…and this is a 
Greg Laden is entirely correct the case in question reference by this poll is about some teachers who are being tried for contempt of court, and this particular court case is not about separation of church and state. However, the poll is asking a more general question:
Should educators be fined or jailed for offering prayer in public schools?
Yes (12.6%)
No (87.4%)
I say yes: teachers who organize sectarian prayer in their classroom are betraying their trust and are in violation of the principle of separation of church and state. Imagine the outcry if a teacher were a Satanist and tried to lead the class in a demonic invocation — as stupid and ineffective as such a ritual would be, parents would be rightly irate that their kids were being indoctrinated into a religion, and compelled by pressure from an authority figure to participate in a rite they find odious. The classroom must remain secular, and although I might quibble with the details of the punishment (they ought to be fired for violations, not necessarily jailed or fined), there has to be a way to sanction such actions.
That also goes for teachers who push atheism in the public schools.
Comments
Posted by: Michael N. | September 18, 2009 9:39 AM
Yeah...suspension, firing, fines, sanctions...maybe a night in the hoosegow. All good.
Posted by: Greg Esres | September 18, 2009 9:40 AM
Agreed, but jail time might also engender a strong push back from the religious community due to the martyrdom factor. Fines are more discrete, although loss of employment might be the most appropriate solution.
Posted by: Scott | September 18, 2009 9:43 AM
Like Greg said, those particular teachers belong in jail, not because they're christians, but because they broke the law.
I had a discussion with a friend a while back about this case. He said the law should lay off 'em because it would be perceived as persecuting christians -- I said, the law is the law, so throw the book at 'em.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | September 18, 2009 9:44 AM
A hefty fine, some time in jail,
No settlement or barter;
What Christian doesn't really want
The chance to be a martyr?
Posted by: Mystyk | September 18, 2009 9:44 AM
But what do you do when fully half the population wrongly believes that teaching science (or at least the subset of Evolution) IS teaching Atheism.
Posted by: The Kenosha Kid | September 18, 2009 9:46 AM
Off topic, but -
Did anyone catch this brilliant comment about Patrick Swayze?
Suzanne Somers, who has a book about cancer coming out next month, said: "Why couldn't they have built him up nutritionally and got ten rid of the toxins? . . . I hate to be this controversial . . . but I have to speak out."
Posted by: Michael N. | September 18, 2009 9:47 AM
Actually, the teachers in Oklahoma should be thrown in jail if anybody:
75 Percent of Oklahoma High School Students Can't Name the First President of the U.S.
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=11141949
Posted by: PervyPirate | September 18, 2009 9:50 AM
Define "promoting atheism".
If a teacher is asked about the existence of a god, and his reply is "there is no scientific evidence, etc..." is this promoting atheism?
I guess a better approach would be to wait until after class and then answer to only the students that asked the question?
Posted by: JDP | September 18, 2009 9:53 AM
I'll go further. A teacher who leads prayer in school is not only violating basic laws about separation of church and state, but is also abusing children who do not come from that religious background. By telling Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, etc kids that they are not part of the classroom and they can sit down and shut up is completely unacceptable.
Posted by: Thorne | September 18, 2009 9:53 AM
I just voted and it was showing at almost 50-50.
I don't think jail terms are justifiable, but certainly fines for first offenses, with mandatory termination for repeat offenders.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 18, 2009 9:54 AM
Disagreed. Such teachers should be sanctioned by their school, not be fined or jailed. It's not an offense, it's professional misconduct.
Posted by: JBlilie | September 18, 2009 9:54 AM
Looks like it's already shut down.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos | September 18, 2009 9:55 AM
How does one promote atheism? By not promoting religion.
Posted by: jimBOB | September 18, 2009 9:55 AM
Mystyk hits a good point. If you try to take an area of information (say, ideas about religion) and segregate it from things that can be discussed, you inevitably end up with issues, first about where the boundaries are between allowed and non-allowed topics, and second, about what to do with topics which are affected by the non-allowed topics. Since you can't discuss the non-allowed topics, you can't deal with their implications.
This gets to Dawkins' point that a universe with a deity in it is materially different from a universe without one. If we're not allowed to address the question of the deity's existence, we've forbidden ourselves from giving a complete account of everything else.
I sympathize with the idea of separating secular and nonsecular in education, but it's going to be a messy solution however you do it.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 18, 2009 9:57 AM
No, just explaining what atheism is is not promoting atheism; nor is mentioning that the teacher is an atheist, when asked. Similarly, it's OK to explain what Christianity is, or for a teacher to be an admitted Christian.
What's not OK is setting aside class time to evangelize or in other ways promote the idea. Teachers should teach their subjects, as dictated by the curriculum, not offer up the distraction of philosophy or ideology.
Posted by: Pablo | September 18, 2009 9:58 AM
Unfortunately, this is a common belief among religiousites. It's like the old, "We are being persecuted" when they aren't allowed to use government resources to promote their religion.
For them, apparently, if you aren't actively promoting religion, you must be promoting atheism.
Posted by: llewelly | September 18, 2009 10:02 AM
Whenever I see the sensible answer on a poll go from 12% to 65% in half an hour I feel a wonderful sense of community.
