The Louisiana Public School Cramming Christianity Down Students’ Throats

fractal2
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Its really disappointing to me that judging by the number of stars you got, people believe its okay for a teacher to ridicule children so long as they do it for topics that don't bother you. I guess laughing at kids and emotionally scarring for life is all fun and games when done using non-religion-based topics.

What's disappointing is the lack of stars your posts receive on this thread and yet you still continue to talk nonsense. No one has said ridiculing any student is OK for any reason. Other ATS members just never derailed this thread to accommodate your peculiar opinions that had no relevance to the original OP.

beezzer
Here's the link to the school district in question.

I see nothing like the author of the story describes.

Linky Poo

Hmmm How about their beliefs...

www2.sabine.k12.la.us...

We believe that: ¨ God exists. ¨ All children can learn. ¨ Excellence in education cannot be compromised. ¨ Every human being has worth and dignity and is worthy of respect. ¨ High expectations support achievement. ¨ Ongoing assessment is needed to improve programs. ¨ The school environment must be safe and orderly. ¨ The principal is the instructional leader. ¨ A significant amount of classroom time must be allocated to instruction in the essential skills. ¨ Education is a shared responsibility of family, school, teachers, staff and community and each should be given a voice in decisions that affect their children.

flammadraco

fractal2
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Its really disappointing to me that judging by the number of stars you got, people believe its okay for a teacher to ridicule children so long as they do it for topics that don't bother you. I guess laughing at kids and emotionally scarring for life is all fun and games when done using non-religion-based topics.

What's disappointing is the lack of stars your posts receive on this thread and yet you still continue to talk nonsense. No one has said ridiculing any student is OK for any reason. Other ATS members just never derailed this thread to accommodate your peculiar opinions that had no relevance to the original OP.

The first paragraph of the OP focuses on the "posters urging students to “Pray,” “Worship,” and “Believe,” while a poster displayed near the waiting area of the main office announces that “it’s okay to pray.”. How is that not the main topic when it was mentioned first?

Well, is okay to pray. There is nothing unethical or wrong about worshiping or believing in God. There is also nothing unethical or immoral about praying. While the posters say "pray", "worship", and "believe" there isn't any negative harm attached for not doing those things. No harm, no foul.

The rule "no harm, no foul" makes sense. I've stayed right on topic from start to finish and pointed out simple concepts that completely make total sense. These are very very simple concepts I'm talking about. "No victim, no crime". Simple. Correct. Full of sense. You simply believe in victimless "crimes" whereas I don't. I've directly talk to people, whereas other people on the thread have been talking past me except for one person.

While the posters are arguably a waste of money, but they don't have any victims. The separation of church and state is designed to give politicians more power, not to help people out, and not prevent any harm. If you have been involved in local politics (or any other politics) that concept will totally make sense. The biggest concern of all the politicians I know is maintaining or increasing their power. Are the ones you know any different?

If at at any time on ATS you come across off-topic nonsense, then please ignore it instead of drawing it out further.

reply to post by fractal2


So you believe that the state and religion should  not be separate. Which religion should the state align itself with?

What about the other religions in the US who are not aligned with the state, would this not be discriminating against these?

flammadraco
reply to post by fractal2

 

You have completely derailed this thread with your "Farting Nonsense" and continued argument about Philosophy. Just to remind you that the OP was regarding a Christian Teacher ridiculing a Buddhist student in front of his class over his religious beliefs. The OP was absolutely nothing to do with "Farting" or other philosophy's and was regarding the lack of intolerance shown at this school to other students with different religions.

Why not start your own thread regarding the difference between philosophy and religion rather than derail this thread.

One topic of this thread is a boy who is ridiculed by a teacher. Putting that in context removes their bias against this subject. If you know of someone who has been emotionally scarred for life by ridicule of a teacher, then please let me know and the bias-remover can be another circumstance besides farting.

