Teacher Fired: Said Bible Is Not Literal
 

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app...709220333/1001

Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Disgusting traitors.

on the face of it, that is pretty outrageous. Can you imagine trying to teach a Western Civilization class without reference to religion? Impossible.

I suspect there's more to the story, though. There always is. This article said the students were offended by his teaching style:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app...=2007709250379

You can be professional and scholarly, without being rude to people's beliefs.

Religion in Western civilization should be taught from a historic standpoint. I'm in Western Civ right now and my teacher has done a good job with not confusing religious views with religious history.

If you teach christianity on par as all other religions ignorant people are going to be offended... that needs to be ignored.
I took several mythology classes and it was treated the same, students were always offended and their complaints dismissed. It worked out fine, as it should.

in an ideal world, teachers would be able to encourage their students to think outside their viewpoints, and students would not be offended.

Guess we already know what kind of world we live in.

When I say dismissed, I did not imply rudely.
Edit:
I taught a two-day series on Tibet and Buddhism. I dealt with a LOT of christians and did so gently.

But, as a teacher of mythology or religion, it is not your job to tell your students they are right when they are not just to make them happy.

Well, I remember one of my old teacher's (chemistry if it matters) announcing that anyone who believes in a literal translation of the bible is an idiot not worthy of graduating.

Is that type of comment really necessary for the teaching of a course? I didn't think so then, and I don't think so now, but I just chalk him up as an asshole - not someone who needs to be fired.

I would say that it's also not a teachers job to tell a student they're wrong just to satisfy his own belief structure.

In matters of faith, no one has ever been proven right or wrong, so there must always be scope for understanding to be created. That doesn't mean you need to believe what someone tells you. Just learn to understand why they believe it.

That's what good teaching is about.

I think it kind of depends on the level of education you're at and the role that's expected of the teacher. A school teacher has no business telling pupils that their strongly held religious beliefs are erroneous.

A university lecturer would be slightly different, given that they are supposed to present their analysis. They still should not be specifically saying "you are wrong" but there's nowt wrong with having an analysis that precludes them being right.

Both of these could be good teachers.

I remember my 9th grade World Cultures teachers opining that anyone who didn't believe in god had their head in a bucket. I don't know exactly what that means but it pissed me off at the time. She was insane.

My 13 year old niece is running rings around her Religious Studies teacher at school at the moment. Her dad's a committed atheist and has brought her up to question things. Her teacher is a bit flaky...she teaches about all different religions but she herself seems to have adopted a confused partial-christianity. She makes it clear that she thinks there is a God and has a tendency to expect that the children will tackle the subject from the direction of belief (of whichever faith) which is disturbing from the perspective of a high school teacher.

Especially as Religious education is compulsory.

There y'go rk, now that is something you and I will both agree is appalling; however, this is not due to some recent upsurge in religious sentiment, but rather a survival of an earlier age, which due to resistance from some of the religious sections of society, has proved devilish difficult to dislodge.


An interesting take on this from Guardian Unlimited's Comment is Free section:


http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...s_learned.html


[my bold] Now, see that's how I remember RE teachers being. In the main, even if they did believe in God, they tended to be fairly unenthused by their subject. My RE teacher in the 3rd year (age 13/14) just sent us off on loads of 'research missions' in the school library, digging out books of the Hindu gods and drawing pictures of Shiva or other mundane, make work shit that left her to get on with her paperwork :P

on a side note, I really don't understand how anyone can believe that sacred books are literal.

I know people do, but it just doesn't make sense to me. How can man know the mind of God? They can't, so to me, sacred texts are a way to filter and interpret the unknowable. Jesus himself spoke in parables, as a way to teach. They are meant to be examples, springboards, to reach deep into the soul to for understanding. People who take every word literally are missing the deeper truths.

But that's just my take on it.

Religious education is compulsory in the UK?

Yes. All children have to take Religious education (also called religious studies) the curriculum for which covers all the major religions, their history, their practices etc.

