Can yu be openly agnostic/athiest in a classroom?

[SynapticDancer]

I work with adult students, and while I find being open about my beliefs (or lack thereof) is not always advisable, I wonder how it would play out with children.

Is it okay to be an open non-believer while facilitating a class? Is it necessary to do so? Could this be only regionally dangerous, or overall? Is it greater than, less than or equal to the dilema of being openly religious?

[JoeEllison]

I wonder how it would come up, and where it would be within your job requirements to have that sort of conversation with children?

[MWare]

It might come up if they use the old "Jesus smote my homework" excuse.

[ImaginalDisc]

I had a history teacher who would respond to personal questions like that by saying, "We're not here to discuss my opinions."

It still seems like a good response, partly because it's true.

[Complexity]

The first question is whether either you or your students should be raising issues of belief in the classroom. It depends on what you are teaching.

When I was in (public) high school, I took a course on world history. The teacher started out by telling us that history is 'His story'. I should have called him on this in class, but I didn't. His behavior was inappropriate.

I used to teach computer science in college. I don't think that issues of belief were relevant to the discussion. My raising religious/non-religious issues would have been inappropriate.

When I took a course on world religions (1973), the professor who taught the course took a few minutes at the beginning to outline his own beliefs so that we could factor that into he said about the various religions. He then gave what I still regard as a very balanced set of lectures. His discussing his beliefs was very appropriate.

For some courses at the college or graduate level, I think discussing the religious, non-religious, and philosophical aspects of a topic may be important, and it would be appropriate for both teacher and student to put their cards on the table. Beliefs should never be used to separate students into groups, affect their grades, or affect a teacher's evaluations.

When a student challenges an aspect of reading or lecture materials, or class discussion, by raising religious objections, tread carefully, because you are walking into a minefield.

Assume you're being recorded and that the recording will be used against you.

Be true to your beliefs and principles, but realize that doing so may cost you your job.

Teaching children is much more dangerous. One word: parents.

[Lisa Simpson]

Today at the elementary school where I work, a student said to me "my friend says that the Bible says the world will end in 2012. Is that true?" I told her no, it's not true.

But to answer the question, I never bring up my lack of religious beliefs to the children (or even to the other adults). It's really no one else's business. At the school where I used to work, the principal was a fundy. I don't think she could have had me fired, but she could have made my life hell.

[articulett]

I don't bring it up... but I've had kids ask "do you believe in god?" Or "do you believe in Jeus". I tell them beliefs are personal-- that I'm a science teacher and I'm much more interested in the facts that are the same for everyone then about what people "believe". Sometimes they'll push, and I might ask "which god"? Or "do I believe what about him?"

[SynapticDancer]

When I was in undergrad I went to a college I later discovered to be predominantly christian. I signed up for a course, it had a long title but it was something like "Biological Aspects of Human Development". My first assignment for the course was to write if I believed the earth was created by god or through evolution.

It was downhill from there for me.

Many of my professors were very open about their faith. I took the position not to be when I started teaching, but I mostly tutor so it's hard not to develop a relationship with my students, especially one that involves them asking me personal questions. If the subject of god or no god comes up I usually try to use it as an opportunity to talk about the god theory from the standpoint of statistics or probability (I'm a math and statistics tutor). For example bringing up Pascals wager and asking them to analyze the reasoning behind it.

I asked this because I have started working with some kids (specifically one
very precocious girl) and completely un-provoked she asked me if I believed in evolution. She said her classmate was arguing with her about the whole "god created the earth in about a week or so" position and she thought he was nuts. I thought it should be neutral to answer that, because god or no god evolution is pretty much a fact. Further, evolution is taught in schools as a science, so it should be religously neutral. However, it this climate, evolution and the god question have become linked.

[Miss Anthrope]

I would prefer personal beliefs stay out of the classroom, or even lack of belief. Stick the subject. At the high school level I think encouraging seeing different sides and productive debate is a great skill, but I think teachers should keep political and religious opinions to themselves.

[articulett]

Yes... I have been asked if I "believe in evolution", and I respond, "I accept evolution... just like I accept gravity. There is so much evidence for evolution that scientists don't have to "believe" in it, because the facts speak for themselves even clearer than the facts about gravity." Moreover, I show them those facts. There's nothing like human and ape chromosomes side by side to drive the point home-- especially the chromosome 2 fusion thing.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2199739

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I had several openly atheist teachers, even in elementary school.

My 9th grade history teacher made no bones about her lack of belief while teaching us the tenents and history of the world's religions and at least two of my classmates in that class were openly atheist and didn't hide their opinions on the religions we were studying. They weren't overbearing or obnoxious about it, though, and I still personally liked the teacher alot even though I was a Catholic.

What the other theist kids thought about it, I don't know; no one picked a fight with the teacher at any time.

My guess is that it's allright as long as you don't push your lack of beliefs on others.

[athon]

I had a history teacher who would respond to personal questions like that by saying, "We're not here to discuss my opinions."

It still seems like a good response, partly because it's true.

Actually this is a bad approach if you really want to teach critical thinking. At the fore should be the teacher's opinions - however, the key is for those opinions to be blatantly expressed as just that. An opinion. The teacher should be role modelling the critical thinking approach they took to arrive at that opinion and leave it open for students to criticize constructively.

The trouble begins when an opinion is expressed as a fact and is closed to debate.

In my school I'm permitted to reply to any question on my religiousness or spirituality with 'no, I'm Atheist', however would be calling trouble down from above to teach it in any way. Luckily it isn't a problem for me as it's not my approach towards teaching to actively promote my views as factual. I provide the facts and the skills and leave the students to arrive at their own conclusions.

Athon

[thull]

Actually this is a bad approach if you really want to teach critical thinking. At the fore should be the teacher's opinions - however, the key is for those opinions to be blatantly expressed as just that. An opinion. The teacher should be role modeling the critical thinking approach they took to arrive at that opinion and leave it open for students to criticize constructively.

How do you gauge which of the teacher's opinions should the student's be aware of? Just because they asked should the teacher answer? Should the teacher list all their firmly held beliefs in the first class period of that teaching period?

Athon, i agree with what you said; however, there has to be limits on such disclosure (IMO).

[articulett]

I wish there would be no backlash, since religious teachers seem to feel free to speak openly at least on some occasions. It would surely be helpful for atheist kids. I know that some high schools are having Secular Student Alliances, but I bet it's still "dangerous" for teachers to be in charge of such groups... while they can and do head theistic clubs on school grounds.

[athon]

How do you gauge which of the teacher's opinions should the student's be aware of? Just because they asked should the teacher answer? Should the teacher list all their firmly held beliefs in the first class period of that teaching period?

Obviously this is at the teacher's discretion. I see little value in a teacher walking in and stating 'I believe in God and unicorns, don't believe in ghosts and believe that Bush is the Antichrist', obviously. For one thing, there's no context or relevance. If the opinions open the teacher to personal attack, if the class is not of a particular maturity or it is simply inappropriate for the situation (i.e., the teacher shouldn't walk in and discuss their sexual preferences), again this would not be avisable.

Athon, i agree with what you said; however, there has to be limits on such disclosure (IMO).

Certainly. A teacher opening up to inappropriate opinions could find themselves in strife.

Athon

[thull]

To answer Imb2150

I believe ANY subject can be facilitated fairly and throughly without bringing your personal opinions into the picture. Though it may add trust and perspective with some students, you may risk alienating others. Hence it should only be done if the teacher is comfortable disclosing (and handling the questions/assertions to follow) and the possible administration/community "backlash" is manageable.

To echo 'Complexity'
In the right context, being open about your beliefs can add greatly to the lesson/discussion at hand; however, tread lightly as it may be a minefield you are walking into.

The age/maturity/education level is still somewhat up in the air as it can vary greatly on the teacher's ability, the community's beliefs, and the administration's support.
(i.e. even in a graduate level course dealing with the effects of religion on society might not be the place if the teacher's superiors will make his/her working environment undesirable for disclosing his/her belief)

[Mercutio]

In a class this week, I asked students what they would change about the world to make it a better place. Two of them said "Eliminate organized religion". I suspect that religious views and atheism will be a part of this class...

[drkitten]

Actually this is a bad approach if you really want to teach critical thinking. At the fore should be the teacher's opinions - however, the key is for those opinions to be blatantly expressed as just that. An opinion. The teacher should be role modelling the critical thinking approach they took to arrive at that opinion and leave it open for students to criticize constructively.

I disagree -- even material on "critical thinking" should be relevant. If I'm hired to teach calculus or saxophone technique, my opinions on bimetallism or the origins of the First World War, no matter how solidly grounded, are irrelevant. Opinions on God, which are likely to be much less solidly grounded, are even more so.

The AAUP (www.aaup.org) has a similar position. From their famous 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/1940statement.htm) they are clear that while "teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject,"
they nevertheless have an obligation to "be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject" and " to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject."


The trouble begins when an opinion is expressed as a fact and is closed to debate.

I disagree. The trouble begins when you start to waste valuable saxophone-playing time discussing the bimetallism question. If the students wanted to study bimetallism, there is an economics department down the hall....

[SynapticDancer]

I wish there would be no backlash, since religious teachers seem to feel free to speak openly at least on some occasions. It would surely be helpful for atheist kids. I know that some high schools are having Secular Student Alliances, but I bet it's still "dangerous" for teachers to be in charge of such groups... while they can and do head theistic clubs on school grounds.

And this is exactly why I wonder. It would seem that there are plenty of openly religious teachers, and while I agree that they alienate some (such as myself growing up) there is not the same kind of response to expressing those beliefs then when a teacher expresses the absence of belief.

While many are posting that beliefs do not belong in the classroom, I would agree in theory, but in practice it is a bit harder to do. It simply comes up, especially with curious children. How can you encourage (as an education) a healthy curiosity about the world, but tell them asking you about your religious convictions is off limits?

[SynapticDancer]

I disagree -- even material on "critical thinking" should be relevant. If I'm hired to teach calculus or saxophone technique, my opinions on bimetallism or the origins of the First World War, no matter how solidly grounded, are irrelevant. Opinions on God, which are likely to be much less solidly grounded, are even more so.

The AAUP (www.aaup.org) has a similar position. From their famous 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/1940statement.htm) they are clear that while "teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject,"
they nevertheless have an obligation to "be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject" and " to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject."


But what if it does relate to the subject at hand?

[SynapticDancer]

A friend of mine told me early in her career she worried about the issue of her sexuality and whether or not she should be openly gay in the classroom (granted she was instructing undergrads). She said nowadays, some 20 years later, it is perfectly fine. She told me that she does not think the same would not hold true, however, if she were to also be openly agnostic.

[drkitten]

But what if it does relate to the subject at hand?

That happens a lot less often than people think -- part of the naturalist legacy of the enlightenment, I guess. Even in a philosophy class, if you can't explain why murder is bad without resorting to threats from the Great Beard in the Sky, you are obviously not familiar enough with the subject to be teaching it. And whether or not you do believe in the Great Beard in the Sky, you should be able to explain how the theory works without sharing your personal opinon on the theory.

