Taliban America

[Andres]

I couldn't agree more. Civilized countries avoid the ambiguities of the Germanic languages by adopting a Latin one for public use.

One day, I'm going to come to Paris and talk some sense in to you, mon ami. In a man to man kinda way




Anyway, this thread has kept me busy as well.

Two things:

1) Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no", but I'd like to hear more from some of our US friends who are more sensitive when it comes to freedom of speech;
2) How about other employees? Can their employer limit their freedom of speech during work time? I'd say "obviously yes".
3) What is with Americans and their religion? "God bless America" vs. the concepts "secular state" and "seperation of church and state". I'm intrigued.

EDIT: there are three kinds of people: those who know how to count and those who don't

[Louis VI the Fat]

Two things:

1)
2)
3)

There are two kinds of universe:

Reality. Where the laws of physics apply.

Surrealism. The realm of all things Belgian.



(Note: surrealism is a Belgian invention)

[Lemur]

What is with Americans and their religion? "God bless America" vs. the concepts "secular state" and "seperation of church and state". I'm intrigued.

It's a tension that has existed in America since well before the Revolution. Contrast the Puritans in Massachusetts with the profit-motivated tobacco farmers of Virginia (my people, BTW).

Note that the oath of the Presidency does not contain any reference to God, but that George Washington insisted that he be sworn on a Bible, and added the words, "So help me God," as well as kissing the Bible at the end. Everything but the kiss has survived intact for centuries, although it is codified nowhere.

Note that the Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by a socialist minister, and did not contain any reference to God until 1954, when it was thought that adding the words "under God" would help root out socialists and communists. Like the one who invented the Pledge in the first place.

Observe that the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by our second President and the first bill to be ratified by a unanimous senate, contained the following language: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [...]"

We're a nation of paradox and contradiction. I think it just adds to our charm and girlish figure.

Kadgar, I'm afraid Banquo is right; both your OP and your subsequent posts have had a certain lives-under-a-bridge-eating-wayfarers quality.

I stand by my "jerk" theory. You don't see lawsuits of this sort unless somebody is being unreasonable. That could have been the teacher picking on a student, which does happen. And that could be a student (and more likely his parents) jumping on a chance to sue the Great Satan for daring to contradict their Biblical literalism. I haven't read the court transcripts, so I wouldn't attempt to say who is the Jerk Prime.

[HoreTore]

1) Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no", but I'd like to hear more from some of our US friends who are more sensitive when it comes to freedom of speech;

Of course they should have unlimited freedom of speech, as everyone else. We don't limited freedom of speech. However, that means that he should in no way be punished by a court, it does not mean that he cannot be fired by his superior. Nor does it mean that said superior cannot be fired by said superior's superior. And so on...

2) How about other employees? Can their employer limit their freedom of speech during work time? I'd say "obviously yes".

In general, no. But again, they can fire people for being hostile/impolite, of course.

[Jolt]

For the record, I wasn't flaming or trolling in any way. I was merely reflecting my opinion on how American values sometimes ranges the practice of what I call barbarian, when compared to my own values. The example cited in the OP is a very clear example of it. Rome may have exported have also reinvented Republicanism, but that doesn't negate the fact that they were barbarians in many ways, when compared with Modern European values.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I was merely reflecting my opinion on how American values sometimes ranges the practice of what I call barbarian, when compared to my own values.

I fully support the timeless tradition of naming anything and everything outside of Mediterranean Europe civilization 'barbaric'.

Nevertheless, the barbarians do have an anthropologic appeal. We must study their exotic ways to increase our knowledge.

The United States Constitution prohibits any law “respecting an
establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. Amend. I. The parties agree that the
appropriate test for determining whether Corbett’s statements were permissible
under the Establishment Clause is found in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

There, the Supreme Court established a three-pronged standard in its review
of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion;
finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

This is suprisingly (or maybe not) close to the proudly secular French/Belgian/Portuguese law. No excessive government entanglement with religion in public schools.

Andres: Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no"
My first answer would be 'no' too. Alas, this case reminds me that 'no entanglement' also means that there must be a limit to anti-religious statements.

