punished for beliefs in public school?

[Unification]

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

Anyone can suggest or mention anything. If the mention and suggestion runs its due and fair course and proven true, then it's enough. Until then, it's assumptive and making a conclusion and determination of off what one party says. Anyone can say and file anything against another. I don't believe that's how the court system works. Stamping a complete and full verdict off of what one party files before a hearing or trial and before ALL evidence is revealed, would be foolish.

Sure, lack of belief was mentioned, and what "if" the student was disciplined for bullying other students rather than lack of belief, and lack of belief is the vulnerable and exploited route? Should the teacher then allow bullying to go on regardless of what the reason was? It would be then setting a tone for any child with lack of belief to be able to pick on and bully others and be able to get away with it. The moment they don't get away with it, they throw the "lack of belief" reason and excuse for their discipline and can get away with whatever they want.

 

[outhouse]

Factually, your wrong.

Only in your mind. And once more you remain unsubstantiated.

 

[outhouse]

Is intellectual honesty required to understand the difference between "known" and "believed" ?

Or just understanding how they are used in the English language?

 

[Poisonshady313]

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

Apparently, being offended by someone else's lack of belief is enough of a thing that it has been represented in film.

For those who can't see the video, essentially the Gunnery Sgt. Hartman asks if Pvt. Joker believes in the Virgin Mary. Joker responds "Sir, no sir." Hartman repeats his question, and when given the same answer, proceeds to insult and slap Joker then insist that he proclaim his love for the Virgin Mary. When Joker refuses, Hartman asks "Are you trying to offend me?"

 

[Seeker of Ka]

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.

Social isolation can cause more emotional trauma in a child than an adult, therefore it is likely that he was harmed.

Another child asked him if he went to church, he said he didn't really go to church because he didn't believe in God.

This may have upset the (more than likely) Christian child, however this is the equivalent of saying that a black person in upsetting a white supremacist because he exist.

The child was asked a question and he answered it how is that wrong?

And do you really beilive that if a Muslim child asked a Christian kid if he prayed to Allah, and the christian child said no because he does not beilive in Allah, that the Christian would be punished?

 

[Curious George]

Only in your mind. And once more you remain unsubstantiated.

Yes, yes, and only in your mind am I right only in my mind. And only in my mind are you right only in your mind that I am right only in my mind.....But as I am not seven this tactic doesn't work. You can actually address my posts or we can keep playing this game. I really don't care which.

 

[Curious George]

Social isolation can cause more emotional trauma in a child than an adult, therefore it is likely that he was harmed.

Another child asked him if he went to church, he said he didn't really go to church because he didn't believe in God.

This may have upset the (more than likely) Christian child, however this is the equivalent of saying that a black person in upsetting a white supremacist because he exist.

The child was asked a question and he answered it how is that wrong?

And do you really beilive that if a Muslim child asked a Christian kid if he prayed to Allah, and the christian child said no because he does not beilive in Allah, that the Christian would be punished?

I am guessing by your questions that you did not understand my post.

I agree that social isolation can harm children. But children are pretty resilient as well.

No I do not believe that the Christian child in your alternative scenario would be punished. But I do not think your alternative scenario is equivalent to the other scenario.

In case you're misinterpreting my perspective on this, I believe the teacher and staff did not handle the situation appropriately or professionally.

 

[Curious George]

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

We are discussing what an 7 year old means when they state "I do not believe in God"

I am saying this is indicative of a belief that they at least believe the proposition God exists is false (and likely means that they believe God doesn't exist, but I did not go that far to placate those who might insist upon the boy being a weak explicit atheist)

You are suggesting that the 7 year old was trying to express some nuanced semantic position.

 

[outhouse]

only in my mind

If you for once actually provided sources to substantiate your opinion, you could go beyond personal opinion.

 

[outhouse]

But as I am not seven

Yet they even are required to use credible sources when doing homework.

They would probably use them showing the difference between "known" and "believed" ?

 

[Curious George]

Anyone can suggest or mention anything. If the mention and suggestion runs its due and fair course and proven true, then it's enough. Until then, it's assumptive and making a conclusion and determination of off what one party says. Anyone can say and file anything against another. I don't believe that's how the court system works. Stamping a complete and full verdict off of what one party files before a hearing or trial and before ALL evidence is revealed, would be foolish.

Sure, lack of belief was mentioned, and what "if" the student was disciplined for bullying other students rather than lack of belief, and lack of belief is the vulnerable and exploited route? Should the teacher then allow bullying to go on regardless of what the reason was? It would be then setting a tone for any child with lack of belief to be able to pick on and bully others and be able to get away with it. The moment they don't get away with it, they throw the "lack of belief" reason and excuse for their discipline and can get away with whatever they want.

