11 year old student in georgia harrassed by teacher because his family is pagan.

[bikerdruid]

freedom of religion means any religion.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhun...ment-case.html

Christopher’s teacher, Mrs. Ross, pulled him out of class and proceeded to drill him about Paganism, ending the conversation with “Paganism is not a religion.” Remember, this is an 11 year old student, with no parent present while being harassed about his religion by someone who is suppose to be an educator.

[Ketyk]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

...freedom of religion means any religion....

Is that your opinion? Would you care to elaborate?

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

Is that your opinion? Would you care to elaborate?

seems pretty clear to me.
'freedom of religion' which allows an individual to worship or not, as their conscience dictates, should extend to 'any religion' (or none).
(many view it as the freedom to worship in the xtian church of their choice)

[Ketyk]

I generally stay away fro the "Religion and Philosopy" section of the JREF forum. One of the reason why I stay away is that I don't see cohesive arguments that are well thought out and presented in a way that anyone can join in and discuss a particular interest. Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't see anything like:

I saw X
Here is the source of X
I agree with these parts of X
I disagree with these parts of X

Given that I am fairly new here, can you try to re-interpret your original post?

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

I generally stay away fro the "Religion and Philosopy" section of the JREF forum. One of the reason why I stay away is that I don't see cohesive arguments that are well thought out and presented in a way that anyone can join in and discuss a particular interest. Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't see anything like:

I saw X
Here is the source of X
I agree with these parts of X
I disagree with these parts of X

Given that I am fairly new here, can you try to re-interpret your original post?

do you have an opinion on the incident?
if not, carry on....

[Twiler]

I saw a thread about a teacher saying that Paganism was not a religion.

Here is the source of the story http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhun...ment-case.html

I agree that this violates the principle of freedom of religion.

I disagree that a teacher has a right to behave in this manner.

[jj]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

Is that your opinion? Would you care to elaborate?

Please explain your question in any context germane to this OP. Bear in mind that this OP refers to the United States of America, which very specifically has accepted freedom of, and freedom from, religioun, as memorialized in its constitution and its court decisions.

[Ketyk]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

do you have an opinion on the incident?
if not, carry on....

Thank you but I prefer to stay. I suppose I didn't like the way the OP was presented. I'll try harder tomorrow to see if I was missing something.

[slingblade]

I anticipate a "Ha! You can't sacrifice people and get away with it by calling it 'religious freedom,' so 'any religion' obviously isn't the case! HA!" sort of gotcha.

[Qeidx]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

I generally stay away fro the "Religion and Philosopy" section of the JREF forum. One of the reason why I stay away is that I don't see cohesive arguments that are well thought out and presented in a way that anyone can join in and discuss a particular interest. Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't see anything like:

I saw X
Here is the source of X
I agree with these parts of X
I disagree with these parts of X

Given that I am fairly new here, can you try to re-interpret your original post?

You say you're fairly new here, but your join date says
"Join Date: May 2006"
Care to explain what you mean by new here?
Not being sarcastic because your post is also asking of a re-interpretation, I'm genuinely curious.

Quote:

"I anticipate a "Ha! You can't sacrifice people and get away with it by calling it 'religious freedom,' so 'any religion' obviously isn't the case! HA!" sort of gotcha. "

Sort of, but not really. It's like how free will is interpreted. Freedom of will is different than freedom of acting on that will. Even if it's shown that I can freely will all day long to turn into a fish, this doesn't mean I am also free to act on this. So freedom of religion, being, freedom to hold any belief you want does not necessarily hold that you have freedom of action on said beliefs.

[Ketyk]

New to the "Religion and Philosophy" sub-forum.

[Qeidx]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

New to the "Religion and Philosophy" sub-forum.

That makes sense, then.

For this section we should remember that some people aren't as civil and rational in all arguments they make because they've been thought through with a narrower framework.
As, they hold a belief that's very central to themselves, they obviously come here instead of any other with a purpose of some kind in mind, for most, being, the purpose of telling someone else they're incorrect what they hold very central to themselves.
It's an empowering feeling. Makes some people less rational because they, even if they make a ridiculous claim, don't want that scrutiny turning from the other person, to whom they're scrutinizing, over to themselves, by others thinking they are in error.

Unlike arguing something like politics, where, people are more of a side step to the given positions, the positions here are more making up the core of someone's beliefs.
When someone says they hold a specific political view, it's that they are more OF a specific set.
Politics has very specific, rigid view sets. Religion has more ambiguity in the outlines. For cherry picking in politics, you still have a specific place that you're put in. For cherry picking in religion, you could be of a much more indecisive set.
When someone says they hold a specific religious or spiritual view, their belief is more of them than they are of their belief. When it comes to the arguments, when you criticize their argument, and thus, their foundation of their beliefs here, you're attacking closer to their ego. By this, people will sometimes give vagaries in place of substantial argument, in order to not put too much of themselves out there. I'm not claiming that this is the case for this thread, but, as you pointed out, that's common.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Qeidx

Sort of, but not really. It's like how free will is interpreted. Freedom of will is different than freedom of acting on that will. Even if it's shown that I can freely will all day long to turn into a fish, this doesn't mean I am also free to act on this. So freedom of religion, being, freedom to hold any belief you want does not necessarily hold that you have freedom of action on said beliefs.

