News: Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal
Howard
The community college instructor says
the school sided with students offended
by his explanation of Adam and Eve.
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
September 22, 2007
A community college instructor in Red Oak
claims he was fired after he told his students that
the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be
literally interpreted.
Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at
Southwestern Community College sided with a
handful of students who threatened legal action
over his remarks in a western civilization class
Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
Read more at...
<http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333>
Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
snex
if you wouldnt like a professor saying it *should* be taken literally,
then you shouldnt like a professor saying it *shouldnt* be. i can only
imagine the howling going on if a professor said the opposite.
professors shouldnt be expressing their opinions as facts in either
case.
Ouroboros_Rex
"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1190658808.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, the undeniable fact is that, in a history class, it shouldn't be
taken seriously.
Ouroboros_Rex
"Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
news:fd90la$7f2$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
er, literally.
snex
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
then why do historians take it seriously?
Harold Saxon
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Ah but what is history, to someone like myself, it is the yesterday
that you haven't experienced yet.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bob
Absolutely, if a professor says that christian mythology should be taken
literally, he has no business being a professor.
> professors shouldnt be expressing their opinions as facts in either
> case.
Why not? In this case it is fact.
--
“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a
cross.”
- Sinclair Lewis.
John Harshman
They don't, of course. Find a historian who considers the Adam & Eve
story to have any historical content (other than as a record of what
stories people were telling several thousand years ago, that is).
Ralph
"Howard" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:46F7FF8F...@privacy.net...
> Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal
>
So HE says.
The College itself is not making the reason for his dismissal public. We
should perhaps gather all the facts before chartering buses for a trip to
Red Oak.
-ralph
snex
what i "should" or "shouldnt" do is never a fact. it is a matter of
subjective opinion.
Arkalen
Are you implying historians take the story of Adam and Eve seriously ?
Well, I guess they could at that, given the origins of humanity aren't
strictly covered by the field of history. But I'm still baffled by
your comment that seems to imply some correlation between being a
historian and taking the Adam and Eve story seriously.
snex
wrote:
find a historian who doesnt take the babylonian exile seriously.
Arkalen
the other room, should I smother it ?
Just because "should" and "shouldn't" is a matter of subjective
opinion doesn't mean acting like it is is conducive to a society
that's nice to live in. Just like the fact that there's no such thing
as "free will" doesn't mean our legal system should be thrown down the
drain.
So do you believe teachers should have the right to tell their
students *anything they please* ?
snex
teachers do not have the right to violate the first amendment rights
of their students by making religious assertions.
Will in New Haven
But his opinion is the fact. Only a howling moron would take Genesis
literally.
Will in New Haven
--
I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power.
Will in New Haven
He was making an historical assertion.The events in the early part of
Genesis are a-historical and should not be taken seriously _as
history_ Later events in the Bible, such sa the Babylonian exile that
you mentioned elsethread, are historical events and can be taken
seriously and examined in context. Discussing the _religious_ meaning
of Genesis in a history class would be out of place, as would
discussing the importance of Bal or Marduk in modern life.
I think it would be a violation of the rights of the students who
complained to shoot them down in the street. I would DO it, you
understand, but I should not be allowed to do it.
Will in New Haven
--
- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
We could discuss that question, but I would rather ignore it, because
it's irrelevant. The thread subject is the Adam & Eve story, not the
bible in general. Parts of the bible are factual, but it's highly
doubtful that any part of Genesis is.
snex
what does being factual have to do with how i should interpret it?
doesnt the first amendment address this issue already?
snex
being a howling moron is a right guaranteed by the first amendment.
Arkalen
If the subject is relevant to what they're teaching they should
certainly teach what is known on the subject. I agree the story of
Adam and Eve doesn't seem directly relevant to history in a strict
sense so you might have a case, but the story is relevant in a widened
definition of history (as in "history of the human species" instead of
the usual "history of the human species since they invented writing")
and it's also relevant in the context of a science class, and history
is a science. Kind of.
Basically what I'm saying is, it depends to some extent on the context
he said that in.
Arkalen
Oh, you were talking of the bible in general, not the Adam & Eve
story ! Well, it turns out a lot of the Bible is *not* historical. And
any historian who has researched his stuff knows what bits have been
confirmed and what bits haven't. Unless they're fundies, as usual.
And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
raven1
That isn't a part of the book of Genesis.
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
snex
that sure sounds like a priori reasoning to me.
>
> And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
> their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
> accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
> the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
> stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
students.
Vend
Did he prevent anyone from being an howling moron?
It doesn't seem so.
It seems that he claimed that the story of Adam and Eve is incorrect
in its litteral interpetation.
If a math teacher says: "to divide both sides of an equation by a
common term you MUST first check that this term is not zero" is he
violating the students right to divide an equation by zero?
Ouroboros_Rex
How is a statement about historical relevance a religious conclusion?
Greg G.
How is a teacher at a college violating young adults' rights to
practice their religions by telling them their doctrine is wrong? He's
not forbidding them to believe it. Why have a college at all if the
teachers can't say anything without offending some obscure religion?
--
Greg G.
I am Dickens of Borg.
It was the best of assimilations,
it was the worst of assimilations.
Will in New Haven
The First Amendment also guarantees people the right to comment on
what other people say. It does not, in fact, protect said howling
moron from derision, from commercial repurcussions or even from my
sticking my middle finger up in front of my like <this>
Civility is an entirely different issue and I'm against it.
Will in New Haven
--
>
>
>
>
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> > --
>
> > I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
snex
i said "the bible." do try to pay attention.
snex
a statement about how students *should* or *should not* interpret
their religious book is a religious conclusion.
Walter Bushell
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
Actually even the parts of the Bible are the most factual are best read
as religious fiction.
snex
if the teacher had said that the story of adam and eve should be
interpreted literally, youd be making the same complaints i am making.
why the double standard?