In terms of christianity...according to the Education Act of 1945( I think) all state school must be run "along broadly Christian principles".

Not only is it compulsory that children study religion until they are fifteen, nnder current law, all state schools "must provide daily collective worship for all registered pupils", apart from those withdrawn by their parents. Children may choose to opt out without their parents' permission from the age of 16.

In reality most schools give a very cursory nod to this requirement. The 'prayer' is usually part of a wider assembly message about getting along with your fellows and being charitable and stuff like that. 70% of schools in Wales 'fail' to adhere to the law in this regard. I don't have the figures for England, but my guess would be that many don't comply fully.

Church and state are not separate -Christianity is the national religion.

That said, there's way more Christianity/religion in state business here than there is there. From my observations.

And the reigning monarch is also the Defender of the Faith.


[yet, as the writer of that piece suggests, we are a pretty godless bunch.]

RE was horribly dull, but I find that I have a much better understanding of the various religions and their similarities than many of my peers here. It also helped confirm my beliefs. Here, I too frequently encounter very scary "but they sacrifice animals" type comments, which is what results when your only religious education is in the faith of your parents.

Good point.

I actually think the RE curriculum is pretty decent. It can and is abused by some teachers, but most kids get a fairly rounded understanding of various world religions. What I have more of a problem with is the compulsory act of daily worship. Though as I have said, it is rarely conducted in the spirit of a religious exercise and more by way of offering a useful moral or ethical message in the daily assembly meeting.

Assembly was horrible, but my parents wouldn't let me opt out. The only kids who didn't attend were the Jehovah's Witnesses. We all tried to convince the teachers we were JW too. All the Hindus and Muslims just joined it. The hymns in junior school were quite fun to sing. In high school, it was hard to spot the Christianity in the twice-weekly assemblies.

It is kind of bizarre, that we have the Church as a central pillar of the State, yet are a profoundly secular society.



[eta] ahahahah you lot tried the Jovo excuse too then?:P I seem to recall we had pretty much al out kids in assembly (obviously apart from the Jovos) And you're right, it really was hard to spot the religion in assemblies. Sometimes the religious aspect was some little parable which then related to a real world situation (bit like Thought for The Day) but the emphasis was on the lesson, not the faith aspect: e.g. good samaritan. Other times, it was just a non religious assembly with a quick recitation of the Lord's Prayer atthe end, which was rushed out by 500 kids with no feeling whatsoever :P

huh. I did not realize that, you guys. I mean, I knew intellectually, historically, that Britain does not have "separation of church and state," cause, you know, that was kind of the colonists' point (one of them, anyway), but didn't realize that your schools included compulsory RE.

Comparative religions is pretty much taught here through history and social studies classes. This was true for me, though obviously I can't speak for all US kids. (Do they still teach history and social studies? <cough>.

Oddly enough, in 9th grade, we studied the Old Testament in literature class--as literature. This was very valuable to me, because otherwise I would not have read it, and knowledge of the Bible is important for cultural literacy, at a minimum. No one said a thing about it back then. But it was, um (counts backward) - about 1970. Guess that's an indicator of how the cultural climate has changed here since then.

In my secondary school we only had Assembly once a week and although there was occasionally a prayer, there was definitely NO daily act of worship. Even though I came from a Catholic school with daily prayers (including grace before lunch) I didn't miss it. The Floyd wasn't affiliated with a faith so it would have seemed odd to pray there.

We learned comparatively little about the other world religions though. Our only full-time RE teacher (some had it as a secondary subject) was a committed Christian. The fish wearing sort. I don't know if this allowed her to bend the curriculum in any way? We couldn't take an exam in it anyway (which annoyed me as I knew I could do it with my eyes closed after living it for 16 years)

I learned most of what I know about other religions after I left schoool. In fact after I stopped believing in the Christian God.

In my senior English class (public school, 1998) we studied the Book of Ruth, the Book of Job, and the play J.B. (which is based off the Book of Job.) It was presented as historical literature, alongside The Epic of Gilgamesh and a few others.

