Religious Brainwashing of Children

[karrie]

Kid Wins Over Teacher In Creationism Suit | I Am Bored

While I don't support litigation, this is an illuminating example of how people attempt to brainwash captive, impressionable audiences. I've personally seen this time and time again, and would like to make a couple points, even though they may apply to past cases I've seen, not THIS case in particular.

As a teacher, it IS 100% possible to present scientific theories WITHOUT discussing religion at all. Evolution can be presented without EVER mentioning the Bible, ever smugly stating "and that's proof that God had nothing to do with it", and without EVER making fun of a belief set.

As a teacher, it IS 100% possible to abuse your status at the front of that room, to humiliate and dishearten, to terrorize and browbeat the youth who you teach. This doesn't make it okay. It is no different than when religious zealots use the same tactics of authority and captivity to brainwash. You are not better. You are not smarter. You are not 'right'. You're just an ass with a certificate that wrongly says you can teach.

The teacher in this particular clip is no different from the Evangelical preachers I've heard, and both turn my stomach.

 

[Johnnny]

Do they teach creationism in roman catholic schools? Or is it just the evanglicans?

Cause i dont remember them teaching me that in my schools?

Creatinism is kinda retarded in my opinion... I believe in God but i know evolution is real, call me caught between two worlds or the residue left over from my roman catholic schooling ...

 

[karrie]

Do they teach creationism in roman catholic schools? Or is it just the evanglicans?

Cause i dont remember them teaching me that in my schools?

Creatinism is kinda retarded in my opinion... I believe in God but i know evolution is real, call me caught between two worlds or the residue left over from my roman catholic schooling ...

they teach evolution in Catholic schools.

 

[Johnnny]

See, were not such that bad of people after all

 

[einmensch]

I agree --leave the brainwashing to the parents, rabbi, priest, mullah----

 

[Niflmir]

However, Judge James Selna found in a 37-page ruling that almost all the statements cited by the plaintiff did not violate the establishment cause, including Corbett's view that "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth" – a reference to peasants who did not support the reforms of the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II for religious reasons. The judge said the statement was made in the context of an historical discussion. He dismissed other comments by Corbett that "conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work" and that there was as much evidence that God created the world "as there is that there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it".


Only one of Corbett's opinions fell foul of the First Amendment – his "unequivocal belief that creationism is superstitious nonsense". Judge Selna concluded that there was no legitimate secular purpose to the statement and it constituted "improper disapproval of religion in violation of the establishment clause".

From the Guardian.

It is amusing that the comment(s) about religion is deemed fair but the comment about creationism is what gets him in trouble.

 

[darkbeaver]

Religious Brainwashing of Children


Sounds like fun, where do we sign up.

 

[Nuggler]

Several years of "Sunday School", compulsory church goin, does leave its' residuals......forever........well8O, until ya die, that is.

Logic says the Big Kahuna ain't there, but, it's nice to blame some "higher power" when ya **** up................:sad11:...........Where's Kahuna when ya needs im??
Jesus H Christ..........................!!


YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS ???

 

[Niflmir]

So this is what I gather from the court ruling:

Contrast that with creationists. They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.
-Corbett

Even if one could infer religious disapproval from the above comments, a reasonable observer would find that the primary effect of Corbett’s statements above was to distinguish generally accepted scientific reasoning from religious belief and to illustrate a historical shift from religious to scientific thinking.
-Selna, referring to the above qoute by Corbett.

Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, “I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense.”
...
One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context.
-Selna

So, "Scientifically creationism is nonsense" is ok. But, "superstitious nonsense" is going too far. What does the dictionary say?

superstition: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

Then, for a conclusion, Selna states that they need this witch hunt:

To entertain an exception for conduct that might be characterized as isolated or de
minimis undermines the basic right in issue: to be free of a government that
directly expresses disapproval of religion.

Apparently, freedom from government employees that directly express disapproval of religion is the only absolute right out there?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So this is what I gather from the court ruling:


So, "Scientifically creationism is nonsense" is ok. But, "superstitious nonsense" is going too far. What does the dictionary say?

superstition: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

Then, for a conclusion, Selna states that they need this witch hunt:


Apparently, freedom from government employees that directly express disapproval of religion is the only absolute right out there?

