Teacher Fired: Said Bible Is Not Literal

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app...709220333/1001

Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.

Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.

"I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job," Bitterman said.

Disgusting traitors.

[Cloud]

on the face of it, that is pretty outrageous. Can you imagine trying to teach a Western Civilization class without reference to religion? Impossible.

I suspect there's more to the story, though. There always is. This article said the students were offended by his teaching style:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/app...=2007709250379

You can be professional and scholarly, without being rude to people's beliefs.

[piercehawkeye45]

Religion in Western civilization should be taught from a historic standpoint. I'm in Western Civ right now and my teacher has done a good job with not confusing religious views with religious history.

You can be professional and scholarly, without being rude to people's beliefs.

If you teach christianity on par as all other religions ignorant people are going to be offended... that needs to be ignored.
I took several mythology classes and it was treated the same, students were always offended and their complaints dismissed. It worked out fine, as it should.

[Cloud]

in an ideal world, teachers would be able to encourage their students to think outside their viewpoints, and students would not be offended.

Guess we already know what kind of world we live in.

When I say dismissed, I did not imply rudely.
Edit:
I taught a two-day series on Tibet and Buddhism. I dealt with a LOT of christians and did so gently.

But, as a teacher of mythology or religion, it is not your job to tell your students they are right when they are not just to make them happy.

[lookout123]

Well, I remember one of my old teacher's (chemistry if it matters) announcing that anyone who believes in a literal translation of the bible is an idiot not worthy of graduating.

Is that type of comment really necessary for the teaching of a course? I didn't think so then, and I don't think so now, but I just chalk him up as an asshole - not someone who needs to be fired.

[Aliantha]

I would say that it's also not a teachers job to tell a student they're wrong just to satisfy his own belief structure.

In matters of faith, no one has ever been proven right or wrong, so there must always be scope for understanding to be created. That doesn't mean you need to believe what someone tells you. Just learn to understand why they believe it.

That's what good teaching is about.

[DanaC]

I think it kind of depends on the level of education you're at and the role that's expected of the teacher. A school teacher has no business telling pupils that their strongly held religious beliefs are erroneous.

A university lecturer would be slightly different, given that they are supposed to present their analysis. They still should not be specifically saying "you are wrong" but there's nowt wrong with having an analysis that precludes them being right.

Both of these could be good teachers.

[jinx]

I remember my 9th grade World Cultures teachers opining that anyone who didn't believe in god had their head in a bucket. I don't know exactly what that means but it pissed me off at the time. She was insane.

[DanaC]

My 13 year old niece is running rings around her Religious Studies teacher at school at the moment. Her dad's a committed atheist and has brought her up to question things. Her teacher is a bit flaky...she teaches about all different religions but she herself seems to have adopted a confused partial-christianity. She makes it clear that she thinks there is a God and has a tendency to expect that the children will tackle the subject from the direction of belief (of whichever faith) which is disturbing from the perspective of a high school teacher.

Especially as Religious education is compulsory.

There y'go rk, now that is something you and I will both agree is appalling; however, this is not due to some recent upsurge in religious sentiment, but rather a survival of an earlier age, which due to resistance from some of the religious sections of society, has proved devilish difficult to dislodge.


An interesting take on this from Guardian Unlimited's Comment is Free section:

I am a big fan of the "intelligent design" teaching packs that the god-botherers are sending out to our schools. I hope the government makes them compulsory. They will be incredibly useful in teaching kids the single most important lesson that anyone learns in school.

That lesson is, obviously, that adults in positions of power and responsibility often talk the most extraordinary bullshit. Either because they are kidding themselves, or because they think it is OK to mislead you in order to persuade you to behave in some desirable way, they will look you in the eye and lie to your face.

The widespread knowledge of this fact is surely the cornerstone of any democratic society, far more so than anything about evolution. So I say let the creationists make asses of themselves if they want to. The smart kids will see straight through them and the thick ones were never going to believe in evolution anyway, so who cares?

In general, for every belief that I don't want to take hold in society at large, I am in favour of it being taught in state schools. Consider the question of religion generally. America has a strict blanket prohibition on religion in the public education system, and it is one of the most devoutly Christian countries on earth. We have a compulsory act of worship every day and compulsory religious education up to 15, and we are largely Godless. This isn't a coincidence.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...s_learned.html

In fact, this principle could usefully be extended. In regions of the country where we are worried about the development of Islamic extremism, we ought to force the teachers to draw up a rota and take turns every day unwillingly dragging the kids through a tired, desultory, unenthusiastic version of the basics of Islam.

Just to suck the life out of it even further, we could draw up a set of incomprehensible "targets" and capriciously cut the school's funding now and then if they didn't meet them. Wouldn't five years of grinding through the dullest bits of the Koran substantially reduce the appeal of radical Islam to disaffected Asian youths? The glory of jihad would be inextricably linked in their minds with miserable Thursday afternoons sitting through another bloody hour of RE. It's just an idea.

[my bold] Now, see that's how I remember RE teachers being. In the main, even if they did believe in God, they tended to be fairly unenthused by their subject. My RE teacher in the 3rd year (age 13/14) just sent us off on loads of 'research missions' in the school library, digging out books of the Hindu gods and drawing pictures of Shiva or other mundane, make work shit that left her to get on with her paperwork :P

[Cloud]

on a side note, I really don't understand how anyone can believe that sacred books are literal.

I know people do, but it just doesn't make sense to me. How can man know the mind of God? They can't, so to me, sacred texts are a way to filter and interpret the unknowable. Jesus himself spoke in parables, as a way to teach. They are meant to be examples, springboards, to reach deep into the soul to for understanding. People who take every word literally are missing the deeper truths.

But that's just my take on it.

[Cloud]

Religious education is compulsory in the UK?

[DanaC]

Yes. All children have to take Religious education (also called religious studies) the curriculum for which covers all the major religions, their history, their practices etc.

In terms of christianity...according to the Education Act of 1945( I think) all state school must be run "along broadly Christian principles".

Not only is it compulsory that children study religion until they are fifteen, nnder current law, all state schools "must provide daily collective worship for all registered pupils", apart from those withdrawn by their parents. Children may choose to opt out without their parents' permission from the age of 16.

In reality most schools give a very cursory nod to this requirement. The 'prayer' is usually part of a wider assembly message about getting along with your fellows and being charitable and stuff like that. 70% of schools in Wales 'fail' to adhere to the law in this regard. I don't have the figures for England, but my guess would be that many don't comply fully.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Religious education is compulsory in the UK?

Church and state are not separate -Christianity is the national religion.

That said, there's way more Christianity/religion in state business here than there is there. From my observations.