Posted by: jimHspice | September 18, 2009 10:07 AM
Hmmm. Perhaps such a constitutional transgression would be more akin to a civil offense than a "crime" -- along the lines of a police officer failing to read a suspect h/is/er Miranda rights, or denying a person lodging based on skin color. In these two cases, it's the offended that is due recompense. So I'd suggest a civil suit would be more appropriate than a fine.
Posted by: Chris Wellons | September 18, 2009 10:10 AM
Fined and/or terminated is the appropriate response. Jail time for this is ridiculous; this isn't a violent crime. As was stated before, this is more like professional misconduct.
In the US we already put way too many people in jail who don't belong there at all, thanks a lot to the War on (some) Drugs. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world with more than 1 in 100 American adults having been incarcerated. Proposals to put even more people in prison are stupid.
Posted by: ewoo | September 18, 2009 10:18 AM
I have agree'd with most everybody else about every poll so far, but his one I can't.
Fired? Possibly.
Suspension? Absolutely.
Jail Time? No way!
Posted by: Alverant | September 18, 2009 10:27 AM
I just voted. 75% in favor of jail time for people who commit a crime.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 18, 2009 10:35 AM
Just to provide some perspective, here's a true story:
My choir director in high school was a very devoutly religious man. During a rehersal (choir was a music elective in my school, therefore this was during class time) he came upon a passage in the lyrics of a song that he had an objection to. He started to voice his objection but then stopped himself. He had the character and integrity to realize he was violating the establishment clause (and school policy). He then stated that he could not give what would amount to religious instruction and espouse his own religious views during class time. But if anyone were curious they could see him after the bell rung so that between classes and on a purely voluntary basis on our part he could then safely tell us what he objected to in the song.
Not all devoutly religious teachers are dishonest and some even greatly respect the 1st amendment. BTW when I asked what was the worst that could happen if he gave his explanation during class time he replied not only that he could be fired but he felt it would be right for the school to do so.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
September 18, 2009 10:37 AM
Michael N @ #7:
I could name the first president of the U.S., but seeing as his mother already named him George, why should I have to? ^_^
Posted by: AC | September 18, 2009 10:42 AM
I read the poll as a choice between two options - fines or jail. I may need more coffee to read correctly, or may really be exposing my true biases while waking up.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 18, 2009 10:43 AM
ewoo.
It's for defying a court order. That's the penalty the courts can carry out. It's obvious the school has no intention of firing or suspending anyone. They are the school officials. Do you think they'll fire or suspend themselves?
Please try and catch up.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 18, 2009 10:43 AM
Taking the poll at face value, I say No. Job sanctions, yes, but jail time for a non-property, non-violent crime? In the actual, however, the issue has escalated to the level of contempt of court, and I have no sympathy for these fanatics.
Posted by: Yo | September 18, 2009 10:56 AM
It seems PZ hasn't considered the dire consequences if we do not sacrifice a serf to Odin every year at Midwinter. Just think what will happen to the harvest
Posted by: Tony Miller | September 18, 2009 10:58 AM
The two in question were found not guilty of criminal contempt.
Posted by: daveau | September 18, 2009 10:59 AM
Throw the teachers into jail
So my country can be free!
/Borat
Posted by: Seifer | September 18, 2009 11:02 AM
It's wasn't just for organized prayer on this occasions that they faced jail time. As I understand it, this school system already had problems with organized staff led prayer during school hours, so a judge issued a court order for no more prayer led at official school function. Fast forward a few weeks and at an official school function, they led another prayer. Simply put, it is contempt of court and if the judge chooses to, they can put the administrators in jail.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 18, 2009 11:09 AM
Forget jail time--teachers should be able to lead a single-denominational prayer if they want.
The catch is that if they lead one prayer, they have to lead twenty.
Oh, and they can't use the same denomination twice.
Here's a Christian one to start off with:
Tuesday's prayer will be:
And on Wodin's day we'll honour our brothers and sisters from the Isles:
With approximately 170-200 school days in a year, at a prayer a day, no one will be complaining there isn't enough god in school.
Posted by: Cephus | September 18, 2009 11:14 AM
I say no. Should they be disciplined, suspended or fired for doing it? Absolutely and without question, they have violating the terms of their employment. Should they go to jail for it? Of course not, they aren't breaking any law, they do not hold any appointed or elected position, nor are they officially representatives of any government, they are employees, nothing more. Employees can be terminated, they cannot be jailed for screwing up on the job in a non-criminal manner.
Posted by: TheVirginian | September 18, 2009 11:16 AM
I just voted at 10:10, and it was 84.4 percent for yes.
Actually, for a first offense, a teacher should get a reprimand (assuming it was not too outrageous) in case the teacher made an honest mistake. Suspension for a second offense unless it's really outrageous (taking the kids to a Baptist revival). If a teacher can't grasp why it's wrong too proselytize, then out the door for good. Making it a criminal case for a teacher is too strong for my case. Now, if a school board or school principal or superintendent commits this crime, then fines and maybe even jail (if contempt of court is involved for a repeat offense). The guys at the top definitely should know better.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
September 18, 2009 11:16 AM
I weep when I think of how easily we'd all solve the problem of hunger if everyone simply flayed a war captive in honour of Xipe Totec at Tlacaxipehualiztli every spring.
