Christian Teacher Banned for Condemning Homosexuality

[darkeyes]

In the English High Court this week, judges upheld a classroom ban on a Christian teacher who told pupils homosexuality was a sin. It has caused remarkably little furore but he and other others claim it prevents him from exercising his freedom of speech, pursuing his religious belief and effectively means the end of his career. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/apr/12/homophobic-teacher-loses-ban-appeal God.. Maggie Thatcher would be turning in her grave!! How the worm has turned.. gone are the days when teachers were sacked just for being gay...

Does his claims have merit? As far as it prevents him actively practicing his religion no.. not in the least.. I as a practicing (for want of a better expression) lesbian am no more entitled to tell kids that they should be gay, and while I am entitled to say the being gay is not a sin, I have no right to tell them that being heterosexual is... or bisexual for that matter. Neither am I entitled to tell them as a teacher that war is a sin, and that I do firmly believe. The ban does prevent him teaching for two years and only ends his chosen career should he refuse to accept the limitations placed upon him in respect of the judgement of the court. Teachers do have limitations placed upon them what they can tell children and quite rightly so.. we are not entitled to just tell kids anything is right or wrong simply because we believe it. The school in question is a state school outwith the religious sphere.. state schools such as Catholic, C of E or the very few Islamic schools which exist have different rights from hose which are non denominational in nature and such teaching as Robert Haye was providing may well be acceptable...but this was not the case at Mr Haye's school.. and whether such teachings should be allowed in any religious school, or whether such schools should exist is quite another matter about which I do have an opinion.

What any teacher says outside of his place of employment to the wider world is a different thing to clumsily attempt to influence schoolchildren in work time. He broke the rules of both school and the law as it exists in England. The last thing I want to do is to prevent anyone from having freedom of speech or religion.. but there are places and times to exercise both and in a non denominational state school in front of a class of 15/16 kids in work time is not one...

[tenni]

Adults and teachers do tell students what is right and what is wrong (behaviour) quite often. The question as to what the teacher is telling is it preaching a religious belief to students versus informing them as to what a religious belief has always been sensitive.

Exactly, what moral perspective is to be taught formally or informally varies over time. What is to be taught is in the curriculum . If homosexuality is a concept that is being taught, it is more than not simply taught as facts or what is presently believed to be taught. That might include certain perspectives as to it being accepted at differing time periods but not likely due to the morality aspect.

There was a Canadian case where a teacher was teaching that the Holocaust did not happen. He taught his students that it was the myth of a Jewish world-conspiracy whose blueprint allegedly came from the talmud He expected his students to reproduce his teachings in class and on exams. If they failed to do so, their marks suffered.

The court first found him guilty of violating the Criminal Code on hate crime. The appeal court dismissed that case while the Supreme Court found him guilty of the original charge. The ruling that the law's prohibition of hate propaganda and suppression of his freedom of expression was constitutional. The majority of Justices looked at hate speech as not being a victimless crime, but instead having the potential for psychological harm, degradation, humiliation, and a risk of violence. The Canadian courts may look at the teaching of homosexuality as a sin similar but it would have to be proven that such teaching would have potential to lead to harm. Again, though, if it was not on the curriculum, the teacher may be warned and even dismissed.

[darkeyes]

Teachers do, and should tell kids what is right and wrong, but not what they believe to be right or wrong simply because they believe it. Such teaching must be within the law, within the curriculum, edicts by local and/or school authorities in accord with the ethos of the school and good teaching practice.. all of these things vary from time to time as u quite rightly point out, tenni, depending on prevailing societal attitudes.. in Thatcher's time for instance, and before Wilson decriminalised (male) homosexuality in England, a teacher could and would lose his or her job for saying that homosexuality was not in his or her view a sin. Any mention of homosexuality was in the negative. To be fair it was actually Thatcher's government which decriminalised homosexuality in both Scotland and Northern Ireland in 1980 and 1982 respectively, but it wasn't long before her government began the hasty retreat to repression through the infamous Section 28. Any schoolteacher providing the slightest positive spin on homosexuality in a school could and would be disciplined and potentially sacked....

Teachers do not decide what is to be taught, nor do they have carte blanche on how to teach. Such decisions are taken elsewhere. Lesson planning must be within the ethos of law, education authority, school and curriculum, and schools have limited power to do their own thing. Even religious schools, which have do have the right within the law to indoctrinate kids of the sinful nature of homsexuality because of what is considered to be their freedom to practice their religion. Furtherance of their faith and sense of morality is after all the reason they exist, but even they do not have carte blanche in what they teach and how it is taught.

