Teacher fired for saying Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally

[MrSandman]

I also thought this post died a while back?

[ParanoiA]

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.

 

Ok, but you just blasted off to Pangloss that you "don't see that happening, and find your perception of this a sign of your own bias" when he brought it up here:

 

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

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Look, belief systems are just that - belief systems. God is not a disproven concept and science is of no help with the quandary man is obsessed with. People need religion. There's no useful purpose to remotely discuss validity of any belief systems in a history class. There are places where religion and science and education will ultimately clash, and this is not it.

[bascule]

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.

 

I'm surprised that you can be a fan of James Burke and oblivious to the conflict between religious authority and logical, fair-minded people which is a recurring theme of shows like Connections and the Day the Universe Changed.

 

Burke presented a juxtaposition between the Copernicuses of the world: those who would treat scientific discovery as a useful albeit unrealistic tool when it conflicts with religious dogma, and the Galileos of the world, who are willing to step back and go "No, how science sees it is how it really is, and religious dogma is wrong."

 

For this refutation of religious authority Galileo underwent trial as a heretic and received imprisonment (in the form of house arrest) for the remainder of his life for his refusal to recant his ideas about heliocentrism:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

 

There's two ways to present this in a modern context:

 

1) Galileo and the Church both had their opinions, and regardless of what transpired between them both are to be respected

2) The Church was wrong and Galileo was right. Galileo was unjustly imprisioned by a dictatorial Inquisitionalist Church who sought to maintain their dogmatic authority even in the wake of scientific discovery

 

How would you prefer to teach it? Has science yet to substantiate the idea that the Earth goes round the Sun, or should we respect both sides of the controversy, including the idea that the Church was correct in their imprisonment of Galileo?

[Reaper]

I'm surprised that you can be a fan of James Burke and oblivious to the conflict between religious authority and logical, fair-minded people which is a recurring theme of shows like Connections and the Day the Universe Changed.

 

The problem with that statement is that being a "logical, fair-minded" person can lead you astray. After all, religious leaders of any kind (including atheists) have used logic to come to their conclusions. Aristotle, for example, came to his conclusions about the physical universe by the use of logic and he was totally wrong. So if the question is using logic, how does using it lead to vastly different conclusions?

 

You cannot solve the mysteries of the Universe by the use of logic alone. Galileo used observation and experiment to deduce certain truths about the physical universe, the only logic used was that in mathematics and making conclusions. Science is not perfectly logical.

[bascule]

The problem with that statement is that being a "logical, fair-minded" person can lead you astray. After all, religious leaders of any kind (including atheists) have used logic to come to their conclusions. So if the question is using logic, how does using it lead to vastly different conclusions?

 

You cannot solve the mysteries of the Universe by the use of logic alone.

 

That's certainly not what I was getting at... the controversy Burke presents is ultimately that of science vs. religion, science being a combination of evidence gathering, inference, logic, and reason ultimately resulting in what Burke referred to as "demonstrable truth"

 

If there's something I'm sickened by, it's the idea that after centuries of persecution (and in the case of Galileo, imprisonment) scientists have not yet won the right to claim their demonstrable truths trump religious dogma.

 

That the earth goes round the sun is a demonstrable, scientific truth. Galileo spent the remainder of his life fighting against the Church for that simple idea, and I believe it should be taught as such.

[Reaper]

That's certainly not what I was getting at... the controversy Burke presents is ultimately that of science vs. religion, science being a combination of evidence gathering, inference, logic, and reason ultimately resulting in what Burke referred to as "demonstrable truth"

 

If there's something I'm sickened by, it's the idea that after centuries of persecution (and in the case of Galileo, imprisonment) scientists have not yet won the right to claim their demonstrable truths trump religious dogma.

 

That the earth goes round the sun is a demonstrable, scientific truth. Galileo spent the remainder of his life fighting against the Church for that simple idea, and I believe it should be taught as such.

 

 

If you are referring to certain nameless subsects of Christianity, then yes that statement is fair enough. They have been trying to force their dogma for quite a while now, and it seems as if they are now gaining some ground.