Walter Bushell
snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> students.
Unfortunately matters of fact are not protected by religious exemption.
You can have a complete religious objection to paying taxes, but that
will not hold against the Infernal Revenue Service.
snex
it does when a teacher is doing it. or do you disagree with the judge
jones decision?
Arkalen
reasoning.
I've read often enough from apparently unbiased sources that
historians in the Middle East find some things that confirm the Bible,
and some things that contradict it. Therefore a historian who knows
his stuff should know this too. And a historian who knows his stuff
but still believes the Bible is a literal source on history, or a
historian who only looks at the evidence that confirms his a priori
beliefs (therefore he doesn't know his stuff), is exhibiting behavior
characteristic of a fundie.
> > And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
> > their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
> > accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
> > the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
> > stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>
> im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> students.
This is not religious conclusions we're talking about, but scientific
ones. Do you believe the Adam and Eve story taken literally is
compatible with what we know of the world through science ?
loua...@yahoo.com
> So HE says.
>
> The College itself is not making the reason for his dismissal public. We
> should perhaps gather all the facts
Oh, you're no fun any more. Kids today, with their logical
positivism....
John Harshman
You are being too elliptical here, and also playing too fast and loose
with antecedents, and wandering off in random directions. All that
results in my having trouble following your argument, whatever it is.
snex
my argument is that we must be consistent when it comes to the first
amendment. if teachers arent allowed to say that the bible should be
taken literally, then they also must not be allowed to say that it
shouldnt be.
John Harshman
What does?
>>And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
>>their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
>>accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
>>the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
>>stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>
> im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> students.
I'm sorry, but I didn't find anything in the first amendment about the
right not to be exposed to statements you disagree with. Could you
refresh my memory? What first amendment rights of students are being
addressed, and how? As far as I know, all the students have done is
complain about being told things they don't like and demand the firing
of a teacher. Nor has anyone questioned their right to complain, only
the validity of their case.
snex
what i believe is that tax-funded schools are not the place to be
discussing the legitimacy of the beliefs of its students.
Arkalen
If an interpretation of the religious book goes against the scientific
evidence, *scientific evidence that the teacher is supposed to be
teaching about*, then they most certainly should be told about it.
Or should teachers talk about facts and science but only as long as it
contradicts no religious interpretation whatsoever ? I'm not sure
there would be much left to teach if they did that.
snex
"we know that the bible is not historical because competent historians
say it isnt. you can tell whether or not an historian is competent by
whether or not they think the bible is historical."
>
> >>And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
> >>their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
> >>accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
> >>the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
> >>stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>
> > im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> > schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> > students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> > students.
>
> I'm sorry, but I didn't find anything in the first amendment about the
> right not to be exposed to statements you disagree with. Could you
> refresh my memory? What first amendment rights of students are being
> addressed, and how? As far as I know, all the students have done is
> complain about being told things they don't like and demand the firing
> of a teacher. Nor has anyone questioned their right to complain, only
> the validity of their case.
then judge jones made the wrong decision?
snex
if you were a biology teacher and your students asked how evolution
could be squared with their christian beliefs, would you think it is
appropriate to tell them how they should interpret christianity? or
would you tell them that christianity is all a bunch of crap anyway so
theres no need to square it with biology? or would you say that they
can believe whatever they want, as long as they learn what they are
expected to learn? what would you do in the situation?
Arkalen
So if a student believes pi=3, or that the Earth is a flat circle, or
that it's carried on the back of a turtle and four elephants, or that
the holocaust didn't happen... Should the teacher not talk about the
subject ?
Arkalen
the Bible is not historical on the word of competent historians but
because of the evidence.
Well, I know it on the word of tv documentaries to tell the truth, or
stuff I read, but please prove me wrong with the suitable internet
link. I'm a bit lazy to do independent research tonight.
>
> > >>And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
> > >>their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
> > >>accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
> > >>the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
> > >>stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>
> > > im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> > > schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> > > students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> > > students.
>
> > I'm sorry, but I didn't find anything in the first amendment about the
> > right not to be exposed to statements you disagree with. Could you
> > refresh my memory? What first amendment rights of students are being
> > addressed, and how? As far as I know, all the students have done is
> > complain about being told things they don't like and demand the firing
> > of a teacher. Nor has anyone questioned their right to complain, only
> > the validity of their case.
>
> then judge jones made the wrong decision?
The Judge Jones decision wasn't about teaching children religion, but
about teaching them science.
Inez
in general that people should be able to tell people things they don't
like to hear, but the government (in this case in the form of a
teacher sponsored by the state) isn't supposed to be taking religious
positions.
Now, I think the issue gets sticky if people's religion makes such
extravegant claims that you can't properly teach a subject without
contradicting them, and this may be a case of that, I don't know. If
a student says "but I thought there wasn't an earth before six
thousand years ago" the teacher pretty much has to speak out there.
But it's not hard to teach a history class without evern mentioning
the bible.
I say it depends on the details.
John Harshman
No, that's circular reasoning. Of course nobody reasons that way, so you
have set up a nice circular strawman.
>>>>And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
>>>>their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
>>>>accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
>>>>the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
>>>>stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>>
>>>im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
>>>schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
>>>students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
>>>students.
>>
>>I'm sorry, but I didn't find anything in the first amendment about the
>>right not to be exposed to statements you disagree with. Could you
>>refresh my memory? What first amendment rights of students are being
>>addressed, and how? As far as I know, all the students have done is
>>complain about being told things they don't like and demand the firing
>>of a teacher. Nor has anyone questioned their right to complain, only
>>the validity of their case.
>
> then judge jones made the wrong decision?
Your thought processes, if so they can be dignified, are opaque to me.
