punished for beliefs in public school?

[psychoslice]

I would work as a teacher in an America school, unless I had a bottle of pepper spray strapped to my side.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Seems like I've been saying **** Indiana a lot lately, so this is just another reason for me to hate this state. Another reason for me to say this state is going to eventually shock people and destroy the stereotype of the Southern states being where the Conservatives are, because they do come up this far north.

 

[Unification]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-telling-classmates-he-didnt-believe-in-god/

What are your thoughts on the case?

What are your thoughts in the remedy?

How should the teachers have handled this?

How should the parents have handled this given the teachers reactions in this case?

I'd say that suffering wrongly and dropping the lawsuit and forgiving would be a more powerful statement that their god (no god) is greater than their's.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd say that suffering wrongly and dropping the lawsuit and forgiving would be a more powerful statement that their god (no god) is greater than their's.

I thought about this, but to be honest, I don't see it that way. Not in this particular case. I think the higher ground is an important thing, and would agree that people commonly go with some sort of punitive action when it might not provide the best outcome, but assuming the case is as presented, I think in this case punitive action makes sense.

1) A strong message, including punishment, was sent to the 7 year old child. That child is seeing their own actions as wrong because of that, and because of the interdiction of authority. The simplest way to right that wrong is for a higher authority to become involved, judge the actions of the child as okay, and the teacher involved as wrong, and provide some sort of punishment to the teacher.

2) There is no higher authority watching over the actions of atheists. We need to feel like we can ensure we are treated fairly through mundane means, since the alternative is to accept unfair treatment. For me, I think atheists need to be careful of not crossing the line and becoming precious, but nothing in this case appears precious to me. There was a clear error made, and the teacher involved has a fundamental issue in how she deals not only with religion, but with children and teaching, which is pretty central to the role she is employed to perform.

 

[Tumah]

Why isn't this bigotry? Per the complaint:

During a discussion with classmates on the playground he responded to a question by indicating that he did not go to church because he did not believe in God. This resulted in his teacher interrogating the child as to his beliefs and requiring the child to sit by himself during lunch and not talk to his classmates during lunch for three days.

Is this not a clear case of "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself"? Would it be bigotry if classmates were upset because he said that he didn't believe Jesus was God and was Jewish and attended synagogue instead? And was separated from his classmates for three days as a result of a Christian classmate being upset by his honest and sincere expressions of his religious belief in response to a question?

Its not that. I just thought maybe they were trying to strong-arm him into accepting Jesus.

 

[Unification]

I thought about this, but to be honest, I don't see it that way. Not in this particular case. I think the higher ground is an important thing, and would agree that people commonly go with some sort of punitive action when it might not provide the best outcome, but assuming the case is as presented, I think in this case punitive action makes sense.

1) A strong message, including punishment, was sent to the 7 year old child. That child is seeing their own actions as wrong because of that, and because of the interdiction of authority. The simplest way to right that wrong is for a higher authority to become involved, judge the actions of the child as okay, and the teacher involved as wrong, and provide some sort of punishment to the teacher.

2) There is no higher authority watching over the actions of atheists. We need to feel like we can ensure we are treated fairly through mundane means, since the alternative is to accept unfair treatment. For me, I think atheists need to be careful of not crossing the line and becoming precious, but nothing in this case appears precious to me. There was a clear error made, and the teacher involved has a fundamental issue in how she deals not only with religion, but with children and teaching, which is pretty central to the role she is employed to perform.

I can see your view as fine, as in some statement being made and a teacher is to teach, not proselyte or discipline based on any religious beliefs.

Really don't know much of the "alleged" suit, the kid could be emotionally just fine, know he did nothing wrong, the parents could be seeking money or something through extorting their own child. Children reacting from emotion is different than adults acting off emotion, atheist or theist alike.

If a higher authority should be involved to discipline and correct, clearly there would be a higher authority to the teacher, making an atheist not exempt from a higher authority. Nature would be doing its work through a human to discipline.

Regardless, we all conform to the laws of nature, as a higher authority.

Of course, fair treatment and equality is always just for any human being.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can see your view as fine, as in some statement being made and a teacher is to teach, not proselyte or discipline based on any religious beliefs.

Really don't know much of the "alleged" suit, the kid could be emotionally just fine, know he did nothing wrong, the parents could be seeking money or something through extorting their own child. Children reacting from emotion is different than adults acting off emotion, atheist or theist alike.

If a higher authority should be involved to discipline and correct, clearly there would be a higher authority to the teacher, making an atheist not exempt from a higher authority. Nature would be doing its work through a human to discipline.