A teacher is not employed to indoctrinate pupils into what she believes... in some subjects, societal moral indoctrination does occur, but such indoctrination as occurs is not on the personal whim of teacher.....indoctrination of any kind is regrettable but inevitable.. Religious and Moral Education, History, Geography, the sciences to some degree... and in my country (Scotland) Modern Studies... but the principal reason why these subjects are taught is not to dictate morality, but to educate and inform, and together with other subjects on the curriculum such as English, Maths, Art, Music and Drama, Craft and Design, to turn out kids to be the best, most tolerant and compassionate human beings that we can make them.. and to provide for them the most broad based education we can and enable them to employ the skills and knowledge they learn to prepare them, as well as we as a group are able, to make the best fist at life that they can.

Teachers reflect society to a great degree.. teaching has people who have every possible idea and combination of ideas and many are passionate about their beliefs... but many, even most of those ideas are not for teaching kids at school for those ideas are often contradictory to why they are there and this will change with time. They have no right to impress upon children personal belief where it contradicts school ethos or rules, educational authority ethos or rule, or the law of the land.. teachers have the same rights of freedom of speech as every other citizen outside of work, but like most other citizens they have rules to abide by which often prevents them preaching what they believe in the workplace. They may have greater rights to express those beliefs at staff meeting or in the staff room, or at union meetings but what they say to children is quite another thing about which they should take the greatest care.

I have no doubt that Mr Hayes, who no doubt believes himself a tolerant and compassionate Christian man, would if he could, return British schools to dark days of yesteryear when the only mention of homosexuality would be to indoctrinate children into it being extremely bad for them, and that they would burn in hell for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans... and he would insist on exactly the same punishment or worse being meted out to me if I began to tell kids that his sexuality was a sin...I very much doubt if he would allow me or any other non heterosexual person even to be employed as a teacher far less have the right to tell kids that being gay is ok...

[Gearbox]

Surely RE teachers are (or should be) violating their job criteria by crossing the line between 'teaching about' & 'teaching' religions to pupils in a non religious school? If school boards wanted to teach a religion, they'd get a pastor instead?
In my daughters (supposedly non-religious) school I've wondered if a pastor IS teacher there instead of a RE teacher sometimes. It was up to ME to inform her that Jesus isn't necessarily a real person, God nor demi-God etc, and that there's a difference between belief & fact.
IMO the RE teacher (or teacher that teaches RE?) FAILED miserably in her job! Also IMO it's blatantly insidious to 'teach' minors such complicated concepts and it all reeks of a religious indoctrination agenda.:mad: (conspiracy theorists unite!lol)

BUT what is a Christian RE teacher to say when asked if homosexuality is a sin? Is there a 'right' answer that doesn't infringe his/her rights?:confused:

[darkeyes]

There remain on the statute books of the nations the UK, requirement that schools hold acts of religious observance. How these acts are conducted have changed even since I was at school, and many schools have abandoned holding them for one reason or other. In Scotland parents are able to exempt their children from these (as ours are) for they are mostly Christian based and with so many kids either not from religious homes, or from the ever increasing immigrant non Christian communities it is surely a nonsense that they be compulsory? Arguably, religious observance should not be held at all in schools, which is what I believe, but gone are the days when every class stood up first thing and recited the Lord's prayer at the commencement of the school day... many still do, but far from all. There is both a move to repeal the law and one to impose it... needless to say which camp I fall into.

It is one thing in a class of Religious Education to inform pupils of what, for want of better expression, religious scripture says about homosexuality, it is quite another to tell a child categorically that scripture and belief is what they must believe and accept it. Unfortunately far too many people have to do what u had to do... such as my daughter's friend's parents who once had to take the school to task for telling her that because they had been baptised, and she hadn't, she would not join them in the kingdom of heaven.. can u imagine the stress that caused to a 7yo mind?