Jones' decision turned upon establishment of religion, which is not
allowed. Teaching ID/creationism is establishment of religion. Saying
the bible is wrong when it's in conflict with the evidence (or, being
tactful as the teacher was, saying that some students' interpretion of
the bible was in conflict with the evidence) is not establishment of
religion. And in fact if he gave any credence to the Adam & Eve story,
*that* would be establishment of religion.
Rusty Sites
Do you actually know what was being discussed? I rather imagine not.
As somebody pointed out, context is important here. What if Adam and
Eve came up because a student objected to something the teacher said on
the grounds that it contradicted the Adam and Eve story? If that
happened, what should the response of the teacher be?
Rodjk #613
Because if he said the story of Adam and Eve was to be taken
literally, he would be wrong.
Saying it is not literally true is accurate.
That is why the situation is different.
Rod
John Harshman
> On Sep 24, 11:19 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 24, 4:13 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>wrote:
[snip]
>>>>im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
>>>>schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
>>>>students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
>>>>students.
>>
>>>I'm sorry, but I didn't find anything in the first amendment about the
>>>right not to be exposed to statements you disagree with. Could you
>>>refresh my memory? What first amendment rights of students are being
>>>addressed, and how? As far as I know, all the students have done is
>>>complain about being told things they don't like and demand the firing
>>>of a teacher. Nor has anyone questioned their right to complain, only
>>>the validity of their case.
>>
>>then judge jones made the wrong decision?
>
>
> The Judge Jones decision wasn't about teaching children religion, but
> about teaching them science.
Well, it was about both, actually. More precisely it was about which
thing the Dover school board was mandating. Jones decided they were
teaching religion, not science. And the first amendment doesn't allow
public schools to do that.
VoiceOfReason
> Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal
>
> The community college instructor says
> the school sided with students offended
> by his explanation of Adam and Eve.
>
> REGISTER STAFF WRITER
>
> September 22, 2007
>
> A community college instructor in Red Oak
> claims he was fired after he told his students that
> the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be
> literally interpreted.
>
> Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at
> Southwestern Community College sided with a
> handful of students who threatened legal action
> over his remarks in a western civilization class
> Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
>
> Read more at...
>
> <http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333>
>
> Howard
> --
> hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
Weird -- I've had teachers say much stranger things and not lose their
job over it. Looks like the school folded under pressure. I can only
imagine how much local Christian groups would be screaming if he'd
been fired for saying the story *should* be interpreted literally.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
John Harshman
You are mistaken. Teachers are allowed to present matters of fact. They
can even be wrong. All the first amendment requires is that they not
have a religious justification for determining fact. That's why the
Dover school board was claiming that ID was science, not religion.
Now, in the current case, the teacher is allowed (or perhaps required)
to come to conclusions about history contrary to the literal
interpretation of Genesis, but they must be for reasons of historical
analysis, not religion. If he said "Genesis is not literally true
because I'm an atheist", you might have a point. But I suspect his
rejection of the story was more likely to have been based on objective data.
No, lightning is not the spear of Zeus. Rama's monkey army did not build
a bridge to Sri Lanka. And the human species is not 6000 years old.
raven1
The OP was referring to the Genesis creation account. Nowhere do you
change the subject to refer to the entire Bible. Nice try.
Greg G.
A statement that contradicts a religious belief need not be a
religious statement. A religious person who takes a non-religious
statement to be a religious statement is incorrect.
For example, there is an Old Testament verse that implies that pi
equals 3. Some religious person may take that as their religious truth
because it reflects the Holy Trinity. Another group may say that the
three should be taken as a metaphor and any integer may be used. It
could be a religious statement that pi is not exactly three but, it
was not a religious statement when an ancient Greek determined that pi
was around 3.14 because those religious groups and their
interpretations were not around. It is not a religious statement today
when a computer determines pi to the billionth decimal place.
If one found an old Hindu text a thousand years ago that said that all
matter exhibits a particle and a wave nature, it would have to be a
religious statement. The two slit experiment, however, would mean that
it is no longer simp;ly a religious statement.
There is no indication that the Genesis story is literally true and
all the evidence contradicts it. Therefore, it is not necessarily a
religious statement to say that Genesis is not a literal tale.
If there were evidence that made a literal interpretation of Genesis a
plausible explanation, then it would not necessarily be a religious
statement to say that is should be read literally. Lacking any
evidence, however, means that claim can only be made on a religious
basis.
So, why have a college if one can't discuss geology, biology,
paleontology, astronomy, religion, etc. without offending a fundie?
--
Greg G.
Of course, 'Romeo and Gertrude' is just a working title. I might be
persuaded to change it for you, M'Lady.
--Shakespeare
.
loua...@yahoo.com
> Ah but what is history, to someone like myself, it is the yesterday
> that you haven't experienced yet.
As much as I like your taste in music, may I mention that you are A
LOONEY? Also, I didn't vote for you.
BTW -- what is all this collapsing-in-another-guy's-arms business. You
haven't gone all Harkness on us, have you?
loua...@yahoo.com
> Now, I think the issue gets sticky if people's religion makes such
> extravegant claims that you can't properly teach a subject without
> contradicting them, and this may be a case of that, I don't know. If
> a student says "but I thought there wasn't an earth before six
> thousand years ago" the teacher pretty much has to speak out there.
I suggest "Have you thought about DeVry? Or, McDonald's is hiring."
The really unusual bit about this one is that instead of being a
primary or secondary school (all together now, "won't SOMEone THINK of
the CHILdren?") this is reported as taking place in a college. A
community college, granted. But you'd still think that the students
would have passed the point where they should be able to hear non-
mommy-approved statements without flipping out. Getting your opinions
challenged is part of the college experience.