Not at all "sort of, but not really."

My comment was the wry observation that someone misinterpreting freedom of religion in exactly that way would attempt to use that misinterpretation to make a very lame "gotcha."

Whatever it was you thought I was saying, I actually wasn't.

[Qeidx]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Not at all "sort of, but not really."

My comment was the wry observation that someone misinterpreting freedom of religion in exactly that way would attempt to use that misinterpretation to make a very lame "gotcha."

Whatever it was you thought I was saying, I actually wasn't.

Wasn't commenting on what I thought was being said as much as I was commenting on what was, specifically, in the quotes.

I saw what you were doing.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Qeidx

Wasn't commenting on what I thought was being said as much as I was commenting on what was, specifically, in the quotes.

I saw what you were doing.

Sort of.

But not really.

[Qeidx]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Sort of.

But not really.

Partially.

But not actually.

[epepke]

Paganism isn't a religion.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by epepke

Paganism isn't a religion.

could you expand upon this opinion?

[Naive1000]

It can be: Paganism.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

could you expand upon this opinion?

I'd say it is true at least in the sense that monotheism isn't a religion, either. The words describe categories of things - world views here. Some of those individual worldviews can easily be religions, though.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

I generally stay away fro the "Religion and Philosopy" section of the JREF forum. One of the reason why I stay away is that I don't see cohesive arguments that are well thought out and presented in a way that anyone can join in and discuss a particular interest. Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't see anything like:

I saw X
Here is the source of X
I agree with these parts of X
I disagree with these parts of X

Given that I am fairly new here, can you try to re-interpret your original post?

Which part of "freedom" is confusing you, and needs whole treatises to define to your satisfaction? Or is it just confusing that "religion" can mean something else than yours?

Either way, according to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the USA did sign and ratify, article 18:

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Exactly how is having a government employee grill a kid over his parents' religion conforming to specifically points 2 and 4 in the treaty? Therein you'll find what the fuss in the OP is about.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

I'd say it is true at least in the sense that monotheism isn't a religion, either. The words describe categories of things - world views here. Some of those individual worldviews can easily be religions, though.

Yup, that's my view too.

[mikeyx]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

do you have an opinion on the incident?
if not, carry on....

given that church and schooldont mix in a secular society what the >< business is this of the teacher's in any way. Suspend or fire them.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

freedom of religion means any religion.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhun...ment-case.html

Christopher’s teacher, Mrs. Ross, pulled him out of class and proceeded to drill him about Paganism, ending the conversation with “Paganism is not a religion.” Remember, this is an 11 year old student, with no parent present while being harassed about his religion by someone who is suppose to be an educator.

Sounds to me like a typical idiot religious biggot who likes to stick their nose into something that isn't any of their business.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

I generally stay away fro the "Religion and Philosopy" section of the JREF forum. One of the reason why I stay away is that I don't see cohesive arguments that are well thought out and presented in a way that anyone can join in and discuss a particular interest. Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't see anything like:

I saw X
Here is the source of X
I agree with these parts of X
I disagree with these parts of X

Given that I am fairly new here, can you try to re-interpret your original post?

How about starting a cohesive argument for us. If we can't do it maybe you can.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Sounds to me like a typical idiot religious biggot who likes to stick their nose into something that isn't any of their business.

It's worsened because this bigot was the kid's teacher, though.

The discussion about whether paganism is a religion, or whether the kid's parents' world-view would qualify as a "religion" is interesting, but not relevant to the case: The behavior would be unacceptable even if the teacher had quizzed the child and finally declared that the father's pastime - chess - isn't a "real sport". What motivates the bullying here shouldn't matter one way or another.

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

Is that your opinion? Would you care to elaborate?

It's not his opinion, it's the law in the United States.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Qeidx

Partially.

But not actually.

Hi, Jim.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by mikeyx

given that church and schooldont mix in a secular society what the >< business is this of the teacher's in any way. Suspend or fire them.

we agree....wow.

[RobDegraves]

Paganism is certainly a religion. My wife classifies herself as nominally pagan and it is an organized (more or less) movement with a number of sub classification. Much like a number of recent religious movements, there is some confusion as to what nomenclature to use but it certainly is as much a religion as any other. Note that as a historian, I don't tend to use the word pagan as it doesn't mean anything precise... within a historical context.

In the case presented in the OP, with the understanding that we are only getting a one sided view of the story, it seems very much like we have a woefully under educated teacher and perhaps a system that dislikes alternative religions. I tend to suspect the latter but it's hard to tell second hand.

