Teacher fired for saying Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally

[Pangloss]

However, by Pangloss's standards this Vatican cardinal and astronomer have decided to "declare that all religion is mere MYTH." To say otherwise is "pointless hair splitting"

 

That is completely unfair, and a gross misrepresentation of what I said. The hair-splitting I accused you of is saying that Adam and Eve can't be literally interpreted and declaring it to be a myth aren't the same thing, and I only used the word myth in that context after someone on YOUR side of the argument did so.

 

At NO TIME have I said that to challenge one point of religion is to declare all religion a myth. You are deliberately and directly putting words you know to be false in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it. Once again I find myself telling you that if you had done what you just did to me to anybody else on this board you'd be staring at a login prompt at this very moment.

 

And dude, I'm willing to bet that I've been an avid James Burke fan and reader for a heck of a lot longer than you have. I watched Connections when it was FIRST RELEASED in this country, and was eagerly awaiting TDTUC even BEFORE it was released here. AND I've read both books, and EVERY SINGLE SciAm article he wrote. So don't even think about lecturing me on James Burke. I can quote the last chapters of BOTH of his books from MEMORY.

 

You are one seriously bad debate loser, bascule. Wow.

[Reaper]

Pangloss and Bascule, I don't mean to play referee, but you guys really need to calm down.

 

It seems to me that you guys have gotten into the habit of making a strawman out of each other. And there is absolutely no need to throw insults.

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Anyways, the argument seems to revolve around whether is was right for the teacher to make a statement that contradicted the beliefs of a few students.

 

First of all, all evidence is against the truthfulness of the Adam and Eve story, so I don't know why the students should be allowed to get him fired over his statement.

 

Second, one of the goals of higher education is to get people to think critically, and so it is inevitable that they will run into information or courses that either challenges their beliefs or even contradicts them.

 

So I guess the real question here is should the teacher have been fired for making his students consider the possibility that the Adam and Eve story was a myth, or at the very least that it should not be literally interpreted? I think not. There really was no justification for firing the teacher, because it really isn't about "respecting other beliefs".

 

And besides, we really don't know what really happened that day in the classroom, since they didn't go over any details. There could have been a legitimate reason to say what he did before going on to describe its impact. I seriously doubt he was doing something akin to "straping them to a chair, propping their eyes open, with a big screen blasting 'THE EARTH IS ROUND' " sort of thing.

[bascule]

And dude, I'm willing to bet that I've been an avid James Burke fan and reader for a heck of a lot longer than you have. I watched Connections when it was FIRST RELEASED in this country, and was eagerly awaiting TDTUC even BEFORE it was released here. AND I've read both books, and EVERY SINGLE SciAm article he wrote. So don't even think about lecturing me on James Burke. I can quote the last chapters of BOTH of his books from MEMORY.

 

How is James Burke's treatment of Darwin any different from what this teacher was doing? How is it different from Burke's treatment of other subjects where the church was wrong, such as heliocentrism?

 

So I guess the real question here is should the teacher have been fired for making his students consider the possibility that the Adam and Eve story was a myth, or at the very least that it should not be literally interpreted? I think not. There really was no justification for firing the teacher, because it really isn't about "respecting other beliefs".

 

Bingo

[Pangloss]

How is James Burke's treatment of Darwin any different from what this teacher was doing? How is it different from Burke's treatment of other subjects where the church was wrong, such as heliocentrism?

 

As far as I know it isn't. I could point out that James Burke doesn't go out of his way to insult religious people, but that's obvious, and what James Burke does or does not do is irrelevent to the point I raised.

 

This question is irrelvent to the issue I raised and just another example of you deliberately trying to spin and misrepresent what I'm saying.

 

 

So I guess the real question here is should the teacher have been fired for making his students consider the possibility that the Adam and Eve story was a myth' date=' or at the very least that it should not be literally interpreted? I think not. There really was no justification for firing the teacher, because it really isn't about "respecting other beliefs".