But our teacher was a defrocked minister, so he may have been more willing to push the envelope in that respect than some other teachers would have been. :)

I think all public religious teachers should be required to be able to present a compelling argument for and against each of the religious theories he/she is teaching.

"teacher! leave those kids alone!"

;)

Religious theories?
LOL, why is Thor mythology and not fact, hilarious? Waste of time. Mythology/religion is just to be taught as a class, the information, that is all. That is the only way I have ever been taught it.
If they want it taught as fact they should take a theology class.

RE classes are pretty important in my opinion. There is some effort by some schools here to teach about different faiths, but not all. It's not a subject that's compulsory here but I have my kids in the classes which are designed to be more philisophical than factual. The idea is to get the kids to start thinking about how religion affects world events as well as how it affects people personally.

Actually I was taught Norse myths, Greek and Roman - and Christian (religion, because it's still practised today) on the basis that - as Cloud says - it helps with an understanding of literature.

I taught myself the basics of the Egyptian pantheon before I went there because I knew it would make my trip more interesting - as there aren't any major works available in hieroglypics so I hadn't come across those stories before.

RK I do understand where you're coming from - but can't you see that your strident condemnation doesn't help advance the cause of logical atheism? I'm not suggesting for a second that you're murderous. but you can be as confrontational in your own beliefs as some fundamentalists.

Nobody worships Thor anymore, do they?

RE covers the history of religion as well.

Atheism is a lack of a belief, not a belief.
I actually met a Thor worshiper once... they are out there.

Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it's a lack of faith :P

It is something you believe in. Other people believe something different. I also believe it is true (there is no god or gods, no creator etc) but I cannot prove it. Therefore it is a belief.

Not believing something because of lack of proof does not mean you believe in something.

If there is no evidence at all for something, it is not a belief that it does not exist - it is technical fact, and believing otherwise is a belief.
Or something like that, it's late and i just hung out with a (pretty hot) friend I havent seen in a long time whos visiting from singapore. I'm not entirely in my best state of mind right now, haha.

the burden of proof lies on the one making a positive assertion; you can't prove a negative.

Personally, I find that "belief" is a dirty word.

Anything outside of the phrase "I believe I'll have another beer."

- Pie

I think possibly our definitions of belief are at odds. I believe that socialism is a better system than laissez faire capitalism. I believe I am a good person. I do not believe in God, but I also actively believe there is a scientific explanation for everything (even if we haven't found them all). I believe there is no God.

Yes, the burden of proof is on the person stating something does exist, and it seems somewhat strange to actively believe in the absence of something, but belief is simply another of our mechanisms, or tools, with which we rationalise our world. The world I live in has a majority of people who believe in a God, or Gods. Historically, people have generally accepted the existence of Gods and other supernatural explanations of the world. Because of that, it is actually us who have a duty to provide the proof, since we are the ones seeking to change the status quo, and overturn accepted 'truths'.

Yes, "belief" certainly isn't wrong by itself. The problem comes when people think belief based on blind faith should be given the same weight as belief secured by provable data.

Agreed. But...given that I am not a scientist, and in truth have not the relevant knowledge and expertise to properly assess the validity of the data that scientists produce, nor indeed to understand a great deal of the theory...surely by accepting their facts my belief in them is partially blind.

Nor do I claim to understand even a tiny fraction of all that is factually known. The times when a single person could hope to encompass all human knowledge is long, long gone.

Sidenote: issues of fact, belief and provability are currently taking center stage in my life. I'm currently serving on a jury in a criminal trial; hopefully I'll get to discuss it in depth once it's all over.

Oh that sounds really interesting. I look forward to your insights.

Are you allowed to do that Pie? Over here, you basically get sworn to secrecy after you've been on a jury.