Baron Bodissey
You're probably right about that. I suspect it went like this:
Teacher: "Such and such happened in 5280 BC."
Fundy Student: "No, you're wrong; the world wasn't even created until
4004 BC."
So what's your response to that? Snex? Anybody? There can only be one
response if you've got any integrity.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
- Amazon Women on the Moon
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> I'm afraid I think Snex does have a bit of a point. I agree with you
> in general that people should be able to tell people things they don't
> like to hear, but the government (in this case in the form of a
> teacher sponsored by the state) isn't supposed to be taking religious
> positions.
I agree. But I am not sure from the story that he was doing so.
The closest the story came to saying so was wrt an after-class
discussion with a student who got huffy and mentioned throwing
down with loaded lawyers.
> Now, I think the issue gets sticky if people's religion makes such
> extravegant claims that you can't properly teach a subject without
> contradicting them, and this may be a case of that, I don't know. If
> a student says "but I thought there wasn't an earth before six
> thousand years ago" the teacher pretty much has to speak out there.
> But it's not hard to teach a history class without evern mentioning
> the bible.
He appears to have been teaching a Western Civ. class. It is just
about impossible, and if possible, irresponsible, to try to teach
Western Civ. without mentioning the Bible.
> I say it depends on the details.
Yup. That's always where you find the devil.
Erm....
Ken Shackleton
So...if the instructor, on hearing the students' protests, replied by
telling them that they are free to interpret the story of Adam and Eve
in any manner that they see fit outside of this class.....BUT.....for
the purposes of this course [and their grade], it will be treated as a
mythological story, with no more validity than any other non-Christian
mythology.
Inez
> On Sep 24, 4:40 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, I think the issue gets sticky if people's religion makes such
> > extravegant claims that you can't properly teach a subject without
> > contradicting them, and this may be a case of that, I don't know. If
> > a student says "but I thought there wasn't an earth before six
> > thousand years ago" the teacher pretty much has to speak out there.
>
> I suggest "Have you thought about DeVry? Or, McDonald's is hiring."
>
the teacher's right to be rude. But you are officially supposed to
tip-toe around religion if you are being paid by the government for
the words coming out of your mouth.
Chris Thompson
news:1190669258.2...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Well, I am a biology teacher, and when someone asks me that, I tell them
it isn't my job. My job is to teach biology, and if their religion has
some sort of issue with the world as we know it, they need to ask their
priest or pastor to reconcile it. I don't manipulate biology to
accomodate religion; if they want to change their religion to suit the
world as it is, more power to them. Anything else, and they're in denial.
Chris
Chris Thompson
news:_KWJi.407$P21...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:
Hey! Back off on the monkey army!
Chris
Cory Albrecht
> Well, I guess they could at that, given the origins of humanity aren't
> strictly covered by the field of history. But I'm still baffled by
> your comment that seems to imply some correlation between being a
> historian and taking the Adam and Eve story seriously.
There is, I think, a big difference between "a Historian taking the
Bible seriously" and "a Historian taking the Bible literally", and it is
a mistake to conflate the two, which some people in this thread seem to
be doing.
To me, if a historian "takes the Bible seriously", it means that they
are acknowledging the fact that the Bible was a huge influence upon
Western Civilization and how it the motivation for or the used as the
excuse for so many actions for over 1000 years. Similarly, a historian
would also take the Vedas and Upanishads seriosu WRT South and Southeast
Asian civilization, as well as other religious texts each in their own
areas.
I'm sure it is obvious how that is not the same things a belief in the
Bible, literally or metaphorically.
Harold Saxon
> On Sep 24, 1:52 pm, Harold Saxon <saxon.har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ah but what is history, to someone like myself, it is the yesterday
> > that you haven't experienced yet.
>
> As much as I like your taste in music, may I mention that you are A
> LOONEY? Also, I didn't vote for you.
Thanks for the compliment.
>
> BTW -- what is all this collapsing-in-another-guy's-arms business. You
> haven't gone all Harkness on us, have you?
Shouldn't you be asking if the Doctor has turned that way, after all
he was the one that wanted to keep me, he was the one cuddling me, and
he was the one that cried when I died.
John Wilkins
Given Capt. Jack's predilections, it doesn't seem to me that gender is
entirely relevant to the Doctor.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Vamadevananda
> On Sep 24, 2:23 pm, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > literally.
>
> being a howling moron is a right guaranteed by the first amendment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
>
> > I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
But a howling moron will be informed by others that he is a howling
moron. In a history class, where facts with evidence are normally
discussed, the moronic belief about Adam and Eve being historical
entities will definitely be lambasted. What's the grouse ?
Vamadevananda
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 2:47 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 24, 2:29 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > snex wrote:
> >> > > > On Sep 24, 1:58 pm, John Harshman
> >> > > > <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >> > > > wrote:
>
>
> >> > > >>>On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > >>>>"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >> > > >>>>news:1190658808.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > > >>>> shouldn't be
> >> > > >>>>taken seriously.
>
> >> > > >>>then why do historians take it seriously?
>
> >> > > >>Eve
> >> > > >>story to have any historical content (other than as a record of
> >> > > >>what
> >> > > >>stories people were telling several thousand years ago, that is).
>
> >> > > > find a historian who doesnt take the babylonian exile seriously.
>
> >> > > We could discuss that question, but I would rather ignore it, because
> >> > > it's irrelevant. The thread subject is the Adam & Eve story, not the
> >> > > bible in general. Parts of the bible are factual, but it's highly
> >> > > doubtful that any part of Genesis is.
>
> >> > what does being factual have to do with how i should interpret it?
> >> > doesnt the first amendment address this issue already?
>
> >> story ! Well, it turns out a lot of the Bible is *not* historical. And
> >> any historian who has researched his stuff knows what bits have been
> >> confirmed and what bits haven't. Unless they're fundies, as usual.