[Gearbox]

can u imagine the stress that caused to a 7yo mind?
Yes I can! My daughter got stressed arguing with me about Jesus being real. Her teachers had told her so, and now her dad was telling her different. Of course she believes that teachers must be right coz they are the authority on education in her life (so she thinks.lol). Also coz Jesus was a constant occurrence in her school life through morning assembly prayers, nativity and Christian hymns etc. WHY would teachers go to all that trouble with Jesus if it wasn't true?:eek2:

She was 6 the first time we argued about God. Fekin 6 years old! I have enough respect to NOT push my theism onto her, but sadly the schools don't have ANY respect in that regards.
It's an abuse of power IMO and it should be stopped! God help them if she comes to me with that baptism shit!:mad:

[Young pussy and dope]

Yes I can! My daughter got stressed arguing with me about Jesus being real. Her teachers had told her so, and now her dad was telling her different. Of course she believes that teachers must be right coz they are the authority on education in her life (so she thinks.lol). Also coz Jesus was a constant occurrence in her school life through morning assembly prayers, nativity and Christian hymns etc. WHY would teachers go to all that trouble with Jesus if it wasn't true?:eek2: She was 6 the first time we argued about God. Fekin 6 years old! I have enough respect to NOT push my theism onto her, but sadly the schools don't have ANY respect in that regards. It's an abuse of power IMO and it should be stopped! God help them if she comes to me with that baptism shit!:mad: What's the big deal? If she wants to subscribe to a religion or spirituality that is her choice just like it is your choice to be an atheist.

[darkeyes]

What's the big deal? If she wants to subscribe to a religion or spirituality that is her choice just like it is your choice to be an atheist.
I really do think that u miss Gear's point... it is not that he wishes her deprived of the right to choose whether or not to have religious and spiritual belief.. the big deal is that her teacher was trying to force her religious belief upon the child by informing her of the "truth" of something that cannot be proved. He does not impose his athiesm upon the child, and it should never be the right of any school or teacher to impose religious belief or otherwise upon a child. That is a big deal.. the indoctrination of a child about anything is a big deal.. being informed of what religion is about and even choices available through religious education is one thing.. being told what one must believe by religious instruction quite another..

[Gearbox]

What's the big deal? If she wants to subscribe to a religion or spirituality that is her choice just like it is your choice to be an atheist.
I'm a theist. I didn't miss the 'A' out.:) I don't argue that Jesus was real or not, but that it's a matter of PERSONAL belief and not fact. That's what a religion is.
She was not given a choice by the teachers. I give her a choice by explaining what a belief is, which they fail to explain.
Big deal? YES of course it's a big deal. She goes to school to learn facts, not to join a fekin cult!:eek2:

[void()]

I was fortunate in having a world history teacher in high school who forced his students to think. At the very entry of his class he explained that he chose to not use the standard grading system employed by the school. He further said we as students would be fortunate carry what the school deemed as a D average in his class, just one rung above failing. We could, he said, gain further credit by exploring the dates and facts presented in a decade old text book and draw up well written argumentative rebuttals for or against the 'official' views of history as present in the text.

His religion was Atheism, his father, grandfather and so on had all been Jewish. This came into play when we had reached the teaching of the Holocaust. He had family that perished in it, other family that survived. He told us we could write upon any aspect of WWII and take any stance we chose, as long as we could prove we had given it critical thought. This was to be the whole of our grade that term, a paper covering that period of the twentieth century. We could also not write about the war, he suggested The Depression, Henry Ford, The Federal Reserve, how agriculture was impacted by the first atom bomb, what the fashion world was doing. He allowed us free reign of choice.

I wound up carrying a C average that term. I had chosen to explore the religious zealotry inherent in the Nazi party and its socialist effects. I spent twenty five pages summarizing a view that Hitler had merely borrowed far too much ancient ideology and not spent any time providing anything new to consider, and he had ample opportunity to do so. It was not so much an unhealthy admiration of Hitler as an expose of what had influenced the thinking of the time and more keenly the Nazi way. Oddly enough I discovered some of what was the origins of Nazism was found to have sprouted from Judasim itself.

He ascribed notations through the paper, ones which showed he had gone back through and checked my sources. He then presented counter arguments which have to this day left me with much to consider. He suggested I revise and expand the paper to at least fifty pages. I could only continue to forty five pages before he took up the final. He said the paper on the whole was possibly the best in all his classes in about a decade, because I had thought through what was deemed the official story, chosen to delve behind things which most chose to avoid. I had in his estimation learned a bit of critical thinking, which was all he could have hoped.

He did not however, tell us what to think. Nor did he tell us his views. He simply presented us with facts from both points of it all, let us sort it out for ourselves.