punished for beliefs in public school?

[outhouse]

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.

Agreed on all.

If this was my 8 years old it would be hard for me to take the high road and not directly get involved with the teacher personally.

 

[outhouse]

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

So true.

Fanaticism so strong one cannot handle others having a different opinion is a form of mental illness.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

As I previously mentioned, it is not uncommon for people here to become upset and offended when someone doesn't believe in god.
It's not just the girl who needs counselling, but many of the adults as well.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Great point. That teacher should be ashamed of herself. To abuse a child's psyche in this way is unforgiveable.

 

[Unification]

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.

Likely, yes. That's the plaintiff's statement. Holds its ground until the process runs its course.

 

[Unification]

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.

Reaction from emotion is as powerful as fanaticism and would be stooping to the level of the teacher, if allegations are true. Serve hate with hate, that is wonderful morality. What did the town and school have to do with an individual's actions? Why should taxpayers pay for your emotion, and school and city dollars be thrown your way, wouldn't this be a hindrance to the school to develop education and to stop such from happening again via counseling? That costs money.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Likely, yes. That's the plaintiff's statement. Holds its ground until the process runs its course.

That is what is in the court documents for the case. They clearly state the teacher confirmed what happened. Again, this isn't from the article (although most of it was a copy/paste of the court document), but the official court record of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne division, A.B., and his mother V.S., plaintiff, v. Michelle Meyer, defendant - No. 1:15-cv-157; in this official document Michelle Meyer, the teacher, confirmed her involvement as stated. It has nothing to do with emotional knee-jerk reactions, but taking in the evidence that has been gathered, the admission of the teacher that it did happen, and concluding her actions were inappropriate.

 

[Unification]

That is what is in the court documents for the case. They clearly state the teacher confirmed what happened. Again, this isn't from the article (although most of it was a copy/paste of the court document), but the official court record of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne division, A.B., and his mother V.S., plaintiff, v. Michelle Meyer, defendant - No. 1:15-cv-157; in this official document Michelle Meyer, the teacher, confirmed her involvement as stated. It has nothing to do with emotional knee-jerk reactions, but taking in the evidence that has been gathered, the admission of the teacher that it did happen, and concluding her actions were inappropriate.

Absolutely no disagreement, I just personally choose not to assume or take one extreme side or the other until it's run its course. Likely what happened is what happened but it still is speculative currently. Regardless, we can all agree that that has no business in school.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Absolutely no disagreement, I just personally choose not to assume

When the teacher confirmed the boy's side of story and her own involvement as the document states, there aren't any assumptions going on. When the teacher confirms that yes, those events did happen and she did punish the boy in the manner described by the plaintiff, there is no speculation.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Now that just doesn't make any sense. It is simply semantics. The kid has beliefs, he doesn't just have a void. Pretty sure the title describes the incident quite well. Perhaps it is the phrase "belief in god" that is causing you trouble.

 

[leibowde84]

Now that just doesn't make any sense. It is simply semantics. The kid has beliefs, he doesn't just have a void. Pretty sure the title describes the incident quite well. Perhaps it is the phrase "belief in god" that is causing you trouble.

All that is expressed in the article is that the child does not believe in God. So, what is leading you to assume any of the kids active beliefs? Remember, not believing in God is not the same as believing that God does not exist.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Absolutely the complaint could be distorting what happened. But while there is a difference between discussing something alleged to have happened by people involved, and speculating about them "trying to get money" with no evidence.

 

[Curious George]

All that is expressed in the article is that the child does not believe in God. So, what is leading you to assume any of the kids active beliefs? Remember, not believing in God is not the same as believing that God does not exist.

Because the kid does "not believe in God". We cannot be talking about a baby or atheist or man in an island without the concept of God. This kid believes the proposition God exists is false.

 

[Unification]

When the teacher confirmed the boy's side of story and her own involvement as the document states, there aren't any assumptions going on. When the teacher confirms that yes, those events did happen and she did punish the boy in the manner described by the plaintiff, there is no speculation.

It's alleged that the teacher admitted and acknowledged, according to the "plaintiff."

I can take anyone to court saying anything I want them to say, speaking for them. If there is no audio, it's really just "he said, she said."

Again, have to let the process run its course.

 

[Unification]

Absolutely the complaint could be distorting what happened. But while there is a difference between discussing something alleged to have happened by people involved, and speculating about them "trying to get money" with no evidence.

Hypothetical and possibility. No assumption.

 

[Curious George]

It's alleged that the teacher admitted and acknowledged, according to the "plaintiff."

I can take anyone to court saying anything I want them to say, speaking for them. If there is no audio, it's really just "he said, she said."

Again, have to let the process run its course.

The complaint is evidence.

 

[Curious George]

Hypothetical and possibility. No assumption.

Yes but it is also hypothetical and a possibility that aliens abducted all the school officials and were acting in their stead. Usually we do not bring hypotheticals and possibilities into a discussion without some reason to believe the hypothetical or possibilities.

Saying, it is a possibility that these people are just grabbing for money is pure speculation. It is an emotional appeal and not a legitimate argument. If you are going to speculate you should probably consider more than just one speculation to balance the matter.

 

[leibowde84]

Because the kid does "not believe in God". We cannot be talking about a baby or atheist or man in an island without the concept of God. This kid believes the proposition God exists is false.

That is an assumption on your part. All the article says is that the kid doesn't believe in God. There are many adults even that neither believe that God exists nor believe that God does not exist, as they find the evidence to be lacking in both categories. They have considered the proposition from both angles and find both arguments to be lacking. Why do you discount these people?

 

[Curious George]

That is an assumption on your part. All the article says is that the kid doesn't believe in God. There are many adults even that neither believe that God exists nor believe that God does not exist, as they find the evidence to be lacking in both categories. They have considered the proposition from both angles and find both arguments to be lacking. Why do you discount these people?

Not true =false
Sorry, this is simple logic.

 

[Unification]

Yes but it is also hypothetical and a possibility that aliens abducted all the school officials and were acting in their stead. Usually we do not bring hypotheticals and possibilities into a discussion without some reason to believe the hypothetical or possibilities.

Saying, it is a possibility that these people are just grabbing for money is pure speculation. It is an emotional appeal and not a legitimate argument. If you are going to speculate you should probably consider more than just one speculation to balance the matter.

There are two sides to every story. Not one. Balance. Not 50%. Not bias and hearing one side and complaint. "If" it were discovered this child was disciplined because of bullying other students, making fun of, making others kids cry... And the parents were extorting off of the vulnerable "religious" route, by stating the "religious" route were his grounds for disciple whereas he was bullying, and that were his grounds for discipline, then what? Would a 2nd grader start crying off of hearing a simple "I don't believe in God?" There "could" be more to it. You have no reason to believe otherwise because of the biased conclusions already come to off of 50% and one side. The other 50% are hypotheticals.

At this point in time, it would irrational to jump to conclusions. The only conclusion one can currently come to is that "if" the allegations are true and happened as such, then there is no place for that in schools. If they aren't true, there still is no place for that in schools.

If the court of law and public opinion makes their choices off of one side and 50%, is already set in stone... that is emotional thinking and not rational thinking.