[/quote']

 

If that's what happened then I agree. It SHOULDN'T be about respecting people's beliefs. But you don't know that it wasn't any more than I do. You're making an assumption. I think you should qualify your opinion on that basis (as I have), because to not do so does a disservice to the accuracy of this discussion.

 

If he did not "make his students consider a possibility", but in fact insulted their beleifs and (more to the point I was making earlier) forced his own irrelevent opinion about the evils of organized religion down their throats, which is NOT NECESSARY to teach them about the relevence of science to western civilization, then he made a mistake, and he has to pay for it.

 

Now, is that hypothetical really so hard for you to agree with? Because if it is then you need to ask yourself if you're really defending a teacher, or putting forth a faith-based agenda.

 

-----------------

 

Let me ask an hypothetical question to all you extreme religion-haters in this thread:

 

If you were teaching a course on western civilization, would you discuss the impact of religion on it?

 

Because quite frankly you'd be wrong not to do so. Organized religion, for good or ill, is one of the most prevalent influences on modern western history. It is the one thing that most separates us from the earliest western civiliztaions (Greece and Rome), and that influence, developing our modern moral/ethical code of behavior, has arguably had as profound an impact on our society, if not more so, than the scientific and industrial revolutions.

 

Just hurts to hear that, doesn't it? When you really hate something, you just want to stamp it out, beat it into submission, force people to unlearn and ignore it. Don't ya just hate it when this happens?

 

Sorry. But not really. Cuz I just love pointing out hypocrisy.

[Reaper]

Now your just making a strawman out of our argument. First, we never suggested any of the sort. Of course we know to discuss religious impact, that was exactly what the teacher was doing, however he said that one should not take the bible literally in order to really understand it. He did not force any beliefs down anybody's throat.

 

Second, we know the Adam and Eve story to be wrong if taken literally, so how is calling it a "fairy-tale" wrong or insulting. The only people who are offended are those fundamentalists who believe in a literal interpretation (which is by the way wrong!). Claiming that one should respect the belief that the Adam and Eve story to be true is like claiming one should respect the belief that 2+2=5. If anybody came up to you and said that they believed 2+2=5, you would call them a loon. How is the Adam and Eve story any different?

 

This isn't about hating religion, its about whether or not he should teach anything that either contradicts one's beliefs or at least provide an opinion or fact that challenges it. You, Pangloss, are assuming way too many things. Just let your pride go.

[ydoaPs]

If he did not "make his students consider a possibility", but in fact insulted their beleifs and (more to the point I was making earlier) forced his own irrelevent opinion about the evils of organized religion down their throats, which is NOT NECESSARY to teach them about the relevence of science to western civilization, then he made a mistake, and he has to pay for it.

 

You assume two things here.

1.)He insulted their beliefs

2.)He forced his "irrelevant opinion about the evils of organized religion" down their throats.

 

I'm not sure you can draw that out of the article. From what I gather, two things happened. First, in class, he said that the creation story was meaningful, but if you read it literally, you were missing out on a lot.

"I told them it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there."

We can't be sure exactly what he said, how he said it, or in what context the comment was made. From his quote, it looks as though neither 1 nor 2 apply.

 

The second thing that happened, was a conversation AFTER CLASS in which he stated that the story was a fairy tale. This is his opinion, which one assumes, he has every right to share. It was not in class. This was presumably a voluntary conversation which had no bearing on the class. It is no different than saying the stories of Hercules are fairy tales. So, once again, I fail to see how 1 and/or 2 apply.

 

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Pangloss]

I disagree, Lockheed, I think you're the ones making straw men by saying that I'm making one point when I'm actually making a different one altogether.

 

Second, we know the Adam and Eve story to be wrong if taken literally, so how is calling it a "fairy-tale" wrong or insulting.

 

Again, my point was that it's not necessary or relevent to the course to say that to this classroom. It's not necessary to prove religion false in order to show the relevence of science to history. It simply is not.

 

When a student asks "well my mommy told me that Adam and Eve were real", you say "well this is the information we have from science, and this is what we're studying in this course; you can investigate that question elsewhere if you like", and then you move on.

