We read:
"A San Diego-area teen suspended for bringing his Bible to school and talking about his faith has filed a lawsuit against the school district, the superintendent, an assistant principal, and a teacher.
In January 2010, 16-year-old Kenneth Dominguez was suspended for two days from Gateway East High School for violating a teacher’s order not to bring his Bible to school and not to discuss his faith with others. Dominguez’s Bible was even confiscated by that teacher, who said Dominguez’s actions violated “separation of church and state:”
“He didn’t give any sermons or yell or scream… just sharing his faith with other students. That was it,” Brad Dacus, Dominguez’s attorney, told KGTV, adding that we don’t live in communist China.
Even the ACLU is calling the case a “clear” free-speech violation.
But a spokeswoman for the Grossmont Union High School District — the district named in the suit — contends there’s much more to the story. She couldn’t elaborate, however, to KGTV because of federal privacy laws
Source
Update
Thinking about it, I would have done much the same as the family of the boy above did. My son was not Christened around the time of his birth as neither I nor his mother have any religious beliefs. But at age 9 he announced his wish to be a Catholic. As both I and his mother had been religious in our teens and earlier we were delighted by this and put his baptism and confirmation immediately in train. And we also sent him thereafter to a Catholic school -- where his best subject was religion.
So nobody would have confiscated HIS Bible. But If I had been poor and sent him to a government school and someone had confiscated his Bible, they would have had me to deal with. And I am very good at pushing back.
A boy's religion is his own business and in the USA his practice of it is protected by the constitution. And "sharing" his religious beliefs is part of being Christian. Check Matthew 28:19-20 if you doubt it.
26 comments:
Oh, there is definitely more to the story. He had the audacity to think for himself - to know that this rule that the teacher was imposing was wrong and illegal. Teachers and principals get rather uptight when the 100% control they exert of their environment starts to crack.
Considering the undboubted public service that I think is being performed by the many fine articles that appear on the Tongue Tied website, I am all the more disappointed when I see the kind of nonsense that is represented by this story of the boy who, we are asked to believe, was suspended because he brought a bible to class.
He was "sharing" his views with others, we are told. What does this euphemism mean? We cannot possibly know unless we are supplied with a lot more detail of what actually occurred in the classroom. In spite of the statement by the boy's attorney that the boy was not being disruptive in the classroom, there is the very distinct possibility that he was being disruptive and that he had also been disruptive on some previous occasions. I note that the boy had been instructed not to bring the bible to school. That indicates that the problem was ongoing.
I think it is quite possible that, if the boy were not intent on "sharing" his thoughts, whatever that means, he may not have run afoul of the authorities at the school.
Until we know what was actually going on, there is no story here for Tongue Tied. There is no evidence here that the boy was suspended just because he had a bible with him in the room.
As a professor of mathematics, I know how disruptive it can be when students attempt to use an academic classroom as a platform for their religious ideas. For example, I have had my calculus lectures disrupted on some occasions when I was using carbon dating to illustrate the application of some kinds of differential equations. On such occasions, a student who is offended by the conclusion from a carbon dating problem that the world is not just 6000 years old has disrupted my lecture by insisting on "sharing" his/her views.
What I am saying is that teachers have a difficult job to do and, before we pass opinions, we need more than a 10 second sound bite. We need to know what was going on. I don't think this story should have appeared on Tongue Tied until those details became available and actually supported the imagery that was implied without foundation by the present Tongue Tied article.
Previous comment rescued from the spam box
The Google filters seem to distrust long comments
Dr Lewin's comment is reasonable as a generic comment but the fact that the School would not discuss the matter made their case look pretty shallow to me
And confiscating a Bible is crass to the point of hostility. I can see NO reason for that
Confiscate a Koran and you would be out on your ear
Now if the kid had been a Muslim, no problems.
The school probably would have offered him a classroom to share his faith with others in. Of course it would have been required that all students attend. They would have called it "diversity training" or some other stupid thing like that.
Christians on the other hand are not allowed to show their faces in public. Those violent Christians, always preaching about peace and love. While those peaceful Muslims just practice their peaceful religion of killing those who dare disagree with them. Blowing up Jewish children and nice wholesome stuff like that.
Dr. Jonathan Lewin,
There is no evidence here that the boy was suspended just because he had a bible with him in the room.
Actually there is.