(With the disclaimer that Freedom of speech is far too often invoked. It should mean freedom from criminal persecution. Not the freedom to say anything anytime, for which it strangely has become shorthand in recent years.
For example, a teacher has the 'freedom of speech' to repeatedly say 'Hey jude' and nothing else. A math teacher however can not invoke 'freedom of speech' when he's fired for only singing Beatles songs instead of teaching math)


This 'no entaglement' rule gives me a problem. Because I feel it supports that sphere of untouchability that religion has demanded for itself. That it makes an exception for religion above all other thought. An exception that makes religion impervious, untouchable to public critique.
A teacher can disparage 'flat earth' theory. But not 'young earth' theory. The latter is deemed 'sacred thought' by some. Hence, taboo. Untouchable, unmentionable.

How to reconcile my two diverging thoughts, I don't know.

[Askthepizzaguy]

1) Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no", but I'd like to hear more from some of our US friends who are more sensitive when it comes to freedom of speech;
2) How about other employees? Can their employer limit their freedom of speech during work time? I'd say "obviously yes".
3) What is with Americans and their religion? "God bless America" vs. the concepts "secular state" and "seperation of church and state". I'm intrigued.

My little opinions. Okay little may not be the best term...

1. Teachers should stick to the curriculum approved to be taught to the students. If the school board decides it wants to teach religion as science, that's fine. But it shouldn't get public money, it should get private/church money and I should have a right to say no to sending my kids there. Teachers should be free to express their personal opinion on any issue, so long as they don't mandate that the children agree with them. What the exception to that is, is if the subject matter teaches something like science and the topic of creationism comes up, the teacher is correct to say it isn't considered scientific, and the student should be aware that all projects, tests, etc related to the subject matter will only accept scientific explanations because it is a science class not a religious class.

However, even I, an ardently non-religious person who has a laundry list of complaints with organized religion, think that the teacher should have been talked to regarding religious tolerance. I'd like to publicly destroy (using words) certain fundamentalist sects of (religion) in Saudi Arabia which treat women like cattle, but a public school... isn't the correct forum.

I can hold the anti-creationism view all I like, but I cannot look into a child's eyes and tell him that I know for certain it is utter hogwash. What I can tell him is that it's the best, most accurate modern theory we have, and that it does have more evidence and logic supporting it than other opposing theories involving what is essentially magic. But to say creationism isn't true is actually unscientific in and of itself. It may not be a scientific theory, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily false.

2. Politics are fine to discuss off of your work hours, or even during break time. During work time, it isn't kosher. It is distracting and can create a hostile working environment for coworkers and it may upset customers or others. There is a division between your personal time and company time. Just like they can tell me what shirt and what hat to wear and call it a uniform.

3. People can say God Bless America, and I see no reason why it needs to be removed from our currency either. It could say "The Leprechaun wishes you Good luck" or "may Fortune smile upon you" or "the Fates will be kind" and it all means the same thing to me: Hope. It's just money... I don't really care what is on it unless it has maybe a swastika or a political slogan on it, profanity or whatnot. It pays for the same junk that I buy no matter what it says on it.

However, when they start regulating the state with religious teachings, requiring me to swear on a Bible, requiring me to pray, or posting the Ten Commandments all over a courtroom... I say that is an intrusion into the impartiality of our system. I welcome religion, though I disagree with it and think it needs to stay the heck out of legal systems and scientific discussions. I don't wish to extinguish it from the Earth. I want protections to keep it from unduly affecting my life, but I don't wish to prevent people from speaking their minds about their religion or debating me about it, fierce as the debates may get.

There is room for both the secular and the religious viewpoint. I don't see a conflict except when personal religious views are forced upon me as fact or upheld as law by the state.

It is undeniable, however, that most of the founders were deeply spiritual in their belief of Judeo-Christian as well as Grecko-Roman values. Without God there is no natural law. It's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

Most of our founders owned slaves. I don't consider referring to them constantly as a moral compass to be correct. Those really are Greek/Roman values.

Without God there is no natural law? I disagree. That's like saying "without God there is no morality" or "without God there is no mathematics". One can be perfectly non-theistic and still be moral, lawful, ethical, and understand logic and mathematics. If you're referring to your personal religious viewpoint that's fine, but we non-theists get along quite well without supernatural intervention.