See now those are reasonable hypotheticals. The problem is, did the teacher speak with the boy about his religious beliefs. And then separate him. I can understand that the teacher may have had the child not sit by children that he was bothering if the teacher believed this boy was instigating and initiating the conflict. But, if the teacher questioned the boy about religion as is alleged, then any subsequent action will appear colored by that interrogation.

I don't imagine that teachers will punish children based on their beliefs, but I do understand that it is possible. But even giving the teacher the benefit of doubt, her alleged actions, if true, make it nearly impossible to exonerate her. So, suppose the boy was continuing to distress the children by bringing up the issue and making assertions regarding God. What is the professional and ethical way to handle this?

 

[Curious George]

Yet they even are required to use credible sources when doing homework.

They would probably use them showing the difference between "known" and "believed" ?

I thought we already addressed this known vs. Believed

Facts are distinguished from beliefs based on whether they are proven. In order to prove anything, one must rely upon axioms. These axioms are either proven or not proven. If the axioms are proven, then they rely on other axioms. Eventually you can follow the trail of proven axioms all the way to unproven axioms. These axioms which are unproven are usually self evident. Nonetheless, they are not proven. This means that any proof relies on a belief. This means that nothing is proven completely.

So touting the difference between knowledge and belief is certainly important for later discussion, but it is not wrong to call facts beliefs as well. Facts are beliefs. They are simply a set of beliefs which are "proven."

Now a fact such as 1+1=2 is proven. We can call this belief a fact because it is proven, but it is still a belief. A specific kind of belief, a proven belief.

Now because you claim "knowledge" that God does not exist does not make gods non-existence a fact. What it does is make you sound like you do not know what you are talking about. God's non existence is not a fact. It is not proven. You can talk all day about you inexperience of God but this amounts to you saying, I have never experienced a black swan so black swans do not exist. This is a belief. An inductively reasoned belief, but a belief not a fact.

No, I don't need sources I don't need to appeal to authority here. My reasoning is sound. If you can point to a flaw besides calling it my personal belief, please do. If you have a source that states knowledge is not a form of belief, I would be happy to read it.

But the bottom line is, find an actual flaw or acknowledge how right I am.

 

[outhouse]

Facts are distinguished from beliefs based on whether they are proven

I did not state facts


STOP moving goal post and bring credible sources.


Knowledge is not a fact, and it is factually not a belief.

 

[outhouse]

Now a fact such as 1+1=2 is proven. We can call this belief a fact because it is proven, but it is still a belief.

Your opinion carries no credibility here.

provide sources

 

[outhouse]

find an actual flaw

Knowledge is infallible, belief is fallible.


I help direct you since your completely lost here, that is Plato.

 

[outhouse]

I thought we already addressed this known vs. Believed

No you just continued making your unsubstantiated claims. It seems your rather habitual about using your opinion as some kind of academic standard when it is not.

 

[outhouse]

No, I don't need sources

You mean you cannot substantiate any of your claims.

 

[Curious George]

I did not state facts


STOP moving goal post and bring credible sources.


Knowledge is not a fact, and it is factually not a belief.

Plato said "knowledge is justified true belief" (But see theaetetus p.210). This sounds like a belief to me. Certainly a specific type of belief, but a belief nonetheless. Now we can talk about gettier problems, or we can talk about refinement to this justified true belief conception of knowledge, but no amount of weaseling will change the fact that "academia" supports my view. If however, you have some paper or source concerning propositional knowledge such as 1+1=2 then I would be happy to read it.

 

[Poisonshady313]

See now those are reasonable hypotheticals. The problem is, did the teacher speak with the boy about his religious beliefs. And then separate him. I can understand that the teacher may have had the child not sit by children that he was bothering if the teacher believed this boy was instigating and initiating the conflict. But, if the teacher questioned the boy about religion as is alleged, then any subsequent action will appear colored by that interrogation.

I don't imagine that teachers will punish children based on their beliefs, but I do understand that it is possible. But even giving the teacher the benefit of doubt, her alleged actions, if true, make it nearly impossible to exonerate her. So, suppose the boy was continuing to distress the children by bringing up the issue and making assertions regarding God. What is the professional and ethical way to handle this?

For clarification, are you asking what would have been the professional and ethical way to handle the child? or are you asking what is the professional and ethical way to handle the teacher if we suppose she did everything the complaint says she did, except the atheist child was the one being disruptive?

 

[outhouse]

Plato said "knowledge is justified true belief" (But see theaetetus p.210).

SOCRATES: But if true belief and knowledge were the same thing, the best of jurymen could never have a correct belief without knowledge. It now appears that they must be different things.


And you are no Socrates it was pathetic quote mining out of desperation.




THEAETETUS: That true belief is knowledge. Surely there can at least be no mistake in believing what is true and the consequences are always satisfactory.


…

SOCRATES: Well, we need not go far to see this much. You will find a whole profession to prove that true belief is not knowledge.