A suspension document from the school states: “Student was told to stop preaching at school. Student continued after being warned several times.” It goes on to say: “Student will not bring Bible to school.”
Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/31/student-suspended-bible-seized-was-christian-disru/
The school does claim that Dominguez was "disruptive," yet there is no documentation to support that claim.
Even if Dominguez was "disruptive" in his speech, that is not a reason for banning his Bible from the school.
Dan Shinoff, an attorney representing Grossmont Union, said Dominguez has a record of disruptive behavior, that he was interrupting class and that the school district is committed to upholding the religious freedoms of all its students. Shinoff also said that Dominguez was never prohibited from bringing his Bible to school.
Source same as above.
Shinoff's statement cannot be reconciled with the Suspension Document that clearly states that the kid was told not to bring his Bible to school.
Shinoff and the school district have lost the benefit of the doubt. Anytime a verbal statement goes against a written statement, the verbal statement loses and the speaker loses credibility.
Another source:
But his grace sharing period came to a halt when an administrator reprimanded him. The school official told Dominguez that he was not allowed to share his faith because of the "separation of church and state."
According to Dacus, Dominguez had not created any disruption when he was testifying about his faith to fellow students. He didn't shout or preach out loud and he limited his talk to lunch breaks and the hallways, and not the classroom.
Additionally, there has been no record of any student or anyone else complaining, Dacus noted.
After being warned by the administrator, Dominguez continued to discuss his faith and bring his Bible to school. He was then told that he could not bring his Bible to campus either. A two-day suspension soon followed.
source: http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-student-suspended-for-sharing-faith-sues-school-district-49655/
I must agree with jonjayray (Dr. John Ray) that, in all probability, the school went far beyond what was reasonable. If the boy was being disruptive, they should have confined their responsive to ending the disruption. Then a quiet chat with the parents might have ended the matter. A two day suspension and also confiscation of the Bible goes far beyond what could be termed reasonable.
But I think I disagree with John that, just because the boy's religion may require him to share it, he has the right to interfere with other people who are in the classroom for another purpose. If he wants to share with people on his own time in his own venue, I have no problem with it.
When students have disrupted my mathematics lectures with religious messages, all I have been allowed to do is make repeated very polite requests for them to stop so that my academic material can continue. Such polite requests often fall on deaf ears.
So let's see what we have here. On the one hand, we have the very clear, and well established, Freedom of Religion (guaranteed) by the Constitution.
On the other hand, we have "the imaginary" Seperation of Church and State claim that even the best Constitutional scholars can't seem to find in that document. Plus, we have a Leftist/atheist teacher who believes her job is to tell students what, not how, to think. Of course, in the face of such overwhelming ignorance, the school board will stik-up for their atheist teacher. Until, that is, the lawyers come-a-callin. Then, as usual, it'll be backtrack time.
And Dr. Lewin, perhaps teachers/professors would have an easier time if they understood that their job is to teach, not indoctrinate.
Forgive me folks but I have to add something:
My daughter Shira is religious and, as an observant Jew, desires to say the "Mincha" afternoon service every day. This must be done before sunset. When whe was in high school in Wisconsin where the sun sets very early in the winter, she received permission to bring her prayer book with her to school and to go quietly to an empty room each day to "daven mincha". No school had a problem with this.
The difference between this story and the one reported today is that Shira did not impose herself on others.
I have a request for "We the People".
Could you please explain how the process of solving a differential equation can be "indoctrination" rather than "teaching"? Please supply the working steps carefully and tell us which ones are indoctrination and why.
And please tell us why I should be willing to have a mathematics lecture disrupted by someone who wishes to hijack the lecture to make it a forum for expression of religious views?
The students telling the teachers what to teach or contradicting them is much like the inmates taking over the asylum. What the teachers teach is up to the school and if the students or their parents don't like it they should find a school they do like.
Jonathan Lewin,
You wrote: Could you please explain how the process of solving a differential equation can be "indoctrination" rather than "teaching"? Please supply the working steps carefully and tell us which ones are indoctrination and why.
Yet previously you wrote: For example, I have had my calculus lectures disrupted on some occasions when I was using carbon dating to illustrate the application of some kinds of differential equations. On such occasions, a student who is offended by the conclusion from a carbon dating problem that the world is not just 6000 years old has disrupted my lecture by insisting on "sharing" his/her views.
