Justice Scalia Strikes Again

[phil_20686]

That teacher is allowed to be as devout as they want in their personal life.

This is again making an implicit statment about the value of religion. For those who are religious its a part of their life, and you are actually discriminating against them in favour of agnostics if you demand that they not make any public statements or affermations about their faith, since you are refusing to allow them to express themselves fully. This is no different from demaning that teachers who are gay never mention that or talk about it.

[phil_20686]

That teacher is allowed to be as devout as they want in their personal life.  But displaying religious items in the classroom goes beyond that.  Students are expected to learn from their teachers, and in a secular school they shouldn't be indoctrinating them with their religious beliefs.

To clarify that (in case there might by a misunderstanding):

 

The Italian crucifixes in school are not personal religious signs from the teacher, of from the school for that matter. Italian public schools are required by Italian law to have a crucifix in the class room.

 

The European court has ruled that this law is illegal.

 

Rik

Ah this is actually good. I wondered why the italiens were not more annoyed about it. I doubt if many of them will be removed :P. When i read the bbc news story that was not the impression I got.

[barmar]

There's a difference between teaching about religion in general (you could hardly teach current events without getting into issues of religious differences), and promoting a specific religion.

 

I don't begrudge small, personal symbols, e.g. a teacher wearing a cross around their neck. But hanging a crucifix in the classroom crosses the line. It's not their personal space, to decorate as they wish, it's a public institution. Teachers in public schools are acting as agents of the government, and the government is not supposed to promote or favor any religion. They also shouldn't teach atheism, either. They should be neutral regarding specific religious beliefs; this is the place of family and churches.

 

Evolution is different. That's scientific fact, not religious faith, and schools are expected to teach science.

[helene_t]

That teacher is allowed to be as devout as they want in their personal life.

This is again making an implicit statment about the value of religion. For those who are religious its a part of their life, and you are actually discriminating against them in favour of agnostics if you demand that they not make any public statements or affermations about their faith, since you are refusing to allow them to express themselves fully. This is no different from demaning that teachers who are gay never mention that or talk about it.

I think it's fine for a teacher to mention he is gay, straight, atheist, christian, whatever.

 

I would have problems with someone decorating the classroom with crussifixes, "god is not great"-posters, or pornographic posters of either orientation. I am not necessarily arguing it should be illegal, or against the school's statutes, to do so. Just that I wouldn't appreciate it.

[Trinidad]

I disagree completely with this. You seem to be equating learning about religion with indocrination? Why? Banning religious symbols from a classroom is no different from banning evolution textbooks, you are saying that it isnt something that its important for the kids to learn about. Why should a teacher not be able to bring an important part of their life to the class room? To say that they must discard their religion at the door like inappropriate clothing is to make a statement about its value, which is contrary to secularism.

Of course, these kids are taught about religion. This is Italy, remember? In a perfect world, they would be taught about Roman Catholicism (because that's what they are familiar with), the differences with Calvinism, and Lutheranism (without bias). At the same time, they would be shown how Christianity compares to religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. (without bias). But given that this is Italy and not a perfect world (sorry to all Italians :P ), I have the idea that they will learn a lot about the advantages of Roman Catholicism and why the other religions (or non religions) are err... misguided. Having a crucifix in the class room puts the bias in the teaching, rather than taking it out.

 

The woman who took the case to the European court is a Christian herself... A Lutheran to be precise.

 

Furthermore, I think it is perfectly fine for a teacher to be open about his beliefs. He can start the school year by saying: "I am an Xyz, because... But I am also a teacher and I will teach you about a variety of religions as well as the fact that some people believe that we don't need a religion."

 

And for the record, I am perfectly fine with teaching the biblical creation as well as evolution in the same school.

 

Rik

[phil_20686]

Teachers in public schools are acting as agents of the government, and the government is not supposed to promote or favor any religion.

 

The fact that one agent of the goverment favours one religion is not indicative that the government favours a religion.

 

But hanging a crucifix in the classroom crosses the line. It's not their personal space, to decorate as they wish, it's a public institution.

 

Firstly, I don't think this is true. Classrooms normally have character derived form teh teacher who teaches there. While it doesnt belong to them, its still 'their space'. They get to decide what posters and decorations to put up.

 

Secondly, the line is pretty unclear, what if you were say, a history teacher. There is a convincing argument that the cruxifiction is probably the most important event in western history, even if you don't beleive in christianity.