>
> > that sure sounds like a priori reasoning to me.
>
> >> And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
> >> their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
> >> accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
> >> the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
> >> stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>
> > im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> > schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> > students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> > students.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
How is a religious ' conclusion ' relavant in a history class ?
Vamadevananda
>
> - Show quoted text -
The chain would go like this : Facts >> Learn Facts >> Assess beliefs
in the light of facts ...
Vend
He just pointed out that a litteral interpetation is inconsistent with
evidence.
Arkalen
> On Sep 24, 4:19 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > evidence, *scientific evidence that the teacher is supposed to be
> > teaching about*, then they most certainly should be told about it.
> > Or should teachers talk about facts and science but only as long as it
> > contradicts no religious interpretation whatsoever ? I'm not sure
> > there would be much left to teach if they did that.
>
> if you were a biology teacher and your students asked how evolution
> could be squared with their christian beliefs, would you think it is
> appropriate to tell them how they should interpret christianity? or
> would you tell them that christianity is all a bunch of crap anyway so
> theres no need to square it with biology? or would you say that they
> can believe whatever they want, as long as they learn what they are
> expected to learn? what would you do in the situation?
If I were a biology teacher and my students asked me that, I'd
answer : ask your pastor. I'm not here to teach religion, I'm here to
teach science.
If I had the time to waste I might actually go over a few common
squarings : wholesale rejection of science, theistic evolution,
omphalism, etc. But this would be just to make them understand there
are many options and not all reject science, not to tell them how to
interpret scripture.
What would *you* say ? If you were a biology teacher and one of your
students said "my religion says evolution is false", what would you
do ?
Arkalen
> On Sep 24, 4:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > with antecedents, and wandering off in random directions. All that
> > results in my having trouble following your argument, whatever it is.
>
> my argument is that we must be consistent when it comes to the first
> amendment. if teachers arent allowed to say that the bible should be
> taken literally, then they also must not be allowed to say that it
> shouldnt be.
If the Bible was literally true there would be no problem with
teachers saying to take the Bible literally.
The thing is, a teacher saying to take the Bible literally or not is
wrong if he says it *because of the Bible*.
If he says to take the Bible literally or not *because of the science*
then it's his role as a teacher.
Should a history or geography teacher avoid telling his or her
students that the city of Jerusalem exists and had an important role
in Jewish history just because it happens to agree with what the Bible
says ?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>"Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
>news:fd90la$7f2$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>>
>> "snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>er, literally.
>
You were right = both times :)
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sep 24, 2:47 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 9:35 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 24, 2:29 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > snex wrote:
>> > > > On Sep 24, 1:58 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > >>snex wrote:
>>
>> > > >>>On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >>>>"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > > >>>then why do historians take it seriously?
>>
>> > > >>They don't, of course. Find a historian who considers the Adam & Eve
>> > > >>story to have any historical content (other than as a record of what
>> > > >>stories people were telling several thousand years ago, that is).
>>
>> > > > find a historian who doesnt take the babylonian exile seriously.
>>
>> > > We could discuss that question, but I would rather ignore it, because
>> > > it's irrelevant. The thread subject is the Adam & Eve story, not the
>> > > bible in general. Parts of the bible are factual, but it's highly
>> > > doubtful that any part of Genesis is.
>>
>> > what does being factual have to do with how i should interpret it?
>> > doesnt the first amendment address this issue already?
>>
>> Oh, you were talking of the bible in general, not the Adam & Eve
>> story ! Well, it turns out a lot of the Bible is *not* historical. And
>> any historian who has researched his stuff knows what bits have been
>> confirmed and what bits haven't. Unless they're fundies, as usual.
>
>that sure sounds like a priori reasoning to me.
>
>>
>> And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
>> their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
>> accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
>> the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
>> stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>
>im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
>schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
>students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
>students.
This teacher was being paid to teach history. By no stretch of the
imagination can Adam and Eve be considered historical.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sep 24, 3:16 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190664036.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> How is a statement about historical relevance a religious conclusion?
>
>a statement about how students *should* or *should not* interpret
>their religious book is a religious conclusion.
He was a history teacher. He was telling them how to interpret their
religious book from an historical point of view.
He could not, and should not, lie to his pupils by indicating that the
story of Adam and Eve was anything other than a fairy story.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sep 24, 4:19 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 10:55 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 24, 3:16 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:1190664036.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > On Sep 24, 2:47 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On Sep 24, 9:35 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > On Sep 24, 2:29 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> > > >> > wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > > snex wrote:
>> > > >> > > > On Sep 24, 1:58 pm, John Harshman
>> > > >> > > > <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> > > >> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > > >>snex wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > > >>>On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > > >>>>"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > > >> And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
>> > > >> their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
>> > > >> accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
>> > > >> the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
>> > > >> stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
>>
>> > > > im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
>> > > > schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
>> > > > students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
>> > > > students.
>>
>> > > How is a statement about historical relevance a religious conclusion?
>>
>> > a statement about how students *should* or *should not* interpret
>> > their religious book is a religious conclusion.
>>
>> If an interpretation of the religious book goes against the scientific
>> evidence, *scientific evidence that the teacher is supposed to be
>> teaching about*, then they most certainly should be told about it.
>> Or should teachers talk about facts and science but only as long as it
>> contradicts no religious interpretation whatsoever ? I'm not sure
>> there would be much left to teach if they did that.
>
>if you were a biology teacher and your students asked how evolution
>could be squared with their christian beliefs, would you think it is
>appropriate to tell them how they should interpret christianity? or
>would you tell them that christianity is all a bunch of crap anyway so
>theres no need to square it with biology? or would you say that they
>can believe whatever they want, as long as they learn what they are
>expected to learn? what would you do in the situation?