Given that former jurors write books about their trials, I would guess that I can discuss it. But I will ask the judge!

lol...it's ok. I just wondered seriously because when I did jury duty on a criminal case, we were told we could never discuss the case in detail with anyone other than one confidant, and that writing books etc was strictly prohibited. I thought it was odd that he'd say such a thing at the time, but obviously now I know why. ;)

Lack of belief is more like agnosticism. Atheism is the belief there is no god.

Many worship him from afar -after all he is pretty cute- but they soon back off when they realize the true extent of his warmongering capabilities. And the mess he leaves behind.

The definition of atheism should be a lack of belief in any higher power but the meaning got hijacked. Agnosticism is uncertainty. Anti-religious is to deny a certain god.

Most atheists are to religion as someone without a hobby is to stamp collecting. We don't say someone that is without a hobby denies the hobby of stamp collecting, that just sounds stupid, atheism should be the same. Unfortunately, the world is too Christian and Islam centric to change the meaning of atheism.

What rot! Atheists believe there is not god, not that there is no religion. If aren't surre about the non-existence of a god, you're not an atheist. Your analogy sucks -the stamp collecting would be the religion the stamps would be the god.
Atheists would not believe that the stamps existed -no interest in the people who collect them.

A lot of atheists does not believe that god exists but do not deny that it is a possibility. I do not believe that Zeus is king of the gods but I won't deny it fully because I can not prove that Zeus is not king of the gods. I do not believe in the Christian god but I do not deny it either.

ummm....if you believe there is not god, then you do deny that it is a possibility. Have you no logic? If you're pretty sure there isn't a god, but not 100%, agnostic is probably closer to the mark.


You're mistaken to call yourself an atheist.

(That's not to say you're mistaken about your religious perceptions, just about the label you are giving yourself.)

It seems atheist is the new Wiccan...

Does that mean you believe in every god that has ever been described?

I always thought an atheist believed there is no god(s) and an agnostic doesn't know or care.

that was my understanding also Bruce. I think you're right.

There are different classifications/levels/designations of atheists.
Some feel they have enough data to believe there is no god.
Declarative statement, there are very few.
Most just do not believe in a god. Non-declarative, not enough evidence.
But they do state that since there is not enough evidence to believe and one should not labor under the illusion that there is. The probability is that there is not and until evidence presents itself there is no reason to believe.
I have never met an atheist that will not say that they believe that there is no Christian/Jewish/Islamic God of the Bible/Torah/Koran, declarative statement.
Agnostics just do not care, they are neutral.


Some call declarative atheists hard or level 1 atheists.
Some call non-declarative atheists soft or level 2 atheists.

Well whether you have factual evidence or not doesn't really matter does it? If you don't believe then you're an atheist. if you're not sure and you don't really care, then you're agnostic.

You have to recognize a god to deny it. If someone is raised in an environment where a god is not even mentioned, how would you label that person? They can not be an atheist according to you because they need to deny a god, but that person can not do that because they have no god to deny. They would not be considered agnostic for the same reasons.

And no, just because you do not believe in a god does not mean you rule out all possibility for the same reason evolution and gravity are still considered a theories, lack of universal evidence. I am basically positive there is no god but I do not have the universal proof to back it up with, so I will not be arrogant enough to deny it.

Belief has nothing to do with evidence so it is very possible to believe in something but say you do not have the universal proof to prove it, gravity for example. When you change it to negative terms it works the same way, I believe there is no god but I do not have evidence to universally disprove god, so I am not going to deny it.

I don't call myself an atheist, I call myself a non-theist for this exact reason.

Incorrect.
A - non theist- believer of god.
That is all it means, nothing more.
I do not believe in a god, I am atheist. It could not be more simple.
Non-theists are atheists, agnostics are atheists... call it what you want. If you do not believe in a god(s), you are an atheist.

Because we use language to communicate.

I think it's semantics really. This discussion is going round in circles.

You fellas can have at it. :alien:

Nope. You have to recognise the concept of a god. Which clearly we all do to some extent or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

the difference between atheist and non-theist is none. They mean the same thing. sematically. The prefix a- means not or without.