The point I was making is that ridicule based on other topics is equally wrong. I think I went a long way towards showing that. Because ridicule based on any and all topics is equally wrong in school, the ridicule of the student is not directly related to separation of church and state but rather ridicule of child. Separation of church and state should have no effect on whether or not the ridicule was acceptable.

reply to post by fractal2


And as I have said to you in a previous post, no one is disputing the fact that no child should be ridiculed by a teacher in front of their class under any circumstances. The fact is you lowered the tone of this thread by bringing in the example of "Farting". I'm sure you are savvy enough to have found another example.

flammadraco
reply to post by fractal2

 

So you believe that the state and religion should  not be separate. Which religion should the state align itself with?

What about the other religions in the US who are not aligned with the state, would this not be discriminating against these?

Most people look at the state as a supreme being or higher being. I look at the state as a collection of individuals with equal rights and privileges. The state has identical rights as each individual within it does. Individuals have a right to promote a specific religion. Collections of individuals have a right to promote a specific religion. The state is nothing more than a collection of individuals without any legitimate supreme power, therefore the state has the right to promote a specific religion just like the individuals within it. The catch is that it must do so while also respecting everyone's right to believe and say as they wish without retribution so long as no harm is done.

For full separation of religion and state you would have to disallow anyone with a religion from being a government worker in order to do so. Unless you can make a rule up that is consistent about where the line should be drawn, then the separation of church and state concept is inconsistent and merely there as a method of politicians to acquire additional power.

The state should not align itself with any religion. However, the state has a right to do so while it respects all individual rights and freedoms. Should they? If it were my money, no. But it isn't my money. In the case of the OP topic, yes, the town seems interested in promoting Christianity. In the mid-east, the local townspeople are interested in promoting Muslim religion, and they should spend their money on what they believe is good and helpful for society, while respecting people's right to believe otherwise.

fractal2

flammadraco

fractal2
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Its really disappointing to me that judging by the number of stars you got, people believe its okay for a teacher to ridicule children so long as they do it for topics that don't bother you. I guess laughing at kids and emotionally scarring for life is all fun and games when done using non-religion-based topics.

What's disappointing is the lack of stars your posts receive on this thread and yet you still continue to talk nonsense. No one has said ridiculing any student is OK for any reason. Other ATS members just never derailed this thread to accommodate your peculiar opinions that had no relevance to the original OP.

The first paragraph of the OP focuses on the "posters urging students to “Pray,” “Worship,” and “Believe,” while a poster displayed near the waiting area of the main office announces that “it’s okay to pray.”. How is that not the main topic when it was mentioned first?

Well, is okay to pray. There is nothing unethical or wrong about worshiping or believing in God. There is also nothing unethical or immoral about praying. While the posters say "pray", "worship", and "believe" there isn't any negative harm attached for not doing those things. No harm, no foul.

The rule "no harm, no foul" makes sense. I've stayed right on topic from start to finish and pointed out simple concepts that completely make total sense. These are very very simple concepts I'm talking about. "No victim, no crime". Simple. Correct. Full of sense. You simply believe in victimless "crimes" whereas I don't. I've directly talk to people, whereas other people on the thread have been talking past me except for one person.

While the posters are arguably a waste of money, but they don't have any victims. The separation of church and state is designed to give politicians more power, not to help people out, and not prevent any harm. If you have been involved in local politics (or any other politics) that concept will totally make sense. The biggest concern of all the politicians I know is maintaining or increasing their power. Are the ones you know any different?

If at at any time on ATS you come across off-topic nonsense, then please ignore it instead of drawing it out further.

edit on 10-2-2014 by fractal2 because: (no reason given)

Well that's just it, you say no harm no foul but you forget one thing, that's based on your personal beliefs so who are you to say it's not hurting anyone especially when they don't believe the same as you?. The only way this would be acceptable is if all religions be allowed to put up posters and what not encouraging the readers of said posters to engage in partaking of the aforementioned religious beliefs. But something tells me the local populace would be defecating bricks if they were to walk into that school and see posters and banners encouraging belief and prayers in and to Satan or any other god and/or religion besides christianity. But as others have clearly pointed out, religion has no place in school. They need to be taught how to think for themselves, not what to think. And if they were inclined to gravitate towards a specific belief system then why not let them figure out which one on their own?

reply to post by fractal2

A poster that says "1+1=2" should be banned only if the intent of the person who put it there was to cause harm.

I am unfamiliar with the laws about banning posters with the intent to harm. What law or rule would that be?