The correct answer to that student's question would be "Sorry, it
cannot be squared. Evolution is science based on evidence, religion is
superstition based on fairy stories."
That is the honest answer, the correct answer.
--
Bob.
Will in New Haven
> On Sep 24, 3:46 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 3:16 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 2:08 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 24, 8:59 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 24, 1:53 pm, bob <b...@home.org> wrote:
>
> > > > > > literally, he has no business being a professor.
>
> > > > > > > case.
>
>
> > > > > what i "should" or "shouldnt" do is never a fact. it is a matter of
> > > > > subjective opinion.
>
> > > > Sure, be nihilistic about it. By the way there's this baby crying in
> > > > the other room, should I smother it ?
> > > > Just because "should" and "shouldn't" is a matter of subjective
> > > > opinion doesn't mean acting like it is is conducive to a society
> > > > that's nice to live in. Just like the fact that there's no such thing
> > > > as "free will" doesn't mean our legal system should be thrown down the
> > > > drain.
>
> > > > So do you believe teachers should have the right to tell their
> > > > students *anything they please* ?
>
> > > teachers do not have the right to violate the first amendment rights
> > > of their students by making religious assertions.
>
> > How is a teacher at a college violating young adults' rights to
> > practice their religions by telling them their doctrine is wrong? He's
> > not forbidding them to believe it. Why have a college at all if the
> > teachers can't say anything without offending some obscure religion?
>
> if the teacher had said that the story of adam and eve should be
> interpreted literally, youd be making the same complaints i am making.
> why the double standard?
Because he would be teaching very bad _history_ He isn't in a theology
(the study of nothing) course, so he is telling his students, as best
he can, the historical facts. Adam and Eve are not historical
characters. The bible isn't a historical document. These are facts.
The students may, if they wish, continue in their ignorance, as may
you. However, saying anything but what the teacher is saying would be
_lying_
Will in New Haven
--
"Fuck YOU, we do what we want" - Grace Sllick, Paul Kantner 1975
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Greg G.
>
> > I am Dickens of Borg.
> > It was the best of assimilations,
> > it was the worst of assimilations.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Will in New Haven
> On Sep 24, 3:52 pm, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:> > > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > > > case.
>
> > > > literally.
>
> > > being a howling moron is a right guaranteed by the first amendment.
>
> > what other people say. It does not, in fact, protect said howling
> > moron from derision, from commercial repurcussions or even from my
> > sticking my middle finger up in front of my like <this>
>
> jones decision?
I agree with the teacher.
Will in New Haven
--
I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Civility is an entirely different issue and I'm against it.
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> > --
>
> > > > Will in New Haven
>
> > > > --
>
> > > > I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power.
>
Will in New Haven
> On Sep 24, 4:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > snex wrote:
> > > On Sep 24, 2:29 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >>snex wrote:
>
> > >>>On Sep 24, 1:58 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > >>>wrote:
>
> > >>>>snex wrote:
>
> > >>>>>On Sep 24, 1:45 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>"snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > >>>>>>news:1190658808.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >>>>>>taken seriously.
>
> > >>>>>then why do historians take it seriously?
>
> > >>>>They don't, of course. Find a historian who considers the Adam & Eve
> > >>>>story to have any historical content (other than as a record of what
> > >>>>stories people were telling several thousand years ago, that is).
>
> > >>>find a historian who doesnt take the babylonian exile seriously.
>
> > >>We could discuss that question, but I would rather ignore it, because
> > >>it's irrelevant. The thread subject is the Adam & Eve story, not the
> > >>bible in general. Parts of the bible are factual, but it's highly
> > >>doubtful that any part of Genesis is.
>
> > > what does being factual have to do with how i should interpret it?
> > > doesnt the first amendment address this issue already?
>
> > with antecedents, and wandering off in random directions. All that
> > results in my having trouble following your argument, whatever it is.
>
> my argument is that we must be consistent when it comes to the first
> amendment. if teachers arent allowed to say that the bible should be
> taken literally, then they also must not be allowed to say that it
> shouldnt be.
History teachers should teach history. Science teachers should teach
science. Saying that the bible shouldn't be taken literally in those
fields is like saying that the Earth goes around the Sun or that
chlorophyl produces energy for plants or that the Red Sox might as
well go shoot themselves. It isn't at all a matter of opinion. When
the bible contradicts what we clearly know to be true, it has to be
pointed out that the bible is wrong. The Earth is much older than the
bible would have a student believe and, for instance, if a student
brings up the biblical idea of the age of the Earth, he or she has to
be told that his is nonsense. In as derisive a manner as possible?
Probably not, though it is more entertaining that way. What is the
instructor supposed to do? Lie to the students? Maybe, if the students
never bring up the bible as evidence for their moronic ideas, the
professor could just avoid mentioning it, in the interest of peace and
harmony. I find peace and harmony nauseating but whatever floats your
ark.
.
Will in New Haven
--
I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power
Robert Carnegie
Well, most historians of the American Civil War, I'd guess. Some
place names are the same, that's all.
Is there evidence of biblical Israel before the point you mention, or
did it perhaps spring into being already "exiled"?
(Anyway, I usually think of exile as where the folks at home threw you
out - as opposed to conquest and slave-taking. But I should check a
dictionary. I suppose that from the god-squad point of view, God was
"the folks at home" who said "Get out of here." In his famous
mysterious way.)
Robert Grumbine
snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote:
[large deletia for a point which seems to have been missed]
>my argument is that we must be consistent when it comes to the first
>amendment. if teachers arent allowed to say that the bible should be
>taken literally, then they also must not be allowed to say that it
>shouldnt be.
Reality isn't very consistent. Particularly not legal reality.