I tell you this: those damn pansy liberals may have taken the gods out of our schools and courthouses, but they can have my maquahuime when they take it from my cold, dead hands.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 18, 2009 11:20 AM
Personally, teaching government/civics/political science, I see a lot of these claims (from the comments) and also see this as an intentionally skewed poll.
A couple of comments here have suggested that because the poll mentioned jail time they couldn't vote yes. My experience would suggest that the creator of the poll very likely phrased it that way in order to nudge people in the direction he or she wanted. Given that the issue is contempt of court, not a direct prayer to jail correlation, this seems quite likely. The law allows judges to fine people or jail them for contempt of court, these teachers directly disobeyed court orders based upon a settlement after they already broke the law and violated the rights of their students. In my opinion these "educators" should face fines or jail time from the court (at the discretion of the judge) and should also face sanctions, up to and including dismissal from their employer. The simple fact of the matter is they broke the law, went to court to fight for their "right" to continue to break the law, lost, settled, and then went ahead and broke the law again. This tells me that they have no respect for the highest law of our land, the Constitution, or the individual rights it is intended to protect. They also have no respect for the authority of the court and no honesty nor integrity. In addition they don't care about the fact that all of this cost the district money that, in these times of budget crunches and crisis, it could ill afford to divert away from the education of its children. To top all of that, and make it infinitely worse, they have no respect for the rights of the children placed in their care.
All of these suggest to me that the penalty should be the highest allowable at the discretion of both the court and the district. It's bad enough to violate the rights of your students and both state and federal law, but to continue to do so after you have entered a settlement agreement that promised that you would no longer do so? That IS contempt of court.
I agree with PZ that atheists who did the same thing these "educators" have done here should face precisely the same penalty.
Posted by: Jeff | September 18, 2009 11:26 AM
I think that summoning the Great Old Ones from their sunken continent beneath the Pacific is its own punishment, no?
Posted by: paul01 | September 18, 2009 11:27 AM
The whole issue should be dealt with by a board designed for personnel matters. Of course at some point the issue may end up in a court and then the law should take its course.
Posted by: Benjamin Beaulieu | September 18, 2009 11:32 AM
That poor poll didn't stand a chance.
Latest result:
Yes: 86.2%
No: 13.8%
Posted by: ExOrganist | September 18, 2009 11:34 AM
I envy you your First Amendment...
Here in the UK, not only do we have the established church to contend with, but that same church also runs many of our schools, and the government is hell-bent on handing over control of more state schools (equivalent to public schools in the US) to "faith groups", who in return will get large amounts of taxpayers' money and the ability to control the curriculum (oh, and an handy exemption from anti-discrimination laws which enables them to fire/expel any teachers/pupils of the wrong religion or sexual orientation).
Even at my non-church-run primary school in the late 1980s, not only did we have Christian prayers, hymns, etc. at assembly (and sometimes in class), we also had a devout Baptist headmistress who regularly invited speakers in from local churches to preach at us.
Whilst overt proselytization from a teacher might not be tolerated these days, as far as I know it is still a legal requirement that British schoolchildren under the age of 16 take part in daily acts of "collective worship" which must be "broadly Christian". Attempts by secularist organisations to get this abolished have been stoutly resisted by the C of E and other godbotherers, although over-16s can now opt out without parental permission. The religious rot pervading the British educational system is so profound, I'm quite glad that I'm unlikely to have children.
Posted by: Coragyps | September 18, 2009 11:48 AM
Brownian - here in West Texas, all one would need to do to convince the Baptists to drop school prayer like a white-hot potato is to lead the first day's prayer like this:
"Sancta Maria, reina de los angeles..."
That's the one that the largest proportion of the students would recognize, so it should be the one most recited, no? then you could let the Southern Baptist/Church of Christ "Lawrd, we jes' wanna thank yew...." be the second-most-recited prayer.
(I forgot how to type tildes......)
Posted by: uncle frogy | September 18, 2009 11:52 AM
I really get pissed off when I hear the right wing religionists distort the issue of prayer in school as outlawing prayer implying that the "Evil Court" and the "Evil ACLU" wants to make it against the law to pray when they know that that is not the issue at all. It is government mandated prayer and the government promoting religion not the act of praying by any individual or the belief in any religion by any individual.
Our "Founding Fathers" new that if we wanted to prosper as a nation we needed liberty and it was decided that the government was to stay out of the question of religion and the idea was endorsed by the religious leaders at the time. It turned out to be one the strengths of our country and society. We may not all believe the same things but we could support the country as a whole we could be united by our differences.
Now after over 50 years of "Cold War" which "ended?"
Having lost an identifiable implacable enemy some are struggling to divide us with religion to maintain power.
Finding enemies in science, in "socialism", in Islam (some in Islam are doing the same thing) and in "Atheism" and of course in racism still.
Civility seems a distance memory when we new we were united in our liberty now it is all distorted by over blown rhetoric,absolutism and "AstroTurf". Sowing fear and distrust of and to the "masses". All in the quest for power.
Like riding a tiger easy to get on but more difficult to get off.