Even in theology class, personal acceptance of the doctrines taught is not necessary. If for some reason the question of the existence of God is relevant to the class, a competent teacher should be able to evenhandedly outline both the arguments for and against. And, in fact, I'd turn that around. A teacher who is not able to outline the arguments both for and against any particular controversial position within her field is not competent. If you are so staunchly anti-Communist that you can't even outline the excesses of McCarthyism, you shouldn't be teaching 20th century US history.

[DonJunbar]

I work in the ESL industry in Korea and although I'm not in a formal classroom setting I do have people I consider students, of all ages. I'm careful never to bring up religion. That said, I have a few talking points to go through if it does come up.

If I'm asked whether I'm religious by a Christian, I say no and then I explain that in my home country Christianity is a very hypocritical religion that is politically backwards and unwelcoming to poorer people. My mother was raised atheist because my grandmother got tired of being treated like crap in church. Of course this puts down Canadian Christianity but leaves the door open for "But I don't know if Korean Christianity is necessarily that bad." Which, actually, it is. Far worse. In spades.

Another thing I bring up is Christmas, how it's almost completely a secular religion in the west now, but in Korea it's a solemn spiritual holiday for Christians who spend their holiday in church and don't go overboard on gift-giving.

[uruk]

I teach both Highschool and College level students and when I am asked about those questions I try give an honest answer. That I am an agnostic.

I try to use the question as a oppurtunity to teach critical thinking, questioning what they believe, and, more importantly, researching.

I try to be as neutral as possible and add that everyone has a right to believe whatever they want but also get them to think about what it is they believe and why they believe it.
I try to get the students to become individual thinkers, and BS detectors.

Although there are certain things that I will take a stand on.
I recently had a discussion with a student who was a moon hoaxer.
I wasn't confrontational about the disscussion but I addressed the issues he brought up and used the oppurtunity to get the student to learn researching by getting him to back up his claims. And to look at both sides of the issues.

Hopefully i taught him to be a free thinker and an investigator and thinking about the things he thought about.

[SynapticDancer]

I teach both Highschool and College level students and when I am asked about those questions I try give an honest answer. That I am an agnostic.

I try to use the question as a oppurtunity to teach critical thinking, questioning what they believe, and, more importantly, researching.

I try to be as neutral as possible and add that everyone has a right to believe whatever they want but also get them to think about what it is they believe and why they believe it.
I try to get the students to become individual thinkers, and BS detectors.

Although there are certain things that I will take a stand on.
I recently had a discussion with a student who was a moon hoaxer.
I wasn't confrontational about the disscussion but I addressed the issues he brought up and used the oppurtunity to get the student to learn researching by getting him to back up his claims. And to look at both sides of the issues.

Hopefully i taught him to be a free thinker and an investigator and thinking about the things he thought about.

I think it is always good to promote critical thinking, whether religion comes up or not. But I worry that some agnostics/athiests confuse being such with critical thinking. If someone is a christian, does that mean they cannot be a critical thinker (there is another thread somewhere around here about this).

I agree with your position overall. It can present opportunity for interesting discussion.

[Madalch]

I disagree -- even material on "critical thinking" should be relevant. If I'm hired to teach calculus or saxophone technique, my opinions on bimetallism or the origins of the First World War, no matter how solidly grounded, are irrelevant. Opinions on God, which are likely to be much less solidly grounded, are even more so.

'Zigactly. My students never hear a peep from me about religion, not because I'm afraid someone might disagree, but because it's irrelevant.

Actually, they hear one peep- I mock Stockwell Day in the one lecture which covers first-order kinetics (which includes radioactive decay and thus carbon-dating). But even in the Okanagan, most of my students don't pay enough attention to politics to know who Stockwell Day is.

Note to non-Canucks: Stockwell Day is a high-level Conservative/Reform/Alliance member of Parliament, at one time the leader of the Opposition, who is also a young-earth creationist. He was also the MP for the South Okanagan, which was the riding immediately to the south of the one I lived and taught in.

[athon]

I disagree -- even material on "critical thinking" should be relevant. If I'm hired to teach calculus or saxophone technique, my opinions on bimetallism or the origins of the First World War, no matter how solidly grounded, are irrelevant. Opinions on God, which are likely to be much less solidly grounded, are even more so.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I said that the opinion could be irrelevant. For instance, if you in a class discussing the process of death, and the issue of a soul comes up, it is beneficial for the teacher to discuss how they arrived critically at that conclusion.

The AAUP (http://www.aaup.org) has a similar position. From their famous 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/1940statement.htm) they are clear that while "teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject,"
they nevertheless have an obligation to "be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject" and " to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject."

Again, I'm really lost - your opinions on the subject matter cannot be ignored as a teacher. At no point have I mentioned one standing up and making any bold claim without relevance to the material. In fact, I addressed this in my last post.

I disagree. The trouble begins when you start to waste valuable saxophone-playing time discussing the bimetallism question. If the students wanted to study bimetallism, there is an economics department down the hall....

If bimetallism is relevant to the material, then the teacher should express his or her views on it as an opinion and role model the process they took to arrive at that point. If they present that opinion as something more, without role modelling the process, it is maintained as a truth to the students, and furthermore, they don't get to witness the critical thinking process being demonstrated.

How did you come to the conclusion that I insisted on the educator bringing up irrelevant opinions? If religious belief arises, such as in a discussion on dualism in psychology, a belief in spirits or ghosts in perception, angels in probability (all of which I've experienced questions on in those topics), I believe the teacher should express that opinion with a view of how to present critical thinking. The alternatives are to a) lie, b) ignore the inquiry or dismiss it (which has inherent dangers in itself), or c) present your opinions without a critical air, which as an authority is to present them as factual information.

Athon

[athon]

That happens a lot less often than people think -- part of the naturalist legacy of the enlightenment, I guess.

Is that seriously your experience? Hm. Mine is the dead opposite. In nearly every class of adolescents I've taught, in both the UK and Australia, a question relevant in some way to religion or religiously paranormal has come up. It's part of science and adolescence - kids are fascinated by the paranormal, are challenging their childhood beliefs and social structures and are rebelling against the beliefs of their parents.

I currently work in a Catholic girls school, which biases it even more. However, in the four secular schools I've worked in prior to this one, and even during my time touring schools doing science shows, the questions have arisen rather frequently.

Athon

[AmyWilson]

If I were a teacher, I would definitely kick any "atheists" out of class!

How dare someone put down God.

[ImaginalDisc]

If I were a teacher, I would definitely kick any "atheists" out of class!

How dare someone put down God.

Yes, troll. Just being an atheist means they're putting down your god by not believing the unbelievable. Such people are in no way as entitled to public education as Christians.

[AmyWilson]

Content removed.

Keep to the thread's topic.

[Minadin]

I wouldn't bring it up, personally, unless there was some situation where it was somehow appropriate. I can't think of one offhand, though.

At my high school, which was a private, religious high school, the science teachers still taught evolution, for instance. One should not let their own personal beliefs effect the curriculum or the grading.

[SynapticDancer]

Is that seriously your experience? Hm. Mine is the dead opposite. In nearly every class of adolescents I've taught, in both the UK and Australia, a question relevant in some way to religion or religiously paranormal has come up. It's part of science and adolescence - kids are fascinated by the paranormal, are challenging their childhood beliefs and social structures and are rebelling against the beliefs of their parents.

I currently work in a Catholic girls school, which biases it even more. However, in the four secular schools I've worked in prior to this one, and even during my time touring schools doing science shows, the questions have arisen rather frequently.

Athon

I agree, I definetely have had it come up more times than not.

[SynapticDancer]

If I were a teacher, I would definitely kick any "atheists" out of class!

How dare someone put down God.

I don't really see how this relates to the question. I'm not suggesting penalizing students for agreeing or disagreeing with the teacher. I'm also not suggesting penalizing teachers for being open or not about their beliefs or lack thereof. I think this is more a discussion on how to handle it.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't really see how this relates to the question. I'm not suggesting penalizing students for agreeing or disagreeing with the teacher. I'm also not suggesting penalizing teachers for being open or not about their beliefs or lack thereof. I think this is more a discussion on how to handle it.

Anything Amy Wilson says can generaly be ignored. She tends to post something controversial as a opening to a thread then everyone jumps on it and refutes it and she does not respond.

There are theories that she is a performance art project by someone satirizing fundamentalists.

[SynapticDancer]

Anything Amy Wilson says can generaly be ignored. She tends to post something controversial as a opening to a thread then everyone jumps on it and refutes it and she does not respond.

There are theories that she is a performance art project by someone satirizing fundamentalists.

:blush: I'm still learning the JREF community

[uruk]

I think it is always good to promote critical thinking, whether religion comes up or not. But I worry that some agnostics/athiests confuse being such with critical thinking. If someone is a christian, does that mean they cannot be a critical thinker (there is another thread somewhere around here about this).

I agree with your position overall. It can present opportunity for interesting discussion.

I did not mean to imply that being religeous meant that critical thinking is not involved. Although the nature of faith does require a bit of acceptance of some level of dogma.

Most of the students I spoke with usually inherited thier beliefs. They never really thought about what or why they believed what they did.

The discussions with the adult students were more interesting.
The most interesting discussion I had was with an instructor who was studing for a degree in divinity. He really gave his beliefs great thought.
I learned alot from our talks

[uruk]

If I were a teacher, I would definitely kick any "atheists" out of class!

How dare someone put down God.

And the tolerance and opened mindedness of the religeous fundamentalists is clearly revealed.

Burn the books! Destroy all who oppose us!!



Well if he/she can troll, so can I

[articulett]

And the tolerance and opened mindedness of the religeous fundamentalists is clearly revealed.

Burn the books! Destroy all who oppose us!!



Well if he/she can troll, so can I

"it"


(And fortunately, amywilson appears too "damaged" to ever become a teacher.)

By the way-- I'm beginning to favor the performing art theory of amywilson mentioned by Pondering Turtle.

[aries]

As others have said, I do agree that it depends on the subject. If you're teaching someone to play the trombone or the piano, or if you're teaching someone to add two+two, then I would strongly advise against talking about you being atheist/agnostic.

But, if it involves into some sort of moral & ethics discussion, I see no reason why you, should hide the fact that youre agnostic or atheist - as long as you respect and accept other people's (individual's) beliefs & faiths...

[uruk]

"it"


(And fortunately, amywilson appears too "damaged" to ever become a teacher.)

By the way-- I'm beginning to favor the performing art theory of amywilson mentioned by Pondering Turtle.

I think your right. This person can't be real

[jimbob]

I noticed something, which I have fixed:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1449446e42bd0b38b6.png

Suddenly (s)he(it) is pooping up everywhere I am visiting.

Articulett, we might disagree on many things but not this.

[Andronicus]

Regarding open atheism and agnosticism in a school setting, there are some questions that need to be asked (several of which have already been raised by prior posters, but I’m restating for completeness) which may affect your decision:

1. The age of the children? An average five year is not going to handle a Mommy/Daddy on one side and a Teacher on the other side argument very well, if they understand it at all. A teenager will need to have been exposed to various belief systems, even if they can’t agree with them, though whether a teenager needs to know his teacher’s personal opinion is a slighty different issue.