 

Thirdly, teachers should be free to argue (in response to a question) that their view is correct. This is how learning is done. Then they can ask a different teacher the same question, and get a different answer. It's bizarre to think that this would be indtrination. Its only indoctrination if you demand that all your teachers say the same thing, even if they personally dis agree with it.

[Trinidad]

In a democracy, the minorities must be protected, but they must accept the will of the majority.

That is reeking Majority Dictatorship. You don't want to go there.

 

Rik

???

 

Sorry I don't get that.

 

One of us must truely misunderstand the other, because I can see no realtionship between your statement and mine.

 

I do not think that it is Majority Dictatorship to have a cruzifix in each Italian school.

I do. If you would start your own (let's say Buddhist) school, you wouldn't have the same possibilities as the Roman Catholics.

I do not think that allowing topless bathing or visiting the Sauna naked is Majority Dictatorship.

Allowing something is hardly ever a form of dictatorship. (Not allowing 'swimsuit saunas' would be.)

Nor do I think that building a cross on a war cemetry or a war memorial ina overwhelming christian country is Majority Dictatorship.

If it would be built now, I think it would be Majority Dictatorship. My point of view is that this memorial was built a long time ago when society was different. We can keep this memorial. That wouldn't express in any way that we still agree with the spirit in which it was erected. But if that would have been the frame of mind, there wouldn't have been anything against allowing a Buddhist shrine in the same park. The park is big enough for 2 religions.

 

Rik

[matmat]

Firstly, I don't think this is true. Classrooms normally have character derived form teh teacher who teaches there. While it doesnt belong to them, its still 'their space'. They get to decide what posters and decorations to put up.

 

except in some countries multiple teachers teach in the same room. Also, does that mean that a teacher can just go ahead and put a poster of a playboy centerfold in the classroom? how about an art teacher? would that be ok?

 

Secondly, the line is pretty unclear, what if you were say, a history teacher. There is a convincing argument that the cruxifiction is probably the most important event in western history, even if you don't beleive in christianity.

 

i'd love to hear this argument. you are referring to the most elaborate hoax for the last few thousand years? I suspect that the births of Romulus and Remus were just as important.

 

 

Thirdly, teachers should be free to argue (in response to a question) that their view is correct. This is how learning is done. Then they can ask a different teacher the same question, and get a different answer. It's bizarre to think that this would be indtrination. Its only indoctrination if you demand that all your teachers say the same thing, even if they personally dis agree with it.

 

Depends on what you are trying to do and what age group you are trying to teach. I would argue that indoctrinating children who are too young to be able to reject a point of view originating from an authority figure should be illegal. If you're talking about an open discussion between young adults who can form a rational opinion and their teacher, then that's fine.

[phil_20686]

In a perfect world, they would be taught about Roman Catholicism (because that's what they are familiar with), the differences with Calvinism, and Lutheranism (without bias). At the same time, they would be shown how Christianity compares to religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. (without bias).

I genuinely beleive that this actually is the worst of all worlds, as it inevitably leads to a broad superficial knowledge, and the situation where everyone thinks they know what religion x is about, but in fact they don't really know anything about any religion. Further, it is basically impossible to teach this without bias, even in a geo-political context, as to do that you have to ignore questions of truth, which are central to beleif in any religion.

[cherdanno]

In a perfect world, they would be taught about Roman Catholicism (because that's what they are familiar with), the differences with Calvinism, and Lutheranism (without bias). At the same time, they would be shown how Christianity compares to religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. (without bias).

I genuinely beleive that this actually is the worst of all worlds, as it inevitably leads to a broad superficial knowledge, and the situation where everyone thinks they know what religion x is about, but in fact they don't really know anything about any religion. Further, it is basically impossible to teach this without bias, even in a geo-political context, as to do that you have to ignore questions of faith, which are central to beleif in any religion.

FYP.

[Trinidad]

Its only indoctrination if you demand that all your teachers say the same thing, even if they personally dis agree with it.

That's exactly what the Italian law was doing. Crucifxes were mandatory in the class room, also if the teacher is a Hindu.

 

Rik

[phil_20686]

except in some countries multiple teachers teach in the same room. Also, does that mean that a teacher can just go ahead and put a poster of a playboy centerfold in the classroom? how about an art teacher? would that be ok?

