Teacher in Texas Suspended for being an Atheist

[Moontanman]

Sorry to have gotten so far off topic Inow, it's really difficult to talk about the teacher thing and keep my cool, I guess the pledge thing was easier.:)

[pamela]

from Moon

Sorry to have gotten so far off topic Inow, it's really difficult to talk about the teacher thing and keep my cool, I guess the pledge thing was easier.

exactly why are you apologizing, when the question was posed by Michaelangelica?

orginally posted by Michaelangelica

Was it a private Christian School or a public school?

 

Don't you Yanks start the school day by saluting the flag and babbling on about freedoms etc?

 

If this happened in a public school in Australia lawyers would be falling over themselves to get his case and sue the school, principal, Ed. Dept., Government etc. an absolute gold mine of discrimination and we don't even have a Bill of Rights!

the question is a reasonable one, deserves an answer, whether it was the issue or not

[InfiniteNow]

Nobody needs to apologize for anything. I was simply making a statement of fact and bring the thread back on topic, not trying to lambaste any of my friends here.

 

Further, I know Mike pretty well. He's fully aware that we say the pledge, and how we (as a general rule) love to tout our constitution and proudly proclaim why it's superior at every chance we get when speaking with non-US residents on the planet. His comments were cleverly suggestive... I interpreted them like, "WTF is wrong with you people in the US? You exemplify cogitive dissonance, and the rest of the world is laughing at your silly asses over this ridiculous and clearly illegal nonsense."

 

 

Mike - Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Good on'ya, mate. :shrug:

[HydrogenBond]

What always bothered me about the pledge was the under God part, once I found it had been added during the McCarthy era it kinda went sour for me. Now days people take the Pledge as an affirmation of God instead of the pledge to our country it was originally intended to be. I love my country, I am smart enough to know it isn't perfect but I have no problem pledging my allegiance to the USA but why does God have to enter into it?

 

Maybe God is used because God is suppose to be higher than country. This could help prevent nationalism. It is the same reason all presidents, like Obama, use a bible during swear in. If he swore to himself, or to his party, it would imply a narrower special interest as his goal. If he swore on his own personal diary, then he only has to go as far as his own personal wish list. God is suppose to be infinite, so he is oblige to look beyond.

 

If you get back to the fired teacher, if a teacher began to teach religion in a public school we would get the same reaction and affect. There is a separation of church and state which is a two sided coin. It protects the public sector from religion and religion from the public sector. The atheist teacher, by being connected to the state or on state payroll, was using that position to discriminate against religion in his class. The student was not practicing religion. He was the aggressor.

 

I believe in freedom of speech, especially in schools, but that means also removing all the PC censor, so it is free. Free speech in schools does not mean cherry pick, with only certain groups under the protection of a censor. Not all religions have been added to the censor list. There are still some, where free speech is allowed. The teacher knew they were not protected by the censor list, but forgot about the separation of the state from church.

[Moontanman]

Maybe God is used because God is suppose to be higher than country. This could help prevent nationalism. It is the same reason all presidents, like Obama, use a bible during swear in. If he swore to himself, or to his party, it would imply a narrower special interest as his goal. If he swore on his own personal diary, then he only has to go as far as his own personal wish list. God is suppose to be infinite, so he is oblige to look beyond.

 

Maybe god was used because McCarthy was trying to promote religion and root out communists by putting religion in anything he could and was trying to say anyone who opposed him was a communist!

 

If you get back to the fired teacher, if a teacher began to teach religion in a public school we would get the same reaction and affect. There is a separation of church and state which is a two sided coin. It protects the public sector from religion and religion from the public sector. The atheist teacher, by being connected to the state or on state payroll, was using that position to discriminate against religion in his class. The student was not practicing religion. He was the aggressor.

 

Do you have any information what so ever to back up your contention that the teacher in question was trying discriminate against religion in his classroom?

