Story from CA, a school district is being sued for anti-Christian remarks made by a European History teacher. The teacher reportedly told students "What country has the highest murder rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South! What part of the country has the highest rate of church attendance? The South!” These remarks were recorded on tape by an understandably upset student. Why did a European history teacher need to make these remarks? If he had said "Christianity has a history that includes rape and murder, as in the Crusades." I would not have a problem. Is it embarrassing, yes, but it is also true. The fact these remarks were uneeded shows his bias and goals. People would have been up-in-arms if he had said... "Which world region has the most oppression of women? The Middle East! Which region is responsible for most the most terrorist acts? The Middle East! Which region has the most Muslims? The Middle East!" I see no reason why they should not be upset by the same sort of insulting generalizations about Christianity. Personally I do not feel like this is a proper interpretation of the 1st amendment, but because the 1st amendment has been used to make our schools completely non-religious, the precedent is that this teacher was in the wrong. If the courts find on the side of the school, it will be glaringly unfair in our society where the only reason an atheist lost his suit to remove the pledge of allegiance due to the reference to God was a technicality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with you. :) The very first thing I noticed about that article was that this teacher supposedly claimed that "The South!" was a country. "What country has the hight murder rate? The South!" hahaha...
I agree that the remarks seemed very inappropriate in the way they were phrased. It does make his bias apparent, and I cannot stand when teachers try to impose their beliefs on their students. Good teachers, the kinds that should be allowed to teach (in my humble opinion), are the ones who provide students with facts and allow them to draw their own conclusions without trying to persuade them.
This teacher did not do that.
I do not, however, have any problems with teachers of varying nonreligious or religious beliefs being in schools. But I feel it should be their job to leave their personal beliefs at home, and bring merely the facts to school.
I agree to a certain extent with this post. However, your analogy about the Islamic faith is a little lacking.
"Which religion is responsible for most the most terrorist acts? The Middle East! Which region has the most Muslims? The Middle East!"
Firstly, the Middle East is not a religion. I assume you are referencing Islam here, but I would also like to point out that the Middle East is also home to Jewish people, Hindu people, Buddahists and Christians.
Secondly, I don't believe that a region with a high Muslim population is a dangerous thing, as your final analogy implies. The Islamic religion and the Muslim people are peaceful, and it is only the marginal believers who read the teachings as calling for bloodshed.
And, finally, I challenge you defination of terrorism. How do you define terrorism? Because I contend that the United States has committed its fair share of terrorism as well.
Kate... First of all saying the middle east is a religion is a typo that will be corrected.
secondly, I was using that analogy to show how silly the statement that saying an area with a high concentration of Christians is correlated to rape and murder. The south also contains Jewish, Muslim, and assorted other religions.
I am not in any way trying to blame Islam, but rather trying to show the fallacy of this man's statement.
Terrorism, to me, is any action undertaken with the specific purpose of mental, rather than traditional warfare vs. the enemy. and if your claim that the US has used it (not going to dispute whether or not right now) the majority of acts would still be in the middle east region, no matter who committed them.
Alright. I understand your analogy better now.
Thanks!
The middle east has got what we need and want what we have; so we take what we want and give them what they need.
Actually I would argue that adhering to the teachings of an organized religion lead to poor human rights abuses. And really, the area with the worst women's rights violations is sub Saharan Africa. Also, terrorism is subjective. Latin American cartels practice terrorist like attacks fairly often, the United States just doesn't care because Americans aren't the target.
to clarify, religions are hierarchical structures that disseminate ideas of leaders to followers, who have been told and believe their mortal souls are at stake should they not follow. Therefore it is easy for a madman to use a religious structure as a tool to turn a population into his own personal army. Fred Phelps anyone?
Post a Comment