nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 64:
Line 64: + + + + + + + + +
→Query: Two different issues
How is this censorship of the teacher?
How is this censorship of the teacher?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 21:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Okay, there's two issues here. One, should a teacher be prevented from praying where no student objects or students have the choice of opting out? On that, it appears to me that Andy and MetcalfeM both agree that the teacher should be allowed to.
The second issue is whether or not a teacher should be allowed to pray in a situation where the students object and can't opt out. MetcalfeM says that they should not be allowed to in that case. Andy thinks that they should. Andy is trying to say that MetcalfeM is being inconsistent in believing that a teacher should not be allowed to pray ''in that circumstance'', yet believe that a teacher should be allowed to put ''other'' views to the class, such as political or evolutionary. Now MetcalfeM ''is'' being in consistent ''if'' he thinks that, but he hasn't said that he does, so it's premature to accuse him of that. And I would not be at all surprised if MetcalfeM says that teachers should ''not'' be allowed to put political views. Similarly, I ''would'' be surprised (but it's still possible) that MetcalfeM thinks that teachers should not promote evolution.
But regardless what MetcalfeM thinks, the real point is that in America (and other places, although perhaps not so rigidly), teachers are banned from promoting ''or even implicitly endorsing'' a Christian view (praying in class is hardly forcing a view on people), yet are ''required'' to promote (''explicitly'' endorse) the anti-Christian view of evolution (for example). That is a glaring inconsistency, rationalised only on the false claim that one is "religious" and the other is "science".
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)