 

I believe in freedom of speech, especially in schools, but that means also removing all the PC censor, so it is free. Free speech in schools does not mean cherry pick, with only certain groups under the protection of a censor. Not all religions have been added to the censor list. There are still some, where free speech is allowed. The teacher knew they were not protected by the censor list, but forgot about the separation of the state from church.

 

What are you trying to say here? If the teacher was an atheist why was the separation of church and state used to suspend him? All I see is religious fanatics trying to keep some one who's beliefs they disapproved of from teaching. The school board, the principle and the parent were all trying to inject religion into the school, not the teacher.

[Michaelangelica]

Nobody needs to apologize for anything. I was simply making a statement of fact and bring the thread back on topic, not trying to lambaste any of my friends here.

 

Further, I know Mike pretty well. He's fully aware that we say the pledge, and how we (as a general rule) love to tout our constitution and proudly proclaim why it's superior at every chance we get when speaking with non-US residents on the planet. His comments were cleverly suggestive... I interpreted them like, "WTF is wrong with you people in the US? You exemplify cogitive dissonance, and the rest of the world is laughing at your silly asses over this ridiculous and clearly illegal nonsense."

 

 

Mike - Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Good on'ya, mate. :)

 

LOLOLOL

Got quite a laugh out of that.:):)

You paranoid Yanks are soo funny:)

No I was just thinking of all the money the Guy could make if he was in Australia

Sheer Greed & Capitalism.:hihi: No Human rights principles involved.

 

I thought yanks sued everyone? Now it seems we sue more than you. A great little money maker, like lots of Yank inventions like sub-prime.

Here you can even sue if you are "wrongfully dismissed" imagine trying to disprove that in court! All you have to do to get a $10,000+ settlement or so is get a job at Mc Donalds, lock the manager in the freezer (accidentally of course) and when they fire you; you sue and then 'settle out of court'. (Barristers are $4,000 a day min.). then there is sexual harrisment, sexual discrimination, religious discrimination,racial discrimination, bad backs. We Ozzies have it down to a fine art- a great refinement on the original Yank Idea.

Aloud shout of "GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY BREASTS!" while with the boss, is worth $10-20G easily.

The teacher-Guy needs to look up Major Mori. I'm sure he would have been cashiered out of the US Army by now. A a great solicitor/ lawyer and human rights advocate--who gets free drinks everywhere in Oz.:eek2:

 

So as Yanks you would suggest we don't write a Bill of Rights? More money and more Rights without one? There is a lot of talk about here that we should have a BoR

 

However i also wanted to clarify the situation

You see, here, Christian Schools, certain aboriginal organisations, and some women's health organisations can get a dispensation from the anti-discrimination act to hire a Christian, Blackfella, or woman- and to specifically allows them to state that in their advertisement for the job.

 

The hand on heart thing in schools went out here about 1950.

I made that comment because you Yanks are always on about being free yet you let this seemingly, appealingly blatant, discrimination happen.

 

Parliament says the Lord's prayer every day, but there are mumblings about the relevance of that. (Unlikely to change under PM Rudd a christain in the good, practical, helping people sense I suspect)

 

O I checked one of the links about the pledge and just got this. which did give me a bit of cognitive dissonance. Adolph will be turning over in his grave.

 

Leave it to you guys now.

I have to work out whether to dig a drainage ditch or a underground bushfire shelter. What global warming ?

[CraigD]

What always bothered me about the pledge was the under God part, once I found it had been added during the McCarthy era it kinda went sour for me. Now days people take the Pledge as an affirmation of God instead of the pledge to our country it was originally intended to be. I love my country, I am smart enough to know it isn't perfect but I have no problem pledging my allegiance to the USA but why does God have to enter into it?

Maybe God is used because God is suppose to be higher than country. This could help prevent nationalism.

Since is adoption by executive proclamation in 1892, the Pledge of Allegiance has been a pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States and the republic for which it stands. It’s difficult to imagine how, even with the inclusion of the words “under God” by act of Congress in 1954, it can be viewed as anything other than intended to promote, not prevent, nationalism.