So it is acceptable for you to bring a subject that may be considered "indoctrination" into the classroom, but when someone contradicts that, you think it is wrong?
When you stepped out of the bounds of differential equations and into another field, why are you offended when a person challenges you on that subject?
If it has nothing to do with what you are teaching, then don't mention it and that will solve the problem. If it is applicable, don't you want your students to think on their own? Or are you only interested in them regurgitating what you have said?
If the latter, isn't that indoctrination?
to 432am. where in the story does it say the student was disrupting a math class or any class for that matter..go play in traffic.
Carbon dating has what to do with differential equations? Could be concidered indoctrination to me. I've heard a bit about maths teachers puting social issues into their math problems, if you avoided this tactic, you may find your students have nothing to pipe up about and waste the classes time.
To anonymous 9:50.
I think I can see why you have to choose to remain anonymous. You are being ridiculous. If you know anything at all about mathematics, then you have to know and understand why every calculus text uses the models of exponential growth and decay, including carbon dating and continuously compounded interest, population growth, logistic growth, planetary motion, and many more examples from physics, chemistry and biology to illustrate mathematical principles.
Your assertion that an application of the mathematics "has nothing to do" with my subject matter makes me wonder what your background can be. And your totally unsubstantiated claim that I don't want my students to think is quite absurd.
Perhaps you can state your credentials here let us all see how you are qualified to lecture me in the teaching of mathematics.
You may want to spend some time looking at my approach to calculus. I have provided my URL with this letter.
If you know anything at all about mathematics, then you have to know and understand why every calculus text uses the models of exponential growth and decay, including carbon dating and continuously compounded interest, population growth, logistic growth, planetary motion, and many more examples from physics, chemistry and biology to illustrate mathematical principles.
So when the kid stood up and challenged you, he was on topic and was on point - the points that YOU raised.
Your assertion that an application of the mathematics "has nothing to do" with my subject matter makes me wonder what your background can be.
Perhaps you need to learn to read? You made the assertion that the kid attacking carbon dating in your class was off topic. But yet it was you who brought the topic into the discussion. I will ask you again: if, as you assert, carbon dating is not on topic in your class, then why did you bring it up?
Perhaps you can state your credentials here let us all see how you are qualified to lecture me in the teaching of mathematics.
All bow down to the great teacher? How dare anyone ever expose some guy hawking products on someone else's blog lack of logic and critical thinking like opening a can of tuna?
No wonder you are offended by the idea that teachers "indoctrinate" students. It appears that is what you do. God forbid that you are ever challenged on an idea.
And for the record, sir, I am an electrical engineer who has worked with NASA for the last 25 years.
You know the old saying, don't you? "Those who can, can, and those who can't, teach."
So instead of trying to obfuscate the issues, please answer the question.
If it offends you that a kid talks about carbon dating in your class, and you consider his speech "off topic," then why is it you who brought it into the discussion?
Is it on topic for you and not for students? Students should think or challenge you on what you bring up?
Your lack of logic is astounding.
He/she seems to be a religious fundie where freudian projection makes anything taught that is contrary to fundie views "indoctrination" - how ironic!
Of course they will challenge any scientific method that reveals how a literalist interpretation of Genesis is foolish. Anyone with brains can see the stories are allegorical.
How is carbon dating a social issue?
"How is carbon dating a social issue?"
Rational people do not think that carbon dating is a social issue, it is a scientific issue. However, people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old think that carbon dating is impossible. You know, it is that science vs. religion stuff.
Yes, science seeks actual evidence. while religion ignores actual evidence.
"Yes, science seeks actual evidence. while religion ignores actual evidence."
Also, religion creates BOGUS evidence. Not a very nice thing to do.
The school wackos would have been happy if the kid had brought a copy of WALTER THE FARTING DOG or HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES
Dr Lewis,
I think you need to point out to the next one who interrupts you that whether they believe in Carbon Dating or not they cannot be harmed by understanding the principles and mathematics behind it because for a person who believes in creation it was God who made things work this way.
It looks like the problem in this story isn't the same as what you've dealt with so thank you for bringing an example from the other extreme of the problem.
Free Speech is a right but the world these days is so focused on their rights they often forget that every right is always balanced by a responsibility.
The argument that however things are must have been ordained. It just becomes a circular argument.
Post a Comment