2. What are you teaching? Your religious beliefs are not relevant to many subjects.

3. Is neutrality an option (i.e. is it better your students don’t know)? Why I think it is better for the presenter of a debate to state what his position is so there is no issue of bias, children (maybe many teens) might not understand it. Many students don’t realize that a decent teacher wants to see logical inquiry far more than personal agreement.

4. Peer consequences? Your fellows may not realize that (assuming you are an American) you politely recite the Pledge of Allegiance but your mouth doesn’t move for the “under God” portion. Are there going to be professional consequences with your peers, which is less relevant if you are “out of the closet.” I would assume no problems in New York City or Berkeley, and some in most of Texas.

5. Legal consequences? Depending on the age of your children, are you opening up your school to legal action by parents; or yourself to professional disciplinary action?

6. Moral right? Unless you have been given permission in some form or fashion to provide instruction on the probability of the existence of a Deity, you really shouldn’t especially for young children. In a free society, the religious instruction of a child belongs with the parent, not a publically appointed teacher. Even a science teacher in evolution lesson has no absolute need to state her position towards God. The teacher DOES to teach the difference between evolution (scientific theory/explanation) and Intelligent Design (theological construct not required nor preventing the scientific exploration of the theory). Obviously if you are in a setting where you do have permission to talk to children regarding religious beliefs – like a private school which is specifically religious or non-religious, this doesn’t apply.

[SynapticDancer]

All great questions, and each a variable that would be difficult to ascertain or control. (Ex: some students might seem open to the discussion and others not)

I think this raises questions of ethics about personal values, specifically that some might be appropriate under certain circumstances, others always permissable, and some never. For example, it might be inconsequential to state if you are a Mets fan or a Yankees fan (although there is the potential for some backlash) but that is not on par with the kinds of repercussions if you state to be a christian or an athiest.

I guess, for me, an important juxtaposition (one that I think some have mentioned already) is the reverse side of this argument; whether or not its okay to disclose what your religious beliefs are when in fact you have some. I think the problem, as I see it, is that it seems allowable to disclose the nature of your faith, but not when there is an absense of faith. Again, this is all highly dependant on the classroom environment, age of students, atmosphere of the administration, in some ways geographical location within the US and period in history (EX:I don't know if an athiest 50 years ago would have thought it possible to disclose that, and perhaps 50 years from now it would no longer even be an issue).

[SynapticDancer]

I did not mean to imply that being religeous meant that critical thinking is not involved. Although the nature of faith does require a bit of acceptance of some level of dogma.

Most of the students I spoke with usually inherited thier beliefs. They never really thought about what or why they believed what they did.

The discussions with the adult students were more interesting.
The most interesting discussion I had was with an instructor who was studing for a degree in divinity. He really gave his beliefs great thought.
I learned alot from our talks

And see this is what I struggle with. In many ways I think it would benefit a student to confront beliefs other than their own, especially when those beliefs are inherited. One of my greatest challenges as a teenager (and subsequently greatest learing experience) was having a very staunch and open catholic as a teacher. That class session came just before lunch and often he and I would spend the lunch period still debating issues we raised in class (I was kind of always agnostic, at least I have no memory of having had faith, it was more I realized one day that nobody was kidding, and people actually believed in the stuff I thought was just interesting stories). Now, he never managed to convince of his arguments that creation happened as it did in Genesis although he did demonstrate his logic. It taught me that if I wanted to be taken seriously (and I did) than I couldn't just HAVE positions, I had to also have reasonable explanations.

I think some students are so boxed up within a comfort zone where they aren't provided the opportunity to face oppositional points of view, they never examine their own thinking. My arguments with that teacher, while they left me doubting the existence of a god, forced me to examine what I believed and if I could justify this position.

[Fnord]

Q1. Is it okay to be an open non-believer while facilitating a class?
A1. Yes, unless any of the students has Torqumada on speed-dial.

Q2. I it necessary to do so?
A2. No, unless you are teaching a class on Religion or Philosophy, or if you intend to use the class as a platform for your religious agenda.

Q3. Could this be only regionally dangerous, or overall?
A3. If the region you refer to is the "Bible Belt" then the continuance of your employment might be at risk. If you are in Hollywood, you might just get an award.

Q4. Is it greater than, less than or equal to the dilema of being openly religious?
A4. Mathematical terms probably do not apply, but I could be wrong. The dilemma is similar to being openly religious in an indifferent society (except for among Bible Belters; see above).

Advice: Whatever you do or do not believe, live it, but don't make an issue of it. For instance, when Hallowe'en comes around, I just tell people (and their kids) that "I don't do Hallowe'en" without going into a long discussion of its origins. Especially since what I really believe about that day is more along the lines of "Too much fuss and bother," rather than it being "Non-Christian" (whatever that means, these days).

[uruk]

~snip~ It taught me that if I wanted to be taken seriously (and I did) than I couldn't just HAVE positions, I had to also have reasonable explanations.

I think some students are so boxed up within a comfort zone where they aren't provided the opportunity to face oppositional points of view, they never examine their own thinking. My arguments with that teacher, while they left me doubting the existence of a god, forced me to examine what I believed and if I could justify this position.
Well said!
The parts I bolded are exactly the reasons I openly discuss my beliefs when asked by students.
Although I do agree with a previous poster in that the age of the student makes a difference. Children below the teenage years tend to think in black and white. Challenging the younglings belifes is more traumatic than for a teenager.

[six7s]

Anything Amy Wilson says can generaly be ignored. She tends to post something controversial as a opening to a thread then everyone jumps on it and refutes it and she does not respond.

There are theories that she is a performance art project by someone satirizing fundamentalists.

A quick skim of 'her' recent postings (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=1045352) suggests this may well be the case... many short, tactless and seemingly senseless posts

One other clue: The authors often use an anagram as the 'user name' of their 'bots'

Some of the 499 Anagrams for AmyWilson found by http://wordsmith.org
(http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=AmyWilson&t=1000)Am I Sly Now
I Sly Woman
I Slow Many
My Awol Sin
Om Is Wanly
Swami Only
Wily Mason

Nail My Sow
Oil My Swan
Owl May Sin
Saw My Lion
Wail My Son
Was My Loin

[Fnord]

A friend of mine told me early in her career she worried about the issue of her sexuality and whether or not she should be openly gay in the classroom (granted she was instructing undergrads). She said nowadays, some 20 years later, it is perfectly fine. She told me that she does not think the same would not hold true, however, if she were to also be openly agnostic.

Give it time ... give it time ...

[CriticalThanking]

One thing in the OP not heavily addressed in the responses - regional (as opposed to local/individual) dangers of open disbelief. While not in Kansas (anymore, Toto), I live in an area where it can be dangerous to discuss your non-belief in the public schools. I have been to several regional teacher conferences where the science teachers gave anecdote after anecdote of being overtly or subtly threatened by the school administration and/or parent groups for discussing non-belief, or standing up for evolution too strongly, which many wrongly equate.

While I agree with many of the opinions expressed about what should happen, there are definitely areas where you better get your helmet on if you don't keep your head down.

CT

[slingblade]

If I were a teacher, I would definitely kick any "atheists" out of class!

How dare someone put down God.

Yes, but as the principal, I would be obligated to note that you participate in this forum, and thus associate with atheists. Still worse, with Buddhists, Jews, and even Unitarians. I'm afraid I'd be obligated to dismiss you and write you a poor reference.

So sad. So easy to have kept yourself pure.

[thull]

Q1. Is it okay to be an open non-believer while facilitating a class?
A1. Yes, unless any of the students has Torqumada on speed-dial.

Funny, i never expected the...

[uruk]

Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition!!!!!

[Paulhoff]

If I were a teacher, I would definitely kick any "atheists" out of class!

How dare someone put down God.
My question to the teacher would be, "Which so-called god" and "How can a little human put down a so-called god".

One should be able to say what ever they believe in and/or don't believe in, but that seems not to be allowed in American.

Paul

:) :) :)

[CFLarsen]

As others have said, I do agree that it depends on the subject. If you're teaching someone to play the trombone or the piano, or if you're teaching someone to add two+two, then I would strongly advise against talking about you being atheist/agnostic.

But, if it involves into some sort of moral & ethics discussion, I see no reason why you, should hide the fact that youre agnostic or atheist - as long as you respect and accept other people's (individual's) beliefs & faiths...

In a discussion about astronomy - or science - should you hide that you are an astrologer?

[Jeff Corey]

Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition!!!!!


Trouble at the mill.
What is it?
Crossbeam's gone out of skew on the treadle.

Back to the OP. Yesterday I presented the bogus data about there being a lower percentage of atheists in jail than believers to show that correlation does not imply causation. Then I threw in the fact the dog killing football player found Jesus even before he was sentenced.

[kittykatkarma]

Children, for the most part, are like clay waiting to take shape. From experience with my thirteen year old son, I've found that he is eager to believe that what his teachers tell him is fact. One day he told me that all of the people who live in Mexico are Christians (as in born again true believers) because they all go to the Catholic Church. Aside from having to hold my tongue in order not to laugh, I realized that his level of comprehension and critical thinking skills were not yet developed enough to see how illogical the statement he had just made was. What the teacher had taught was that the Catholic religion was the predominant religion in Mexico, and not the lump sum statement that my son had repeated to me.

As a teacher, often you're a role model and a friend to your students. Being mindful of their ability to comprehend a topic is always wise. I would think that openly discussing your faith, or lack of faith, could be shocking to their young minds. Perhaps it would be better to teach them the skills to discover the facts on their own. A child who has been taught critical thinking skills is more able to think things threw, to ask questions, and arrive upon fact based beliefs.

Unfortunately, where we live in Texas, it doesn't always go that way.


I work with adult students, and while I find being open about my beliefs (or lack thereof) is not always advisable, I wonder how it would play out with children.

Is it okay to be an open non-believer while facilitating a class? Is it necessary to do so? Could this be only regionally dangerous, or overall? Is it greater than, less than or equal to the dilema of being openly religious?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I work with adult students, and while I find being open about my beliefs (or lack thereof) is not always advisable, I wonder how it would play out with children.

Is it okay to be an open non-believer while facilitating a class? Is it necessary to do so? Could this be only regionally dangerous, or overall? Is it greater than, less than or equal to the dilema of being openly religious?

When I was substitute teaching some of the kids asked me what church I went to and, instead of telling them my personal life was none of their business, I responded that I didn't because I was an atheist.

Apparently it didn't go over too well since they mentioned it to the administration. Oh well.

[Corpse Cruncher]

Should it really make a difference? If you are a good teacher surely that is what counts not what church or brand wear you are into. The worlds gone potty and is fixated on the things that are not relevant and losing a grip on what should be the priority.

[ponderingturtle]

Children, for the most part, are like clay waiting to take shape. From experience with my thirteen year old son, I've found that he is eager to believe that what his teachers tell him is fact. One day he told me that all of the people who live in Mexico are Christians (as in born again true believers) because they all go to the Catholic Church..

What? I didn't think the catholic church went in for that born again stuff.

So they would be papists and not True Christians(tm) at least by my understanding of these things.

