punished for beliefs in public school?

[outhouse]

1+1=2 is something I know. But this is also a belief

It is factually not a belief if you know the answer.

You will argue anything at this point to substantiate your personal logic not followed by academia.

 

[outhouse]

One cannot lack all belief without being incapable of belief.

That is non sequitur. One can lack belief in certain subjects or topics and have belief in others. What you might fail to see, Is that knowledge often replaces belief.

The child not seeing any evidence of the god concept can know there is no god because he has never experienced anything related to the mythology. That's is knowledge that surpasses belief.

I think you will be in the dark until you realize knowledge can surpasses belief, to the point belief is not required.


Your moving goal post claiming, "One cannot lack all belief without being incapable of belief" no one has stated this or even brought it up but YOU

 

[Curious George]

It is factually not a belief if you know the answer.

You will argue anything at this point to substantiate your personal logic not followed by academia.

Really? Give me a source. The only reason belief (acceptance of the truth of something) is differentiated from something one "knows" is because something one knows is provable.

The reason for these semantics is to underscore what provable vs. What is not. However, belief by definition is simply the acceptance that something is true. Any proofs in which one relies to prove anything is ultimately reliant on axioms. These axioms are not and cannot be proven without reliance on other axioms. Eventually you will get to axioms which are not provable. These axioms are usually self evident. But they are not proven. Thus, any proven fact can not be completely proven. In other words, they are beliefs. Now, that all facts are beliefs does not mean all beliefs are facts.

The problem with not distinguishing them is that people will run amok asserting beliefs are equal to facts. When they are different. That something is known or provable is important. But we are talking about acceptance of truth vs. Not acceptance of truth. So, while the your point is noted, it is utterly irrelevant. More so because the 8 was not likely trying to say that he knows God exists or knows God doesn't exist so therefore does not believe in God.

You suggest I am willing to argue anything, but try to focus on what I am arguing here. That is what matters. A proposition in classical logic can be true or not true. Academia does not disagree with this. The phrase "believe in God" is an idiom which means to believe god exists objectively. We are dealing with this proposition. We are not dealing with the proposition God does not exist. We are not dealing with knowledge. We are evaluating a single proposition. In classical logic, this proposition can either be true or false.

Do you disagree that the proposition can either be true or false in classical logic?

 

[Curious George]

That is non sequitur. One can lack belief in certain subjects or topics and have belief in others. What you might fail to see, Is that knowledge often replaces belief.

The child not seeing any evidence of the god concept can know there is no god because he has never experienced anything related to the mythology. That's is knowledge that surpasses belief.

I think you will be in the dark until you realize knowledge can surpasses belief, to the point belief is not required.


Your moving goal post claiming, "One cannot lack all belief without being incapable of belief" no one has stated this or even brought it up but YOU

Lol, read much?

Don't ignore context and then reply with your personal rephrasing of the beginning part of my next sentence.

And a lack of a specific belief indicates a belief.

 

[Curious George]

Your moving goal post

You don't even know where the goal posts were let alone where they are.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

What are your thoughts on the case?

A classic example of how theism is not harmless and how often people fail utterly to deal with it responsibly.

What are your thoughts in the remedy?

The school ought to be sued for moral damages.

How should the teachers have handled this?

By knowing better than to assume that children are or should be theistic and commenting on atheism as the simple fact of life that it has always been.

To be sure, that is going against the current. In some ways it is like questioning racism before integration became policy in the 1960s and later.

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

Their reaction seems quite proper, except that it might perhaps deserve a bit more intensity - and a legal suit for damages, as I said previously.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

That is according to the court document, which shows the teacher was involved in a three way conversation among the teacher, parent, and principal, and according to the court document the teacher said it happened.

 

[leibowde84]

But, we arent talking about true and false, as "belief" (not knowledge) is the topic of the terms un question. It is I believe true and i believe false. Thus, there can obviously be "I dont believe either ... I just dont know". These people do not actively believe either.

We are talking about belief, not fact. The subject "believes" that it's true and recognizes this fact, as there is value in faith for them. That is why refusing to actively "believe" either way is possible. The only comparable propositions would have to be just as vague and ill-defined as the concept of God.

No, now you are discussing multiple propositions. But I was careful here. If someone wanted to take the position of the 50/50 split and say they did not believe in God, they would still have to evaluate the proposition as not true. They would just have to evaluate the separate proposition of God does not exist as not true as well. This is a very nuanced position, and likely not the position of a second grader. But even were this second grader more precocious than I imagine, then he still must say that he believes that God exists is false, according to logic.

 

[Curious George]

But, we arent talking about true and false, as "belief" (not knowledge) is the topic of the terms un question. It is I believe true and i believe false. Thus, there can obviously be "I dont believe either ... I just dont know". These people do not actively believe either.

We are talking about belief, not fact. The subject "believes" that it's true and recognizes this fact, as there is value in faith for them. That is why refusing to actively "believe" either way is possible. The only comparable propositions would have to be just as vague and ill-defined as the concept of God.

Yes, we are talking about true or false. That we are talking about belief just denotes that we are discussing a person's evaluation of the proposition, what they accept as true.

 

[outhouse]

And a lack of a specific belief indicates a belief.

No it does not. I'm simple English it states they LACK belief.

Do you understand what a lack of belief implies? It ONLY means they don't believe in something. To not believe in something does not require a person to hold belief.


Your logic is your own personal unsubstantiated rhetoric, and its not even relevant to how we look at the world. 2 is factually not a belief.