I accept your alternative definitions for this post though they are worse than the Wikipedia definitions. The text saying religion is in part something "without reason" should not be there. Of course there is a reason that people have religion. Are bad reasons still reasons?

This is why your reasoning is flawed.
Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature. The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to intuitive reason.

Religion is without REASON.

Which of the following posters should be banned from school?
"Wash you Hands Before You Eat" is a practice.

Hygeine explainable through science

"Please and Thank You" is a custom.

Manners

"1+1=2" is a belief.

Science (yes math is science)

"No cutting in line" is a code of conduct.

Also manners and school regulation.

"Love Your Neighbor as you Love Your Self" is a principle.

Best left for parents to instill. It is also a belief not founded in reason. A good subject for ethics class. Are ethics still taught?

"Honesty is the Best Policy" is an example of ethics.

Not always true especially in business, politics, and if your wife asks if her cloths make her look fat. It is probably best not to tell kids the truth yet they will figure it out. So maybe just leave that one out because they will know you lied to them.

"Cheating on Tests is Wrong" is an example of morals.

And counter productive to a learning environment.

"God Exists" is a Supreme Power poster.

A belief without reason.

"The Creator of the Universe is Glorious" is a worship poster.

A belief without reason.

So, having the rule "religion cannot be promoted in public school" potentially bans all the above posters

No it bans ones that are beliefs not founded in reason. At this point you should have a better grasp on the definition of reason which most of your post is lacking.

Most atheists in the US think the supreme power over the universe is the US Federal Government or the UN.

WOW are you a self proclaimed expert on atheists? Can you provide evidence for your claim?

Can you at least try to stay on topic? Atheist are not taking the school system to court. BUDDHIST are.

Theocracy is fine so long as all rights and freedoms are respected. If Theocracy can't exist without respecting rights and freedoms then there can't be a legitimate Theocracy. But otherwise, yes, there can be. There is no legitimate Republic or Theocracy in existence and there may have never been. Neither of them respect our rights and freedoms.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Theocracies have never been about respecting rights. Look up theocracies of past and present. Ahhem..Sharia law.

flammadraco
reply to post by fractal2

 

And as I have said to you in a previous post, no one is disputing the fact that no child should be ridiculed by a teacher in front of their class under any circumstances. The fact is you lowered the tone of this thread by bringing in the example of "Farting". I'm sure you are savvy enough to have found another example.

There is one and only one time in my life where I know a student was emotionally scarred for life over being ridiculed by a teacher. That one time happens to be when the teacher ridiculed the child for farting loudly. Therefore its the only real-life example I could bring to the table. I really have no control over what kids find to be a big deal. The things people get personally offended have little to do with facts and reasoning, and a lot to do with emotions. Farting only "lowers the tone" when people can't handle the topic in an adult way.

reply to post by fractal2


Nothing about being an adult being able to handle the topic, it's about decorum. If I thought I was talking to a bunch of high school kids then I suppose it would have been a good example. However you introduced it as it was the only experiance you had. Have you had experience where a fellow student was ridiculed for their theological beliefs by a teacher?

If not, then how can you compare the two? If you were unable to give another example other than "Farting" because its the only example you have experianced, then you really should not compare the two. As someone has already said to you, the differences are like chalk and cheese.

fractal2
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Its really disappointing to me that judging by the number of stars you got, people believe its okay for a teacher to ridicule children so long as they do it for topics that don't bother you. I guess laughing at kids and emotionally scarring for life is all fun and games when done using non-religion-based topics.

I guess you can tell that it was funny to the kid I know who was emotionally scarred for life after a teacher ridiculed for farting loudly in class. It doesn't bother at all and you even laugh about it. You are wrong. I proved you wrong too when I said "ask any 5th grade girl whether they would prefer to be ridiculed for farting loudly in class vs. their religion". That very clearly proves you wrong. Offer evidence to the contrary and then we can talk further. Farts are not slightly funny in any way, shape, or form, to most 5th grade females. You are male so just don't get it. Basically you are only concerned with what offends you, not other people.