 

But in most cases you have to remember that there are several aspects of religion that just isn't provable, or disprovable, because most of it is taken on the basis of faith. To insist that religion itself should be denounced in a classroom is rather unfounded. Science simply just doesn't have any say as to whether or not God, or Goddesses, or anything supernatural exists.

[Pangloss]

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?

 

Because it keeps being said. And when it gets pointed out, like ParanoiA did with you above, you act like you never even asked the above question, responding instead that "it's silly to get so agitated when a teacher suggests something counter to your belief system". Um, hello, that's not the question you asked.

 

Don't change the subject. Do you want to talk about what teachers are doing in the classroom, or do you want me to respond to the above question? I'm not going to respond with an answer if you're going to change the question after I reply.

[bascule]

If you are referring to certain nameless subsects of Christianity

 

The Catholics, i.e. the majority denomination on Earth? See, funny thing is since the time of Galileo they've reversed their position, to the point that they'd seem to favor the professor in this case. See:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21926

 

The belief that God created the universe in six days is a superstition and a "kind of paganism" that both discredits religious faith and demeans science, Br Guy Consolmagno SJ has declared.

 

Consolmagno, a Jesuit brother who in his scientific work has pioneered the field of gravitoelectrodynamics, said that far from being a Christian viewpoint, creationism harks back to primitive beliefs in "nature gods" who were held responsible for natural events.

 

He said a "destructive myth" has developed in modern societies that religion and science are competing ideologies - and that this is fed by creationism, which scholars say is a distortion of the biblical texts it claims as its own.

 

Br Consolmagno works in the Vatican observatory in Arizona. He is also curator of the Vatican meteorite collection in Italy. In addition to his work in astronomy, he studied philosophy and theology at Loyola University, Chicago, and physics at the University of Chicago. He has spent several terms as a visiting scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Centre.

 

Speaking recently at the Glasgow Science Centre, Consolmagno argued that the distinctive Christian understanding of God's transcendence recognises divine creativity in the unfolding of natural phenomena which had been previously attributed to vengeful gods.

 

He said: "Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which turns God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not necessarily be a good thing to do."

 

And:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16125

 

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

 

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

 

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

 

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

 

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

 

Indeed, the Vatican, or at least its scientific members, have evolved a great deal since the days of Galileo, and have begun embracing the scientific truth of Darwin.

 

then yes that statement is fair enough. They have been trying to force their dogma for quite a while now, and it seems as if they are now gaining some ground.

 

On the contrary, they're accepting the truth of science, and suggesting the Bible be interpreted accordingly.

 

But in most cases you have to remember that there are several aspects of religion that just isn't provable, or disprovable, because most of it is taken on the basis of faith. To insist that religion itself should be denounced in a classroom is rather unfounded. Science simply just doesn't have any say as to whether or not God, or Goddesses, or anything supernatural exists.

 

Scientific truths have little to say about a religion as a whole, for the very reasons you state. However, there are claims about the universe that religious texts like the Bible make which have been shown to be wrong, at least if interpreted literally. The same religious authority which persecuted Galileo has now come out in defense of science, and suggested that in such cases the Bible should be interpreted allegorically.

[Pangloss]

I'm surprised that you can be a fan of James Burke and oblivious to the conflict between religious authority and logical, fair-minded people which is a recurring theme of shows like Connections and the Day the Universe Changed.

 

How would you prefer to teach it? Has science yet to substantiate the idea that the Earth goes round the Sun, or should we respect both sides of the controversy, including the idea that the Church was correct in their imprisonment of Galileo?

 

I continue to find it objectionable the way you portray me as anti-science, Bascule. Just because I don't instantly adopt every politically correct statistical derivation theory that you leap to the defense of around here doesn't mean I want to live in a cave with stone knives and bearskins, howling at the moon.

 

You're completely wrong in presenting me this false dilemma. I never said it was necessary to choose between religion and science -- that is entirely your own creation. The deal is that you lead the horse to water but you don't force it to drink. Not in a free society.