 

This is then just about teachers as a group agreeing, its basically irrelevant. Re the playboy centre fold it would have to be suitable for children of all the ages that might come into a classroom, and I imagine female teachers might have something to say about it :P.

 

i'd love to hear this argument.  you are referring to  the most elaborate hoax for the last few thousand years?

 

This is LOL. I hope you don;t actually beleive it. The cruuxificition is better documented than any other event prior the end of the dark ages. There are roman records for one thing, and literally thousands of documents referring to it. Execution of a man claiming to be God was Big News.

 

 

Depends on what you are trying to do and what age group you are trying to teach. I would argue that indoctrinating children who are too young to be able to reject a point of view originating from an authority figure should be illegal. If you're talking about an open  discussion between young adults who can form a rational opinion and their teacher, then that's fine.

 

If they are old enough to ask the question, they are old enough to know the answer :P

[matmat]

If they are old enough to ask the question, they are old enough to know the answer :P

 

I had something else written here.

 

you're dead wrong.

[matmat]

This is LOL. I hope you don;t actually beleive it. The cruuxificition is better documented than any other event prior the end of the dark ages. There are roman records for one thing, and literally thousands of documents referring to it. Execution of a man claiming to be God was Big News.

The fact that this method of execution was used is very well documented. the fact that a certain individual existed or that they somehow miraculously hopped up from the dead a few days later, much less so.

[phil_20686]

In a perfect world, they would be taught about Roman Catholicism (because that's what they are familiar with), the differences with Calvinism, and Lutheranism (without bias). At the same time, they would be shown how Christianity compares to religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. (without bias).

I genuinely beleive that this actually is the worst of all worlds, as it inevitably leads to a broad superficial knowledge, and the situation where everyone thinks they know what religion x is about, but in fact they don't really know anything about any religion. Further, it is basically impossible to teach this without bias, even in a geo-political context, as to do that you have to ignore questions of faith, which are central to beleif in any religion.

FYP.

hehe.

 

But seriously, all religions make the claim to be true, but more importantly they make the claim that objectively true statements about abstract things exist, and are meaningful. As soon as you get to this point and capable student will say "Doesnt that mean that at most one can be true?" and suddenly your task becomes impossible.

[luke warm]

The United States has no state religion. The fact that a majority of its people are Christian does not make the United States a Christian nation (no matter what Rush Limbaugh and his ilk state to the contrary).

 

In the United States, one of the traditional tasks of the Supreme Court and the Judiciary in general is to protect the rights of minorities. That is one of the reasons that judges have lifetime appointments - so that they are removed from politics. Congress and state legislatures can pander to the will of the majority, but the Courts are supposed to be free of political influences. At least, that is the theory.

 

And if a cross was "wrongfully" erected on public land 75 years ago, correcting the "wrong" now is better than not correcting it at all. There is no statute of limitations on this issue. Better late than never. The issue is whether the erection of the cross on public land was wrong to begin with.

would the same go for other religious symbols on or in public buildings in washington d.c.?

[phil_20686]

This is LOL. I hope you don;t actually beleive it. The cruuxificition is better documented than any other event prior the end of the dark ages. There are roman records for one thing, and literally thousands of documents referring to it. Execution of a man claiming to be God was Big News.

The fact that this method of execution was used is very well documented. the fact that a certain individual existed or that they somehow miraculously hopped up from the dead a few days later, much less so.

this is perhaps an argument for another thread/time, but the execution of Jesus Christ, who clamied to be the Son of God, is incredibly well documented. In fact 'claims' of his resurrection are extraordinarily well documented considering the difficulty of writing at that time in history. But, arguments about whether or not given writers are telling the truth is not so easily verified :). Anyway, most people deny the resurrection because they beleive there is no god, and therefore no supernatural, and that therefore whatever evidence is presented must be lies, or simply inaccurate.

[ArtK78]

This is LOL. I hope you don;t actually beleive it. The cruuxificition is better documented than any other event prior the end of the dark ages. There are roman records for one thing, and literally thousands of documents referring to it. Execution of a man claiming to be God was Big News.

The fact that this method of execution was used is very well documented. the fact that a certain individual existed or that they somehow miraculously hopped up from the dead a few days later, much less so.

I hope we don't have to elaborate any more on this point.

 

This is a question of faith. You either believe it or you do not believe it. It is not something that can be proven one way or the other by objective analysis.