'Teachers', even when employed by the state, are not all under
the same limits and requirements. In particular, teachers whose
students are all underage have far more limits on what they say
and do to or with their students than those whose students are
of age. College teachers can indeed say many things to their
students that would be forbidden if they were speaking to 11 year
olds. The principle is simple -- adults are supposed to have
the faculties to determine that their teacher is a jerk, while
11 year olds are not so presumed. (Several principles around this.)
Don't conflate college with jr. high. The legal system doesn't.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
hersheyh
What he undoubtedly meant is, that for the purposes of his class, one
should not take the story of Adam and Eve literally. He probably said
this because some undereducated fundamentalist dolt (but I repeat
myself), perhaps homeschooled, in his class complained that his
discussion of pre-history did not jibe with his understanding of the
Bible. The school's administration, apparently *wanted* the teacher
to say that one *should* take the story of Adam and Eve literally in a
history class. That would mean that one empirically unsupported
religious belief -- that of a minor fundamentalist idiocy within
Christianity -- would have been given preferential treatment in his
class.
OTOH, by not treating the story of Adam and Eve as *literally* any
more supported than a hundred other creation myths, the teacher was
actually *respecting* it to the extent that he could.
hersheyh
The role of a *teacher* is to convey the fundamental ideas, facts,
types of evidence and modes of learning of a discipline regardless of
his/her personal opinion. My wife teaches politics and has a textbook
on political parties out and has strong personal political views, but
she regularly gets accolades from students who have the opposite
viewpoints for her fairness. Even in a class on Environmental
Policy! She sticks with the evidence and what the discipline says and
always presents opposite views where there is conflict in the
literature.
In a history class, a good *teacher* cannot automatically consider the
Bible to be "literal truth" and convey what the Bible says as what
historians have learned. Even (maybe especially) if he/she personally
believes in the "literal truth" of the Bible. That doesn't mean that
he/she cannot teach what the discipline as a whole says and then add
that s/he personally disagrees for this or that reason. Even for
something as obnoxious and obviously false as Holocaust denial, *this*
would be acceptable teaching behavior. But if a history teacher were
to say that "Adam and Eve" are "literally true" as historical figures
and only that, that would be proselytizing, not teaching.
John Harshman
You gonna make me? You and whose monkey army?
(And wouldn't their firepower be increased if they joined forces with
the wicked witch of the west and she brought her flying monkeys?)
snex
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:27:38 -0700, snex <s...@comcast.net> enriched
in a perfect world where the government didnt run the schools, sure.
but we have collectively agreed to maintain a secular (not atheistic)
government to accommodate all people.
>
> --
> Bob.
Inez
wrote:
> Chris Thompson wrote:
> > John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in
It would certainly reduce the amount of time they'd have to spend
building bridges.
Chris Thompson
>>>>>>>>>>>>>20 07709220333>
My Magic Monkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Wukong) can kick any
monkey army's collective butt, flying or not!
Walter Bushell
John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> No, lightning is not the spear of Zeus. Rama's monkey army did not build
> a bridge to Sri Lanka. And the human species is not 6000 years old.
And if any of these are upheld, science cannot be.
er...@swva.net
> On Sep 24, 3:59 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 3:46 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 3:16 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 24, 2:08 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Sep 24, 1:53 pm, bob <b...@home.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > literally, he has no business being a professor.
>
> > > > > > > > case.
>
>
> > > > > > what i "should" or "shouldnt" do is never a fact. it is a matter of
> > > > > > subjective opinion.
>
> > > > > Sure, be nihilistic about it. By the way there's this baby crying in
> > > > > the other room, should I smother it ?
> > > > > Just because "should" and "shouldn't" is a matter of subjective
> > > > > opinion doesn't mean acting like it is is conducive to a society
> > > > > that's nice to live in. Just like the fact that there's no such thing
> > > > > as "free will" doesn't mean our legal system should be thrown down the
> > > > > drain.
>
> > > > > So do you believe teachers should have the right to tell their
> > > > > students *anything they please* ?
>
> > > > teachers do not have the right to violate the first amendment rights
> > > > of their students by making religious assertions.
>
> > > How is a teacher at a college violating young adults' rights to
> > > practice their religions by telling them their doctrine is wrong? He's
> > > not forbidding them to believe it. Why have a college at all if the
> > > teachers can't say anything without offending some obscure religion?
>
> > if the teacher had said that the story of adam and eve should be
> > interpreted literally, youd be making the same complaints i am making.
> > why the double standard?
>
> > > Greg G.
>
> > > I am Dickens of Borg.
> > > It was the best of assimilations,
> > > it was the worst of assimilations.
>
> literally, he would be wrong.
> Saying it is not literally true is accurate.
> That is why the situation is different.
>
> Rod
I agree with snex. It's OK for teachers to say such-and-such is what
historians believe is the the case in light of real-world knowledge,
and if it contradicts the students religious beliefs, let the student
draw the inference. That is different from telling the student flat-
out that his religious beliefs are wrong. If the student brings up
the contradiction, it is all right for the teacher to point out that
the religious story, while it may infact be true in _some_ sense, has
no real-world corroboration to allow scholars to give it real-world
credence. If the student tries to allow the Bible special
significance, the teacher could then argue that if a scientist were to
allow one religious document the possibility of magical truth, there
would be no basis for excluding other religious documents from other
religions.
Eric Root
John Harshman
Another plus: fun theme music.
Ye Old One
That does not require the teacher to lie by saying that Adam and Eve
are historic characters.
--
Bob.
snex
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:00:12 -0700, snex <s...@comcast.net> enriched
nor does it require the teacher to say that adam and eve were never
historic characters.
>
> --
> Bob.
Ye Old One
Yes it does, because that is the truth. Would you really have the
teacher lie?