[bascule]

I continue to find it objectionable the way you portray me as anti-science, Bascule.

 

Well, you seem to think it objectionable to present scientific truth in the light that it's incongruent with a literal interpretation of the Bible, something which even the Vatican has come to accept.

 

When you argue for a reverence of a literal Biblical interpretation that even the Vatican rejects in the face of scientific authority I'm sorry, but you are being anti-science.

 

Just because I don't instantly adopt every politically correct...

 

If anyone's preaching political correctness it's you...

 

James Burke's synopsis:

 

...and in 1610' date=' [Galileo'] did something only a lunatic would do, he pointed an even better version of his telescope at the one place Aristotle and the Church said not to... up there. And when he saw what he saw, he compounded the felony by going public... in a little 24 page booklet called "The Starry Messenger" that blew 2500 years of authority and status quo right out the window, because in a few scribbled illustrations Galileo took the universe apart. Look, here's the moon! Not perfect and incorruptible like Aristotle said it was, but with mountains, just like the Earth! And millions more stars than there were supposed to be! And look at this... the unthinkable... three or four little satellites going around Jupiter when everything was supposed to go around the Earth! And a bit later... here he is saying that even the Sun isn't perfect... it's got spots! And then the clincher... Venus looked like the moon sometimes, waxing and waning, and that meant that we were seeing it illuminated differently as it went around the Sun. So, all of this was visible proof that Copernicus was right after all. Everything went round the Sun!

 

[...]

 

...in a polite letter, explaining things [...] Galileo said, not to put too fine a point on it, scientifically speaking the Bible was wrong.

 

Not seeing any political correctness there, are you?

[swansont]

Look, belief systems are just that - belief systems. God is not a disproven concept and science is of no help with the quandary man is obsessed with. People need religion. There's no useful purpose to remotely discuss validity of any belief systems in a history class. There are places where religion and science and education will ultimately clash, and this is not it.

 

Belief systems come in two stripes, though. There are beliefs about the spiritual, and beliefs about the factual. The former should be off-limits, but the latter are potentially going to run smack into disproof in history and science classes. If someone believes e.g. the flood to be literally true and the earth to be 6000 years old, one is going to be challenging those contentions in presenting certain parts of history and science.

[JohnB]

How would you prefer to teach it? Has science yet to substantiate the idea that the Earth goes round the Sun, or should we respect both sides of the controversy, including the idea that the Church was correct in their imprisonment of Galileo?

In the context of a course in the History of Western Civilization neither, as they are both irrelevent. The fact that Galileo came into conflict with the chuch because of his ideas, that he was imprisoned, that his ideas challenged the concept of a literal interpretation of the Bible and that the church was a dictatorial, inquisitorial organization are all relevent. The fact that a literal interpretation of the bible is wrong, is not.

 

History is about what happened and the motives behind the actions, not the lecturers opinions as to the validity of the motives. (Or anybody elses for that matter unless those opinions affected a later stage of the conflict being considered.)

 

In a historical discussion of a conflict between science and the church it is relevent to say that one side believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible and the other did not. What each side did, who the major players were and what the result of the conflict was (and how it affected later conflicts) are also relevent. However, who was right and who was wrong is not actually relevent.

 

In exactly the same way a historical discussion of WW 1 will include battles, invasions, dates, the entry into the war by the US in 1917 and the opinion held elsewhere that you were more than fashionably late. Whether that opinion is correct or not is not relevent to the topic and would not be included in a historical course on WW 1. (Unless it had a bearing on the relationship between the nations involved.)

 

Historically speaking, all that matters is who won, not who was right.

 

This is, I believe, the point Pangloss has been trying to make all along.

[iNow]

People don't need religion. Religion is a cancer. It is killing us. That's my opinion. I will challenge people who adhere to belief in nonsense, because ultimately that's the obtacle we must overcome to continue evolution.

 

 

There you go, Pangloss. Now instead of saying "all posters in this thread," you can refer specifically to me.

 

Now, do you care to respond to the rest?