I have not demeaned religion in any way, shape, or form. Christians don't really consider Christianity to be a religion they simply consider it to be the truth and the way things are. To a Christian, the Bible is like the laws of life whereas physics are like the laws of physics. The word "religion" is considered demeaning to some Christians, especially the ones who are against organized religion.

Any ridicule is not acceptable. Never said it was. On that note, the kid that was "emotionally scarred for life" after ripping one in class may just have some other issues.

You proved me wrong by asking me to go around to an elementary school and quiz fifth grade girls on farting and religion. Yeah, that's realistic. I guess you win.

Christian don't consider Christianity to be a religion? That's one I've never heard before. I suppose words are just there for the fun of it.

Lastly, you say "farts are not slightly funny in any way shape or form to fifth grade girls." Ok. But they are funny. Here are some fairly educated folks on farts:

1. The First Joke Ever Recorded (1900 BC)
Who says girls don’t fart? According to University of Wolverhampton professor Paul McDonald, this ancient Sumerian one-liner is the oldest known joke in recorded history: “Something which has never occurred since time immemorial; a young woman did not fart in her husband’s lap.”

2. Dante Alighieri’s The Inferno (14th Century CE)
This 14th-century masterpiece chronicles a fictional journey purportedly made by Dante himself through the circles of hell. At one point at the close of chapter XXI, he witnesses a demon mobilizing his troops by using “his ass as a trumpet.”

3. William Shakespeare’s A Comedy of Errors (1594)
In Act 3, the bard writes “A man may break a word with you, sir; and words are but wind; Ay, and break it in your face, so he break it not behind.” (According to some, Shakespearean fart jokes are more common than one might expect.)

4. Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales (14th Century CE)
[While in the company of a parish clerk named Absalom in one verse, Nicholas, an impoverished student, inadvertently “let fly a fart as loud as it had been a thunder-clap, and well nigh blinded Absalom, poor chap.”/exnews]

5. Jonathan Swift’s "The Benefit of Farting" (1722)
In this notorious essay, the author of Gulliver’s Travels proves to be quite the flatulence connoisseur, writing “I take it there are five or six different species of fart.” These are “the sonorous and full-toned or rousing fart,” “the double fart,” “the soft fizzing fart,” “the wet fart,” and “the sullen wind-bound fart.” (You can read the full pamphlet here.)

6. Mark Twain’s 1601 (1880)
Never one to shy away from irreverent humor, Samuel Clemens’ one-act show is set during a private gathering of Queen Elizabeth’s court wherein somebody unexpectedly rips one, prompting the Queen to ask about its source. Lady Alice (a woman in attendance) quickly declares “Nay tis not I [who has] brought forth this rich o’emastering [sic] fog, this fragrant gloom, so pray you seek ye further.”

7. Aristophanes’ The Clouds (423 BCE)
At one point in the play, a simple-minded character named Strepsiades gives Socrates (yes, that Socrates) a bit too much information about his bowel movements: “I get colic, then the stew sets to rumbling like thunder and finally bursts forth with a terrific noise. ”

8. James Joyce’s Ulysses (1922)
The novel’s protagonist, advertising canvasser Leopold Bloom, is described in a particularly unflattering scene as sitting “asquat the cuckstool… seated calm above his own rising smell.”

famous farts

Again, no one should be ridiculed for anything. But ripping one in class is going to get you laughed at. If when you are an adult and you are emotionally scarred due to that I'd suggest looking in a mirror and thanking your lucky stars you weren't scarred by something serious. And again, to equate getting laughed at for farting and wondering why you are being picked on and getting wrong answers on a test "for something considered a truth" should be evident in it's absurdity.

CJ

edit on 10-2-2014 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)

benrl
Teach them how to think, not what to think.

Do you honestly think our schools currently do that??????? Everything in society is teaching them what to think.

Independent thought is dangerous. It's thoughtcrime. You can have beliefs.....as long as they are the right ones.

reply to post by Grimpachi

I am unfamiliar with the laws about banning posters with the intent to harm. What law or rule would that be?

Doing anything with the intention to harm someone is against natural law.

Religion is without REASON.

Parts of religion are without reason. Other parts are with reason. Reason-based Christian text: "Plans go wrong for lack of advice; many advisers bring success." Proverbs 15:22 New Living Translation. Logic-based Buddhist Text: "Unity can only be manifested by the Binary. Unity itself and the idea of Unity are already two." Source: sourcesofinsight.com...

