Should Religious leaders be involved in any form of public school employment

[Storm]

Where did I say they could not? They can be plumbers, painters, dishwashers, delivery drivers, deliver pizzas, newspapers, there are some positions that would simply appear to be a conflict of interest, schools are one of them unless we are talking janitorial which should not be a problem.

But there's NOT a conflict of interest. For the jillionth time, clergy can obey the law as easily as laypeople can break it.

 

[Tiapan]

Should Religious leaders be involved in any form of public school employment?

Any one who professes a profession in religion should be kept well away from children.

Cheers

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think reason should prevail here.

If your sick you go to a doctor, not a preacher.

And if you want to learn baseball, you go to your baseball coach, who may very well be a doctor or a preacher as well.

Where did I say they could not?

You strongly implied this in your first post.

They can be plumbers, painters, dishwashers, delivery drivers, deliver pizzas, newspapers, there are some positions that would simply appear to be a conflict of interest, schools are one of them unless we are talking janitorial which should not be a problem.

A question for you or anyone else here:

I'm an atheist, a skeptic, an ardent secularist, and an engineer. I also volunteer at an elementary school, where I'm a mentor on the school's robotics team. IOW, I'm involved with teaching kids, though only for an hour a week and not in a traditional classroom setting. I don't talk about religion with the kids... though I do happen to think that the methodology we use in the robotics club* encourages skepticism.

Given all that, do you think my atheism or my active involvement in the secular movement makes me unfit to help in a school?



*For the most part, the kids have to build autonomous robots to perform specific tasks or "missions". This means they have to come up with a hypothesis of what should work, translate this into a methodology (i.e. a robot design and a program), confirm the hypothesis through real-world testing, and rationally examine the process if the results aren't what they expect... IOW, they have to employ the scientific method (or, if you prefer, take a skeptical approach to problem-solving), though I think the kids generally just think of it as "playing with robots".

 

[Storm]

Should Religious leaders be involved in any form of public school employment?

Any one who professes a profession in religion should be kept well away from children.

Cheers

Thank you for so clearly illustrating the bigotry underlying this argument.

 

[Draka]

Should Religious leaders be involved in any form of public school employment?

Any one who professes a profession in religion should be kept well away from children.

Cheers

Anyone that has a religious opinion of any leaning should be kept well away from children. Including atheists. :sarcastic I mean, come on, if we're going to get stupid here why not take it all the way?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anyone that has a religious opinion of any leaning should be kept well away from children. Including atheists. :sarcastic I mean, come on, if we're going to get stupid here why not take it all the way?

No person should be allowed within 100 yards of a child, including the child himself/herself.

 

[AxisMundi]

I just LOVE how you ignored the vast majority of my post there. :sarcastic

Merely giving it the attention it deserves.

 

[IndieVisible]

And if you want to learn baseball, you go to your baseball coach, who may very well be a doctor or a preacher as well.


You strongly implied this in your first post.


A question for you or anyone else here:

I'm an atheist, a skeptic, an ardent secularist, and an engineer. I also volunteer at an elementary school, where I'm a mentor on the school's robotics team. IOW, I'm involved with teaching kids, though only for an hour a week and not in a traditional classroom setting. I don't talk about religion with the kids... though I do happen to think that the methodology we use in the robotics club* encourages skepticism.

Given all that, do you think my atheism or my active involvement in the secular movement makes me unfit to help in a school?



*For the most part, the kids have to build autonomous robots to perform specific tasks or "missions". This means they have to come up with a hypothesis of what should work, translate this into a methodology (i.e. a robot design and a program), confirm the hypothesis through real-world testing, and rationally examine the process if the results aren't what they expect... IOW, they have to employ the scientific method (or, if you prefer, take a skeptical approach to problem-solving), though I think the kids generally just think of it as "playing with robots".