It is the same reason all presidents, like Obama, use a bible during swear in. If he swore to himself, or to his party, it would imply a narrower special interest as his goal. If he swore on his own personal diary, then he only has to go as far as his own personal wish list. God is suppose to be infinite, so he is oblige to look beyond.

This is historically inaccurate and inconsistent with the text of the US Constitution.

 

Franklin Pierce in 1854, and Theodore Roosevelt in 1901 neither privately not publicly swore their inaugural oaths on religious documents of any kind. Lyndon Johnson in 1963 (following John Kennedy’s assassination) swore upon a Catholic missal, not a Bible. Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877 and Chester A. Arthur did not swear on a religious document privately, but did publicly (source: Presidential Inaugurations: Bibles and Scripture Passages). Note that this source lists the document used or not used in several inaugurations as “not known”.

 

Article Two of the US Constitution states

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Not only does it not require the use of any religious document of mention of a deity, it even offers the use of the alternate word “affirm” should the President wish to avoid even the association with these concepts implied by the word “swear” (source: Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Franklin Pierce in 1853 used the word “affirm” rather than “swear”.

 

The atheist teacher, by being connected to the state or on state payroll, was using that position to discriminate against religion in his class. The student was not practicing religion. He was the aggressor.

As Moontanman requested, this claim needs to be backed up. It is contradicted by the sources linked from post #1 and other sources.

I believe in freedom of speech, especially in schools, but that means also removing all the PC censor, so it is free. Free speech in schools does not mean cherry pick, with only certain groups under the protection of a censor. Not all religions have been added to the censor list. There are still some, where free speech is allowed. The teacher knew they were not protected by the censor list, but forgot about the separation of the state from church.

I’ve never heard of a “censor list” used by any public school. As with your previous claims, this one also needs to be backed up with links or references.

[InfiniteNow]

Would anyone care to take a bet about HBs response to Craigs incredibly clear and articulate request? I suspect he will either not respond at all, or instead post more unsupported ramblings that have little to do with the thread topic, the posts being discussed, or reality itself. Of course past experience may not be a very good indicator. I really can't say.

 

 

Now, back on topic... A first person perspective (in the comments):

 

Confessions of a West Tennessee Liberal...: I really really need your help

"I am extremely upset with the Mr. Mullens situation. I am also a senior at Brookeland, and I have been a student of Mr. Mullens for the past five years. He has been the best teacher I have ever had the privlage of being taught by. The school is just looking for a witch to burn at the stake because church got boring last Sunday. The girl who made the accusations against Mr. Mullens is also trying to get several students kicked out of Brookeland for supporting Mr. Mullens. This past Friday she had the police officer talk to them because they were "harrassing her" even though two of the accuse haven't spoken to her since Mullen was suspended.She has said to me and several other students "I got Mr. Mullens fired, I can get them kicked out too." This is beyond stupid even for Brookeland or as I refer to it, our backwater redneck school. Mr Mullens is a good person and deserves so much better than the injustice that has been served to him."

 

 

So, it seems he also taught in junior high, and many of these students coming to his defense have known him for years. In another comment:

 

 

"What were dealing with here is not fair. They have jumped from one thing to the next here. Whats happening here is not just. I have learned so much from Mullens the past few years.

 

The young lady who made these accussations against him has also involved me and a few other students in this saying we have been "harassing and threatning her"? When we have not said one word to her. But she goes around making jokes like " i got a teacher kicked out i can get so and so student kicked out?" Then she goes around talking about pulling people out of their house and whopping their ***?"

 

 

And from a teacher who has worked frequently at the school:

"Very well written Jesse. That made me proud. I’m Michelle Taylor a former substitute at BISD. This is a sad day my friends. I too am a God fearing Christian. That being said, I don't want anyone else to tell me what, who or how I have to believe. Id like to point out a few things if I may. We have a constitution set in place to uphold laws that are in our best interest. The first being...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Unless Mr. Mullens is holding someone responsible for their beliefs being different from his, then the only wrong doings are the people who are trying to hold Mr. Mullens responsible for his own beliefs. It is a pitiful time when we allow people to be black balled because they don't fall in line with the majority. For this I am truly sorry. This kind of thing bothers me to my core. I am ashamed to know the people in charge of this religious persecution. This is discrimination too blatant to be ignored."