Posted by: camels With Hammers | September 18, 2009 11:58 AM
Jail is extreme but serious fines and suspensions are necessary to enforce the seriousness of separating church and state.
Posted by: John C. Welch | September 18, 2009 11:59 AM
Coragyps,
If all you need are the standard tilde letters, here's a good list: http://www.starr.net/is/type/htmlcodes.html
just use the entity to get the letter you want: Ñ, ñ, etc.
Posted by: Heidi | September 18, 2009 12:02 PM
Um, yes they are. School prayer is illegal.
Poll is flipped now.
No (12.6%)
Yes (87.4%)
Posted by: Eljay | September 18, 2009 12:03 PM
One of the websites i go to to get my updates on fishing in the Pensacola area, is touting this as a God Vs ACLU case. The whole thing is scary the way its seen by the locals who live there.
http://pensacolafishingforum.com/fishingforum/Topic425300-3-1.aspx
Posted by: raven | September 18, 2009 12:06 PM
Seems like one way for religions to die is to make them mandatory. As the UK posters point out, this happens in Britain. A lot of European countries have state churches. The result has been secular societies we in the USA can only dream about.
The fundies here have spent 3 decades trying to impose their kooky cults on the rest of us. The result. Polls show the majority of the US population, mostly other xians, are sick and tired of them trying to cram their religion down our throats. Their kids are sick and tired of them too, 7 of 10 leave the churches at adulthood.
Posted by: JessieColt | September 18, 2009 12:13 PM
OMG! This poll is on my local stations web site.. how utterly pathetic. At least the numbers are up to 87.9% yes and 12.1% no.
Posted by: skeptical scientist | September 18, 2009 12:19 PM
I agree completely with Cephus (#32), which is why I voted no. I wonder how many people here agree? I suspect that by now the poll is sufficiently Pharyngulated to be essentially a poll of Pharyngula readers, which would mean that at least 10% of us think that a fine or jailtime would be an inappropriate response for educators offering school prayer.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 18, 2009 12:25 PM
You don't appear to get it. The jail time is for ignoring a court order which you had previously signed. The trigger just happened to be requiring a prayer in school.Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 18, 2009 12:30 PM
Just for offering prayers in school ? Jail would be inappropriate. However in the specific example that lead to this poll it is not the offering of prayers that has brought about the threat of jail. It is teachers ignoring a court order to stop offering prayers that has landed them in trouble. Now there are probably better options to deal with their refusal to comply with the instructions of the court. Banning them from school property would be one option, as would a heavy fine. However the courts should be able to send someone to prison if they fail to comply with court orders and no other sanction has worked.
Posted by: Joreth | September 18, 2009 12:43 PM
I really wish you people would read things better.
It's been pointed out several times that what this teacher was in contempt of court, which *is* a jailable offense. It's not the teaching of religion that should be jailed, it's breaking a court order.
Second, part of the point of pharyngulating a poll is to point out how unscientific the poll is. They are written in a particular way to force the poll-taker to vote the way the writer wants them to vote by using straw men.
So vote for the *spirit* of the poll, not the letter of the poll. Save that for actual, scientific polls and political elections. In this case, people in favor of a separation of church and state should be voting "yes", not because we're actually in favor of jailing a teacher who led a prayer once (never mind the fact that this is not what actually happened here), but because we're trying to make 2 points: 1) this poll is poorly written and shouldn't be counted anyway and 2) lots of people are in favor of removing religion from public property and government organizations - we can argue about the details of punishments later, when it actually matters.
~Joreth
Posted by: John Pieret | September 18, 2009 12:57 PM
The teachers were facing contempt charges, which can include jail time, because they were alleged to have violated a direct order of the court (which the temporary restraining order was and the consent decree became when the judge "so ordered" it). I find it amusing that the right are all in favor of "law and order" when it's their law and someone else's order that is being required. When it's someone else's law they have to comply with the order of, not so much.
The judge apparently wanted them hauled in and tried to put a little fear of the court in them and other district officials, to go with their "fear of God," and gave them a stern lecture before acuiting them, which is about what I would expect the first time around. The next time might not go so easily.
But if the consent decree is violated, the judge is unlikely to be so .
Posted by: Equisetum | September 18, 2009 12:59 PM
As for the contempt of court charge, yes, a fine or jail time is entirely appropriate.
As for the offense that prompted the contempt of court charge, an appropriate punishment might be the German concept of Berufsverbot. After repeated violations a person can be banned from practicing a profession for a period of time (in rare cases for life).
Example, a meat wholesaler was caught, for the second time, relabeling spoiled meat and selling it. He is now forbidden from working as wholesaler in the food industry.
For these two, if they refuse to abide by the law, then take away their license to teach in public schools. Let them teach in a religious school where they can pray all day.
Posted by: ExOrganist | September 18, 2009 1:04 PM
Raven@46 - yes, I've seen a few people advance that hypothesis, which is an interesting solution to the apparent paradox of a country with strict separation of church and state having a much higher level of public religiosity than many countries with state religions.