 

You've deliberately ignored my examples of politics and abortion, and if you can't refute the relevence of those examples then frankly you've lost this argument.

 

-------

 

yourdadonapogos, I understand what you're saying and I read those points in the article as well, that's why I've said (several times now) that I'm keeping an open mind and acknowledging certain assumptions and trying to address the wider issue this case raised.

 

So talk to Lockheed and Bascule. They're the ones speaking with authority and making assumptions based on facts not in evidence. All you have are the teacher's statements, which are directly contradicted by the students. He said, they said. That makes Bascule and Lockheed's matter-of-fact statements assumptions.

[ydoaPs]

When a student asks "well my mommy told me that Adam and Eve were real", you say "well this is the information we have from science, and this is what we're studying in this course; you can investigate that question elsewhere if you like", and then you move on.

Are we sure that wasn't what happened?

[Reaper]

I disagree, Lockheed, I think you're the ones making straw men by saying that I'm making one point when I'm actually making a different one altogether.

 

 

 

Again, my point was that it's not necessary or relevent to the course to say that to this classroom. It's not necessary to prove religion false in order to show the relevence of science to history. It simply is not.

 

When a student asks "well my mommy told me that Adam and Eve were real", you say "well this is the information we have from science, and this is what we're studying in this course; you can investigate that question elsewhere if you like", and then you move on.

 

But he didn't say it to a classroom! It was a discussion he said outside of class. And he wasn't implying or trying to prove that religion was ever false, just that the stories in the bible should not be interpreted literally. He wasn't forcing anything down anyone's throats.

 

You are not only making a strawman here, but you are accusing anybody who disagrees with you as some sort of bigot. Your not addressing anyone's points. Instead, your making a bunch of claims that aren't true, or even relevent.

 

And I'm going to say this again, we all know that the teacher was going over the impact of religion in this course. We were not implying that he wasn't, the impact on politics and abortion are already well known.

 

And if someone in the University finds information that contradicts or discredits their beliefs, so what? It isn't about respecting beliefs, its about teaching facts and getting people to think critically and re-evaluate what they believe. They have no right whatsoever to sue them over a rather trivial matter. If they are immature enough to be offended by someone's opinion, maybe they should just go back home and crawl under their bed. The world is filled with people with contradictory beliefs and facts that prove them wrong.

 

...and if you can't refute the relevence of those examples then frankly you've lost this argument

 

You are mistaken, it is you who have lost it.

[Pangloss]

Are we sure that wasn't what happened?

 

Nope. But I get the impression that people like Lockheed and Bascule (whom I do have great respect for personally and in their opinions on many subjects) WOULD attack students in their personal beliefs, because, as they say above, they believe (falsely, IMO) that it's necessary to teach the course. What they're really saying (especially bascule) is that religion is dangerous and detrimental to society, and that we need to not only teach this to our students, but insist that they BELIEVE it. (That's not teaching, it's indoctrination.)

 

That's why I keep harping on this point. My opponents don't seem to be understanding the simple fact that you don't have to beat people into submission in order to teach a course, and that in fact it's a really bad idea. We don't do it that way, we don't ALLOW it to be done that way, and it's dangerous and wrong to do it that way. I've even given two examples of why it would be bad from THEIR perspective. But all I get in return is distortion and misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Frankly it makes me sick.

 

------------

 

And if someone in the University finds information that contradicts or discredits their beliefs, so what? It isn't about respecting beliefs, its about teaching facts and getting people to think critically and re-evaluate what they believe.

 

Lockheed, if you're going to keep saying "we" then I suggest you review these posts, which are clearly not representative of the view you just espoused:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=363285&postcount=87

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=363434&postcount=100

 

Bascule explicitly and directly espouses the position of demanding that western history cannot be taught without contradicting religious tenets, which, as I have pointed out here is simply not the case.

 

Neither you nor bascule seems capable of responding on that point.