[ParanoiA]

When you argue for a reverence of a literal Biblical interpretation that even the Vatican rejects in the face of scientific authority I'm sorry, but you are being anti-science.

 

So, when Ron Paul vocalizes his pro-life position, yet argues that reverence for this flavor of morality should be left to the states, then is he being anti-pro-life?

 

Maybe a bad example, but you can draw a line between your personal beliefs and absolve yourself from the authority of pushing that belief on others. Reasonable - humbled - people do that. Only the idealistic would not see the sense in that position.

 

The existence of the spaghetti monster, also, not a historic necessity to validate or invalidate that. Neither are fairies, unicorns..etc. Why do you think it's your place to correct anyone? And why do you think you're correct? Because that's the implication when you agrue that validation of a faith is necessary in higher education.

[swansont]

In the context of a course in the History of Western Civilization neither, as they are both irrelevent. The fact that Galileo came into conflict with the chuch because of his ideas, that he was imprisoned, that his ideas challenged the concept of a literal interpretation of the Bible and that the church was a dictatorial, inquisitorial organization are all relevent. The fact that a literal interpretation of the bible is wrong, is not.

 

History is about what happened and the motives behind the actions, not the lecturers opinions as to the validity of the motives. (Or anybody elses for that matter unless those opinions affected a later stage of the conflict being considered.)

 

In a historical discussion of a conflict between science and the church it is relevent to say that one side believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible and the other did not. What each side did, who the major players were and what the result of the conflict was (and how it affected later conflicts) are also relevent. However, who was right and who was wrong is not actually relevent.

 

In exactly the same way a historical discussion of WW 1 will include battles, invasions, dates, the entry into the war by the US in 1917 and the opinion held elsewhere that you were more than fashionably late. Whether that opinion is correct or not is not relevent to the topic and would not be included in a historical course on WW 1. (Unless it had a bearing on the relationship between the nations involved.)

 

Historically speaking, all that matters is who won, not who was right.

 

This is, I believe, the point Pangloss has been trying to make all along.

 

So you're claiming e.g. the fact that Galileo was right doesn't enter into the historical discussion at all? That the motives are different when suppressing fact vs fiction isn't a part of the larger picture? I think it depends on the discussion, and is not an absolute.

[ParanoiA]

People don't need religion. Religion is a cancer. It is killing us. That's my opinion. I will challenge people who adhere to belief in nonsense, because ultimately that's the obtacle we must overcome to continue evolution.

 

Ah, propoganda. Nice. You've been watching the Bush administration carefully huh?

 

So, I guess you've selected to toss out all of those memories of devout religious folk feeding the homeless, helping poor families with food (they were there for my family when we were hungry, down, and all I got from the government was an application for emergency food stamps...to be available in 3 weeks ).

 

I could go on, but you already know all this - you just built a wall around it because it's inconvenient when you're trying to pit the world's problems on it.

 

It's easy to blame religion. But use your critical thinking skills. It's not religion - it's the manipulation of grouped up people. That exists on many levels in a variety of capacities. Religion is just scarier to us because it has the power to cause someone to supplant fact for fiction. I understand that. But it also gives people peace. Mental health.

 

Who says it's unhealthy to believe in things that aren't real? We always concentrate on the crazies and the war rhetoric, but we forget the troubled souls that found something in god and religion. Who are you to decide that people shouldn't believe in bullshit?

 

Have you thought about the number of people that will lose all sense of morality without reverence to a higher order? Do you think that everyone in the country is like us here on SFN? You think these people can take the shock?

 

I think religion was invented by man because it is necessary for man. All over the world man has done it and it's been used to build empires and slaughter civilizations. It's been used to bring the best out of a man, give him purpose and peace with his losses, just as it's been used to perverse a culture and enslave humans for centuries.

 

Your statement implies that truth is the meaning of life, or the ultimate goal. That's your opinion. Some would say happiness and joy is the meaning of life, the ultimate goal. Truth isn't all that relevant in that case. Bullshit would be convenient to compliment happiness. And that's an individual decision. I'm like you, I want truth over fiction. But I don't presume that to be everyone's objective.

