sociopolitical climate.

so basically the more things change, the more they stay the same.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by thenewguy1987
reply to post by GLaDOS
 


Free speech does not mean you don't have to answer for what you say.



You must answer to BIG BROTHER. Big Brother is watching you.


It seems in this case, Big Brother was us. Didn't a student or a student's parents turn the teacher in to
authorities?

Teachers are (or should be) held to a higher standard. Saying that on Facebook was stupid in more ways than one. It could've gotten him fired from many private sector positions as well.

"If you can't say something nice" seems to especially apply to the Internet. You never know when that one moment of weakness or anger will come back to bite you in the butt.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


In my county, teachers are not allowed to be friends with their students on Facebook.

I think that's a good idea,



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by snarfbot
youre either entitled to your opinion, and your right to express that opinion in a free society or youre not.

apparently the qualifier is whether or not the opinion agrees with the current sociopolitical climate.

so basically the more things change, the more they stay the same.


I don't 100% disagree with you, as I keep many of my opinions to myself even on ATS as I know they are just too taboo for some people to look at critically. I also am more willing to give my opinion on many more subjects here on ATS than I would ever, EVER think about saying in a forum - internet or real-world - surrounded by employers, students, or colleagues.

In fact, the teacher was/is entitled to his opinion. It's only that as a teacher, with students as friends on face book, he is not entitled to influence their opinion on matters wholly unrelated to class, out of class, on social media.

It's different than saying he can't have his own opinion.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tncryptogal
 


As a teacher, I know the value of modern tech advances, especially in social media, when it involves the curricula. It's a beneficial tool. However, if you are going to use facebook as that tool, it needs to be separate from your social life (probably as a teacher and as a student - could you imagine telling your teacher you were sick, but then posting to facebook about that party you went to???).

I think Facebook would be smart to come up with a privacy filter for educational usage. For example, having a special function to "create a class" and then add students. The teacher could use the special format for school related items only, separating the "wall" of his or her social life out from that (and vice versa so friends or acquaintances could not have access to minors under his authority). Likewise, the students could have a special class space where certain rules and decorum had to be observed separate from their "friend" space.

In the end, there are already education-based companies that have developed these types of forum separate from mainstream social media, to be used exclusively by schools and universities. One of them that I am familiar with is known as "Blackboard".



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tncryptogal
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 

In my county, teachers are not allowed to be friends with their students on Facebook.

I think that's a good idea,


...on the surface, i agree because there will always be some adults who will cross the line... however, schooling and teacher / student relationships have been morphing into a new paradigm due to the internet and a pc in most homes... so, imo, teachers should be held firmly to an ethics agreement / contract that clearly spells out what is appropriate and what is not...



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota
What glib excuses did I use anywhere to deny any of the things you mentioned above? I only took a shot at humans with animals. If, by some miracle, a dog or spider monkey was able to consent to a relationship with a human being, then by all means, be happy. But, without a language faculty and all the societal trappings that come with it, I don't see that happening soon.


Do you have any pets? Do they consent to being your pets? Can you tell when your pet is happy or sad, loves you or is scared of you? Of course you can. As alien as it seems to you or I, there ARE people that believe they love animals. Why is it our place to tell them they can't marry one? It's just another double standard which you put in place to wrongfully elevate your own deviancy above the deviancy of others. The correct stance is that individuals are allowed to be "deviant" as long as it doesn't hurt others, but that society shouldn't have to be altered to encompass and recognize all deviant behavior as equal. Because in the changing and removal of societal standards, it ultimately DOES hurt others.

It's too bad that the media has told you for 30 years that standards are old and stupid. In reality, standards are necessary for a functioning society.


Originally posted by SphotaIt was the right of the teacher to have the opinion he so expressed. It was his right to express it freely outside of a communal space to which he had a social contract binding his actions and speech. It is the right of society to say that within the bounds of schooling, a teacher is not to take advantage of his position of authority to not infringe on the rights of others, students or colleagues.


I don't see how he "took advantage of his authority" in any way. Did he post it on a school website? In a school pamphlet or newsletter? Did he force it as the topic of his class? No, he just posted something online like everyone else does. He had a non-PC opinion, and his only mistake was being dumb enough to state it out loud, being dumb enough to believe that free speech still exists. Then the liberal thought police arrested him. He may be wrong for being insensitive, but the punishment doesn't fit the "crime", as usual.


Originally posted by SphotaIt is not up to someone else's religion to dictate my belief system at this point in time. I do not have entitlement or a "delusional belief of protected status". I don't know why you think I have this. I would like to know why, so please respond.


You have entitlement and protected status by the prevailing and enforced opinion of the media and the thought police, as clearly evidenced by the topic of this thread.

What would have been the reaction if the teacher had commented "Guys can marry multiple women now? That makes me sick!" or "Brothers can marry their sisters now? That makes me sick!" Not only would he NOT have gotten in trouble for "offending the sensibilities of a protected group", on the contrary, he might have actually gotten in trouble for bringing up or talking about such a "deviant" topic. Anyone that can't see the protected status of gays is truly blind.

As for "why it is up to religion to dictate societal standards" -- what other source would you suggest for societal standards? The principles of the christian religion were used to set many of the standards we live by. It took us a while to get it right. Now we want to throw it all out and believe we can live without those standards. Humans left to their own devices may ultimately retain no standards, and that's a recipe for destruction.

I suppose that some of the degradation of our societal morals may be directly caused by the NWO crowd, whose goal is to completely destroy the family and create a world similar to that described in 'Brave New World', where the state has absolute control of children (and everything.) But I don't think the Roman Empire was similarly brought down by global elitists. They were brought down due to a lot of the same things we are seeing today. The abandonment of moral standards, as well as unsustainable defense spending.

It doesn't matter whether Jesus existed, what matters ultimately is what beliefs and standards help society to best function for the most good of its citizens. Very, very few people can have an objective view on this topic. Very few people that agree with me are doing so for the right reasons, or can really see the big picture. IF denying a piece of paper to 3% of the populace prevents the degradation of standards which ultimately lead to the destruction of a society, if we could see ahead 100 years to visually witness the outcome, are you so selfish that you wouldn't even consider it?


Originally posted by Sphota
In fact, the teacher was/is entitled to his opinion. It's only that as a teacher, with students as friends on face book, he is not entitled to influence their opinion on matters wholly unrelated to class


I'd be happy with that viewpoint, if it would be applied to the entire school. No more talk about alternate lifestyles. No more talk about sexual behavior other than a one-time properly created sex education class from a pure biology standpoint, which can be opted out of. No more pushing of liberal agendas in any public school building. They can teach and talk about traditional subjects of education and teach the children skills. That's it. Any teacher, any faculty member which ever voices any personal opinion, or brings in outside people for the purpose of voicing their personal opinions, will all be fired. Are you good with that?
edit on 20-8-2011 by Observer99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
While the teacher's opinion is currently unpopular with society, he does have a right to express his opinion away from his job. It's not like he posted it on the school's web site or preached his negative opinions in class.

While I think it was in very poor judgement for him to post negative opinions in a public forum, I don't think he should be suspended or fired over doing such. For any gay student in his class, they are learning a little bit about life... not everyone you meet is going to approve of your lifestye - and you have a right not to approve of his. Right?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join