I agree with you, Niflmir, I also find the judge’s ruling difficult to understand. I can understand if he ruled that the teacher was wrong to trash any particular religion. But apparently the judge had no problem with that. 19 out the 20 quotes by the teacher were OK with the judge.

So what exactly was the difference between the teacher’s other utterings trashing Christianity and his claim that Creationism is ‘superstitious nonsense’? Why was it OK for him to trash Christianity to his heart’s content, but not OK to call creationism a superstitious nonsense (which is the widely held view in scientific circles)?

The judge’s ruling doesn’t make sense. If I were the teacher, I would appeal.

 

[karrie]

I could really give two hoots about the court side of it. Like I said... not a big fan of litigation, and I agree Niflmir, what he DID rule on is odd.

What I'm commenting on is the larger phenomena of teachers using their roles to mock and degrade children's families. It's revolting when religious people evangelize through name calling, fear, and criticism. Atheists are quick to point it out. But none bother to look at the flip side of the coin. Even now, I notice few bothered to comment on it. Just take the chance to poke at religion.

 

[Niflmir]

When we hear of secularists being responsible for cases similar to those of Jean Calas, the Sirvens, Espenasse, and the Chevalier de la Barre then we should worry about secularism.

Ridicule and laughter are not such terrible things in comparison to the above.

 

[karrie]

When we hear of...

By all means... don't turn any thought inward until it hits that point. Let the war stew between the two until it's clear it's occurring.

 

[Niflmir]

Well, there are still bombs thrown at abortion clinics. If I knew of a better way of getting the message across that this is not ok, I would follow it.

You are free to ridicule me and my beliefs, I have never said differently. I say that things like these sanctified killings must stop and I think that ridiculing the barbaric morality of the bible is a good idea.

Similarly, the bible is not a science text book. Ridiculing its empirical claims is fair game in the same way.

 

[L Gilbert]

I agree --leave the brainwashing to the parents, rabbi, priest, mullah----

.... gov'ts, certain societies, books, fashion magazines, tv ....

 

[L Gilbert]

I could really give two hoots about the court side of it. Like I said... not a big fan of litigation, and I agree Niflmir, what he DID rule on is odd.

What I'm commenting on is the larger phenomena of teachers using their roles to mock and degrade children's families. It's revolting when religious people evangelize through name calling, fear, and criticism. Atheists are quick to point it out. But none bother to look at the flip side of the coin. Even now, I notice few bothered to comment on it. Just take the chance to poke at religion.

I agree. Teachers are supposed to teach, not editorialize. We get enough of that from gov'ts, newsmedia, etc.

 

[darkbeaver]

Many science text books are not science text books, many history text books are not history text books. Proper advanced brain washing is too important to leave to the religious nuts who only manage to frighten children of all ages.

 

[karrie]

Ridiculing its empirical claims is fair game in the same way.

I wouldn't ridicule your beliefs. I don't sink to the level of those I don't like. I don't like Evangelist preachers, those who teach through fear or humiliation, or those who turn an opportunity with a captive audience into a chance to push a personal agenda, rather than the agenda that was understood to be furthered there.

If I send my kids to a science class, I expect it to be a science class, not a lecture on why their faith is stupid.

If I send my kids to a guitar lesson, I expect it to be a guitar lesson, not preaching about hellfire and brimstone.

It's not right, or okay by any means, to abuse one's power as an educator to mock and terrorize your students.

 

[gerryh]

I wouldn't ridicule your beliefs. I don't sink to the level of those I don't like. I don't like Evangelist preachers, those who teach through fear or humiliation, or those who turn an opportunity with a captive audience into a chance to push a personal agenda, rather than the agenda that was understood to be furthered there.

If I send my kids to a science class, I expect it to be a science class, not a lecture on why their faith is stupid.

If I send my kids to a guitar lesson, I expect it to be a guitar lesson, not preaching about hellfire and brimstone.

It's not right, or okay by any means, to abuse one's power as an educator to mock and terrorize your students.

Sure it is.....as long as it's ridiculing Christianity...... your example of the guitar lesson would DEFINATLEY be a no no...but the science thing....fully acceptable.

 

[Johnnny]

The catholic school really messed me up lol

I walk the line between evolution and god cause they taught me that stuff, and you know what after grade 10 i wasn't forced to take any more religion classes...

Pesky evanglicans giving us catholics a bad name , well not all of us and them lol