RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/15/2008 8:50:29 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Lawyers do not "always sue for irrelevant stuff that they know they won't win", they sue for relevant stuff they think they might have a chance, however slight, of winning.
I've seen cases where a lawyer sued for lost wages on the People's court and the lawyer didn't win the lost wages (the judge thought it was ridiculous). Afterwords, the lawyer said he knew he wasn't going to win lost wages, but he just threw that in there for the sake of throwing it in there. The lawyer did end up winning what he expected to win though. It is common practice for lawyers to do this.
Were there wages involved? If so, wages has some relevance. Did the lawyer in that case try to claim Free Expression was violated? If not, why not? Lawyers bring up relevant stuff. They do not bring up irrelevant stuff. If Free Expression was not at all relevant, the lawyers would not have brought it up.
quote:
quote:
You don't hear free exercise mentioned in, say, a medical malpractice suit.
I know, but the point is that lawyers do often sue for stuff that are irrelevant to the case. This particular case was not about religion, that was just thrown in there by the ACLJ.
It was "thrown in there by the ACLJ" because it was about religion.
Free Expression implies religion. ACLJ takes cases where religion is involved. This IS about religion. You know it, and I know it. Quit pretending it isn't. No one is fooled.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/15/2008 9:17:35 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Were there wages involved?
The lawyer sued for lost wages but it had nothing to do with the judgment and the lawyer knew he wouldn't win lost wages (he even said so afterwords). He was basically suing for the lost time that was required for him to take his dog to the vet (time he could have spent working), but the only thing he ended up winning was the vet bill.
quote:
If so, wages has some relevance.
Only because he brought it up (and only to the extent that he did bring it up). It really had no relevance to the case, the lawyer just threw it in there.
quote:
Did the lawyer in that case try to claim Free Expression was violated? If not, why not?
No, probably because it was irrelevant to the situation (lost wages was relevant to the situation, the lawyer lost his wages because he went out of his way to take his dog to the vet, but it was irrelevant to the case and the lawyer knew it. The judge even said it was ridiculous that he would ask for such a thing. It was relevant to the situation in the sense that he claims to have lost wages because he spent his time taking the dog to the vet, but it was irrelevant to the case in the sense that he did not take his claim for lost wages seriously in terms of what he expected to get out of the case even though he did sue for lost wages). Claiming free exercise would have been just as irrelevant to the case as claiming lost wages, he would have lost.
quote:
Lawyers bring up relevant stuff.
Not always. They often bring up stuff that are irrelevant to the main point, stuff they know they won't win (stuff that are only relevant to the extent that they brought it up).
quote:
They do not bring up irrelevant stuff.
Yes they do.
quote:
If Free Expression was not at all relevant, the lawyers would not have brought it up.
If it was of any relevance, it was of such small relevance that the only reason for anyone (like yourself) to dwell on it is if you have something against religion.
quote:
Free Expression implies religion. ACLJ takes cases where religion is involved. This IS about religion. You know it, and I know it. Quit pretending it isn't. No one is fooled.
Again, it does not follow that, just because he wanted to criticize evolution and the ACLJ represented him, the case is automatically entirely about religion. Sure, the word religion may have been mentioned once by the ACLJ but it was such an infinitesimally small aspect of the case that the only reason anyone should dwell on it is if they really have something against any non - naturalistic religion to the extent that, every time they see anything that threatens their naturalistic religion they dwell on it. Just because the word religion was mentioned once (either by the ACLJ or by LeVake) does not mean that you should dwell on it and make the whole case out to be about religion. The case was not about religion, it was about whether or not a teacher is allowed to criticize evolution in the classroom. Just because a case discusses someones freedom to question evolution in a classroom does not mean the case is about religion (and I'll agree that there was really no reason for the ACLJ or LeVake to mention religious discrimination because it was irrelevant but lawyers are often in the habit of mentioning things that aren't really relevant).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/15/2008 10:15:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/15/2008 10:35:58 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
I will teach, should the department decide that it is appropriate, the theory of evolution. I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one.
...
Based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, LeVake alleged that respondents violated his right to free exercise of religion, free speech, due process, freedom of conscience, and academic freedom.
On the one hand, LeVake is saying he wasn't turning the class into a religious one. -- On the other hand, he's claiming they violated his right to free exercise.
How can he say it isn't about religion and then turn around and say their actions prevented him from exercising his religion?
Actually, now that I review it a little more (since I didn't intend that to be the focus of this discussion, I have kinda been ignoring the free exercise aspect of it, but then you irrelevantly brought it up and started dwelling on it), it seems like he was suing for free exercise not based on what he wanted to teach in the classroom, but based on how he thought the faculty treated him because of his religious beliefs. AIG has a good explanation that seems consistent with the findlaw site
quote:
So why did he sue over religious discrimination? His fellow teachers and school administrators knew that he was a Christian and that he didn’t believe in evolution. The school’s hostility toward his personal views led to the public actions against his classroom teaching. If any other worldview were at stake–for example, if a Marxist were giving statistical evidence to question capitalism–the academic community would have rushed to the teacher’s defense. But because this teacher accepts the authority of God’s Word and holds a Christian worldview, academic freedom gets thrown out the window.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0110news2.asp
quote:
By analogy, LeVake focuses on employment discrimination cases to argue that circumstantial evidence of discrimination based on his religious belief exists, and he concludes that this alleged discrimination equates to respondents' violation of his right to free exercise of religion.