Unfortunately, the US education system does not seem to reward educators learning more than the bare essentials to do their job. While I don't think it's necessary to be politically correct in everything a teacher says... an educator should have the duty to be well informed in a subject before speaking about it in front of their students.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by RobDegraves

Paganism is certainly a religion. My wife classifies herself as nominally pagan and it is an organized (more or less) movement with a number of sub classification. Much like a number of recent religious movements, there is some confusion as to what nomenclature to use but it certainly is as much a religion as any other. Note that as a historian, I don't tend to use the word pagan as it doesn't mean anything precise... within a historical context.

In the case presented in the OP, with the understanding that we are only getting a one sided view of the story, it seems very much like we have a woefully under educated teacher and perhaps a system that dislikes alternative religions. I tend to suspect the latter but it's hard to tell second hand.

Unfortunately, the US education system does not seem to reward educators learning more than the bare essentials to do their job. While I don't think it's necessary to be politically correct in everything a teacher says... an educator should have the duty to be well informed in a subject before speaking about it in front of their students.

As to the last part of your post, teachers must take and pass the PRAXIS II in their content area. This determines your level of knowledge in that area.

Unfortunately, a passing grade doesn't really tell a great deal. Everyone in my cohort passed their PRAXIS. And in the last week of classes, I was still correcting their English in their final essays.

These were English teachers.

[Mudcat]

Got some real in depth discussions about what is and is not a religion, but none of that matters one iota. The teacher was clearly over stepping his boundaries and authority of his position and he should be punished appropriately for it.

[Dessi]

Whether paganism is a religion or not, since the case took place in the US, the constitutional protections relating to freedom of religion will apply. This includes the freedom to be protected from religious coercion, protected against the state or state-run entities from saying that prayer is more preferable over non-prayer (and vice versa), protected against the state giving preferential treatment to one set of religious beliefs over another, protected to worship or not worship whatever you heart desires with respect to applicable laws against threatening the safety of others or the state.

Plenty of ALCU cases involving rights of pagan/Wicca/Native American citizens, particularly in the area of inmates and military servicemen, establish a strong precedent that religious belief is protected no matter what its labeled (see here, here, and this great resource too). The teacher's behavior was inappropriate. She can quibble among her peers whether paganism is classified as a religion, but she cannot lecture him on whether his religious beliefs are invalid.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by epepke

Paganism isn't a religion.

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that paganism wasn't a religion until fairly recently (historically speaking)?

[cwalner]

While what described in the article is very very wrong, I feel I must take it with a grain (or several) of salt. Both the link in the OP and the source for the original article are sites that have a clear bias (the OP is a pagan site, and the source is an anti-authoritarian site). That coupled with no actual comments from the school or the teacher, only 2nd (or 3rd) hand quotes that I cannot tell if they are from the child in question or his mother. My inclination is that there is a grain of truth there and the teacher probably overstepped some boundaries, but the severity of the situation seems exaggerated to me.

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah, there's not any legitimate media coverage of the story. We probably won't ever know what actually happened.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by Ketyk

Thank you but I prefer to stay. I suppose I didn't like the way the OP was presented. I'll try harder tomorrow to see if I was missing something.

Let's see...

The teacher is an ignorant bigoted fool who doesn't understand that her position as a teacher doesn't give her the right to harrass her students because of their religious beliefs (or their lack of religious beliefs).

I think the teacher should be severely disciplined and/or fired because of her behavior.

I think that, if she is kept on as a teacher, she should be removed from that classroom and reassigned to a different group of children (after an unpaid timeout for bad behavior and serious retraining).

The child should be allowed to remain with his class, because he has done nothing at all wrong.

The teacher should also be made to apologize publicly to the student.

This type of behavior is intolerable.

Ketyk - Is this at all clearer? Do you need further clarification?

The OP was presented well.

Your reaction to it is... typical of some of the people who drop in here occasionally - People who have agendas that I do not like.

If I'd witnessed what that teacher did to that student...

[Beelzebuddy]

Not knowing for sure means we get to fill in what we want, right?

[Weak Kitten]

If the case is as stated than it is clearly a situation where the teacher was completely out of bounds and deserves to at least be suspended and sent to some sort of sensitivity training (do they have that for teachers?).

However the facts of the case could be different from what we have been told. It could all be a misunderstanding based on poor communication. Perhaps the boy said he could not finish an assignment due to a Pagan religious holiday and the teacher responded that he had to do it because the school does not recognize that holiday. Perhaps the boy requested some unusual special consideration due to his religious beliefs and the teacher responded that he would have to prove that those were actual religious beliefs and not something he was just making up. It could all be a legitimate case of confusion.

edit: Does anyone else see the word suspended in hypertext? That's strange.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

Does anyone else see the word suspended in hypertext? That's strange.

Words that are linked to administrative functions in forum system, like ban and mods, are sometimes automatically linked to definitions of those things.