Teacher fired for saying Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally

[MrSandman]

Freedom of choice isn't it amazing?

[bascule]

Freedom of choice isn't it amazing?

 

Yes, it's my favorite Devo album

[ParanoiA]

All we are really doing right now is protecting the right to be utterly ignorant and stupid.

 

True freedom means people are free to do stupid things.

[john5746]

True freedom means people are free to do stupid things.

 

Yeah, but we are supporting those people who do stupid things.

[iNow]

Yeah, but we are supporting those people who do stupid things.

 

What do you mean?

 

 

Giving them enough rope to hang themselves...

[Dak]

True freedom means people are free to do stupid things.

 

i'd be inclined to draw the line at letting people do stupid things to their kids.

 

teach them history in a history class and religion in a religion class, then let them choose which to believe.

 

But to argue against teaching history in a history class because it conflicts with religion is to try to give the kids only one choice -- hardly consistant with 'freedom'.

[ParanoiA]

i'd be inclined to draw the line at letting people do stupid things to their kids.

 

Do you also draw the line at letting people in other countries do stupid things to their kids?

 

I ask because this mentality of "stepping-in" to stop people from doing what we believe to be stupid things is what gets my country into all of these wars and international conflicts that has pissed everyone off. Maybe we should just let people be stupid, let their kids be stupid, and concentrate on those causing physical harm - less than subjective violations of other's personal sovereignty.

 

After all, we're still talking about subjects that are being feverishly debated - far from a consensus. Your idea of smart teaching - like evolution - is someone else's idea of stupid.

 

But to argue against teaching history in a history class because it conflicts with religion is to try to give the kids only one choice -- hardly consistant with 'freedom'.

 

I appreciate the spirit, but kids aren't free. My kids are under my control - they have no sovereignty not granted by me and my wife. The lack of choice is a common theme for children as we parents exercise our choice of how to raise them - what we have decided as stupid or smart.

[swansont]

I appreciate the spirit, but kids aren't free. My kids are under my control - they have no sovereignty not granted by me and my wife. The lack of choice is a common theme for children as we parents exercise our choice of how to raise them - what we have decided as stupid or smart.

 

But kids in college are presumably not in that situation. They were in class to learn both certain facts (specific to the course) and how to think critically (in general).

[ParanoiA]

But kids in college are presumably not in that situation. They were in class to learn both certain facts (specific to the course) and how to think critically (in general).

 

I agree. And in this case, they are exercising choice, as in what college they will attend.

 

Either way, choice is present, which is the point I was trying to make to Dak. Somewhere along the line, we have a choice about our education.

 

Well, without getting into pre-college education issues anyway....

[Dak]

i may be thinking of US college kids as younger than they actually are (i'm thinking 16-18, and i think they'd get treated as kids in the US... or is 'college' more analogouse to the UK's university?)

 

so, maybe this isn't relevent to post-pre-college education, but:

 

the lack of choice is a common theme for children as we parents exercise our choice of how to raise them - what we have decided as stupid or smart.

 

the parents should have this freedom; but the kids should also have the freedom from being exposed only to their parent's choice, and should have all options exposed to them.

 

anyway, i'm not objecting to teaching them religion; i'm objecting to not teaching them facts (i.e., the facts indicate that the adam-and-eve story is BS).

 

teaching facts + the literalist religious interpretation is fine imo. teaching just facts is also ok, and you can leave it up to churches and parents to instruct on religious matters. teaching just religion, tho, would turn the college from a place of education (possibly including religious education) into a place of indoctrination, which is not it's point.

[Sisyphus]

or is 'college' more analogouse to the UK's university?)

 

Yes, it is. College and university are the same thing in the U.S. Well, technically there are some differences - a university is usually an association of colleges forming a single institution, and/or if something is called a university it is generally a research institution first and if it is called a college it is an undergraduate teaching institution first (often liberal arts centered). However, the distinction is not absolute, and "college" is the usual generic term. Most college students will be at least 18, in other words.

 

[/OT culture lesson]

[Dak]

ah, cheers. in the uk it's:

 

school till 16 (compulsary), then college generally from 16-18, then uni from, generally, 18-22.

 

if, in the us, it's 'college of art + college of science + college of english language = university of detroit' then these 'colleges' would just be called departments in the uk, and sometimes unis are called 'research unis/departments' to show off the fact that they do research.

 

sometimes a building teaches 'school' and 'college' degrees, in which case it's a 6th-form school.

 

[/ot reciprocation]

 

well, yes, if they're adults they can choose for themselves. otoh, if only half are for not getting taught factual history, it kinda screws the other half -- it's not as if you could threaten to sue the head if they sack the teacher (or could you?)