(From the findlaw site)
They (the ACLJ and LeVake) are arguing that Levake was discriminated against by his colleagues because of his religion (ie: they were hostile toward him) and part of the reason LeVake was moved was because of his religious beliefs, not that he would bring his religious beliefs in the classroom.
The ACLJ probably knew that they would not win that one and they probably didn't intend that to be the focus of the case.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 9/15/2008 11:01:41 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/16/2008 2:51:59 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:veritasquote:
On the other hand, he's claiming they violated his right to free exercise.
Freedom of speech is a religious issue? Levake didn’t claim a religious disagreement, but rather a concern that the approved curriculum is deficient because it excludes known problems with the theory.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/16/2008 3:28:16 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Actually, now that I review it a little more (since I didn't intend that to be the focus of this discussion, I have kinda been ignoring the free exercise aspect of it, but then you irrelevantly brought it up and started dwelling on it), it seems like he was suing for free exercise not based on what he wanted to teach in the classroom, but based on how he thought the faculty treated him because of his religious beliefs. AIG has a good explanation that seems consistent with the findlaw site
quote:
So why did he sue over religious discrimination? His fellow teachers and school administrators knew that he was a Christian and that he didn’t believe in evolution.
Only one of those two things is religious. Only one of those two things led to the problem. Unfortunately for his case, they weren't the same one.
The school has no control over or interest in either of those beliefs, but his inability to teach evolution in accordance with the school's standards was the real problem. As the ruling noted, Clark v. Holmes provided precedent that the teacher has "no First Amendment right to override judgment of superiors regarding proper course content."
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/16/2008 4:45:49 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:veritasquote:
On the other hand, he's claiming they violated his right to free exercise.
Freedom of speech is a religious issue? Levake didn’t claim a religious disagreement, but rather a concern that the approved curriculum is deficient because it excludes known problems with the theory.
Freedom of Speech is not a religious issue, but LeVake also claimed the violated his right to Free Exercise of Religion. Free Exercise of Religion IS a religious issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/16/2008 7:32:54 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Freedom of Speech is not a religious issue, but LeVake also claimed the violated his right to Free Exercise of Religion. Free Exercise of Religion IS a religious issue.
Again, that had nothing to do with what he wanted to teach in class.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/16/2008 7:42:56 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
The school has no control over or interest in either of those beliefs, but his inability to teach evolution in accordance with the school's standards was the real problem.
Like I said, it seems that he was willing to teach everything in the curriculum just like any other biology teacher but the only difference was that he wanted to add criticisms of evolution and the school didn't want to allow that. As I said before, it seems like darwinists are so insecure about their beliefs that they must fire (or move) teachers for simply disagreeing with them or criticizing their naturalistic philosophy. This is how darwinism and naturalism advance themselves, not through scientific means, but through political ones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/17/2008 2:24:23 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 519
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Freedom of Speech is not a religious issue, but LeVake also claimed the violated his right to Free Exercise of Religion. Free Exercise of Religion IS a religious issue.
Again, that had nothing to do with what he wanted to teach in class.
I was answering unclemonkey's question: "Freedom of speech is a religious issue?" I was explaining that Free Speech is different from Free Exercise.
Until we see his actual disposition we don't know whether his claim regarding Free Speech had anything to do with what he wanted to teach in class.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/25/2008 11:15:35 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
I was answering unclemonkey's question: "Freedom of speech is a religious issue?" I was explaining that Free Speech is different from Free Exercise.
Until we see his actual disposition we don't know whether his claim regarding Free Speech had anything to do with what he wanted to teach in class.
What you seemed to imply was that it did have something to do with what he wanted to teach in class.
quote:
On the one hand, LeVake is saying he wasn't turning the class into a religious one. -- On the other hand, he's claiming they violated his right to free exercise.
How can he say it isn't about religion and then turn around and say their actions prevented him from exercising his religion?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts a... - 9/25/2008 12:21:27 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 956
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:Veritasquote:
Until we see his actual disposition we don't know whether his claim regarding Free Speech had anything to do with what he wanted to teach in class.
It started with the denial of his desire to teach the problems of the theory, which the curriculum doesn’t allow.
That is the part that concerns freedom of speech.
He was accused of wanting to teach the problems because of his religious belief. That is the part that violated his freedom of religion. Levake’s reason for wanting to teach the problems is irrelevant. Regardless of his motivation, it is wrong to refuse students access to information about a theory because that information may cause them to doubt the theory.
As it stands this case has to be marked up as a religious victory for materialism because the real issue has been sidestepped to satisfy the letter of the law. Lavake lost because it is illegal to teach contrary to the approved curriculum.
The real issue is that the curriculum was constructed to accommodate materialism by refusing students access to information that my cause them to doubt the veracity of the materialist dogma of evolution. I.e. the curriculum is biased in favor of a particular religion – materialism.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