I would like to see all public schools remain secular as I would also like our government to be too. I am not atheist, but feel that way. Sorry if it rocks your boat or generalization of believers in general. I simply want religion out of schools and government. Placing clergy or pastors in those positions is a invitation to disaster IMHO.

Can a person hold personal views and do their job? Of course they can. Can a pastor or Preacher do that? I would think it would be a little harder as they would feel morally compelled to cross that line. Furthermore I don't think atheists would feel morally compelled to cross that line.

 

[Storm]

I would like to see all public schools remain secular as I would also like our government to be too. I am not atheist, but feel that way. Sorry if it rocks your boat or generalization of believers in general. I simply want religion out of schools and government. Placing clergy or pastors in those positions is a invitation to disaster IMHO.

Can a person hold personal views and do their job? Of course they can. Can a pastor or Preacher do that? I would think it would be a little harder as they would feel morally compelled to cross that line. Furthermore I don't think atheists would feel morally compelled to cross that line.

Let's say you're right. What's wrong with simply firing those people who break the law, and leaving everybody else alone?

Also, can you demonstrate that clergy are more likely to violate the law than devout but unordained believers?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would like to see all public schools remain secular as I would also like our government to be too. I am not atheist, but feel that way. Sorry if it rocks your boat or generalization of believers in general. I simply want religion out of schools and government. Placing clergy or pastors in those positions is a invitation to disaster IMHO.

Can a person hold personal views and do their job? Of course they can. Can a pastor or Preacher do that? I would think it would be a little harder as they would feel morally compelled to cross that line. Furthermore I don't think atheists would feel morally compelled to cross that line.

So... in your opinion, clergy can't help but proselytize to their students?

How about this as a compromise solution, then? Just ban proselytizing. If teachers proselytize, then fire them.

If you're right, then this will eliminate all the clergy anyhow.

If you're wrong, then you'll have avoided unreasonably firing a whole bunch of people for no good reason.

 

[IndieVisible]

So... in your opinion, clergy can't help but proselytize to their students?

How about this as a compromise solution, then? Just ban proselytizing. If teachers proselytize, then fire them.

If you're right, then this will eliminate all the clergy anyhow.

If you're wrong, then you'll have avoided unreasonably firing a whole bunch of people for no good reason.

Sorry I am firm in my stand, I simply oppose any religion in schools.

I did mention janitorial would be ok no?

 

[Storm]

Sorry I am firm in my stand, I simply oppose any religion in schools.

I did mention janitorial would be ok no?

We're all opposed to religion in schools. Nobody's saying people should be allowed to proselytize to students. But if you want to discriminate against a group of people, it has to be justified by more than personal bias.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry I am firm in my stand, I simply oppose any religion in schools.

But you're not opposing religion; you're opposing religious people.

If you were actually opposing religion, then you'd be all over the "ban proselytizing" idea.

 

[Storm]

But you're not opposing religion; you're opposing religious people.

If you were actually opposing religion, then you'd be all over the "ban proselytizing" idea.

Exactly.

 

[AxisMundi]

So... in your opinion, clergy can't help but proselytize to their students?

How about this as a compromise solution, then? Just ban proselytizing. If teachers proselytize, then fire them.

If you're right, then this will eliminate all the clergy anyhow.

If you're wrong, then you'll have avoided unreasonably firing a whole bunch of people for no good reason.

Prosetylizing IS banned, and tenure ensures they aren't fired where teachers, professional clergy or otherwise, have done so.

Indeed, entire school boards are more than guilty of this, attempting to force religious doctrine and bibles into public school curriculum.

While a poor anology at best, and not attempting to make any attempts to compare, would you hire a known pedophile to teach children? Why? Perhaps because you know they will be unable, in more cases than not, to resist the urge to partake of their fundamental desire.

Same with religious professionals who feel, as another member noted, the moral urge to preach, to "watch out" and guide for the moral/spiritual health of the children, whether openly or in more sneaky manners.

 

[Storm]

Prosetylizing IS banned, and tenure ensures they aren't fired where teachers, professional clergy or otherwise, have done so.