The problem is that even if mandatory religious
indoctrinationeducation did turn out to be the reason why Britain (or Europe) is a much more secular place than the US, it would still be morally wrong. And furthermore, the new "faith groups" (both Christian and Islamic) that are taking over British schools are much more forthright in their beliefs and than the woolly old C of E ever was...Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 18, 2009 1:13 PM
Technically no. School prayer is not illegal, nor should it be. This is a common misconception that the religious throw out there to cry about being discriminated against.Prayer initiated, endorsed or mandated by public school staff is illegal but the student can pray his or her little ass off all day if they feel the need.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 18, 2009 1:14 PM
Oh and I was in no way suggesting that you are religious Heidi.
Posted by: Gregg | September 18, 2009 1:29 PM
It is a constant source of amazement how parents scream and cry about their children being "indoctrinated" into values and beliefs that differ from what the parent teaches at home, but when their values and beliefs are being taught in schools, they scream and cry about how they are not being allowed to indoctrinate the children of others.
The doublethink is truely astounding.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | September 18, 2009 1:51 PM
Yeah, just *try* to ban students praying before and during a math midterm. Rotsa ruck.
Now, if the teacher started intoning "O great Euclid, Pythagoras and Descartes, hear our plea for perfect understanding...."
perhaps that would be taking it a bit too far. The Leibnitzians would have a hissy fit, for one thing.
And everyone knows that Satanism is wildly popular in high-school, but as an afterschool activity, not so much during school hours.
Posted by: clausentum | September 18, 2009 1:58 PM
let me translate ExOrganist@39 and raven@46 for those of you not from the UK :
Schooling has been firmly in the hands of the liberals in England for the last 50 years, with the result that education takes second place to the imposition of an egalitarian agenda and general left-wing brainwashing. The resulting destruction of a vital culture and the miserable academic and scientific achievements will warm any liberal's heart.
Sending your kid to a CofE school means that, at the price of a little gentle exposure to Xianity, there is a proper discipline and able kids are not deliberately held back to avoid being unfair to others.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 18, 2009 2:05 PM
Except that's clearly not at all what they said.
Posted by: breadmaker | September 18, 2009 2:21 PM
certainly stupid, but it might not be as ineffective as you would want.
demons are more fun to deal with out in the open.
Posted by: breadmaker | September 18, 2009 2:26 PM
that previous comment was meant for the previous post. doh!
Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 18, 2009 2:35 PM
Mabus, go die in a fucking fire. You worship a mediocre dead poet with delusions of grandeur and an imaginary tyrant with a sick sense of humor. You need psychiatric help. But even though you live in Canada, where healthcare is actually available, you're too fucking stupid and too obsessed with wallowing in your own shit to get the help you need to shake your disease. So just fucking kill yourself and make the world a better place.
Posted by: Texas Reader | September 18, 2009 2:37 PM
I bet if u changed it to "muslim prayer" you'd get 100% "yes."
Posted by: Gregg | September 18, 2009 2:45 PM
And I bet if you changed it to be specifically "non-demoninational Christian prayer" it would come very close to 100% "No," because Christianity is the one and only right belief and jailing such teachers is obviously persecution on the grounds of religious beliefs.
Posted by: ExOrganist | September 18, 2009 2:49 PM
No, @60, that is indeed not what I meant. I'm not going to deny that there is a lot wrong with the British school system, but you can't just blame "liberals" for this (after all, the selective grammar schools so beloved of right-wingers were abolished in the 1970s by a certain Mrs Margaret Thatcher - hardly a liberal).
The main issue with faith schools is that government propaganda claims that they perform better than non-faith schools due to some sort of mystic "faith ethos" when it's apparent to anyone who does a proper study (for instance, see the LSE study linked to by the article below) that the faith schools use their selection privileges to simply screen out any pupils who might lower their results, whereas non-faith schools have to take everyone.
The real reason that the government loves faith schools is economic: if the religious groups are paying some of the cost of running the schools, that leaves more taxpayers' money in the exchequer to spend on interior decorating and duck islands.
From the National Secular Society's article on faith schools:
"The faith school system is unjust and discriminatory. Over-subscribed religious schools can, uniquely, impose entry requirements based on the religion of the child’s parents. This system also poses a threat to community cohesion."
"What success they achieve is usually attributable to the selection processes they alone are allowed, processes which permit them to screen out pupils who would be a drain on the school’s resources (special needs, free school meals, for example) and screen in those who are already high achievers, who come from supportive and better-off families."
See http://www.secularism.org.uk/faith-schools.html
Posted by: ExOrganist | September 18, 2009 2:51 PM
Addendum: Just to clarify - I was responding to Strange Gods@60 but my remarks are primarily directed at Clausentum@59.
Posted by: clausentum | September 18, 2009 3:40 PM
ExOrganist@ 66 & 67
I also remember Harold Wilson saying grammar schools would be abolished over his dead body.Yes, I'd realised that, and thanks for your comments.
I've often heard it said that Thatcher abolished the grammar schools, and only now checked what was behind it ( from):
The concerns about religious schools are justified, but so are concerns about the absolutism of state schools controlled by people with a political agenda. Some form of selection seems inevitable, however, and isn't it better that it's in a secular environment, and purely by ability, and that everyone recognises that schools are not for forming kids in some mould, but to allow them to develop as rapidly as they can.