[SynapticDancer]

Should it really make a difference? If you are a good teacher surely that is what counts not what church or brand wear you are into. The worlds gone potty and is fixated on the things that are not relevant and losing a grip on what should be the priority.

How would you define the priority?

Of course the skill of the teacher is incredibly relevant, but part of that skill is being able to develop a rapport with his/her students. That relationship is bound to provoke questions, maybe not always (or even ever) of the religious variety, but in my experience it plays a role in how the student views the teacher. I say this both as a student and a teacher.

[Denial]

During my years as a kindergarten teacher, I was occasionally asked by the older kids if I believed in god and/or heaven. This was mostly brought up when a kid had recently lost a pet or a relative, and the kid had recieved a response at home that wasn't satisfying to him/her. I would reply that I didn't believe in a place called heaven for dead people nor any gods, without elaborating on it unless I was asked to. I was confronted by parents on a couple of occasions over this when word of my views reached home. I explained my view on it and there was never any problems, except for the one time I had to tell a mom that I wasn't there to lie to her daughter (which she wanted me to do) and that I simply wouldn't do such an immoral act. That seemed to get the message across, and it was never brought up by her again.

This was in Norway, so me getting in trouble over it was simply out of the question. Workers have rights over here, and lots of them, and kids have a right to be taken seriously, no matter what their parents belive in. I'd take upset parents over deluding kids any day. :cool:

[Dancing David]

I work with adult students, and while I find being open about my beliefs (or lack thereof) is not always advisable, I wonder how it would play out with children.

Is it okay to be an open non-believer while facilitating a class? Is it necessary to do so? Could this be only regionally dangerous, or overall? Is it greater than, less than or equal to the dilema of being openly religious?

This is a thorny issue at best.

I often don't say the 'under God' part of the Pledge, my wife who is in grade schools does say it because of the age of the kids.

Kids often ask about your beliefs and if you go to church, as do staff. I usually tell people that I am a Unitarian-Universalist (which I do go to thier services at times), but I am very careful with discussing being a buddhist neo-pagan atheist. I gauge very carefully who to discuss what with and I never discuss it with the students.

[Madalch]

I responded that I didn't because I was an atheist.
Apparently it didn't go over too well since they mentioned it to the administration. Oh well.

I cannot imagine living in a place where being an atheist was considered so surprising and/or shocking that anyone would comment on it, let alone go to the administration.

[SynapticDancer]

I cannot imagine living in a place where being an atheist was considered so surprising and/or shocking that anyone would comment on it, let alone go to the administration.

In my lifetime, and I could be imagining this so feel free to set me straight, it seems as if the shock value of expressing atheism or agnosticism has grown considerably in recent years. I don't know if a grade school teacher would have had the same repercussions, in say 1993 as they would today.

I also think location has much to do with the fall back as well (as many mentioned). Teaching at the undergraduate level in NYC, I realize I have more freedom of expression then if I were teaching in a rural area in middle America.

[Hindmost]

I avoided all questions about my religion when I was teaching. Students would ask me and I would always reply that I don't discuss religion as it does not have any part in my class...I taught physics. I did have one student directly ask me if I was an atheist...I gave my standard answer and the student returned. "As skeptical as you are, you have to be an atheist." The student was more colorful than most and smarter as well.

I did not want to deal with parents or other students that had strong religious beliefs since my atheism didn't have any affect on my teaching. Expediant.

However, we did have a teacher that was a certified palmist--as opposed to the garden variety palmists--and did not hide that fact. No problems there! Since we shared a classroom, we had some interesting discussions.

glenn

[tkingdoll]

Heh, if I was a teacher I wouldn't be able to resist spreading a little atheist reasoning to young minds.

Hence, I am not a teacher. Well, that and the pesky sex offender's register.

[six7s]

I taught physics...
...we did have a teacher that was a certified palmist
...we shared a classroom

Wouldn't that cause a vacuum, where the 'ying' of science is cancelled by the 'tong iddle I po (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nebe1zuEtbc)' of woo?

[Hindmost]

Wouldn't that cause a vacuum, where the 'ying' of science is cancelled by the 'tong iddle I po (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nebe1zuEtbc)' of woo?

Add in a few other teachers and some students that had witch-wiggler beliefs and I sometimes felt I was pushing on a rope.

glenn

[Hindmost]

Heh, if I was a teacher I wouldn't be able to resist spreading a little atheist reasoning to young minds.

Hence, I am not a teacher. Well, that and the pesky sex offender's register.


Oooooooooooooooooooo. Teek, there are so many things I want to post, but this is the education section...and not that type of education...

glenn:boxedin:

[UnrepentantSinner]

I cannot imagine living in a place where being an atheist was considered so surprising and/or shocking that anyone would comment on it, let alone go to the administration.

I'd be willing to guess that Wichita Falls, Texas, in 2007 isn't really that much different than it was when the incident occured in 1992, nor much different than it was in 1977.

The ignorance of religious people atheists isn't just in mid-sized southern cities (Wichita Falls has about 100,000 population) it can even manifest in suburbs of major metropolitan areas - the religious family in the atheist 30 Days show lived in Plano, a suburb of Dallas.

[athon]

One of the least studied fields in modern pedagogy is the influence of teacher beliefs on education. I've got one excellent book at home which is an extension of a doctorate study done by the author. I corresponded with her last year when I was considering further studies I could do, and found it quite interesting.

Basically for all of the political rhetoric, curriculum design and school policies out there, in the end the biggest influence is the teacher. The problem isn't the teacher's opinions, but the perceptions the students hold of their teacher's authority. Ironically, teaching critical thinking is fairly ineffective if the teacher masks their own opinions on a relevant topic as if they are unimportant. Their views only come through in other ways, yet are hidden in the static of teaching the curriculum directly. Time spent covering certain topics, or choice of resources, for example, are subtle means of conveying an opinion on a subject. However, since it isn't overt or up for discussion, students have no access to observing the critical thinking process take place. So you have a teacher's opinions influencing the class anyway (simply because it is impossible to not have that influence take place) and yet it is unaccessible to the students for critical reasoning.

The worst thing is when you are presented with an authority that portrays their opinions as facts that aren't up for discussion. That further enhances the appeal to authority fallacy many individuals grow up with and dominates their thinking skills later in life.

Athon

[Tokenconservative]

I work with adult students, and while I find being open about my beliefs (or lack thereof) is not always advisable, I wonder how it would play out with children.

Is it okay to be an open non-believer while facilitating a class? Is it necessary to do so? Could this be only regionally dangerous, or overall? Is it greater than, less than or equal to the dilema of being openly religious?

Are you teaching in a seminary?

Not sure why your beliefs, no matter what they are, would come up in a college class at all. Kids tend to ask teachers things about their personal lives, but why an adult student would, and why a prof. wouldn't answer with anything other than "that's not really germain," is beyond me.

It almost sounds like you want to mix things up, as if you believe (as so many teachers and even more professors do) that your "real" job is something other than teaching your students to write, or read, or about business practices, or how cells split or whatever.

Now, if you are teaching some sociology or psych or other such class it might be your job to intro students to other ways of thinking, but why that would involve you expounding on your personal beliefs to them...I can't even imagine.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

One of the least studied

Basically for all of the political rhetoric, curriculum design and school policies out there, in the end the biggest influence is the teacher. The problem isn't the teacher's opinions, but the perceptions the students hold of their teacher's authority. Ironically, teaching critical thinking is fairly ineffective if the teacher masks their own opinions on a relevant topic as if they are unimportant. Their views only come through in other ways, yet are hidden in the static of teaching the curriculum directly. Time spent covering certain topics, or choice of resources, for example, are subtle means of conveying an opinion on a subject. However, since it isn't overt or up for discussion, students have no access to observing the critical thinking process take place. So you have a teacher's opinions influencing the class anyway (simply because it is impossible to not have that influence take place) and yet it is unaccessible to the students for critical reasoning.
Athon

I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "critical thinking." In the schools here, that means "letting everyone know how much you disagree with the current conservative administration" (being "critical" of conservative perspectives).

I was in a pilot "Critical Thinking" course of study in college, and that was not what I was taught. Perhaps those who designed and implemented that coursework were off the mark?

I find it interesting as well that the parents influence on their own kids is rarely made a part of the equation (unless it's a bad influence, thereby allowing the "blame" for poor performance to be placed there). I made the conscious choice to essentially tell my kids from ages pre-k to about 4th that whatever their teachers said, was the Gospel. After that point, since I believed at about that time for my kids, their minds were formed/forming enough to handle it, we began discussing the ways in which in fact, their teachers were WRONG on some things.

What you are talking about here very much mirrors a study of newspaper political (news) reporting bias and slant I did some years ago in college in which I discovered that placement and column inches prove quite nicely the bias and slant intended by a particular publication, it's editors or its writers.

To break it down: a kid will figure out pretty quickly that his science teacher has a strong interest in reptiles when there are posters of snakes, aligators, turtles and lizards all over the room and virtually no other animals represented.

Same applied in one of my daughter's "American Government" classes where the teacher spent the first 15 minutes of each class lecturing on our "responsibility" in Darfur.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I wish there would be no backlash, since religious teachers seem to feel free to speak openly at least on some occasions. It would surely be helpful for atheist kids. I know that some high schools are having Secular Student Alliances, but I bet it's still "dangerous" for teachers to be in charge of such groups... while they can and do head theistic clubs on school grounds.

I guess things are...different, depending upon where you are.

Here, while teachers are generally not prohibited from discussing their personal beliefs, the peasants do not storm the school with torches and pitchforks when it's discovered that a teacher has admitted to being agnostic or atheist (or Jewish, either).

And this is a pretty "Red" area.

Tokie

[kittykatkarma]

Originally Posted by kittykatkarma
Children, for the most part, are like clay waiting to take shape. From experience with my thirteen year old son, I've found that he is eager to believe that what his teachers tell him is fact. One day he told me that all of the people who live in Mexico are Christians (as in born again true believers) because they all go to the Catholic Church.. What? I didn't think the catholic church went in for that born again stuff.

So they would be papists and not True Christians(tm) at least by my understanding of these things.

No... Sorry, you are correct. This was to say how my son interpreted the matter, and to illustrate how care has to be taken based on a child's ability to understand topics like this.

[articulett]

I guess things are...different, depending upon where you are.

Here, while teachers are generally not prohibited from discussing their personal beliefs, the peasants do not storm the school with torches and pitchforks when it's discovered that a teacher has admitted to being agnostic or atheist (or Jewish, either).

And this is a pretty "Red" area.

Tokie

Oh, it's a little subtler and nastier than that...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrPLupGdKKQ

[articulett]

Oh, it's a little subtler and nastier than that...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrPLupGdKKQ

At my public school, my principal just told me "May the peace of Christ be with you"... and I'm required to show a video in character ed where it refers to the teens as special in the eyes of "god"-- and there is this motivational speaker that comes and tells kids that speaks of Jesus as a historical figure and reminds kids that he died for them...

I don't say anything-- but it's wrong and bullying.

FFRF.org has tons of these violations it deals with. The Military is particularly bad, but religion has wended it's way through government despite the supposed separation of church and state and there is a strong paradigm that "faith is good" and/or necessary for morality despite evidence to the contrary.