 

Your beef is with Humans. Not religion.

[iNow]

The above is a perfect example why religious discussion is against the rules of this forum.

 

 

Where in the rule book of the school and their employment policy does it say that the instructor was not allowed to suggest that the bible is like a fairy tale, good for conveying some things but not to be taken literally? Would it have been okay if he were in a math class instead of history?

[Pangloss]

Well, you seem to think it objectionable to present scientific truth in the light that it's incongruent with a literal interpretation of the Bible, something which even the Vatican has come to accept.

 

When you argue for a reverence of a literal Biblical interpretation that even the Vatican rejects in the face of scientific authority I'm sorry, but you are being anti-science.

 

I don't object to presenting scientific truth in the classroom. I object to parading individual students' personal beliefs before a classroom, ridiculing them, and demanding that they be changed on the spot. I realize that may not be what happened in this case, but it's what you and others in this thread are asking for.

 

What you want isn't the presentation of objective scientific truth. What you want is the evangelism of atheism in the classroom. You want to shake the baby until it stops crying. Well I'm sorry, but that just isn't how education works.

[ParanoiA]

The above is a perfect example why religious discussion is against the rules of this forum.

 

I didn't take the time to write that so you could reply back with a flippant dismissal. I held you above that. I thought, you wanted to engage and support your statement. I see you'd rather just stick with tried and true rhetoric.

 

l challenge people who adhere to belief in nonsense, because ultimately that's the obtacle we must overcome to continue evolution.

 

I just did. And you answered back with an appeal to forum rules. There is value in belief in nonsense, and you don't appear to want to deal with that.

 

Where in the rule book of the school and their employment policy does it say that the instructor was not allowed to suggest that the bible is like a fairy tale, good for conveying some things but not to be taken literally? Would it have been okay if he were in a math class instead of history?

 

It would be ok in any class as long as it's between the students and isn't taught by the instructor as fact, when it's not. When is it ok to spread lies about the validity of deity and faith? God is not disproven, so why would you advocate teaching it as if it was? The disparity between the bible and other sources of history is quite objective, and belief is not relevant to discuss it and teach it. To teach that the bible is a fairy tale is like teaching tachyons is sci-fi fiction. Not to mention there's tens of methods of interpretation, ranging from literal to pure symbolism and poetry. There's no place for the instructor to get in that mess. Stick with the facts and leave the agenda at the door please.

[iNow]

ParanioA, it was not my intent to "appeal to forum rules." I just recognize this conversation spiraling ever further from it's original intent as a result of disagreement based on religion.

 

I know I didn't address your point, but meant no disrespect. When I said,

The above is a perfect example why religious discussion is against the rules of this forum.

, please note that I was also referring to my own posts.

 

I feel strongly about religion, and my feelings about it are generally rather negative. Many others feel strongly about religion, and their feelings are generally positive. What exactly about my point do you want me to support? Should we do it via PM so we can have a good discourse without concern for the staff's preference to avoid religious discussion? I'm open to further dialogue. However, I hold no fantasies that you or I will convince each other to convert to the other's postion, but at least we can potentially get past our disagreement.

 

 

I bet there would be no disagreement from anyone here if the students believed that purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns and the instructor told them this was a fairy tale. I just don't personally see the Bible as being much different.

[swansont]

It would be ok in any class as long as it's between the students and isn't taught by the instructor as fact, when it's not. When is it ok to spread lies about the validity of deity and faith? God is not disproven, so why would you advocate teaching it as if it was? The disparity between the bible and other sources of history is quite objective, and belief is not relevant to discuss it and teach it. To teach that the bible is a fairy tale is like teaching tachyons is sci-fi fiction. Not to mention there's tens of methods of interpretation, ranging from literal to pure symbolism and poetry. There's no place for the instructor to get in that mess. Stick with the facts and leave the agenda at the door please.

 

This is a massive strawman, though. Saying that literal interpretations of some parts of the Bible are at odds with established facts is not the same as saying that God is disproven nor does it question the validity of faith.