 

that's again assuming that he was sacked for what he said, not how he said it.

[Pangloss]

I've been thinking about the comment made earlier that the teacher was valid in bringing up the subject in the classroom, given this course summary:

 

This course explores cultural, political, literary, and economic

aspects of Western civilization from the practice of absolutism to

the intellectual revolutions of science, agriculture, and philosophy.

This course also discusses the varied conflicts of the 18th,

19th, and 20th centuries. (520:109)

 

That's right, religion does have to come up, but the subject would be the impact of that religion, not whether any religious documentation should be taken literally. What relevence does that have in this context? Why would the teacher's opinion on the accuracy of, say, Buddhist beliefs have any impact on the subject of whether those beleifs have had any impact on the history of Western Civilization?

 

Is the teacher trying to say that Western Civilization is a comedy of misguided errors? I don't even see how THAT would be relevent -- what difference does his opinion on that subject make?

 

I'm not saying teachers shouldn't have opinions, or even let them influence their efforts in the classroom. I'm saying it's daft to let your ideology fundamentally skew the significance and relevence of the material you're trying to teach.

 

To put it simply, I'm really very sorry that this guy doesn't LIKE the fact that religion has had a major influence on western history, but that opinion doesn't change the fact that it happened, it's relevent, and students need to know about it.

[iNow]

what difference does his opinion on that subject make?

 

Exactly. Why are his actions/words worthy of termination or litigation?

[bascule]

To put it simply, I'm really very sorry that this guy doesn't LIKE the fact that religion has had a major influence on western history, but that opinion doesn't change the fact that it happened, it's relevent, and students need to know about it.

 

Is there any evidence he wasn't teaching about religion's role in the time period?

 

I see him teaching science is correct and the Bible, if interpreted literally, is wrong.

[john5746]

That's right, religion does have to come up, but the subject would be the impact of that religion, not whether any religious documentation should be taken literally.

 

Well, I couldn't teach the course, because I think it is obvious that the rejection of religion or at least literalism has been part of the foundation of the scientific revolution. Secular thought has lead to tolerance of all religions and advances in science.

 

He basically has to be PC because so many still believe, but it really would be like a teacher offending someone in Greek Mythology because they still believe in Zeus.

[Dak]

That's right, religion does have to come up, but the subject would be the impact of that religion, not whether any religious documentation should be taken literally. What relevence does that have in this context? Why would the teacher's opinion on the accuracy of, say, Buddhist beliefs have any impact on the subject of whether those beleifs have had any impact on the history of Western Civilization?

 

Is the teacher trying to say that Western Civilization is a comedy of misguided errors? I don't even see how THAT would be relevent -- what difference does his opinion on that subject make?

 

I'm not saying teachers shouldn't have opinions, or even let them influence their efforts in the classroom. I'm saying it's daft to let your ideology fundamentally skew the significance and relevence of the material you're trying to teach.

 

To put it simply, I'm really very sorry that this guy doesn't LIKE the fact that religion has had a major influence on western history, but that opinion doesn't change the fact that it happened, it's relevent, and students need to know about it.

 

he could allways have tought the adam and eve story with the cadevat that the current historical oppinion is that it's bs, which wouldn't stop you from teaching the fact that most people did, and several people still do, believe it, the impact of it etc.

 

anyhoo, to those that believe the adam and eve story, the simple fact is that believing it requires that they ignore evidence-based history. given that they're going to have to do this anyway, i don't see why they couldn't just be expected to do it in the western civilisation class? y'know, without demanding that everyone else be forsed to ignore fact-based history aswell. I don't think the college in question is specifically a religious college, so by joining (to address paranoias comments about choice) they could only have expected a secular education (as did everyone else who attends the college and will be effected by this desision, if it's as appears).

[Pangloss]

Why are his actions/words worthy of termination or litigation?

 

They weren't, IMO, but the basis for their complaint is valid, which is that he insulted the students over an issue not related to the course.

 

 

Is there any evidence he wasn't teaching about religion's role in the time period?

 

Yes, the fact that he made the statement that the Bible must not be literally interpreted. That's not a relevent point for a discussion on the historical context of the Bible. The accuracy of the Bible is not relevent to determining its impact on history.

 

(I'm assuming that's an accurate description of what happened (or did I misread something?).)

 

 

I see him teaching science is correct and the Bible, if interpreted literally, is wrong.

 

But it wasn't his job to do that. It's a HISTORY course, not a science course.

 

 

Well, I couldn't teach the course, because I think it is obvious that the rejection of religion or at least literalism has been part of the foundation of the scientific revolution. Secular thought has lead to tolerance of all religions and advances in science.