I stay quiet.

[athon]

I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "critical thinking." In the schools here, that means "letting everyone know how much you disagree with the current conservative administration" (being "critical" of conservative perspectives).

Well, that isn't critical thinking. Thinking critically about text is the ability to analyse it beyond merely conveying simple information. It means analysing it for context, authorship and relationships with other texts. In other words it means evaluating a text for its worth.

I was in a pilot "Critical Thinking" course of study in college, and that was not what I was taught. Perhaps those who designed and implemented that coursework were off the mark?

Perhaps. I have no idea. I do know that critical thinking is best taught as an integrated skill and not as a course.

What you are talking about here very much mirrors a study of newspaper political (news) reporting bias and slant I did some years ago in college in which I discovered that placement and column inches prove quite nicely the bias and slant intended by a particular publication, it's editors or its writers.

That's part of the skills being taught. The structure of text, choice of wording, greater context etc. is all open to discussion.

Athon

[articulett]

I'd say critical thinking first involves separating fact claims from opinion claims. It's also important to know the ways people fool themselves. Logical fallacies are valuable as well as being aware of confirmation bias and mistaking correlation with causation. I think Randi is excellent at fooling people to show just how they can be fooled-- a priceless lesson. But I think wearing your atheism on your sleeve... even when asked directly... is a recipe for hostile and prejudice reactions from the "holier than thou" who have been taught that faith is a good way to know something.

In my school it's the political and religious conservatives who tend to be vocal and promote a sort of loyalty cult thinking from my perspective. I imagine they are unaware of how they are wearing their politics and beliefs on their sleeves-- but I hear it enough to keep my mouth shut around them and be a little afraid.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "critical thinking." In the schools here, that means "letting everyone know how much you disagree with the current conservative administration" (being "critical" of conservative perspectives).

You might want to try a little critical thinking yourself if you consider the Bush Administration conservative.

[Tokenconservative]

I wouldn't bring it up, personally, unless there was some situation where it was somehow appropriate. I can't think of one offhand, though.

At my high school, which was a private, religious high school, the science teachers still taught evolution, for instance. One should not let their own personal beliefs effect the curriculum or the grading.

My kids' evangelical Christian school, with a very vocal opposition to evolution, nonetheless taught it better than the local public schools.

When the first of our daughters to go to a public high school did, she was the only one in her biology class able to answer some pretty fundamental questions about evolution!

In any case, a techer cannot long, nor should he/she be in a public school, forced to hide/lie about his/her personal beliefs when directly asked about them by students.

Kids in the lower grades, especially, want to know "personal" things about teachers, it makes the teacher seem more human to them. In one of my long-term subbing situations, in fact, I was mildly upbraided for not offering enough of myself in this way to the class.

Tokie

[Hindmost]

My kids' evangelical Christian school, with a very vocal opposition to evolution, nonetheless taught it better than the local public schools.

When the first of our daughters to go to a public high school did, she was the only one in her biology class able to answer some pretty fundamental questions about evolution!

In any case, a techer cannot long, nor should he/she be in a public school, forced to hide/lie about his/her personal beliefs when directly asked about them by students.

Kids in the lower grades, especially, want to know "personal" things about teachers, it makes the teacher seem more human to them. In one of my long-term subbing situations, in fact, I was mildly upbraided for not offering enough of myself in this way to the class.

Tokie

The reason that evolution isn't taught in high schools as much anymore is due to curriculum changes. Teaching biology had changed significantly over the past 20 years due to more understanding of chemical processes associated with biological processes. This has become an essential part of curriculum along with DNA related topics. Something has to give and evolution is typically what gets pushed out.

Ideally, not hiding ones beliefs should be acceptable...however, anyone that believes it is possible to be completely open as a teacher about one's personal views has never had to deal with and irrate parent or a litigious parent. I never answered questions on religion--ever. (in general, I didn't tell teachers either)

glenn

[jimbob]

You might want to try a little critical thinking yourself if you consider the Bush Administration conservative.

From a European perspective, I would say that George Bush is definitely a "large 'C' conservative", whether he is a "small 'c' conservitive" might be debatable. I would say the same about Thatcher too.

Socially conservative, if not economically*?



Is this different to the usage in the US UnrepentantSinner?

He certainly is neither a "socialist" nor a "social democrat", though "Christian Democrat" might fit.


*small c here.

I am proud to be a small-l liberal fundamentalist.

Jim

[Madalch]

From a European perspective, I would say that George Bush is definitely a "large 'C' conservative", whether he is a "small 'c' conservitive" might be debatable. I would say the same about Thatcher too.

I'd call him a right-winger, but I can't for the life of me figure out what he's conserving.

[six7s]

I'd call him a right-winger, but I can't for the life of me figure out what he's conserving.

He's conserving the staus quo that suits him and his buddies, yes?

[UnrepentantSinner]

From a European perspective, I would say that George Bush is definitely a "large 'C' conservative", whether he is a "small 'c' conservitive" might be debatable. I would say the same about Thatcher too.

Socially conservative, if not economically*?

More he's not fiscally conservative than economically. He's done a bang up job trying to encourage the religious right and some other right wingers (look at the NASA/climate change fiasco), but when it comes to fiscal policy he's been a nightmare for Conservatives.

- Spending like a drunken sailor
- Medicare expansion
- Ill conceived/Ill execued war
- Tax cuts

"Hold on there US", you're probably thinking right now. "Conservatives love tax cuts." Well, yes, they do (and so does everyone else), but they also love commensurate spending cuts which Bush hasn't even tried to get Congress to engage in.

[articulett]

He's conserving the staus quo that suits him and his buddies, yes?

Yes.

[SynapticDancer]

Are you teaching in a seminary?

Not sure why your beliefs, no matter what they are, would come up in a college class at all. Kids tend to ask teachers things about their personal lives, but why an adult student would, and why a prof. wouldn't answer with anything other than "that's not really germain," is beyond me.

It almost sounds like you want to mix things up, as if you believe (as so many teachers and even more professors do) that your "real" job is something other than teaching your students to write, or read, or about business practices, or how cells split or whatever.

Now, if you are teaching some sociology or psych or other such class it might be your job to intro students to other ways of thinking, but why that would involve you expounding on your personal beliefs to them...I can't even imagine.

Tokie

Couldn't refusing to answer be viewed as an answer?

And the fact is it does come up. Adults students are just as curious as children, if not more so in some respect.

I am also curious about your comment that I think my "real job" is something other then teaching how to write, read, etc... Can you elaborate?

To sum up my general response, I want to say that education does not happen in a vacuum. Students (all students) are keenly aware of international, political, and yes, religious issues. These things all influence the way a student perceives an idea or topic, and how that student views the instructor. As a little anecdote, I have worked for many years as a tutor, and as an undergrad I volunteered in a peer tutoring program. One day the director asked me if I was a christian. You see, I was one of two math tutors and there was a student who needed help in math, but would only work with a christian. So, yes, am I asked about my faith, even though I teach math and statistics.

[Dancing David]

My kids' evangelical Christian school, with a very vocal opposition to evolution, nonetheless taught it better than the local public schools.

When the first of our daughters to go to a public high school did, she was the only one in her biology class able to answer some pretty fundamental questions about evolution!

In any case, a techer cannot long, nor should he/she be in a public school, forced to hide/lie about his/her personal beliefs when directly asked about them by students.

Kids in the lower grades, especially, want to know "personal" things about teachers, it makes the teacher seem more human to them. In one of my long-term subbing situations, in fact, I was mildly upbraided for not offering enough of myself in this way to the class.

Tokie

Well, hooray for that school.

I have not known that to be the case in central illinois, especialy in small towns and rural districts, in fact it is agood idea to not mention your atheism in most places of employment.

[Tokenconservative]

The reason that evolution isn't taught in high schools as much anymore is due to curriculum changes. Teaching biology had changed significantly over the past 20 years due to more understanding of chemical processes associated with biological processes. This has become an essential part of curriculum along with DNA related topics. Something has to give and evolution is typically what gets pushed out.

Ideally, not hiding ones beliefs should be acceptable...however, anyone that believes it is possible to be completely open as a teacher about one's personal views has never had to deal with and irrate parent or a litigious parent. I never answered questions on religion--ever. (in general, I didn't tell teachers either)

glenn


Wow, really? That's almost criminal given the need for anyone seriously interested in the biological sciences to have a pretty solid understanding of evolution as, essentially, step one (after learning some physics and chemistry, of course.

I suppose it's given way, as is the case in my kids' school to more and more stuff about "the environment" and the leftist-secularist religion of global warming.

I think in general, whether as a teacher or in most other professions, one's religion is nobody's business but your own. Why parents and students belive it is their "right" to know the religion or lack thereof, of a teacher, so long as that teacher is not shoving some belief or non-belief down their students' throats is none of their business.

That said, younger kids, especially, like to know things about their teachers, and will ask this. Older kids, wanting, usually, to cause trouble, will also do so. Best policy is probably some off-putting reply.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Couldn't refusing to answer be viewed as an answer?

And the fact is it does come up. Adults students are just as curious as children, if not more so in some respect.

I am also curious about your comment that I think my "real job" is something other then teaching how to write, read, etc... Can you elaborate?

To sum up my general response, I want to say that education does not happen in a vacuum. Students (all students) are keenly aware of international, political, and yes, religious issues. These things all influence the way a student perceives an idea or topic, and how that student views the instructor. As a little anecdote, I have worked for many years as a tutor, and as an undergrad I volunteered in a peer tutoring program. One day the director asked me if I was a christian. You see, I was one of two math tutors and there was a student who needed help in math, but would only work with a christian. So, yes, am I asked about my faith, even though I teach math and statistics.


Yes, it could be given the phrasing of the question. In the public schools, with all the religious nuts out there--whether they are believers or non-believers and whether that means Baal, the Judeo/Christian or Muslim God, or in oak trees, or nothing at all--and the typical brittleness of "believers" and "non-believers" it's probably best in most cases for the teacher to not answer.

Any adult student who demands to know your religion clearly has some agenda. Older children may as well, but younger ones usually are just curious. Why a student in a college course would ask a prof this I cannot imagine, outside the typical attempt to prove that they are somehow being injured by the prof's belief/non-belief.

Frankly, as adults, it's none of their business and they should have more decency than to ask.

If you are a public school teacher you believe your "real job" is to indoctrinate kids into a certain ideological way of thinking.

I have kids, and have taught them, and I can say without fear of rational contradiction that few pre-k to about 4th-5th graders have any interest in or much of a concept of much that goes on outside their direct sphere. Few American 4th graders can tell you, for example, what all the fighting between Jews and Palestinian Arabs in Isreal is all about.

Hell, I can't tell you that.

So your statement is not only a gross overgeneralization (I imagine you will now come back and tell us of either your own intense interest in geopolitics at the age of 3, or how your child at the age of 10 was asked to speak on Keynesian economics before the Harvard Business School...) but demonstrates a fairly complete ignorance of young children.

Your anecdote shows that you are talking about tutoring ADULT students, not kids. And your boss was, clearly, an idiot. Byt the way: it is illegal in most states for a boss to question you about your religion in this way in the workplace.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, hooray for that school.