[ydoaPs]

I just get the feeling that what happened is that something similar to what I quoted above happened, and students were hypersensitive(as are many posters here on the subject of their beliefs) and they brought it up after class. I think the comment in class was just a harmless aside, but maybe I'm just being naive.

[Reaper]

 

Lockheed, if you're going to keep saying "we" then I suggest you review these posts, which are clearly not representative of the view you just espoused:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=363285&postcount=87

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=363434&postcount=100

 

Bascule explicitly and directly espouses the position of demanding that western history cannot be taught without contradicting religious tenets, which, as I have pointed out here is simply not the case.

 

Neither you nor bascule seems capable of responding on that point.

 

 

Oh, ok. I was not arguing that at all then. This thread is longer then I thought.

 

Well, as I said earlier, you and Bascule don't need to flame each other over this, because earlier you guys were throwing insults, and both of you seemed to be bringing up irrelevent topics. Sorry for my accusations earlier...

 

Anyways, I stand by my points. I don't think the teacher should have been fired.

[iNow]

That's why I keep harping on this point. My opponents don't seem to be understanding the simple fact that you don't have to beat people into submission in order to teach a course, and that in fact it's a really bad idea.

Your perspective on what happened in that classroom is significantly skewed from mine. You've now stated multiple times that the instructor was beating people into submission, forcing his views down their throats, not allowing them to pass unless they adhered to his belief sets, and all manner of other points which one cannot espouse with validity based on the information available. This is why so many posters have stated you are using the straw man tactic.

 

The story shows one quote from the teacher. The story discusses how the students threatened legal suit against the school because of this quote. The story states that the teacher was fired.

 

After that, there is just opinion. Most of us here find the teacher was not only within his rights, but that what he stated was right and his termination was retarded.

 

However, Pangloss, you are losing my support when you continue to argue points based on information you assume... information which is unsupported based on the evidence at hand. Have others made poor word choices in the thread? Yes. However, your perspective on what happened in that classroom, as shared in this thread, is significantly skewed from mine, and hence our interpretations of the issues discussed here do not align.

[Pangloss]

I don't think the teacher should have been fired.

 

Well on that I agree 100%, because what evidence do I have for my suspicion? None. God knows it's not enough to run the risk of ruining a guy's career over, or ignite a major press incident for my school (assuming I'm the dean or whatever).

 

I would have spoken with the students, assured them that their personal beliefs are not being insulted by the institution, and if they weren't willing to accept the possibility that there was just a miscommunication then I would get them a resit with a different teacher. And I would talk to the first teacher in my office and make sure they understand school policy in this area. I'd listen to both parties but I wouldn't fire the guy without some serious evidence.

 

You've now stated multiple times that the instructor was beating people into submission, forcing his views down their throats, not allowing them to pass unless they adhered to his belief sets, and all manner of other points which one cannot espouse with validity based on the information available.

 

I hope I've just cleared that up above, but let me just add that when I talk about forcing viewpoints I'm talking about the statements that people have made right here in this thread that students cannot learn western history without formally rejecting any beliefs they may have in religion. That's not a "poor choice of words", and quite frankly those people don't need you to be their apologist because their position is politically correct and acceptable on this forum. They're quite comfortable making statements like that around here. I think that's a shame, and I will continue to speak out against that point of view on these boards.

[Severian]

I think it is silly to try and second-guess what the teacher did or did not say or do. We don't have enough information, and until we do we cannot make any reasonable statement.

 

However, it is valid to state your opinion on what behaviours are or are not reasonable for a teacher and what would constitute a sacking offense.

 

In my opinion, stating a personal opinion (and stating that it is such) on a religious matter is perfectly fine. Stating something as undeniable fact when it is not is wrong but not seriously so. Insulting and degrading students because of their beliefs, no matter what they are, is a sacking offense.

[ydoaPs]

I think it is silly to try and second-guess what the teacher did or did not say or do. We don't have enough information, and until we do we cannot make any reasonable statement.

At least some of us have some common sense. I said the same thing a few posts back.

 

Insulting and degrading students because of their beliefs, no matter what they are, is a sacking offense.