Posted by: Richard Dawkins | September 18, 2009 3:49 PM
Persecuting Christians? An elderly colleague of mine at New College, Oxford, a very distinguished classicist and scholar of ancient history, was asked whether it is really true that the early Christians were persecuted. His considered answer was, "Yes, but too little and too late."
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 18, 2009 3:59 PM
Typical to your hobbyhorse equestrian ways, clausentum, you give no evidence and make no case.
Posted by: ExOrganist | September 18, 2009 4:02 PM
Clausentum@68 - absolutely. I'm not necessarily against selection by ability, but the covert way British faith schools do it is certainly not on, notwithstanding the other reasons to oppose faith schools. Thanks for the Guardian link too - I knew the bare bones but not the finer details, since I wasn't born at the time.
As this is somewhat tangential to the main thread, I will stop here.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | September 18, 2009 4:49 PM
As another alternative punishment, perhaps the teacher should be forced to stand in front of the blackboard after class, and repeatedly write, I will not violate the United States Constitution. a few hundred times.
;)
Posted by: CJColucci | September 18, 2009 4:51 PM
If a teacher is asked about the existence of a god, and his reply is "there is no scientific evidence, etc..." is this promoting atheism?
Teachable moment alert. How about: "I don't know if that's a scientific question or not. How would you go about getting a scientific answer, if there is one? What would count as evidence? What kinds of tests or experiments would you design? How would you decide, after you've taken a scientific approach to the question, whether you got a scientific answer or showed, instead, that it's not a scientific question?""
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | September 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
As long as there are tests . . .
Posted by: Larry | September 18, 2009 4:56 PM
I'm guilty in admitting I did not read all the comments above. It may have been already mentioned, but there are several good comments following the poll page.
Posted by: Joe | September 18, 2009 5:02 PM
Yes:No was 90.2:9.8% when I voted.
Keep on pharyngulatin'!
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | September 18, 2009 5:06 PM
Gregg:
Yeah, it's not really doublethink, though. At least not for many of them. Many of them really do believe that their particular Christian church should not be disestablished, and that the U.S. Constitution is an abomination. They're right, everyone else is wrong, and they should be in charge of an authoritarian theocracy.
To the extent that they complain about freedom from indoctrination, it's not freedom from indoctrination in principle; it's freedom from indoctrination in the wrong religion. To the extent that they employ the language of freedom and equality, it is but political expediency.
Posted by: Mena | September 18, 2009 5:07 PM
It wouldn't even need to be anything Satanic. Remember how they cried when that Hindu cleric opened the Senate with a prayer? There is a whole lot of that special kind of crazy out there.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19729245/
Posted by: Liveliest Crib | September 18, 2009 5:13 PM
Mena:
I definitely remember that. I cried too, but for different reasons.
What I saw was one group of insane cultists complaining that a member of a different group of insane cultists would get to lead the prayer, and supposedly open-minded people scolding the complainers for not recognizing that all insane cultists should be allowed to lead the prayer.
Bloody hell! How about no prayers to open sessions of the federal fucking government, as the Constitution requires?
Posted by: clausentum | September 18, 2009 5:17 PM
strange gods before me @70
I take your point, but I guess you wanted evidence for the concerns about state education, and took it for granted that the case was proven for religious schools. But in fact all we have against religious schools is expressions of concern. With the preponderance on this blog, that makes it easy for you to bog your opponents down...
My feelings about state education are based on my own experience and that of many people I know: it's not linkable... so it doesn't exist?
Posted by: HarmlessEccentric | September 18, 2009 5:25 PM
I disagree. The jails are overcrowded enough with the petty drug offenders. First offense, strongly worded reprimand in the personnel file and mandatory training. Second offense, firing. For Christians, Buddhists, Jews, atheists, and anyone else who is conducting religious instruction outside their prescribed duties in a public school.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 18, 2009 5:27 PM
Actually the selection issues that ExOrganist talked about are documented and I've studied them before. For your claims, we just have to take the word of a hobbyhorse jockey? Nope.
Posted by: HarmlessEccentric | September 18, 2009 5:28 PM
...and now I'm wishing I'd read the rest of the comments first, and am withdrawing with a red face while the Pharyngulans make fun of me for my sloppy reading skills.
Posted by: c | September 18, 2009 5:44 PM
strange gods before me @ 82 :
you're dodging the issue again: it's not their selection policies but the indoctrination and the consequences for society we're talking about. I have direct experience, and still get feedback about the state system: what evidence do you have for religious schools?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 18, 2009 6:12 PM
Yes is at 90.4 % now.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 18, 2009 6:40 PM
"That also goes for teachers who push atheism in the public schools."
Is that because atheism is a religion as the cultists claim all along? It wouldn't be violating the constitution either since it is not favoring any religion. It would be a pretty stupid thing to do though since the cultists will be screaming shrilly as they love to do.
Now how do science teachers address religious bullshit in the science class?
Johnny: That's a lie! The preacher who gives me candy behind the vestibule says the world was created by god in 6 days!
Teacher: The preacher likes to tell you lies so that you keep on meeting him behind the vestibule. Only morons really believe that the earth way created in 6 days.
Oops... jail time for the teacher, not the preacher.