I'm not sure I agree with the Buddhist text but it is an appeal to logical reason. The problem with your position is that simply by incorporating reasonable or logical statements into a religion, they are then banned from schools under what you propose. Are you okay with the vast majority of unreasonable posters and just not okay with religion-based ones? If it is the unreasonableness that is the issue, then ban the unreasonableness, no?

The rule "church and state must be separate" can be fairly interpreted by a judge to mean that school teachers must all be atheists or agnostics in order to keep religion out of school. Its a bad idea to put rules on the books that can be interpreted that way.

Theocracies have never been about respecting rights. Look up theocracies of past and present. Ahhem..Sharia law.

Correct, which is why I said a Theocracy that respects rights will likely never exist.

If the one and only difference in the US was that for the next ten years the US government runs ads for Christianity on TV and in schools, teachers all lead Christian prayers each hour, Christianity was a class taught in school, and Christian churches were being given government money, the only effect of that would arguably be a dramatic waste of money. Unless you're telling someone they are going to go to hell I don't see any potential for mental damages to happen during the Christian class. Could the money be better spent? Yes. But if that is what you call a Theocracy I would say it isn't any more or less tyrannical than today's world. People under such a circumstance would still have the freedom to adapt any religion of their choice without political repercussions since that is the grounds for the scenario I describe. Religious speech and religious punishment are a world apart.

The only part of the OP that should be stopped is ridicule of students and docking of grades based on religious or philosophic differences. Religious speech should not be banned, only punishing someone over their religion or philosophy should be banned.

fractal2
only punishing someone over their religion or philosophy should be banned.

That is usually the result when a school promotes a specific religion and it is the very reason why they no longer have that right.

reply to post by fractal2

Doing anything with the intention to harm someone is against natural law.

Please learn what Natural law is.

Parts of religion are without reason. Other parts are with reason. Reason-based Christian text

I will say it as many times as I need to. Religion is without reason. I take it you want to cherry pick pieces of religion and say well that part makes sense. Well you don't need religion to have common sense and common sense says religion is without reason. I have no idea why you are bringing up Buddhist text because the family nor is anyone here trying to make a case for Buddhism to be taught is public school.

Are you okay with the vast majority of unreasonable posters and just not okay with religion-based ones? If it is the unreasonableness that is the issue, then ban the unreasonableness, no?

I think I have been consistently clear on this issue. The state has no business promoting religion.(any religion)

The rule "church and state must be separate" can be fairly interpreted by a judge to mean that school teachers must all be atheists or agnostics in order to keep religion out of school. Its a bad idea to put rules on the books that can be interpreted that way.

You have been consistently wrong and have demonstrated a lack of understanding on law and this issue more times than I care to count. By your interpretation they should only hire virgins as teachers if you want to teach abstinence because in your mind home and work life can't be separated.

Correct, which is why I said a Theocracy that respects rights will likely never exist.

No this is what you said.

There is no legitimate Republic or Theocracy in existence and there may have never been.

That just demonstrates that you still have no idea what a Theocracy is.

Taken literally or strictly, theocracy means rule by God or gods and refers primarily to an internal "rule of the heart", especially in its biblical application. The common, generic use of the term, as defined above in terms of rule by a church or analogous religious leadership, would be more accurately described as an ecclesiocracy

I have no idea who educated you but they obviously didn't teach you these concepts. Theocracies are not systems where rights and freedoms are respected. They have nothing to do with rights and freedoms.

These are theocracies: Holy See (Vatican City), Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

If the one and only difference in the US was that for the next ten years the US government runs ads for Christianity on TV and in schools, teachers all lead Christian prayers each hour, Christianity was a class taught in school, and Christian churches were being given government money, the only effect of that would arguably be a dramatic waste of money.

Right, because indoctrination and propaganda never influences anything. Hitler would disagree.

The only part of the OP that should be stopped is ridicule of students and docking of grades based on religious or philosophic differences. Religious speech should not be banned, only punishing someone over their religion or philosophy should be banned.