I have not known that to be the case in central illinois, especialy in small towns and rural districts, in fact it is agood idea to not mention your atheism in most places of employment.

The school was attempting to teach evolution as a means of demonstrating how it could not work, but my kids were/are bright enough to have figured out that actually, the "Scientific Creationism" the school was saying was the "real" way things happened, makes far less sense than evolution. They now know about the theory of evolution and that many people believe very strange things.

BUT...they do virtually ALL areas of study at a minimum of 2 years ahead of their "peers" in the public school. This presents, by the way, its own set of problems.

When I was growing up and thought to rebel by claiming that I was an "atheist" in jr. high, I was threatened with ass-kickings anytime I mentioned it (thankfully I was tall enough so that it always remained a threat only). This area has grown considerably since then and the schools here are very liberal, and professions of any faith/non-faith here, today, by kids or teachers is greeted, most often with a resounding "meh." Teachers here frequently mention and even display their faith and only in a few of the more far, far-left-liberal areas is this any sort of a problem (of course, it's only a problem when a teacher professes faith in Christianity).

Tokie

[SynapticDancer]

Sorry it took me so long

[SynapticDancer]

I have kids, and have taught them, and I can say without fear of rational contradiction that few pre-k to about 4th-5th graders have any interest in or much of a concept of much that goes on outside their direct sphere. Few American 4th graders can tell you, for example, what all the fighting between Jews and Palestinian Arabs in Isreal is all about.

Hell, I can't tell you that.

So your statement is not only a gross overgeneralization (I imagine you will now come back and tell us of either your own intense interest in geopolitics at the age of 3, or how your child at the age of 10 was asked to speak on Keynesian economics before the Harvard Business School...) but demonstrates a fairly complete ignorance of young children.

Your anecdote shows that you are talking about tutoring ADULT students, not kids. And your boss was, clearly, an idiot. Byt the way: it is illegal in most states for a boss to question you about your religion in this way in the workplace.

I dislike it when someone responds to a comment/question of mine, and in that person's response their is a prediction or presupposition of what my next response will be. I think in general it's a poor style of discussion, but more than that it diminishes ones position. It often makes me reluctant to respond because it now feels superfluous and hostile. Just wanted to express that.

That aside, having taught ones own children hardly makes one an expert in early childhood intellectual and cognitive development. Actually I doubt that there is such a thing, definitively. Further, I think as my original stated question (that I posed merely as fodder for discussion) expressed curiousity about how this topic could be approached with children, I have nor have I ever claimed to be this sort of expert I am skeptical of the existence thereof.

I also wonder about the validity of your hypothesis, that children do not wonder about that which does not exist in their direct sphere. Not that they do or they do not, but how can anyone make a blanket statement about what the content of that direct sphere is? Your side bar (to which I have already addressed my disgust stylistically) is a gross over exageration of a childs curiousity, but is not a child curious?

I made no secret of the fact that I am talking about adult students, and was curious about the implications this would have with young children. Perhaps you should refer to every post I've made in this thread.

This was not my boss that asked me, is was a coordinator of a volunteer program(which I believe I stated). Whether the ethics of the question are appropriate, she still had an interesting request for services and I do not know how I would have addressed the situation had I been charged to do so. I think it is rather bold of you to assume she is, "clearly, an idiot".

In the end, this is a question of ethics and discussion about the blurry lines we try to draw in teaching students to be critical thinkers without teaching them what to think. I think you have personalized this, and your characterization of students (adults and children) are filled with stereotyped imagery and exageration.

That being said, in the spirit of debate and discussion, I will do you the courtesy you denied me and not predict how you will answer, or even if you will. I look forward to your response.

[Paulhoff]

I suppose it's given way, as is the case in my kids' school to more and more stuff about "the environment" and the leftist-secularist religion of global warming.
?

Paul

:) :) :)

[Tokenconservative]

I dislike it when someone responds to a comment/question of mine, and in that person's response their is a prediction or presupposition of what my next response will be. I think in general it's a poor style of discussion, but more than that it diminishes ones position. It often makes me reluctant to respond because it now feels superfluous and hostile. Just wanted to express that.

That aside, having taught ones own children hardly makes one an expert in early childhood intellectual and cognitive development. Actually I doubt that there is such a thing, definitively. Further, I think as my original stated question (that I posed merely as fodder for discussion) expressed curiousity about how this topic could be approached with children, I have nor have I ever claimed to be this sort of expert I am skeptical of the existence thereof.

I also wonder about the validity of your hypothesis, that children do not wonder about that which does not exist in their direct sphere. Not that they do or they do not, but how can anyone make a blanket statement about what the content of that direct sphere is? Your side bar (to which I have already addressed my disgust stylistically) is a gross over exageration of a childs curiousity, but is not a child curious?

I made no secret of the fact that I am talking about adult students, and was curious about the implications this would have with young children. Perhaps you should refer to every post I've made in this thread.

This was not my boss that asked me, is was a coordinator of a volunteer program(which I believe I stated). Whether the ethics of the question are appropriate, she still had an interesting request for services and I do not know how I would have addressed the situation had I been charged to do so. I think it is rather bold of you to assume she is, "clearly, an idiot".

In the end, this is a question of ethics and discussion about the blurry lines we try to draw in teaching students to be critical thinkers without teaching them what to think. I think you have personalized this, and your characterization of students (adults and children) are filled with stereotyped imagery and exageration.

That being said, in the spirit of debate and discussion, I will do you the courtesy you denied me and not predict how you will answer, or even if you will. I look forward to your response.

LOL.

Lots of very....brittle debaters in here, I've noticed. Why announce that you are "reluctant" to reply? Just...don't reply! I get that a lot in here as well. It's a very curious approach: tell the person you are debating how ignorant, rude and stupid you think they are, and that because of this you are "reluctant" to reply to them, then launch into a 300 wd reply....

Anyway...I believe there are lots of people who BELIEVE they are expert in those things and a few who actually are, and I further don't believe I said that raising or schooling one's own kids makes one into such an expert...I find this a lot in here too: lots of shrieking about how rude and illogical, etc., I am, complaining about MY debating style, then misrepresenting (wildly) what I've said, or simply putting words in my mouth in a far more egregious way than my predicting what you might say next...just before running off to a mod to complain that I've launched a personal attack against them, completely out of the blue!

I'm not at all sure what you are talking about here. Children are curious about lots of things, but that tends (key term) to be age and experience centered. Not too many 4 yr-olds ponder the perplexities of relativity or Keynesian economics, for that matter. It's easy to make a "blanket statement" of that sort when you know something about kids.

Well, that's me...bold. I don't recall (and no, I won't peruse the thread to find out) the precise question, but if I identified you boss/coordinator...whatever..as and idiot, I can assume she was asking after your health, or perhaps sexual orientation, which if you know anything at all about modern America (of course, I am assuming you are American, and may be putting my foot in it again for doing so) you know that that's almost begging for a lawsuit. I as a boss/coordinator....whatever...might have an "interesting question" about a subordinate' undergarments...that "interesting" defense won't keep me out of court, nor will quibbling about whether I am a "boss" or "coordinator."

Your 2nd to last para here sounds a lot like a personal attack. A lot MORE like that than some of the things I've written that have been characterized as such by other posters in here...don't worry, I don't run crying to the forum mommy about such stuff.

These days, the line is a lot less blurry than you might imagine--or would apparently LIKE to imagine. "Critical thinking" in modern, American schools means "learning how to parrot left-liberal criticisms of 'conservative/establishment' ideals and actions." I learned critical thinking...differently. And no, actually, teaching kids WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think is pretty much part 'n parcel of that. And is a big part of public education in general...you can't be graduating millions of kids over decades who might go out and think for themselves, critcally analyzing what you (schools/union) tell them to think and having a "hey, wait a cotton-pickin' minute!" moment when they go to pull the lever on the next mil levy referendum, can you?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

?

Paul

:) :) :)

Did you have a question or where you just testing your "?" key?

[drkitten]

These days, the line is a lot less blurry than you might imagine--or would apparently LIKE to imagine. "Critical thinking" in modern, American schools means "learning how to parrot left-liberal criticisms of 'conservative/establishment' ideals and actions." I learned critical thinking...differently. And no, actually, teaching kids WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think is pretty much part 'n parcel of that. And is a big part of public education in general...you can't be graduating millions of kids over decades who might go out and think for themselves, critcally analyzing what you (schools/union) tell them to think and having a "hey, wait a cotton-pickin' minute!" moment when they go to pull the lever on the next mil levy referendum, can you?


More counterfactual nonsense.

[Tokenconservative]

More counterfactual nonsense.

Yes...of course it is. Regardless of reality.

Tokie

[Paulhoff]

Did you have a question or where you just testing your "?" key?
Sorry, I guess I should have known that you may be red and green color blind.

Paul

:) :) :)

[articulett]

Yes...of course it is. Regardless of reality.

Tokie

You do exhibit a glaring bias and seeming double standard as well as an inability to reflect others opinions while demanding that they kowtow to yours.

As a teacher, I think that the majority of teachers in America would suffer consequences if they made their atheism known.

[Tokenconservative]

You do exhibit a glaring bias and seeming double standard as well as an inability to reflect others opinions while demanding that they kowtow to yours.

As a teacher, I think that the majority of teachers in America would suffer consequences if they made their atheism known.

RE: Bias
Hmmmm....I've always found the most dishonest people in a crowd to be those who dash about shrieking "I have no biases!!!"

I think you can't get along for very long without developing biases. If you disagree....please identify for me a person over about the age of language-acquistion who has not developed likes/dislikes?

I mean someone outside of an institution who was born without brain activity, of course.

RE: Reflecting others' opinions

Whaaaatttttt!? What does this even mean? It's exactly the sort of intellectual mismash I, frankly, anticipate hearing from most "teachers." You heard this somewhere...it sounds good to YOU, even though it lacks any meaning whatsoever, and so you repeat it at every opportunity.

RE: Revealing atheism.

The entire American school system is, today, established around an atheistic (non-supernatural) perspective regarding the universe. When you say "let it be known" do you mean: attempt to prozyletize (and atheists are nearly as bad as Mormons and 7th Dayers when it comes to this) your faith IN the classroom?

It's far more dangerous for teachers--and there is case after case after case of this: teachers unable to keep a Bible at their desk, unable to wear Christian or even Jewish-symbol jewelery, etc., etc--to openly express their Christian especially, but also sometimes Jewish faith. Of course they are encouraged to express their faith if they are Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Native American or African, etc. animist, etc. as a part of "diversity." It's apparently not being "diverse" if one is Christian or Jewish.

Can you name ONE instance where a teacher was disciplined for simple EXPRESSING his/her non-belief in the supernatural...keep in mind please that we are not here talking about the teacher who laughs at his students' supernatural beliefs, or makes a kid clean the whiteboard with his tongue because he reads a Bible during reading period...but just a teacher who admitted to a student or a class that he/she does not believe in God.

I'll wait...

Tokie

[six7s]

Hmmmm....I've always found the most dishonest people in a crowd to be those who dash about shrieking "I have no biases!!!"