Regardless, we all conform to the laws of nature, as a higher authority.

Of course, fair treatment and equality is always just for any human being.

All you've said here seems sensible to me.
Just to clarify, though, when I mentioned 'higher authority' I meant in the mind of the child. Would assume he would see his parents as a higher authority than the teacher, but the parent doesn't have the ability to punish the teacher. So I'd see the courts as a higher authority which could punish the teacher. More a legal/role-based version of authority in that sense.

Your points around both theist and atheist being capable of chasing lawsuits for money, etc, are well made, and I agree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd say that suffering wrongly and dropping the lawsuit and forgiving would be a more powerful statement that their god (no god) is greater than their's.

It should definitely not be dropped, simply because the message needs to be sent that it is not ok, ever, to harass and punish someone who believes differently.

Really don't know much of the "alleged" suit, the kid could be emotionally just fine, know he did nothing wrong, the parents could be seeking money or something through extorting their own child. Children reacting from emotion is different than adults acting off emotion, atheist or theist alike.

According to the court record, it did trouble the kid. And because the actions of the teacher and "other adult" are so inappropriate, I really have my doubts the parents are just using their child to get some money.
Straight from the court document:
The defendant’s actions caused great distress to A.B. and resulted in the child being ostracized by his peers past the three-day “banishment.”
...
This was very upsetting to A.B. as he was made to feel that he had done something wrong.
...
This was, again, extremely upsetting to A.B. as it reinforced his feeling that he had done something very wrong.
...
This served to reinforce A.B.’s feeling that he had committed some transgression that justified his exclusion.
...
He was publicly shamed and made to feel that his personal beliefs were terribly wrong.
...
A.B. came home from school on multiple occasions crying saying that he knows that everyone at school — teachers and students — hate him.
Even now there are some classmates who will not talk to A.B.
Even now A.B. remains anxious and fearful about school, which is completely contrary to how he felt before this incident.
The events that transpired alone support the idea it would have hurt the kid, and hurt him very deeply. The interrogation, the "other adult" telling the other student she doesn't have to listen to the boy, making the boy sit by himself at lunch and telling him he can't talk to other students, a message must be sent that such things will not be tolerated. Kids bullying kids is one thing, but when it's a teacher doing the bullying, I hope the ACLU nails the teacher and "other" to the wall and they are never allowed to work with children again.

 

[Curious George]

I can see your view as fine, as in some statement being made and a teacher is to teach, not proselyte or discipline based on any religious beliefs.

Really don't know much of the "alleged" suit, the kid could be emotionally just fine, know he did nothing wrong, the parents could be seeking money or something through extorting their own child. Children reacting from emotion is different than adults acting off emotion, atheist or theist alike.

If a higher authority should be involved to discipline and correct, clearly there would be a higher authority to the teacher, making an atheist not exempt from a higher authority. Nature would be doing its work through a human to discipline.

Regardless, we all conform to the laws of nature, as a higher authority.

Of course, fair treatment and equality is always just for any human being.

That sounds like an attack on their credibility with absolutely no evidence.

I could certainly see merit in researching actual harm as to decide on remedy, but let us not forget your last sentence. So, even if the child suffered no emotional harm as is alleged, we still have the alleged harm dealing with inequitable treatment. It seems that principle alone is more likely the driving force behind the suit than any possible monetary value. However, I don't imagine the family will give away any financial gain they do or might receive. But does that make the lawsuit any less credible? Just because someone can gain financially we should discredit them?

 

[Curious George]

It should definitely not be dropped, simply because the message needs to be sent that it is not ok, ever, to harass and punish someone who believes differently.

According to the court record, it did trouble the kid. And because the actions of the teacher and "other adult" are so inappropriate, I really have my doubts the parents are just using their child to get some money.
Straight from the court document:
The defendant’s actions caused great distress to A.B. and resulted in the child being ostracized by his peers past the three-day “banishment.”
...
This was very upsetting to A.B. as he was made to feel that he had done something wrong.
...
This was, again, extremely upsetting to A.B. as it reinforced his feeling that he had done something very wrong.
...
This served to reinforce A.B.’s feeling that he had committed some transgression that justified his exclusion.
...
He was publicly shamed and made to feel that his personal beliefs were terribly wrong.
...
A.B. came home from school on multiple occasions crying saying that he knows that everyone at school — teachers and students — hate him.
Even now there are some classmates who will not talk to A.B.
Even now A.B. remains anxious and fearful about school, which is completely contrary to how he felt before this incident.
The events that transpired alone support the idea it would have hurt the kid, and hurt him very deeply. The interrogation, the "other adult" telling the other student she doesn't have to listen to the boy, making the boy sit by himself at lunch and telling him he can't talk to other students, a message must be sent that such things will not be tolerated. Kids bullying kids is one thing, but when it's a teacher doing the bullying, I hope the ACLU nails the teacher and "other" to the wall and they are never allowed to work with children again.