 

What, so the determination of the law of gravity was impossible without Newton FIRST analyzing Genesis and determining that it couldn't possibly work? Based on WHAT? Nonsense. Realization of religious contradictions FOLLOW scientific discoveries. Not vice-versa.

 

And THAT's a valid reflection on the history of western civilization, but frankly it's an unnecessary one. We're leading horses to water, not forcing them to drink. You show students the path to the answer, you don't bludgeon them over the head with it and smack them in the face if they disagree.

 

Do you want blind followers or critical thinkers? Choose.

[Glider]

he could allways have tought the adam and eve story with the cadevat that the current historical oppinion is that it's bs, which wouldn't stop you from teaching the fact that most people did, and several people still do, believe it, the impact of it etc.

He couldn't have taught that because it's untrue and as a teacher, he has a professional responsibility not to teach anything he knows to be untrue. The results of a 2006 CBS poll shows the following:

 

"A late 2006 poll by CBS showed that:

 

"Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. ... Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.

 

Poll results:

Creationist view: 'God created humans in [their] present form.' 55%

 

Theistic evolution: 'Humans evolved, [but] God guided the process.' 27%

 

Naturalistic Evolution: 'Humans evolved [but] God did not guide [the] process.' 13%"

 

These values vary according to the source, but a consistent finding is that the proportion of the population believing that humans were created in their current form has remained stable at around 44% - 47% between 1982 and 2006.

 

So the teacher could not have taught the class that "the current historical oppinion is that [the adam and eve story is] bs....[and] the fact that most people did, and several people still do, believe itbecause it's patently not true (and nearly half the population is more than 'several').

[Pangloss]

he could allways have tought the adam and eve story with the cadevat that the current historical oppinion is that it's bs' date=' which wouldn't stop you from teaching the fact that most people did, and several people still do, believe it, the impact of it etc.

[/quote']He couldn't have taught that because it's untrue and as a teacher, he has a professional responsibility not to teach anything he knows to be untrue.

 

Absolutely wrong. Dak's suggestion was both historically and critically reasonable.

 

So much for john5746's suggestion above that scientific reason created tolerance for religion! The subject of the course is history of western civilization, not demonization of organized religion. Shoe-horning a module on faulty logic in the Bible into that course would be ideological revisionism at its worst.

 

I thought it BOTHERED scientists to see faith-based reasoning in the classroom. And yet look at where this thread has gone!

[Dak]

by 'history', i kinda meant academic history (i.e., fact-based) as endorsed by whatever (inter)national academic bodie(s) deal with that kinda thing. what the majority of the population believe is somewhat irrelevent.

 

'several' is a tad too week tho, yes.

[Glider]

by 'history', i kinda meant academic history (i.e., fact-based) as endorsed by whatever (inter)national academic bodie(s) deal with that kinda thing. what the majority of the population believe is somewhat irrelevent.

 

'several' is a tad too week tho, yes.

 

Ahh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant he could have taught that: 'whilst the Adam and Eve story was once widely accepted, these days it isn't'. My bad, I got the wrong end of the stick.

 

Absolutely wrong. Dak's suggestion was both historically and critically reasonable.

As I said, I got the wrong end of the stick. If Dak had meant the teacher could have taught 'whilst the Adam and Eve story was once widely accepted, these days it isn't', then the teacher could not have presented that, not because of any question of whether or not the belief is reasonable, but simply because the statement is not true (at least, in the US). But as i said, I understand that it's not what Dak meant.

[MrSandman]

Yeah, just keep your talks in class relevant to the subject is the way I see it. I don't want to do chemistry when in English Class. However, I like chem better.

[iNow]

Having considered this situation a few times since this thread was opened, I've begun to wonder... What if the teacher just considered this to be "common knowledge," that the bible is a book of stories and shouldn't be interpreted literally? Perhaps it was an honest mistake and really did relate to the course material, and an overly sensitive religious literalist took offense where none was intended.

[swansont]

Having considered this situation a few times since this thread was opened, I've begun to wonder... What if the teacher just considered this to be "common knowledge," that the bible is a book of stories and shouldn't be interpreted literally? Perhaps it was an honest mistake and really did relate to the course material, and an overly sensitive religious literalist took offense where none was intended.

 

I don't think it was a mistake, per se. From what I read he was discussing different religions, so it pertains to the course material (one might even discuss how the reaction of Biblical literalists has a role in history in a class like that. Imagine how that would have been received). The story of Adam and Eve has no basis in fact, and as unpleasant as it might be to have one's blinders torn off by such a statement, it seems to me like the professor was doing his job.