 

 

 

Finally, from the person I think opened the blog post:

 

"Just to let you all know, The Peace and Justice Center has been working to alert the media about this injustice. We have also contacted several civil rights organizations and legal advocasy. We are going to do everything we can to see that Mr. Mullens receives justice and is treated fairly and with the respect he deserves."

 

 

 

 

Ah... makes me proud to call myself a Texan. :)

 

Perhaps when some of you realize that I'm an atheist, and that I live in Texas, and that it's not uncommon to get your *** kicked growing up here because you don't bow to an invisible sky pixie... or how people celebrate their ignorance simply because they do it collectively... you will realize why I tend to let my passion get the best of me on these issues. Religion poisons everything.

 

 

Mullens was told flat out that the three reasons he was being suspended were 1) he is accused of being an atheist, 2) one student unsupportedly claimed that he was teaching atheism in the classroom, despite the fact that the other students denied this, and 3) that he is "too liberal."

[InfiniteNow]

Well, in a related story, it turns out that Massachusetts also has its share of loving religious people spreading goodness and cheer. :)

 

 

Transgender janitor shocks elem. school parents (OneNewsNow.com)

"

A pro-family advocate says parents in one Massachusetts town were perplexed when they received a letter from the school district explaining changes the janitor made over the summer break.

 

At the beginning of the 2008-09 school year, parents at the Clara Barton Elementary School in Oxford, Massachusetts, received a letter from the principal and superintendent, informing them that one of the school custodians had "changed his gender role" and is now a woman.

 

The school officials then informed parents that if their children, whose ages range from five-to-ten years old, ask school employees any questions concerning the custodian, they believe that "the best thing to tell them is that our custodian used to be a man. She has changed her gender and is now a woman."

 

Brian Camenker with MassResistance is appalled. "Whether parents like that idea or not, [the school] decided that they were going to introduce this to kids if there were any questions. That's extremely outrageous," he contends. "The whole idea that someone like this should be in the public schools, of course, is beyond belief.

"

 

 

Kevin over at Chimpanzee Refuge responds thusly:

"

That's right--don't tell kids crazy stuff like, oh, the truth. Tell them homosexuals and their ilk are to be not only fired from their jobs, but reviled and feared at all costs.

"

 

 

Again, from the original article:

"

[Camenker] says his organization was made aware of the situation when the uncle of a student gave him a copy of the letter. "From what I understand, everybody is afraid to speak out because they are afraid that their kids will be treated badly [and be subject to] retribution by the school officials," he notes.

"

 

 

Kevin again:

"

So, parents are loath to foment bigotry because their kids might receive feedback that it's wrong? Horrors.

"

 

That one, as sad as it is, really made me laugh out loud.

 

 

The original article again:

"

Camenker believes parents are also fearful of liberals in the community and finds it troubling there is a climate of fear against speaking out. He adds that on the reverse side of the letter, school officials listed radical homosexual websites in order for parents to get more information on "transgender issues."

"

 

 

Kevin (the guy who posted this and drew it to my attention) says:

"

I just love the simple-mindedness of these people. Gay, transgender, liberal--it's all just one big teeming mass of truly awful ****, and they're coming for your kids!

"

 

 

We're all in so much trouble if we don't pull this weed from its root, people... Or, we could go on firing people from our schools because they make us feel icky or they don't get all of their political views from Faux News. You decide.

 

 

 

h/t

[Moontanman]

The religious right lives on and rules by fear mongering, as does the neocons, it's really tough to fight fear when it's being used so well by your opponent. Churches preach fear and terror from the pulpit everyday and the masses listen with the fervor of a dying man looking for eternal life because that's basically what is being sold at church.