[MattieShoe]

[blackshoe]

The Italian crucifixes in school are not personal religious signs from the teacher, of from the school for that matter. Italian public schools are required by Italian law to have a crucifix in the class room.

 

The European court has ruled that this law is illegal.

I am curious as to the basis of this ruling.

[blackshoe]

And for the record, I am perfectly fine with teaching the biblical creation as well as evolution in the same school.

The problem is not with teaching creationism per se. It's with teaching that creationism is fact, not hypothesis (and it is only hypothesis - it does not rise to the level of theory) and that any other "theory" or belief as to where humans come from is wrong.

 

A lot of people believe their particular Holy Book is the literal word of God. But believing it doesn't make it so.

[luke warm]

This is LOL. I hope you don;t actually beleive it. The cruuxificition is better documented than any other event prior the end of the dark ages. There are roman records for one thing, and literally thousands of documents referring to it. Execution of a man claiming to be God was Big News.

The fact that this method of execution was used is very well documented. the fact that a certain individual existed or that they somehow miraculously hopped up from the dead a few days later, much less so.

I hope we don't have to elaborate any more on this point.

 

This is a question of faith. You either believe it or you do not believe it. It is not something that can be proven one way or the other by objective analysis.

i think they were talking about whether Jesus existed and whether or not he was crucified... phil's point, i think (he can clarify if i'm wrong), is that there is historical evidence for both... this is not the same question as the resurrection or son of God claims

[Gerben42]

And for the record, I am perfectly fine with teaching the biblical creation as well as evolution in the same school.

 

The problem is that evolution belongs in science class and creationism in mythology class. Unfortunately the whole point of creationism seems to be to move into classes where it has no place.

 

Anyway, most people deny the resurrection because they beleive there is no god, and therefore no supernatural, and that therefore whatever evidence is presented must be lies, or simply inaccurate.

 

This view is very blunt and inaccurate. A person rising from the dead is a very unnatural story and there is no reason to believe in it based on testimonies from witnesses. Stories like this should always be approached sceptically.

 

You are right that at this point there is no way to prove this hypothesis, 2000 years after the event. As Art says, it's a leap of faith to believe it. I don't have faith.

 

Just because many people believe in the story doesn't make it more likely. I have been very interested in the so-called "supernatural" for all my life, and I found that it is in the nature of humans that they want to be conned.

 

It is very likely that there was a Jesus, why else would the Romans write about him. No doubt he was a charismatic figure to have so many followers, but why should I buy a story that wasn't repeated by anyone else?

 

Since Jesus predicted that he would return, was it a surprise that some of his scholars claimed exactly that?

 

Another interesting point is that people believe in what they think is written in the Bible, which may or may not be that what the original authors meant. Even on the simplest issues, people disagree, like:

 

* Was Mary a "virgin", or was the word just meant as the word for young lady?

* This article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...s-academic.html

* etc.

[Winstonm]

...the execution of Jesus Christ, who clamied to be the Son of God, is incredibly well documented.

 

I must step in to state that my understanding is that what your profess is factually inaccurate. There is NO reference written by a historian (or anyone else) who was a contemporary of a person named Jesus from Nazareth. The earliest mention comes some 40+ years after the claimed life of Jesus - other references are many more years later than that. Now I ask you, was that history being written or has that more the earmarks of mythology/legend passed on?

 

It appears that even in the area of an historical Jesus, it still comes down to faith over evidence:

 

From "Did A Historical Jesus Exist" by Jim Walker:

 

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus...

 

"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."

-David Noel Freedman (in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)

[Winstonm]

So, when you have a christian sign in the US, you still serve the overwhelming majority. I cannot see something wrong in this in a democratic state. I cannot see anything wrong when a governement supports a religion which 3/4 of the population follow.

In a democracy, the minorities must be protected, but they must accept the will of the majority.

 

I am always amazed when the religious do not grasp the significance of a secular government - seeming not to understand that it is the very secular nature of their government that allows them to practice their religion in the manner they believe.

 

The U.S. is not a democracy - it is a Republic. Majority rules in a democracy but not so a Republic. If there were to be a military coup in the U.S. and the leaders determined Scientology to be the national religion, it wouldn't matter one damn bit what the majority thought or wanted.

 

You would be renditioned to Tom Cruise's house for never-ending reruns of Top Gun: now that's torture.