'Birds of a feather', and all that

If I "always" found the same thing, I'd make an effort to broaden my horizons

[Tokenconservative]

'Birds of a feather', and all that

If I "always" found the same thing, I'd make an effort to broaden my horizons

I always make an effort to understand my own biases and--when _I_ believe it necessary--tamp them down as much as possible.

Bias and "broad horizons" (I assume you mean an open mind) have little to do with each other. I know much about a lot, but I still have biases. I don't like raw cauliflower for example. But I do like it cooked.

Tokie

[six7s]

By 'broadening horizons', I am suggesting you consider mixing with a different crowd - one where dishonesty is not so prevalent

[Tokenconservative]

By 'broadening horizons', I am suggesting you consider mixing with a different crowd - one where dishonesty is not so prevalent

No...that's not at all what you mean. You mean to say: Tokie is an ignorant, backward, racist, sexist, redneck.

I'm always puzzled by why liberals cannot simply say what they mean.

And your being a liberal means that you ONLY mix with other liberals (which is why I alarm you so much: who let...THAT in here!?) and while you desperately tell yourself that your exchanges of hyperbole, deliberate misconceptions, distortions and outright falsehoods about "dem ebil consarvatives!!" with those other liberals are open, frank and honest, in fact, they are rote, scripted, parroted cant and screed.

Tokie

[Paulhoff]

I'm always puzzled how people have forgotten the meaning of liberal and conservative.

Liberal, is one who is liberal with the making of laws.
Conservative, is one who is conserve with the making of laws.

Today:
Liberal, is one who tries to find out the facts first on something new and then thinks about it before making a dissection. This takes time and is hard to do.
Conservative, is one who already knows the dissection on something new without finding facts first, no thinking needed. This is very easy to do, period.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Tokenconservative]

I'm always puzzled how people have forgotten the meaning of liberal and conservative.

Liberal, is one who is liberal with the making of laws.
Conservative, is one who is conserve with the making of laws.

Today:
Liberal, is one who tries to find out the facts first on something new and then thinks about it before making a dissection. This takes time and is hard to do.
Conservative, is one who already knows the dissection on something new without finding facts first, no thinking needed. This is very easy to do, period.

Paul

:) :) :)

Hmm....no, not so much.

Liberal, today is a socialist: one who believes that larger government is better and that government should tell all of us how to run our lives, save the elite among them.

Conservative today is socialist-lite: one who likes larger government to tell OTHERS how to run their lives, save their elite.

Not much difference that I can see. I guess conservatives tend to bathe more.

Tokie

[Paulhoff]

Not much difference that I can see. I guess conservatives tend to bathe more.

Tokie
Bathe in their non-thinking.

Paul

:) :) :)

[six7s]

No...that's not at all what you mean. You mean to say: Tokie is an ignorant, backward, racist, sexist, redneck

I have no evidence (yet) as per racism, sexism and the term redneck is too vague

As for ignorant, well... for me to 'accuse' you of that would be blatant and ridiculous hyporcrisy as I freely admit to being ignorant on many, many topics

I am confused why you, a fairly articulate man, seem to demand respect for your ignorance-based opinions

All I can do is infer (from what I think you mean to imply) that you have more pigeon holes than Imelda Marcos' closet

[SynapticDancer]

Tokie,

I completely disagree with most everything you've said. And really you just repeated yourself; you demonstrated no new insights into your position. So I really have nothing further left to engage in a dialogue about, because my response would just be a repeat of the last points I made. And this is getting a bit argumentative. Frankly, don't you think you are taking this a bit personal?

[Dancing David]

RE: Bias
Hmmmm....I've always found the most dishonest people in a crowd to be those who dash about shrieking "I have no biases!!!"

I think you can't get along for very long without developing biases. If you disagree....please identify for me a person over about the age of language-acquistion who has not developed likes/dislikes?

I mean someone outside of an institution who was born without brain activity, of course.

RE: Reflecting others' opinions

Whaaaatttttt!? What does this even mean? It's exactly the sort of intellectual mismash I, frankly, anticipate hearing from most "teachers." You heard this somewhere...it sounds good to YOU, even though it lacks any meaning whatsoever, and so you repeat it at every opportunity.

RE: Revealing atheism.

The entire American school system is, today, established around an atheistic (non-supernatural) perspective regarding the universe. When you say "let it be known" do you mean: attempt to prozyletize (and atheists are nearly as bad as Mormons and 7th Dayers when it comes to this) your faith IN the classroom?

It's far more dangerous for teachers--and there is case after case after case of this: teachers unable to keep a Bible at their desk, unable to wear Christian or even Jewish-symbol jewelery, etc., etc--to openly express their Christian especially, but also sometimes Jewish faith. Of course they are encouraged to express their faith if they are Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Native American or African, etc. animist, etc. as a part of "diversity." It's apparently not being "diverse" if one is Christian or Jewish.

Can you name ONE instance where a teacher was disciplined for simple EXPRESSING his/her non-belief in the supernatural...keep in mind please that we are not here talking about the teacher who laughs at his students' supernatural beliefs, or makes a kid clean the whiteboard with his tongue because he reads a Bible during reading period...but just a teacher who admitted to a student or a class that he/she does not believe in God.

I'll wait...

Tokie

And we will wait for your data forever as well.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333

[Tokenconservative]

And we will wait for your data forever as well.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709220333

First, YOU (and others) are making the positive assertion that (many) teachers (public schools, K-12 ) have been summarily dismissed (if not lynched by torch-and-pitchfork-bearing mobs) for expressing their non-belief in the Christian God. I wonder how well that would sell in Detroit where some of the teachers are Muslims?

I guess something in that Register article has confused you. Maybe all those funny looking symbols that form larger strings? We call those "words."

A community college professor is not a public schools--K-12-- teacher.

I'm not going to read the entire article, but it is my guess this adjunct signed a contract stating that he'd keep his personal religious beliefs out of the classroom.

I'd further guess (hard to tell from the left-biased reporting, of course) He didn't.

He was fired.

Good.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Tokie,

I completely disagree with most everything you've said. And really you just repeated yourself; you demonstrated no new insights into your position. So I really have nothing further left to engage in a dialogue about, because my response would just be a repeat of the last points I made. And this is getting a bit argumentative. Frankly, don't you think you are taking this a bit personal?

LOL.

I am forever intrigued by this take on me when I am in these forums.

In answer to your question, no. Please don't project your or others' emotional responses in a forum onto me. Or do. I really don't care. It makes no difference to me, whatsoever.

I am hardly "getting emotional." I know this because other than the emotion of mirth, I simply don't get emotional in forums....haven't for years.

For more than that, you'd have to actually reference what I said that led you to this patently false conclusion.

Tokie

[Mashuna]

By 'broadening horizons', I am suggesting you consider mixing with a different crowd - one where dishonesty is not so prevalent

No...that's not at all what you mean. You mean to say: Tokie is an ignorant, backward, racist, sexist, redneck.

I'm always puzzled by why liberals cannot simply say what they mean.

And your being a liberal means that you ONLY mix with other liberals (which is why I alarm you so much: who let...THAT in here!?) and while you desperately tell yourself that your exchanges of hyperbole, deliberate misconceptions, distortions and outright falsehoods about "dem ebil consarvatives!!" with those other liberals are open, frank and honest, in fact, they are rote, scripted, parroted cant and screed.

Tokie

Now, I've just posted in another thread that there is a difference between 'hyperbole' and 'making stuff up'. You agreed that they were different things. This is an example of 'making stuff up'.

If you want to argue with the funny 'liberal' voices in your head that keep calling you an ignorant, backward, racist, sexist, redneck, feel free. You don't need anyone else to carry on that particular argument. But while you are having that argument, don't think you're addressing what other people are actually saying. In order to do that, you need to reply to their words, not change their words to what you think 'all liberals really mean'.

It's funny to read though, so I'll be just as happy if you carry on regardless.

[Tokenconservative]

Now, I've just posted in another thread that there is a difference between 'hyperbole' and 'making stuff up'. You agreed that they were different things. This is an example of 'making stuff up'.

If you want to argue with the funny 'liberal' voices in your head that keep calling you an ignorant, backward, racist, sexist, redneck, feel free. You don't need anyone else to carry on that particular argument. But while you are having that argument, don't think you're addressing what other people are actually saying. In order to do that, you need to reply to their words, not change their words to what you think 'all liberals really mean'.

It's funny to read though, so I'll be just as happy if you carry on regardless.


I don't argue with the liberal voices in my head, I just stuff them in a sack. You can't do that in real life. That's what the sheriff told me afterward, anyhow.

I did not say anyone in here is actually calling me that. I said that is the liberal DEFINITION of "conservative." You should try this: read what people actually write, rather than what it is you would LIKE for them to have written. It's a marvelously refreshing approach!

When you come to a discussion with this sort of bigoted, close-minded view of your opponent already cemented into place, it's really tough for the ig'nant, un-so-fist-eye-kated, backwoods, racist, sexist, xeno- and homo"phobic" warmongering redneck hater to get his or her point across. I find that penetrating concrete is always difficult and that the concrete between a liberal's ears is especially reinforced.

Tokie

[articulett]

RE: Bias
Hmmmm....I've always found the most dishonest people in a crowd to be those who dash about shrieking "I have no biases!!!"
Can you name ONE instance where a teacher was disciplined for simple EXPRESSING his/her non-belief in the supernatural...keep in mind please that we are not here talking about the teacher who laughs at his students' supernatural beliefs, or makes a kid clean the whiteboard with his tongue because he reads a Bible during reading period...but just a teacher who admitted to a student or a class that he/she does not believe in God.

I'll wait...

Tokie


stringent for the data you request opposing your rant (I see you ignored what was provided) while you cast off aspersions about a whole group of supposed teachers who are spouting liberal dogma without the tiniest bit of evidence. I would say that any acknowledged atheist receives at least your sort of dishonest smarminess and nastiness from people of faith who are certain they are humble and moral. Your imagined experiences do not correspond with my real ones.

[six7s]

I did not say anyone in here is actually calling me that. I said that is the liberal DEFINITION of "conservative." You should try this: read what people actually write, rather than what it is you would LIKE for them to have written

The way I read it, you're only writing insignificant waffle

It's a marvelously refreshing approach!

It is, if there is substance

Otherwise, it stultifyingly dull

For example:
I wonder how well that would sell in Detroit where some of the teachers are Muslims?

This type of bland rhetoric adds nothing to a debate - simply because it is NOT a point of debate, rather it is merely a vacuous pseudo-rant at something you either don't understand or daren't risk your opinion being challenged on

[articulett]

It's a good think his head is big enough for all the voices inside of it--I can't imagine Tokie has many actual people who find him as intelligible as he seems to find himself.

[Tokenconservative]

stringent for the data you request opposing your rant (I see you ignored what was provided) while you cast off aspersions about a whole group of supposed teachers who are spouting liberal dogma without the tiniest bit of evidence. I would say that any acknowledged atheist receives at least your sort of dishonest smarminess and nastiness from people of faith who are certain they are humble and moral. Your imagined experiences do not correspond with my real ones.


So I guess that's a "no."

Now...were you fired from a (or many) teaching jobs for simply admitting you don't believe in God?