I don't know how much the child is "hurt deeply" I guess we will have to wait for further documents after discovery. But, their is still a harm by the deprivation of the child's rights. And even if this did no physical or emotional harm, this alone could merit a suit. The question is what to do in such a situation. We also do not know what was done prior to the suit. Perhaps, the parents asked for an apology in front of the class, or perhaps they went straight to filing a complaint.

I think most people recognize the alleged actions, if true, constitute unethical behavior. But in the case of the state infringing upon a child's rights, how should we handle it? Is it okay to say, hey you messed up, don't do it again and let it slide. Or is this an issue wherein one needs to make the school accountable? Can that accountability be reached without litigation?
I don't imagine we will see any nailing to the wall. I would guess that the teacher separated the boy because they felt that was an easy fix to what they saw as the problem which was likely A.B. bothering other kids. This of course looks bad because combined with the teachers other actions (of asking the boy's beliefs) it now looks like the child was punished because he was an atheist. So much so, I imagine the sch. Dist. will settle. Insurance will pay out fees and the only discipline the teachers face will come from internal procedures or community pressures.

But is the juice worth the squeeze? Whatever settlement or judgement they get the family is likely to make both enemies and allies in the community. The hidden costs of public lawsuits like this are heavy. But the alternative is what? And how should one advocate for their child when they believe their child's rights have been violated? What message does lawyering up send to the child? What message does letting it go send to the child? These are not easy questions.

 

[idav]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-telling-classmates-he-didnt-believe-in-god/

What are your thoughts on the case?

What are your thoughts in the remedy?

How should the teachers have handled this?

How should the parents have handled this given the teachers reactions in this case?

My thoughts are the teacher needs to be told that believing in no god is better than believing in false gods. Atheists are one step away from being true or false believers. All these christ like representations my goodness, i wonder if some people can read their own bible, jesus wasnt a bigot.

 

[leibowde84]

I think the title captures the concept well. Saying it is "extremely misleading" is extremely misleading. But semantics aside, abuse? You think there should be criminal charges?

The title says that a student was ridiculed for his beliefs. Not believing in something is not a belief. More accurately, it would have read "boy ridiculed for lack of belief". The kid was a target because of his lack of belief in God.

 

[Unification]

It should definitely not be dropped, simply because the message needs to be sent that it is not ok, ever, to harass and punish someone who believes differently.

According to the court record, it did trouble the kid. And because the actions of the teacher and "other adult" are so inappropriate, I really have my doubts the parents are just using their child to get some money.
Straight from the court document:
The defendant’s actions caused great distress to A.B. and resulted in the child being ostracized by his peers past the three-day “banishment.”
...
This was very upsetting to A.B. as he was made to feel that he had done something wrong.
...
This was, again, extremely upsetting to A.B. as it reinforced his feeling that he had done something very wrong.
...
This served to reinforce A.B.’s feeling that he had committed some transgression that justified his exclusion.
...
He was publicly shamed and made to feel that his personal beliefs were terribly wrong.
...
A.B. came home from school on multiple occasions crying saying that he knows that everyone at school — teachers and students — hate him.
Even now there are some classmates who will not talk to A.B.
Even now A.B. remains anxious and fearful about school, which is completely contrary to how he felt before this incident.
The events that transpired alone support the idea it would have hurt the kid, and hurt him very deeply. The interrogation, the "other adult" telling the other student she doesn't have to listen to the boy, making the boy sit by himself at lunch and telling him he can't talk to other students, a message must be sent that such things will not be tolerated. Kids bullying kids is one thing, but when it's a teacher doing the bullying, I hope the ACLU nails the teacher and "other" to the wall and they are never allowed to work with children again.

I understand your point of view. No disagreement if all is true and if assumptions are correct.

Reaction from emotion is never positive though, neither are assumptions. Religion and beliefs tend to bring out many emotions in people. It's easy to pinpoint the "belief" aspect of things. That same student who was disciplined could have also been condescending, bullying, and using harmful words to students, yet the "religion" aspect is what is magnified for discipline. Emotions and assumptions shouldn't run rampant until the process is complete.

That's what the documentation states. Doesn't make it all true. I once rear ended someone, a gentle love tap at 1 mph and my insurance company was sued for a large sum of money with court documentation listing approximately 20 things, emotional distress to them. Emotional distress to family. Pyschological damage to them. Inability to support family financially due to my actions, family enmity, all sorts of physical pain, everything one can think of.