Posted by: Artymart | September 18, 2009 6:48 PM
I personally know a retired (thankfully)elementary teacher in New Jersey who bragged to me that, when a Muslim child asked her of he would go to heaven, she told him no, only people who believe in Jesus can go to heaven.
The unbelievable arrogance of the self proclaimed "persons of faith" drives me nuts.
Jail them - no not really. Just fire them on the spot.
Posted by: skepsci | September 18, 2009 6:49 PM
Forgive me for answering the question asked, instead of a different question that perhaps should have been asked. I guess that means I don't get it.Posted by: Freedonian | September 18, 2009 8:10 PM
Here is another one from our fiends at OneNewsNow.com, are you ready to Pharyngulate?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Poll.aspx?ekfrm=687588
Many people blame the prohibition of educator-led prayer and devotional Bible reading in America's public schools for the general decline in the nation's morality over the last four decades. Do you agree or disagree?
1. Agree - 91.20%
2. Disagree - 6.57%
3. Undecided - 2.24%
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 18, 2009 8:21 PM
clausentum, you have a track record of lying here. You are a one trick pony. We have no reason to listen to your supposed personal experience.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 18, 2009 8:48 PM
@ 59,
Yes, there are those who see "liberal" as a swearword, like "socialism" in the US, and who think a broad and secular education is "left-wing brainwashing".And they are idiots.
You have a nice way with words ! "A little gentle exposure" hmmm...LOL ! Sounds almost erotic !! Unfortunately the little gentle exposure also means filtering of students based on religious beliefs and teaching of intolerance with regards to minorities, homosexuality etc.And "proper discipline", well everyone knows what the British mean by that right...;)
Moron.
Posted by: ExOrganist | September 19, 2009 12:44 AM
I wasn't going to post again on this topic, but c@82: If you want evidence, see the article I linked to earlier on in this thread, which cited a proper academic study done by the London School of Economics on faith schooling in Britain. The article also provides a link to this study in PDF format.
I should add, lest anyone get the wrong idea, that I am criticising the British educational system from the opposite side of the political spectrum from Clausentum.
Rorschach@89 - yes, that's pretty much correct; if I recall correctly, a British faith school even went to court a few years ago to defend its right to corporally chastize its pupils (thankfully it lost).
Posted by: Tumara Baap | September 19, 2009 4:13 AM
Atheism is not a religion. As I understand it, public schools may not promote or show bias for religion. Advancing atheism may invite opprobrium, but it is not against the law. As to the question whether atheism should be encouraged, (notwithstanding that it's technically allowable), I feel its tenets should be actively explored. Atheism is the very antithesis of dogma. It is synonymous with the finest distillation of critical thinking. It won't happen in this era. But if part of a formal curriculum in an advanced, scientifically enlightened, space faring eden of a civilization, it would certainly not be out of order.
PZ, sometimes you surprise me :-( Lack of belief in God is not a smidgen less ridiculous than a lack of belief in a witch on a broomstick. We would be fortunate to live in an age when an educator can call it out for it is.
Posted by: help ma boab | September 19, 2009 12:06 PM
clausentum
I can confirm your appraisal of the position in the UK. It is regularly reported in the media.
We are often treated to the nauseating spectacle of socialist Government Ministers taking a public stand against selection or grammar schools yet quietly sending their own children to fee paying schools.
The state sector is so abysmal that competition to gain a place in a CoE school is fairly stiff.
Posted by: teachforaliving | September 19, 2009 12:58 PM
Actively proselytizing on the taxpayer's dime is a crime, so sayeth the Supreme Court in interpreting the first amendment. On the grounds that we tend to punish offenders on a graduated scale depending on the heinousness and repetition of the offense, I think we should hold firing, delicensing and jail time -- all "nuclear" options -- in abeyance until the offender demonstrates incorrigibility (but not drag this out forever -- look how long it's taking to get rid of Freshwater).
The picture accompanying the poll creates some ambiguity. It shows a coach and his football players kneeling in what is presumed to be prayer, presumably before a game. This doesn't involve coercion or deception, as participation in extracurricular sports is voluntary, unlike classroom settings, where participation is (to be blunt) coerced. I understand this is a common practice among athletic teams and I don't know of a case where pre-game prayer has caused any kerfuffle. Anybody know anything more about this?
PZ, i have a niggling objection -- when you have a broad population, as in a high-school class, matters of philosophy or ideology can't be avoided, especially if the students are the least bit curious. You have to try and explain based on the evidence.
Posted by: clausentum | September 19, 2009 1:43 PM
help ma boab@94
Yes, the classic example was Blair himself, who sent his kids to school which practices selectivity under the religious cloak, while at the same time denying any chance of this to people who wanted a non-denominational or secular education for their children.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | September 19, 2009 9:31 PM
Is that because atheism is a religion as the cultists claim all along? It wouldn't be violating the constitution either since it is not favoring any religion. It would be a pretty stupid thing to do though since the cultists will be screaming shrilly as they love to do.