Religious speech shouldn't be state funded either. Public schools are the property of the state, teachers are employes of the state while working for the state they are funded by the state. They can freely speak about religion all they want on their own time and dime. Teaching religion is not their job and to do so should be grounds for termination. The good news is they would have plenty of time to freely speak about religion.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I believe individuals should have equal rights to collections of individuals. Governments are collections of individuals. Individuals have a right to promote one specific religion. Therefore, governments have the right to promote one specific religion. Should they? No. Should they be allowed to? Yes.

The evidence that Christianity as it exists today hurts people is very weak at best. What evidence is there that Christianity hurts people? There is evidence that teacher ridicule hurts people regardless of the topic, I'm sure of that much.

I've noticed that common sense is often wrong. Uncommon sense is often more valuable. For example, most people believe governments should borrow and spend instead of save and spend, as evidenced that is what always happens for all governments in all places that I know of. That is something I view as bad common sense. I'm sure everyone can think of an idea of bad common sense.

I don't understand written laws but I understand natural law. As the page you linked to says, natural law is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal. By nature, it is wrong to act with the intention to harm someone. By nature, it is wrong for a teacher to ridicule a student. By nature, it is wrong for a teacher to dock a students grade over differences of philosophy. By nature, it is wrong to ban speech on the grounds that it is without reason.

Divine Inspiration is the most stated grounds on which texts are adopted into a religion. Mormons will tell you that the US Constitution is a divinely inspired document. The "prophet" of the Mormon religion is fairly clear on that. Mormons will often be very explicit to say the US Constitution is part of their religion. A rule saying "church and state must be separate" could fairly result in a ruling that US constitution must now be banned from public schools. www.mormonwiki.com... and www.lds.org...

You can and should instruct schools as a taxpayer to request that they remove all unreasonable items from their wall that are not there helping anyone. But, demanding that on the grounds of separation of church and state is reducing the freedom of expression.

Is it within the governments rights to promote one specific diet? Is it possible for government to promote one specific diet without putting people at a disadvantage if they reject the diet? If so, then it is also possible for government to promote one specific religion without putting people at a disadvantage if they reject the religion. There is a big difference between something being a bad idea and something being a banned idea. While promoting one specific religion is possibly bad, it shouldn't be banned. Banning everything perceived as bad or unreasonable results in tyranny.

To reiterate the main point:
I believe individuals should have equal rights to collections of individuals. Governments are collections of individuals. Individuals have a right to promote one specific religion. Therefore, governments have the right to promote one specific religion. Should they? No. Should they be allowed to? Yes.

fractal2
Should they? No. Should they be allowed to? Yes.

Take a real good look at this and ask yourself why you are arguing so hard for government to be allowed to do something that you don't think they should be doing.

hrm, some things to note, here:


Recently, I was thinking about becoming a substitute teacher in the local parishes of Louisiana, and am still thinking about it:

In the job-rich south, my parish has 52 teacher jobs open, as of a week ago. The parish my mother-in-law teaches in, has just about as many. Walking in from off the street, without any degree or certification, I could sub for 40% of a full teacher's salary, and that bumps up to 65% after the first few weeks on the job. I wouldn't be giving up my regular job, and could take the Praxis over this coming summer: which is part of the "certification". Maybe even within a few years actually be a "full-fledged teacher", if I really wanted to.

But why are there so many teaching jobs open when some areas are hurting for a job? Why aren't teachers that are laid off in other states coming here to pick up this job surplus?

I thought that it was just because of the increase in "common core" usage (that even the teachers can't stand)--or maybe the severe increase of documentation (paperwork) required to teach, do referrals, ect. That was increasing even as I was going into education in college (enough so that I was willing to drop out over the thought of having to deal with this AND kids).

The rumour is that someone up at the state level is invested in off-site teaching, and is deliberately rigging the system into driving enough educated and qualified teachers out of their jobs. This is what the teachers are grumbling about.

When I mentioned to my father that I was thinking about going into teaching, he darn near begged me not to.

His reasoning:

One of these kids is going to cause me to cold-cock them. (Yes, students in the classroom can be that bad. Aunt-in-law looks at the 52 openings as "job security", and is willing to go toe-to-toe with the kids. She's got nothing but trouble in her classroom.)