--
Bob.
snex
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:21:21 -0700, snex <s...@comcast.net> enriched
how is it a lie to not discuss the matter at all? or to simply say "we
have not yet found any evidence, but that may change?"
what you want is a violation of the first amendment. and if we can do
it, so can they.
>
> --
> Bob.
Vend
> On Sep 24, 4:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > with antecedents, and wandering off in random directions. All that
> > results in my having trouble following your argument, whatever it is.
>
> my argument is that we must be consistent when it comes to the first
> amendment. if teachers arent allowed to say that the bible should be
> taken literally, then they also must not be allowed to say that it
> shouldnt be.
Does this also apply to a math theacher who says that pi is not 3?
Vend
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote innews:g0aKi.8857$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>
> > Chris Thompson wrote:
>
> >> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in
The modern one is stronger, but less intelligent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_Goku_%28Dragon_Ball%29
snex
when do math teachers make reference to the bible at all?
scenario_dave
> >> On Sep 24, 10:00 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 24, 2:47 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> story ! Well, it turns out a lot of the Bible is *not* historical. And
> >>>> any historian who has researched his stuff knows what bits have been
> >>>> confirmed and what bits haven't. Unless they're fundies, as usual.
> >>> that sure sounds like a priori reasoning to me.
> >> reasoning.
> >> I've read often enough from apparently unbiased sources that
> >> historians in the Middle East find some things that confirm the Bible,
> >> and some things that contradict it. Therefore a historian who knows
> >> his stuff should know this too. And a historian who knows his stuff
> >> but still believes the Bible is a literal source on history, or a
> >> historian who only looks at the evidence that confirms his a priori
> >> beliefs (therefore he doesn't know his stuff), is exhibiting behavior
> >> characteristic of a fundie.
>
> >>>> And if the first amendment covers the right of teachers to lie to
> >>>> their students or generally to tell them things that are widely
> >>>> accepted to be false, then it definitely shouldn't. Would you support
> >>>> the right of a biology teacher to tell students babies come with the
> >>>> stork ? A math teacher to teach that pi=3 ?
> >>> im pretty sure the issues you bring up are addressed by the
> >>> schoolboard. what is also addressed is the first amendment right of
> >>> students. teachers are not being paid to give religious conclusions to
> >>> students.
> >> ones. Do you believe the Adam and Eve story taken literally is
> >> compatible with what we know of the world through science ?
>
> > what i believe is that tax-funded schools are not the place to be
> > discussing the legitimacy of the beliefs of its students.
>
> Do you actually know what was being discussed? I rather imagine not.
> As somebody pointed out, context is important here. What if Adam and
> Eve came up because a student objected to something the teacher said on
> the grounds that it contradicted the Adam and Eve story? If that
> happened, what should the response of the teacher be?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree that the context is impthortant. If the teacher started
attacking the students religious believes totally out of the blue,
then he is out of line.
On the other hand, if a student said that they beleived in Adam and
Eve and he said something like, historians require evidence before
they will believe a story. At this time there is undependant evidence
to back up the Adam and Eve story as history. History is a science
and science requires evidence. Until someone finds evidence backing up
the story of Adam and Eve, scientists cannot take the story
literally.
He might even use examples like The Trojan War where histoirians at
first were not sure that there ever really was a Troy, because there
was no evidence to prove that it ever existed outside of two poems.
Once there was evidence to back up the story, the story of the Trojan
War was believed.
Students need to understand what science is really all about. Science
requires evidence. If teachers are not allowed to discuss what is
considered reliable evidence and what is not considered reliable
evidence, then we might as well just close the schools down.
loua...@yahoo.com
(re hypothetical student)
> He might even use examples like The Trojan War where histoirians at
> first were not sure that there ever really was a Troy, because there
> was no evidence to prove that it ever existed outside of two poems.
> Once there was evidence to back up the story, the story of the Trojan
> War was believed.
To some extent. Nobody I know cited it as proof that Zeus, Athena, and
Neptune interfere in wars and other human activities.
Noelie S. Alito
> Chris Thompson wrote:
>
>> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
>> news:_KWJi.407$P21...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>>
>>> snex wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Sep 24, 4:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> my argument is that we must be consistent when it comes to the first
>>>> amendment. if teachers arent allowed to say that the bible should be
>>>> taken literally, then they also must not be allowed to say that it
>>>> shouldnt be.
>>>>
>>> You are mistaken. Teachers are allowed to present matters of fact.
>>> They can even be wrong. All the first amendment requires is that they
>>> not have a religious justification for determining fact. That's why
>>> the Dover school board was claiming that ID was science, not religion.
>>>
>>> Now, in the current case, the teacher is allowed (or perhaps required)
>>> to come to conclusions about history contrary to the literal
>>> interpretation of Genesis, but they must be for reasons of historical
>>> analysis, not religion. If he said "Genesis is not literally true
>>> because I'm an atheist", you might have a point. But I suspect his
>>> rejection of the story was more likely to have been based on objective
>>> data.
>>>
>>> No, lightning is not the spear of Zeus. Rama's monkey army did not
>>> build a bridge to Sri Lanka. And the human species is not 6000 years
>>> old.
>>>
>>
>> Hey! Back off on the monkey army!
>
> You gonna make me? You and whose monkey army?
>
> (And wouldn't their firepower be increased if they joined forces with
> the wicked witch of the west and she brought her flying monkeys?)
AKA the monkey air force.
Walter Bushell
snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> what i believe is that tax-funded schools are not the place to be
> discussing the legitimacy of the beliefs of its students.
Unfortunately some religions contrast so severely with what we know
about the world that this is impossible.
Robert Carnegie
Okay - (1) /Ear-worm!/, and (2) one detail - I assumed the name
(Arthur Waley had "aware-of-vacuity") was a joke (means "knows
nothing"). Yes? No? Sun-wukong? :;-)