Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (14728)	5/28/2001 5:05:41 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I would have said God's existence is not changed by Greg's unbelief. That would be a fine thing to say to your own child if he came home from school talking about this kid in his class that doesn't believe in God. If might even be fine to say to little what's-her-name in X's class if you spoke with her alone although I have reservations about it. It definitely wouldn't have been appropriate to say when speaking to the two of them together, which I assumed is what happened. X would have been affirming the girl's belief at the expense of the boy's. Teachers aren't supposed to do that. I have visions of the boy's loss of his teacher's esteem turning him into a serial killer ten years down the road. Or perhaps merely a law suit from the boy's parents. Not a good result, either one. But X responded with her philosophy just as surly as any fundamentalist would. It's the claim of being philosophically neutral that bothers me. I don't see how a teacher can be anything but philosophically neutral in a public school. I think you do X a disservice when you say she responded with her philosophy. Had she done that, she would have affirmed the little boy at the expense of the girl since X doesn't believe in God, either. Karen