[Michaelangelica]

The religious right lives on and rules by fear mongering, as does the neocons, it's really tough to fight fear when it's being used so well by your opponent. Churches preach fear and terror from the pulpit everyday and the masses listen with the fervour of a dying man looking for eternal life because that's basically what is being sold at church.

Australia imports most things American and late night TV (early morning) is full of evangelists.

If I am really bored and sit and wait to see if they say anything at all meaningful. My patience always runs out before they say anything that you can make ANY sense of.

 

The one I do like though is "Miracle Manner"(sp?) made to the same receive as the biblical manner.

You get this for free and then lots of money or other miracles magically come to you.

(I love the Yank "Believe-in-God-and-get-rich" idea-wonderful marketing. Lets not muck about with the afterlife or good works-aim for the bullseye-- the hip pocket nerve!)

I am tempted to get some "Miracle Manner" for a priest friend, who collects religious kitsch, but I would then be on their mailing list.

 

Meanwhile in Sydney an elite private school discovers they have had a paedophile on staff for 30 years. That's what $40,000 a year ?+ buys you.

Accused teacher denied bail

Posted Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:19pm AEDT

49-year-old teacher Craig Howard Treloar has been denied bail.

 

Police investigating 20-year-old child sex allegations at Sydney's Knox Grammar School are examining whether there are any other alleged cases.

Accused teacher denied bail - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

When i searched for the story I found dozens more

Search. ABC News Online

 

Who would be a teacher?

 

Any news on the Texas teacher? Is he suing?

 

[pamela]

originally posted by Michaelangelica

The one I do like though is "Miracle Manner"(sp?) made to the same receive as the biblical manner.

You get this for free and then lots of money or other miracles magically come to you.

(I love the Yank "Believe-in-God-and-get-rich" idea-wonderful marketing. Lets not muck about with the afterlife or good works-aim for the bullseye-- the hip pocket nerve!)

I am tempted to get some "Miracle Manner" for a priest friend, who collects religious kitsch, but I would then be on their mailing list.

haha! :)

I believe you are referring to Miracle Manna. You can get this tasty matzo treat for free and guaranteed to bring you wealth! What will they think of next!!!

[Michaelangelica]

Some extracts from an article- which seems relevant to discussion in this thread.

My preamble

All Religious Schools in Australia receive massive government funding. (Islamic, Fundamentalist Catholic CofE). Some of our most prestigious and expensive private schools are religious (Riverview -Jesuits) or quasi military religious (Knox Grammar). Despite their accumulated wreath, amazing educational resources and exclusivity ( you have to be very wealthy and /or intelligent) they still get very large amounts of government aid.

Often to get jobs in the "City" you need to be apart of the "Old Boys Network". Wearing the right tie to a job interview is the go. Hence, the licence to print even more money, for our overpaid Company Directors.

I don't think there is an atheist school extant.

No politician will ever have the balls to change this system, despite trenchant criticism from State-employed Teachers who have to teach often, in quite appalling, third world conditions.

The article extracts:

(There are 70 comments too, I have not looked at. But iI think I know what most will say-and feel too old and tired today to bother.)

Human rights and religious exceptionalism

Human rights and religious exceptionalism - On Line Opinion - 9/2/2009

Choice implies a range of options from which one option can be selected.

If we are talking about belief, this can only mean a range of different beliefs.

So if we are to have freedom of religious belief, people must be presented with a range of religious choices, especially during childhood and adolescence when most people solidify their religious commitments.

They need to have adequate knowledge of the various religions and of non-religious approaches to life from which they can choose.

Belief can only be free when it is the result of free choice between viable options.

If we are genuinely committed to freedom of belief and freedom of religion, we must make such knowledge available.

We believe this can only be accomplished by introducing courses in comparative religion in all government schools, at a level appropriate to the age of the children.

Non-government schools would not have to teach such courses, but if they did not, they would not be eligible for any public support or funding, on the grounds that they were not meeting their human rights obligations to promote freedom of choice in religion and belief.