The state does NOTHING to protect teachers from lawsuits in this state. Becoming a teacher means that I can be bankrupted by a kid who is bigger than me, who lifts more weight than I can, whom I was forced to defend myself against.

So I'm not so sure it's worth going for these jobs with the type of litigation that happens in this state.

reply to post by fractal2

I believe individuals should have equal rights to collections of individuals. Governments are collections of individuals. Individuals have a right to promote one specific religion. Therefore, governments have the right to promote one specific religion. Should they? No. Should they be allowed to? Yes.

Sure they can I even gave you a list of countries that do just that. Maybe those are your ideal. I already told you if the citizens of the US wish to they can in THIS POST.

The evidence that Christianity as it exists today hurts people is very weak at best. What evidence is there that Christianity hurts people? There is evidence that teacher ridicule hurts people regardless of the topic, I'm sure of that much.

Here is a link to such evidence. Please take the time to review it.

I've noticed that common sense is often wrong. Uncommon sense is often more valuable. For example, most people believe governments should borrow and spend instead of save and spend, as evidenced that is what always happens for all governments in all places that I know of. That is something I view as bad common sense. I'm sure everyone can think of an idea of bad common sense.

Whoever told you that was an example of common sense didn't have a lick of common sense.

I don't understand written laws

I believe you.

Please take the time to educate yourself on the United States below is information every citizen should have at least a basic understanding of.
About America How the United States Is Governed

Divine Inspiration is the most stated grounds on which texts are adopted into a religion. Mormons will tell you that the US Constitution is a divinely inspired document. The "prophet" of the Mormon religion is fairly clear on that.

Mormons, really? You mean the religious group from US history who waged war on the US. The first 911. The guy who conned people into letting him have multiple wives who read golden tablets out of a hat and told everyone to wear magic underwear. Devine inspiration you say? SouthPark has a song about that the chorus goes. DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM.

A rule saying "church and state must be separate" could fairly result in a ruling that US constitution must now be banned from public schools.

Right, because religious zealots never make up complete BS.

You can and should instruct schools as a taxpayer to request that they remove all unreasonable items from their wall that are not there helping anyone.

Actually that is what the legal system is for. Which is why this is going to court.

Is it within the governments rights to promote one specific diet? Is it possible for government to promote one specific diet without putting people at a disadvantage if they reject the diet?

WHAT?

If so, then it is also possible for government to promote one specific religion without putting people at a disadvantage if they reject the religion. There is a big difference between something being a bad idea and something being a banned idea. While promoting one specific religion is possibly bad, it shouldn't be banned. Banning everything perceived as bad or unreasonable results in tyranny.

So which Theocracy of past or present would you like to live in? Which one in your opinion is so great?

To reiterate the main point:
I believe individuals should have equal rights to collections of individuals. Governments are collections of individuals. Individuals have a right to promote one specific religion. Therefore, governments have the right to promote one specific religion.

A government is the system by which a state or community is governed.[1] In Commonwealth English, a government more narrowly refers to the particular executive in control of a state at a given time[2]—known in American English as an administration. In American English, government refers to the larger system by which any state is organised.[3] Furthermore, government is occasionally used in English as a synonym for governance.
In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists of legislators, administrators, and arbitrators. Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. A form of government, or form of state governance, refers to the set of political systems and institutions that make up the organisation of a specific government.
Government of any kind currently affects every human activity in many important ways. For this reason, political scientists generally argue that government should not be studied by itself; but should be studied along with anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, science, and sociology.

Individuals have a right to promote one specific religion.

Yes they do in the US.

Therefore, governments have the right to promote one specific religion. Should they? No. Should they be allowed to? Yes.

Goverments, yes. US goverment, NO, no it does not have that right.

Should they? No.

And that is why the founding fathers of the US made sure we didn't become a theocracy.

Should they be allowed to? Yes.

Sure, and if you ever find yourself forming a government you can have at it, however the United States formed its government a long time ago and this government does not promote religion.


Side note:
You have a computer please start using it to look up the subjects you are talking about. Theocracy and government to start with and if you have never heard of it you definitely need to read this. Treaty of Tripoli