Isn't that your opinion? You also said,

Stating something as undeniable fact when it is not is wrong but not seriously so.

. So, by your own opinion, you're in the wrong!

[Severian]

So, by your own opinion, you're in the wrong!

 

The 'opinion' statement was intended to be for the entire paragraph. But anyway, this was in the context of a teacher in front of a class - not a web forum.

[ydoaPs]

The 'opinion' statement was intended to be for the entire paragraph.

I was just playing with you...hence the smiley.

 

 

But anyway, this was in the context of a teacher in front of a class - not a web forum.

From what I gather from the article, the conversation where he is accused of insulting students occurred AFTER CLASS, not in front of it.

[john5746]

I think it is silly to try and second-guess what the teacher did or did not say or do. We don't have enough information, and until we do we cannot make any reasonable statement.

 

However, it is valid to state your opinion on what behaviours are or are not reasonable for a teacher and what would constitute a sacking offense.

 

In my opinion, stating a personal opinion (and stating that it is such) on a religious matter is perfectly fine. Stating something as undeniable fact when it is not is wrong but not seriously so. Insulting and degrading students because of their beliefs, no matter what they are, is a sacking offense.

 

I agree, that is why I made light of his "Pop a prozac" statement. That isn't teaching. I would also add that if he were warned prior to this incident not to "go there" with stating that Adam and Eve were meant to be allegory - hence a "myth", then he could be fired for that as well, IMO

[gcol]

Well, if you want to turn your opinion into policy you should advocate a schedule of remedies consistent with your view. Presently, the main test for sacking an official examines the size and scope of damages likely to be sought and chances a suit will prevail at a particular stage in adjudication.

 

That seems sensible from a pragmatic viewpoint. Pragmatism is always important for corporate risk assessment.

 

As for what constitutes "insulting and degrading" students, we do not not all wear our beliefs like hearts on our sleeves. To cater within a teaching environment for the whims of every tender bleeding heart would surely render most subjects except perhaps mathematics as unteachable because of all the belief and faith beartraps.

 

A smart lawyer could resonably come up with a suitable form of words to be signed by students and faculty as a legal disclaimer. Something like

 

"Enter here at your own risk. Beware, danger of disagreement and exposure to contrary beliefs and opinions. You have been warned! If you do not wish to participate under these conditions, leave now."

[Tiger's Eye]

I think that it would be extremely difficult to avoid the subject of religion in a western civilization class, especially when part of the course is going over culture and philosophy of specific time periods. It seems a bit ridiculous that college students should go to this extreme and fire a teacher over his opinion. I would expect a little more from students, and teachers as well, especially in an academic setting. Sure, one might get his feathers ruffled up upon hearing something that he doesn't like or that contradicts his beliefs, but again, an academic institution is supposed to be a place of debate.

 

I had this one class that studied the history of the arab middle east. In this class, you HAD to discuss religion, because it was such a defining factor in history and culture. The teacher was, for lack of better terms, a smart ass: extremely intelligent and he used this to his advantage, at the expense of our feelings, to an extent. He didn't hesitate to put you on the spot and make you look like an idiot. But he challenged your thinking. He used hard and blunt methods to make us understand. And we learned. Sure, he would bash us, say that the majority "of you white kids don't appreciate what the Qur'an means to the Muslims" and the list goes on. Now don't anybody go jumping at the 'white kid' comment. None of us did, so I don't see why you guys should. Actually, we found it very amusing, considering that about 60% of the class were ROTC, lol. But again, we didn't try to get him fired because he allegedly made racist comments or made certain statements about our religions that we didn't agree with, because this was an academic setting. People should be able to say what they think, and if we think that they are mistaken, then talk about it. Dialogue and debate: this is what university should be about, not about catering to the students just because they feel a little uncomfortable.

 

I also find it surprising that the college was so quick to dismiss him. I wonder how far they actually looked into this.

[Pangloss]

I think that it would be extremely difficult to avoid the subject of religion in a western civilization class, especially when part of the course is going over culture and philosophy of specific time periods.