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The way I read it, you're only writing insignificant waffle



It is, if there is substance

Otherwise, it stultifyingly dull

For example:


This type of bland rhetoric adds nothing to a debate - simply because it is NOT a point of debate, rather it is merely a vacuous pseudo-rant at something you either don't understand or daren't risk your opinion being challenged on

I notice that you are not able to provide anything of substance to this (or any) debate that involves NOT telling the reader to run along and do all the heavy intellectual lifting for you at some link you provide.

Your only response to what I have to say, is this sort of piffle, in which you claim that I'm not worth reading, and that you, of course, best me intellectually, proven by your ability to post links.

You are unable to provide a point of debate, bland or otherwise. You are simply unable to debate. In fact, it very much appears you really have no idea what rational discourse is. A hint: it is NOT filling every post with a dozen links and demanding that your opponent go out and learn your argument from others.

Tokie

[articulett]

So I guess that's a "no."

Now...were you fired from a (or many) teaching jobs for simply admitting you don't believe in God?

Tokie

No, but that wasn't the topic. Discrimination is usually snide like your opening post-- not blatant. And evidence was provided which you ignored. You are the one who made derogatory comments with no evidence and then demanded a bizarre standard of evidence to prove that there is a bias against those who speak out about their atheism-- because of people like you.

[Mashuna]

I don't argue with the liberal voices in my head, I just stuff them in a sack. You can't do that in real life. That's what the sheriff told me afterward, anyhow.

I did not say anyone in here is actually calling me that. I said that is the liberal DEFINITION of "conservative." You should try this: read what people actually write, rather than what it is you would LIKE for them to have written. It's a marvelously refreshing approach!

If no-one here is actually calling you that, why are you always arguing against it? It's not a liberal definition, it's something you've made up. I'm sure it's easier for you to argue against a made-up opponent, it's just not reality.


When you come to a discussion with this sort of bigoted, close-minded view of your opponent already cemented into place, it's really tough for the ig'nant, un-so-fist-eye-kated, backwoods, racist, sexist, xeno- and homo"phobic" warmongering redneck hater to get his or her point across. I find that penetrating concrete is always difficult and that the concrete between a liberal's ears is especially reinforced.

Tokie

Fortunately, you've already admitted no-one here is calling you that, so you don't need to worry. Maybe you mean to post in the $1m challenge area though, you seem to think you can read minds, and know what those eeeevvvvillllll liberals really think about you.

[ponderingturtle]

When you come to a discussion with this sort of bigoted, close-minded view of your opponent already cemented into place, it's really tough for the ig'nant, un-so-fist-eye-kated, backwoods, racist, sexist, xeno- and homo"phobic" warmongering redneck hater to get his or her point across. I find that penetrating concrete is always difficult and that the concrete between a liberal's ears is especially reinforced.

Tokie

Do you realize you are presenting your arguments with all the elegance of a 12 year old on crystal meth?

[SynapticDancer]

I notice that you are not able to provide anything of substance to this (or any) debate that involves NOT telling the reader to run along and do all the heavy intellectual lifting for you at some link you provide.

Your only response to what I have to say, is this sort of piffle, in which you claim that I'm not worth reading, and that you, of course, best me intellectually, proven by your ability to post links.

You are unable to provide a point of debate, bland or otherwise. You are simply unable to debate. In fact, it very much appears you really have no idea what rational discourse is. A hint: it is NOT filling every post with a dozen links and demanding that your opponent go out and learn your argument from others.

Tokie


I'm sorry, but who ever said anything about needing evidence? This began as a question of ethics, not a pursuit of a scientific decision on the matter.

And for someone claiming that no one else on this thread is qualified to have an objective debate on this subject (although no one ever suggested we should), your position certainly isn't based on any evidence either. Except of course perhaps some subjectively confirmed stereotypes that appear to be based on your own Fox news view of the world.

[deathmunkee]

I'm open about my atheism when it applies.

I had a philosophy class that was taught by a Catholic Priest, and we had a blast debating ideas in there.

As far as teaching, it would depend on the age group, and again, the class. A math class full of 4rth graders need not know my heathen ways ...

[Whack01]

One of the reasons I majored in computer science is that it's so wonderfully neutral. Pure logic at it's finest. Little politics, & very little religion/science conflict and it's mostly avoidable unless you're really into emergent behaviors in genetic algorithms/AI.

That said, Think about how you would expect a Young Earth Creationist would be responded to in a course on Modern Physics before you say you're an atheist in a theology course. :duck:

(note: The response is generally polite but the talking that people do behind each others back... WOW. )

Interesting story, possibly unrelated but anyway I asked my biology teacher (at a state university) about what she thought of God after class one day. She responded that she felt that "god particles" were emanating from the sun and that everybody could be in touch with God through them. Nobody present said anything untoward, and I don't know if she was joking, but she was fired within the first month of the semester (I have no evidence as to why she got fired, but I think I can guess :CRAZY: ).

[JanisChambers]

To be frank, I find that dealing with people who have strong religious beliefs very similar to dealing with someone who has a severe drug problem. I am afraid logic is pretty much lost on the solid believer, and their (normally) totalitarian views are met with any shade of negative reaction.

[psstevens]

To be frank, I find that dealing with people who have strong religious beliefs very similar to dealing with someone who has a severe drug problem. I am afraid logic is pretty much lost on the solid believer, and their (normally) totalitarian views are met with any shade of negative reaction.

I teach psychology in the Bible Belt. I haven't really had any negative experiences due to my lack of a belief in an unprovable concept like God. However, I agree that using logic on 'the solid believer' is not a useful strategy. They do not come to their beliefs through logic and sometimes they seem to view it as a (positive) sign of their faith to hold views that defy logic. I've sometimes heard the phrase, "Faith is belief without proof" used as some sort of unifying catchphrase. I assume a certain amount of unconscious logic is involved in thinking something like 'faith is what gets me into heaven', 'holding beliefs that defy logic is a sign of faith', 'the more I can defy logic with some sort of religious justification the closer I am to heaven'. Attacking true believers with logic may just give them opportunities to strengthen their positions.

[galnoir]

As a first grade teacher in a public school I do have to say the pledge every day, god included.

As for the subject of god coming up, every time I try to teach the water cycle he's there making it rain. Someone always raises their hand and says that god makes it rain--or thunder, or lightning, or puts a rainbow in the sky. In fact often if you just ask about "things that are in the sky" you will get god or heaven as an answer. I try to acknowledge that response without endorsing it and get back to the subject.

Christmas can be a tricky time--writing a letter to Santa is almost required. I do like to talk about how the holiday is celebrated in different countries and about how Santa looks and what he is called. The children enjoy learning about the different countries.

They do not ask me straight out if I believe in god and frankly I hope they don't, because I'm not sure what I would say--I mean I would never say "no" but I can't say "yes." I live in a pretty conservative part of the country and my coworkers don't know anything about my beliefs either, and I hope to keep it that way.

[Gregory]

That said, Think about how you would expect a Young Earth Creationist would be responded to in a course on Modern Physics before you say you're an atheist in a theology course. :duck:

I don't know exactly how you classify "theology," but when I minored in religion (mainly early Christianity), I never concealed my atheism, and I never had any problems. I can't prove that nobody talked behind my back (because how could I), but I'm fairly certain of it.

[Jeff Corey]

I have been following these posts from the beginning and haven't said much because as a college prof, this has never come up as threat to my paycheck. If a discussion in Critical Thinking or a related topic in another course comes up about religion, I say that we are not going to deal with religions, any of the hundreds of them, all of them claiming to be true, of course, but with factual things, not ephemeral phenomena based on mere faith.
And then Student X says, "So, you don't believe in God?"
"Which ones?"

[Paulhoff]

I have been following these posts from the beginning and haven't said much because as a college prof, this has never come up as threat to my paycheck. If a discussion in Critical Thinking or a related topic in another course comes up about religion, I say that we are not going to deal with religions, any of the hundreds of them, all of them claiming to be true, of course, but with factual things, not ephemeral phenomena based on mere faith.
And then Student X says, "So, you don't believe in God?"
"Which ones?"
Another one that I have heard and like is "I don't believe in any of them".

Paul

:) :) :)

[MajikPiG]

I wish there would be no backlash, since religious teachers seem to feel free to speak openly at least on some occasions. It would surely be helpful for atheist kids. I know that some high schools are having Secular Student Alliances, but I bet it's still "dangerous" for teachers to be in charge of such groups... while they can and do head theistic clubs on school grounds.

I agree. I'm a teacher in West Virginia, USA, and I've found that the community is very close-minded about minority beliefs. The local pastor of the Presbyterian church was kicked out because he preached tolerance towards people who are homosexual. My father-in-law (also a teacher) was accused of devil worship because he used to teach yoga to some of his students.

Just last year I asked my students to meditate on the characters that they were playing in a theatre production. I guess I should have said "think deeply about" instead of "meditate on", because one student informed me that he was "not allowed to meditate."

The culture here is very biased towards Christianity, and, while there is a local chapter of the Federation of Christian Athletes at the school, I find it hard to believe that I would get support for starting a Federation of Atheist Students or something of the sort. I don't think I would be fired, but I do think that all support for any of my projects would quickly dry up. Therefore, I don't rock the boat.

As far as letting students know my position on religion, I won't openly expose my opinions and beliefs to a class, but if a student asks me privately I would consider confiding in him or her, especially if the matter were about his or her own struggle with religion or with discrimination. On the topic of politics, however, I am pretty open about my liberality, but I also don't tell anyone what they should believe.

Thanks,
Matt

[Father Dagon]

Hmm....no, not so much.

Liberal, today is a socialist: one who believes that larger government is better and that government should tell all of us how to run our lives, save the elite among them.

Conservative today is socialist-lite: one who likes larger government to tell OTHERS how to run their lives, save their elite.

Not much difference that I can see. I guess conservatives tend to bathe more.

TokieThree cheers for the botched-up american political terminology! ;)

[slingblade]

Can you name ONE instance where a teacher was disciplined for simple EXPRESSING his/her non-belief in the supernatural...keep in mind please that we are not here talking about the teacher who laughs at his students' supernatural beliefs, or makes a kid clean the whiteboard with his tongue because he reads a Bible during reading period...but just a teacher who admitted to a student or a class that he/she does not believe in God.

I'll wait...

Tokie

Wait no more. My mentor teacher in my internship learned I was atheist.
She said, at first, that it was no problem. In fact, my co-mentor was also an atheist, and the two were friends.

But then my mentor began to act more and more strangely to me. She had decided I didn't kowtow to her enough, so she suddenly decided my atheism was a "problem." Her attitude changed drastically. She withdrew all of her support, began to bully me inside and outside of the classroom, broke most of the rules outlined in our internship agreement, and threatened to "ruin my career."

Which she did. I'm not a teacher, and no longer want to be one, even though I carried a 4.0 in Education, and scored in the top 4% of the nation in content area knowledge.

The principal of the school acknowledged to me she might have "mental issues."

I still got kicked out of the program, on her say-so alone.

So, there you go. Your wait is over.

Oh, and have I told you about the middle school teacher who told her class that Hanukkah is "the Jewish celebration of Christ's birth?" Yeah.