[Pangloss]

Not if you ask about half the posters in this thread, swansont. They seem to think that it's exactly the same thing, and that it's exactly what we should be doing in the classroom, regardless of what this teacher may or may not have done.

[ParanoiA]

ParanioA, it was not my intent to "appeal to forum rules." I just recognize this conversation spiraling ever further from it's original intent as a result of disagreement based on religion.

 

I know I didn't address your point, but meant no disrespect. When I said,

, please note that I was also referring to my own posts.

 

Fair enough, I see your point now.

 

I feel strongly about religion, and my feelings about it are generally rather negative. Many others feel strongly about religion, and their feelings are generally positive. What exactly about my point do you want me to support? Should we do it via PM so we can have a good discourse without concern for the staff's preference to avoid religious discussion? I'm open to further dialogue. However, I hold no fantasies that you or I will convince each other to convert to the other's postion, but at least we can potentially get past our disagreement.

 

Well, I don't view disagreements in this forum as "real" disagreements, and PM's don't do anything for anybody else in the forum. I appreciate your attempt at diplomacy here, but it's really not necessary. These discussions are driven by disagreements really, so it isn't much of a critical thinking exercise unless we're at odds to some extent. So, don't sweat it.

 

I'm kind of picking on you because I was such a vocal opponent of religion and christianity, in particular, for much of my adult life until recently. I realized that my bias is not rooted in logic like I had allowed myself to believe, but rather I was pissed at "Hypochristians" and allowing them to spoil the pot.

 

Truth is, I do despise religion. But I can't trust that because it is an emotion - not a logical conclusion. Based on the facts, I can't justify my aversion to religion. And I refuse to jump on any bandwagon that can't either.

[Pangloss]

Casting this as a religious discussion is a way of pitting off one side against the other and requiring that one must win and the other must lose. It's not about that, and it never was.

 

What if a Jew tried to learn the history of Christianity or Mormonism? Would he be forced to renounce his faith? Is it so hard to believe that he could learn everything there is to know about that subject, even to the extent of writing a dissertation on it, without actually converting?

 

With that in mind, is it so hard to believe that someone could learn everything there is to know about physics, or chemistry, or even evolution, without renouncing their Christianity? Why is that so incomprehensible?

 

Nor is it necessary for teachers to demolish religion in order to teach science. You teach the science and you let the students work out any religious contradictions on their own. That's what freedom of choice is all about. Anything else IS religious dictatorship. It's just in favor of the religion of atheism instead of the religion of christianity.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go say my ten "Hail Merck"'s so I can take my federally mandated, politically correct drugs and be a happy, cooperative and productive atheist. Don't worry, if you decide next week that these drugs aren't as "safe and effective" as your faith-based "scientific reasoning" (which was actually just a failed approach to statistical analysis) once thought they were, then I'll just take the new ones you prescribe, and I'm sure I'll understand once they kick in.

[iNow]

What if a Jew tried to learn the history of Christianity or Mormonism? Would he be forced to renounce his faith? Is it so hard to believe that he could learn everything there is to know about that subject, even to the extent of writing a dissertation on it, without actually converting?

 

With that in mind, is it so hard to believe that someone could learn everything there is to know about physics, or chemistry, or even evolution, without renouncing their Christianity? Why is that so incomprehensible?

 

Nor is it necessary for teachers to demolish religion in order to teach science. You teach the science and you let the students work out any religious contradictions on their own. That's what freedom of choice is all about. Anything else IS religious dictatorship. It's just in favor of the religion of atheism instead of the religion of christianity.

 

 

At this point in the thread, it seems appropriate to repeat the following:

 

 

"I told them it was an extremely meaningful story' date=' 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."

 

Bitterman said he called the story of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale" in a conversation with a student after the class and was told the students had threatened to see an attorney. [/quote']

 

 

Yes. He was threatening to fail them if they did not denounce their faith. Yes. Of course he was trying to demolish their religion and force feed them his atheistic approach to the world. Gosh. How stupid are we all for missing something so obvious?

 

 

Give me a break already.