If you cannot understand knowledge can surpasses belief, then you can play philosophical circular thinking word games, redefining words at your own personal will, by yourself.


There is a factual point in which knowledge surpasses belief.

 

[Curious George]

No it does not. I'm simple English it states they LACK belief.

Do you understand what a lack of belief implies? It ONLY means they don't believe in something. To not believe in something does not require a person to hold belief.


Your logic is your own personal unsubstantiated rhetoric, and its not even relevant to how we look at the world. 2 is factually not a belief.


If you cannot understand knowledge can surpasses belief, then you can play philosophical circular thinking word games, redefining words at your own personal will, by yourself.


There is a factual point in which knowledge surpasses belief.

Factually, your wrong.

 

[JoStories]

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.

She definitely would have heard from me and gotten a serious piece of my mind, there's no doubt of that one. What an idiot to be a teacher, particularly of younger children. I sincerely hope she is fired.

 

[JoStories]

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.

Clearly you have never had a child harmed. I have. There is no going back from something like that. The child is literally scarred for life. And frankly, that it costs money is too damn bad. That teacher overstepped her bounds in a massive way. This is not reacting with hate for hate but to protect that child. If you cannot see that, I cannot imagine a parent not doing something strong willed.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, we are talking about true or false. That we are talking about belief just denotes that we are discussing a person's evaluation of the proposition, what they accept as true.

Exactly. We are discussing what they actively accept as true, not what is true.

 

[Unification]

Clearly you have never had a child harmed. I have. There is no going back from something like that. The child is literally scarred for life. And frankly, that it costs money is too damn bad. That teacher overstepped her bounds in a massive way. This is not reacting with hate for hate but to protect that child. If you cannot see that, I cannot imagine a parent not doing something strong willed.

Not really the point, the point is that it's not about you, it's about the child. And it becomes more about other children and other people affected who had nothing to do with it. Would money make you feel better and resolve the problem? Loathing in pity resolves? Money brings protection? Why not spread awareness so other children aren't aren't affected?

No going back and scarred for life is simply not true, I can see why it would be true with a ton of emotion, anger, hate, pity, blame, spite, money, etc. Learn to let go, and forgive, it can't be changed. Positive strong will. Seek prevention. Seek better preparation for the rudiments of the world for children. There is strong will and it's more beneficial than the route that most take. Maybe then there can be escaping event horizon by an even stronger will.

 

[leibowde84]

Not really the point, the point is that it's not about you, it's about the child. And it becomes more about other children and other people affected who had nothing to do with it. Would money make you feel better and resolve the problem? Loathing in pity resolves? Money brings protection? Why not spread awareness so other children aren't aren't affected?

No going back and scarred for life is simply not true, I can see why it would be true with a ton of emotion, anger, hate, pity, blame, spite, money, etc. Learn to let go, and forgive, it can't be changed. Positive strong will. Seek prevention. Seek better preparation for the rudiments of the world for children. There is strong will and it's more beneficial than the route that most take. Maybe then there can be escaping event horizon by an even stronger will.

So, how does making an example of this teacher not achieve this? If she is fired and ridiculed, I assume that other teachers will think twice, right?

 

[Unification]

So, how does making an example of this teacher not achieve this? If she is fired and ridiculed, I assume that other teachers will think twice, right?

Making an example of the situation would be even better. "If" what she did was true after due process, sure, release her. I fail to see how all of the other elements brought up have anything to do with a lack of discipline for the teacher.

 

[leibowde84]

Making an example of the situation would be even better. "If" what she did was true after due process, sure, release her. I fail to see how all of the other elements brought up have anything to do with a lack of discipline for the teacher.

So, as long as there is evidence supporting that the teacher criticized the student for not believing in God, you would be OK with her being fired? I agree, but I thought you had said that there were other qualifying factors that should be taken into account. That is where I disagree with you. Imho, the only important factor is whether the teacher "looked down" on the student in any way for lacking belief in God.

 

[Unification]

So, as long as there is evidence supporting that the teacher criticized the student for not believing in God, you would be OK with her being fired? I agree, but I thought you had said that there were other qualifying factors that should be taken into account. That is where I disagree with you. Imho, the only important factor is whether the teacher "looked down" on the student in any way for lacking belief in God.

Correct, and agreed, the only important factor is the reason for discipline. It's assumptive at this point in time the reason for discipline with one side to the story and without due process. "AB" "could" have been bullying and that was his grounds for discipline, or "AB" could have been disciplined soley for lack of belief. "If" the case runs its course, and there is positive evidence of a few other second graders with statements saying they were bullied by "AB," surely all of the public opinion, assumptions, and emotion may change. Should, then, the teacher be disciplined for disciplining a child for bullying? As long as ALL of the evidence is revealed, from both sides, and it is true the allegations, of course it's best the teacher be disciplined and relieved of her duties.

 

[leibowde84]

Correct, and agreed, the only important factor is the reason for discipline. It's assumptive at this point in time the reason for discipline with one side to the story and without due process. "AB" "could" have been bullying and that was his grounds for discipline, or "AB" could have been disciplined soley for lack of belief. "If" the case runs its course, and there is positive evidence of a few other second graders with statements saying they were bullied by "AB," surely all of the public opinion, assumptions, and emotion may change. Should, then, the teacher be disciplined for disciplining a child for bullying? As long as ALL of the evidence is revealed, from both sides, and it is true the allegations, of course it's best the teacher be disciplined and relieved of her duties.

If lack of belief was mentioned or affiliated with the students punishment or even suggested that it was, that's enough to fire her.