 

Sure, one might get his feathers ruffled up upon hearing something that he doesn't like or that contradicts his beliefs, but again, an academic institution is supposed to be a place of debate.

 

 

I agree with your sentiment about the firing, but there is a clear line between discussing the impact of religion on western civilization and requiring students to invalidate their beliefs to pass the course. The latter is simply not required in order to understand the history of western civilization.

 

I don't know that that was the case here, and given the facts presented I would not have fired this teacher merely on the say-so of these clearly biased students. I would have made sure the teacher understood school policy and moved the kids to another class.

 

The popularity of the positions that kids need to be taught that religion is always wrong, and/or that western history requires denouncement of religion (and variants thereof spread throughout this thread) continue to amaze me when presented by the kind of ostensibly logical, fair-minded people that this board typically attracts. I'm not trying to insult anyone in saying that, I'm just surprised and mystified by that position.

[iNow]

I agree with your sentiment about the firing, but there is a clear line between discussing the impact of religion on western civilization and requiring students to invalidate their beliefs to pass the course.

Again, exactly WHEN did that happen? You seem to be making up new parts of the story to suit your needs. Prove me wrong. Please. Otherwise, drop this line of reasoning since it's completely outside the scope of the facts.

 

I don't know that that was the case here, and given the facts presented I would not have fired this teacher merely on the say-so of these clearly biased students. I would have made sure the teacher understood school policy and moved the kids to another class.

This is very reasonable, and I agree. What keeps crossing my mind is if there were some history with this instructor, previous disciplinary actions for example, as that would at least be in line with the schools termination policy (which I presented earlier in this thread). However, we don't know that either.

 

The popularity of the positions that kids need to be taught that religion is always wrong, and/or that western history requires denouncement of religion (and variants thereof spread throughout this thread) continue to amaze me when presented by the kind of ostensibly logical, fair-minded people that this board typically attracts.

Whoa! Hello! Talk about poor argumentative tactics, complete with a backhanded compliment. However, taking it for what it's worth, I personally suggest that those who are logical and fair minded can do nothing other than to recognize and discuss the problems involved in purposeful suspension of critical thought which is inherent in most of the world's religions.

 

I'm not trying to insult anyone in saying that, I'm just surprised and mystified by that position.

Me too, since I don't see that happening, and find your perception of this a sign of your own bias. I'm not trying to insult you in saying that, I'm just surprised at how skewed some of your presentations come across.

 

To be more clear, here's what I see. People suggest that the teacher was within his rights to say what he did. People find his termination wrong, and further cannot believe how students in this day and age would threaten legal action as a result of such a discussion. Why do you keep saying that the posters in the thread are trying to show all religion wrong and that all kids must be taught the same?

[ParanoiA]

The popularity of the positions that kids need to be taught that religion is always wrong, and/or that western history requires denouncement of religion (and variants thereof spread throughout this thread) continue to amaze me when presented by the kind of ostensibly logical, fair-minded people that this board typically attracts. I'm not trying to insult anyone in saying that, I'm just surprised and mystified by that position.

 

Same here. Particularly given the agnostic nature of science to begin with, with respect to god.

 

Me too, since I don't see that happening...

 

Well, here's an example right on this page:

 

Sure, one might get his feathers ruffled up upon hearing something that he doesn't like or that contradicts his beliefs, but again, an academic institution is supposed to be a place of debate.

 

Upon hearing something that contradicts his beliefs? I thought we weren't talking about validating beliefs...? Because it is not remotely relevant to history. It's impact would be quite relevant to history.

[iNow]

Upon hearing something that contradicts his beliefs? I thought we weren't talking about validating beliefs...? Because it is not remotely relevant to history. It's impact would be quite relevant to history.

 

What's your point? Tiger's Eye was suggesting that these are exactly the types of discussions which should be occurring in higher education, and that it's silly to get so agitated when a teacher suggests something counter to your belief system that you threaten legal action against the school.

 

 

God says you're wrong, and so will my lawyer.