 

If this were implemented we would begin to have freedom of religion and belief in Australia. And if individuals were truly given a choice, as the ICCPR requires, rather than being indoctrinated at home and at school, it would be interesting to see what choices were then made.

. . .

The Victorian Act makes it illegal “on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, [to] engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons” (Section 8).

But can we reasonably deny to an African child who has been born with AIDS because a priest has told her mother the use of condoms is a sin, or a wife whose innocent husband has been killed by a religiously-motivated suicide bomber, or a woman whose clitoris has been mutilated by religious elders when she was a child, or a man who has been kept from contacting his children because his wife has joined an exclusive religious cult, the right to hate and detest the religion responsible?

Let alone try to stop them from trying to convert others to their point of view.

Serious contempt or even revulsion of religion may be the appropriate human response in such situations.

. . .

Religious belief is the opposite: it is not a given; it is (or should be) a choice. You have, one hopes, consciously decided to hold certain religious beliefs. Therefore, you are responsible for holding them and for the consequences of holding them.

And if the acting out of your religious beliefs is detrimental to the well-being of others, you are accountable for those harmful effects.

. . .

Conversely, religious belief is but a sub-set of the more general category of beliefs.

People have beliefs about all kinds of things, including politics, sport, art and the ultimate nature of the universe. Because religious belief is just one type of belief among many, any proposal to single out religious belief and grant it special status or special protection requires justification.

There is no doubt religion is significant in the lives of many people, but there are other beliefs just as significant for non-religious people, so significance alone is not such a justification.

. . .

On the other hand the expression of religious belief can have devastating effects on others. Over the centuries millions of people have died or suffered (and continue to) as a direct result of people holding and acting out certain religious beliefs.

(The same is true of political or nationalistic beliefs - religion is not on its own here.) So negative feelings towards religion may be simply one of many legitimate human responses to the expression of religious belief in the community and in the world.

 

Let’s face it, if religious belief were universally beneficent in its impact on all people, no one would even think of being negative about it. Unfortunately this is not the case and religion must take responsibility for itself and its consequences and stand up and be counted in the marketplace of ideas.

. . .

The irony is that some of the most virulent examples of incitement to hate occur in the sacred texts of our two biggest religions (see for example Luke 14:26 or Koran 60:1-2), but religious tracts are exempt from the scope of most anti-religious vilification legislation.:naughty:

. . .

It is clear that while laws against racial intolerance are justifiable, laws against disparagement of religion are unacceptable in a free society.

The fact that some believers may be “offended” by such disparagement or ridicule is neither here nor there.

I am mortally offended every time a see a crucifix with its cruel depiction of a man being tortured to death, or see a woman wearing a hijab with its inherent message about women being lesser beings, but I tolerate them, because I know that is the price of living in a free society.

Toleration must go both ways. It is easy to tolerate the views and behaviour of those we agree with, but the true test is being able to tolerate the views and behaviour and even the trenchant criticism of those whose views oppose ours. Many thoughtful religious people recognise this and don’t agree with the restrictive legislation.

 

Finally, the Rationalist Society of Australia is concerned about the number of pernicious cults that operate in Australia under the protection of our commitment to freedom of belief and religion.

Such cults employ well-known mind-control techniques such as Milieu Control (e.g. Exclusive Brethren) and Confession (e.g. Scientology) to maintain a hold over their adherents.

We do not advocate banning such organisations, but there is need for much greater knowledge in the community of the scope of these techniques and their effects so that people are forewarned and forearmed.

. . .

Moreover, federal and state governments should withhold financial assistance in any form to organisations which use mind control techniques on their followers, and/or, do not uphold their human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

Freedom of religion and belief is essential in a liberal democratic society, but it is one right among many and must be seen in the broader context, and not used as a crude bludgeon to beat down other equally important human rights, such as freedom of speech; freedom of association; freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; privacy; and respect. All human rights must be protected.