Madscientist,
The problem wouldn't be because Atheism is a religion, quite to the contrary, that isn't the case. The problem is that, as an educator, I have a distinct and rather powerful role at the behest of the government. The constitution states that the government shall not make laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. The courts have established the Lemon Test to assist them in determining the reasoning for legal actions of government entities and have a long history of caselaw determining what actions are legal and illegal. Were I to make statements in my role as a classroom teacher that taught the students that God didn't exist and their religious beliefs were false, foolish, etc. would not only be unethical, it would be illegal. I would, in my role as an educator, be using my position to establish a specific doctrine (or non-doctrine in this case) as the correct one. I would be infringing upon the rights of my students as a captive audience and abusing my position as a representative of the state and (at least perceived) expert in my field.
This actually wouldn't be only a federal constitutional issue, most states and school districts also have laws governing the coverage of controversial issues under which such a scenario would almost certainly fall.
------------
exorganist
I should add, lest anyone get the wrong idea, that I am criticising the British educational system from the opposite side of the political spectrum from Clausentum.
The issue over educational systems seems to be a universal one. We have the same false claims made by advocates of private schools as well as voucher and charter schools. They inevitably ignore the evidence that the concern and involvement of the parents play a far greater role than any of the false claims about religious affiliation, corporate competition, etc. They also, like in your case, ignore the fact that these private schools get to select their students, opting out of special needs students, any students with any sort of behavioral problems, screening based on test scores, etc. A perfect example is here in Arizona, Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton are coming into southern Arizona to visit a charter school (Basis Tucson) to see how "The Charter school is so successful." Anyone with half a brain realizes that the reason they are successful is because they carefully screen their students, they have to pass entrance tests and are required to be enrolled in advanced placement classes, etc. Add to that the school enrollment is less than 100 kids.
See now, 100 hand picked kids who are required to have passed an entrance exam and successfully complete college level curriculum. How in the world are they successful? [/end sarcasm]
What they never seem to mention is, in the very same city, there is a public school in the rather troubled Tucson Unified School District. University High School is virtually identical to Basis. They get to test their kids at admission, they get to require that they enroll in advanced classes, and they get to maintain exceptionally small class sizes. Shocking as it may be, they have virtually identical results [both schools are in the top 25 in the nation according to US News and World Report.]
But, as we see all too often, the false claim is made that private schools and/or charter/voucher schools are superior to public schools. The irony is that, if you look at the rest of the charter schools in Arizona, or the voucher schools in Milwaukee, etc., the charter/voucher programs are dismal failures.
Posted by: Kendo
|
September 21, 2009 5:36 PM
No, not jail time. It would be better for them to have a millstone tied around their necks and to be cast into the water; according to Jesus. Teachers who encourage children to pray in public are robbing the children of their eternal reward in heaven; according to Jesus. Again, according to Jesus, teachers who lead children astray are to be more severely judged. Why are they not concerned about this? Perhaps because, deep down, they know it's all bullshit.
Posted by: Reaper
|
September 21, 2009 10:40 PM
There should be a prayer session per week, Christian, Muslim, Satanist, Jewish, Rastafarian (that might tick off the DEA), Moonie, Wiccan, and maybe a athiest prayer "what an awesome world, go out and explore it".
Throw in a bit of a mix, see how the Christian parents react to having irrational ideas forced on their childre......... oh........... I see............ hmmm
Posted by: help ma boab
|
October 6, 2009 4:28 AM
Has anyone else noticed that some creep is impersonating Richard Dawkins at #69? Someone should inform the real Professor Dawkins that this is going on. This so-called 'Richard Dawkins' isn't even doing a very good job of it.
Firstly, the real Richard Dawkins is not so vainglorious and conceited that he feels the need to tell us that he has a "colleague" who is "elderly", "at New College, Oxford", "very distinguished", a "classicist" and a "scholar", nor is the real Richard Dawkins so arrogant that he imagines that heaping up these qualities of some fictitious "colleague" will add any strength to his argument.
Secondly, this "elderly colleague of mine at New College, Oxford, a very distinguished classicist and scholar of ancient history" is clearly an complete and utter shit, which no self respecting person would claim as a "colleague". Not enough persecution? Hardly a subject to be making snide remarks about.
Thirdly, the real Richard Dawkins has the personal integrity to claim his opinions as his own and not hide behind some imaginary "colleague". The real Richard Dawkins would have the courage to voice his own opinions or at least denounce the comments of this sadistic guttersnipe "colleague".
So, come on, you yellow piece of work, what is the real point of your comment? Stop hiding behind the good name of the real Richard Dawkins and some slimy so-called "colleague". Do you yourself believe that christians were persecuted "Yes, but too little and too late."? Or are you just going to keep on hiding?
Posted by: John Morales
|
October 6, 2009 4:48 AM
hmb @100, you're about as funny as a cancerous polyp.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
October 6, 2009 5:24 AM
hmb seems to have gone off the deep end finally.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 6, 2009 6:50 PM
I think it's time to show help ma boab the door.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
October 6, 2009 6:56 PM
Yay! The "long walk" for the guy in the red box, finally!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 6, 2009 7:02 PM
And HMB (waves bye-bye), that really was Richard Dawkins, who is a friend of PZ and posts here on occasion. Your concept of science and scientists is childish.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
October 7, 2009 4:03 PM
Oops! Looks like HMB finally went too far. Odd that it was over an older post, must have pushed a button.