 

[Unification]

That sounds like an attack on their credibility with absolutely no evidence.

I could certainly see merit in researching actual harm as to decide on remedy, but let us not forget your last sentence. So, even if the child suffered no emotional harm as is alleged, we still have the alleged harm dealing with inequitable treatment. It seems that principle alone is more likely the driving force behind the suit than any possible monetary value. However, I don't imagine the family will give away any financial gain they do or might receive. But does that make the lawsuit any less credible? Just because someone can gain financially we should discredit them?

It would also be an attack with no evidence until the process runs its course. The students discipline could have been for much more and something different than "beliefs," that's just the magnifiable and vulnerable area taken. Nothing should be assumed or discredited until it runs its course.

 

[Unification]

That sounds like an attack on their credibility with absolutely no evidence.

I could certainly see merit in researching actual harm as to decide on remedy, but let us not forget your last sentence. So, even if the child suffered no emotional harm as is alleged, we still have the alleged harm dealing with inequitable treatment. It seems that principle alone is more likely the driving force behind the suit than any possible monetary value. However, I don't imagine the family will give away any financial gain they do or might receive. But does that make the lawsuit any less credible? Just because someone can gain financially we should discredit them?

3 sides to every story. Their's, their's, and the truth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That same student who was disciplined could have also been condescending, bullying, and using harmful words to students, yet the "religion" aspect is what is magnified for discipline.

There is nothing to indicate that. However, what we do have is the following:
When V.S. [defined as the mother of A.B.] was told by A.B. what had happened she called the Assistant Principal of the school and demanded an explanation.
The Assistant Principal set up a three-way telephone conversation with V.S., Ms. Meyer [the teacher] and himself.
Ms. Meyer confirmed her involvement in this matter as noted above.
Basically, even the teacher admitted it happened as claimed by the plaintiff, and there is no documentation of her saying it happened any other way.

 

[Poisonshady313]

That same student who was disciplined could have also been condescending, bullying, and using harmful words to students, yet the "religion" aspect is what is magnified for discipline. Emotions and assumptions shouldn't run rampant until the process is complete.

That's what the documentation states. Doesn't make it all true. I once rear ended someone, a gentle love tap at 1 mph and my insurance company was sued for a large sum of money with court documentation listing approximately 20 things, emotional distress to them. Emotional distress to family. Pyschological damage to them. Inability to support family financially due to my actions, family enmity, all sorts of physical pain, everything one can think of.

On one hand, I sort of get where you're coming from. There's always more to the story than gets presented in these sorts of articles.

However, I have very little doubt that this incident happened exactly the way it was presented in the complaint.

Kids at school, just out of sheer curiosity, occasionally ask questions of a religious nature, and when it turns out you're different, they quite calmly and matter of factly condemn you for it. They're kids. They don't know any better.

Teachers, on the other hand, ought to know better. Most of them do. This particular teacher went above and beyond to shame and punish a child for something that is none of the teacher's business.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Teachers, on the other hand, ought to know better. Most of them do. This particular teacher went above and beyond to shame and punish a child for something that is none of the teacher's business.

I know such a thing can happen anywhere, but, nevertheless, it is not at all unusual for someone in Indiana to take it personally and take offence to someone not believing in the Judeo-Christian god. Several years ago, a judge in Indianapolis (state capitol) ordered a divorcing couple, both of them Wiccan, to not expose their child (or maybe children, it's been awhile) to any "non-mainstream religions." And, of course, there was the recent huge fiasco that was Pence's RFRA bill that the whole world knew about.

 

[JoStories]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-telling-classmates-he-didnt-believe-in-god/

What are your thoughts on the case?
opin
What are your thoughts in the remedy?

How should the teachers have handled this?

How should the parents have handled this given the teachers reactions in this case?

The teacher should be fired. This was a clear violation of church and state. The child is likely scarred, poor thing, for life from this. As someone who survived bullying in high school, I personally know all to well how horrible kids can be. The teacher should have told the child he had a right to his opinion, period and not done a thing. And I would sue the town and the school and the teacher in particular.

 

[Akivah]

A.B. was asked by one of his classmates if he attended church.

10. A.B. responded by stating that he did not go to church and did not believe in God. He also stated that it was fine with him if his inquiring classmate believed in God.

11. The classmate said that A.B. had hurt her feelings by saying that he did not believe in God and started to cry.

Another point. The girl that cried because of AB's opinions needs counseling. His beliefs should not cause her emotional distress.