Indeed, entire school boards are more than guilty of this, attempting to force religious doctrine and bibles into public school curriculum.

While a poor anology at best, and not attempting to make any attempts to compare, would you hire a known pedophile to teach children? Why? Perhaps because you know they will be unable, in more cases than not, to resist the urge to partake of their fundamental desire.

Same with religious professionals who feel, as another member noted, the moral urge to preach, to "watch out" and guide for the moral/spiritual health of the children, whether openly or in more sneaky manners.

As you say, it's a poor analogy at best. You have no reason to assume religious people won't follow the law.

 

[IndieVisible]

But you're not opposing religion; you're opposing religious people.

If you were actually opposing religion, then you'd be all over the "ban proselytizing" idea.

Proselytizing is already banned, two different issues, you don't have to be a Rabi or Priest to be proselytizing, and if you do you get fired.

It's not discrimination. I said I would be ok with them being janitors, just not in teaching positions. It's allowing religion in thru the back door. An invitation to disaster! I do not want clergies in uniform or out of uniform in our public schools. I have nothing against religious people or religion. I just don't want them in public schools or the gov. If it turns out the majority of the people and lawmakers are ok with that I will be ok with it. But you asked and I replied.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Prosetylizing IS banned, and tenure ensures they aren't fired where teachers, professional clergy or otherwise, have done so.

Tenure? What public high school has tenure for its teachers?

Indeed, entire school boards are more than guilty of this, attempting to force religious doctrine and bibles into public school curriculum.

I agree. A lot of the problems with religion in public school come from school board members deliberately injecting religion into the classroom. However, it seems to me that's the real source of the problem.

While a poor anology at best, and not attempting to make any attempts to compare, would you hire a known pedophile to teach children? Why? Perhaps because you know they will be unable, in more cases than not, to resist the urge to partake of their fundamental desire.

I don't think that analogy even rates as "poor".

If I knew of a pedophile, I wouldn't hire him; I'd report him to the police. I certainly wouldn't be satisfied with limiting his pedophilia to Sundays off school property.

To see if your analogy works, consider this: say you were to call up the police and tell them that you had personal knowledge that once a week, every week, a pastor was teaching children about religion! What do you think they'd do?

Same with religious professionals who feel, as another member noted, the moral urge to preach, to "watch out" and guide for the moral/spiritual health of the children, whether openly or in more sneaky manners.

Again: if it's really the case that "religious professionals" can't help but behave inappropriately, then banning the inappropriate behaviour will have the same effect as banning the people. If you're right, the two approaches will create the identical outcome. Why would it matter to you which one was implemented?

 

[Storm]

Proselytizing is already banned, two different issues, you don't have to be a Rabi or Priest to be proselytizing, and if you do you get fired.

Exactly. You don't have to be clergy to proselytize, so why single them out?

Also, yet again, you don't have to be a layperson to keep your religion to yourself.

It's not discrimination.

Of course it is.

I said I would be ok with them being janitors, just not in teaching positions. It's allowing religion in thru the back door. An invitation to disaster!

You have yet to support this.

I do not want clergies in uniform or out of uniform in our public schools.

Why? Becuase being ordained automatically makes you break the law?

I have nothing against religious people or religion. I just don't want them in public schools or the gov. If it turns out the majority of the people and lawmakers are ok with that I will be ok with it. But you asked and I replied.

Well, given that the vast majority of the country is religious, I'd say you're out of luck. And a good thing, too.

 

[IndieVisible]

Exactly. You don't have to be clergy to proselytize, so why single them out?

Also, yet again, you don't have to be a layperson to keep your religion to yourself.


Of course it is.


You have yet to support this.


Why? Becuase being ordained automatically makes you break the law?


Well, given that the vast majority of the country is religious, I'd say you're out of luck. And a good thing, too.

It was never about me any way

I provide my opinion that's all.