Support NeoGAF

[liquid_gears]

..Wtf?

lol

Do you even understand what that abbreviation means?

 

[Joel Was Right]

Let's rewind here. You made this comment.

Good.

It's this kind of indoctrination, no matter how subtle that needs to be stopped. It has no place in the classroom.

Where in the article do you see evidence of indoctrination? Maybe I missed it?

 

[liquid_gears]

Let's rewind here. You made this comment.



Where in the article do you see evidence of indoctrination? Maybe I missed it?

I'd refer you to my earlier comment:

Re-read the OP people.

My impression is not that the teacher just offered a quick prayer and then moved on to some calculus, but that she had a good rant about 'encouraging being open to prayer', 'miracles' and other such nonsense.

She's a nutcase.

Like I said, keep that shit locked up in your own personal life, the moment that it's brought into the classroom (in a maths lesson nonetheless) then the line has been crossed.

Young minds are very impressionable and I wouldn't want this sort of shit happening at school. Why is that so hard to understand?

But of course, not wanting teachers to promote prayers and miracles in a fucking maths lesson makes me a 'militant atheist'.

:Rolls eyes

The crux of my 'indoctrination' argument is based on this:

I'm going to assume it was a lot more than a comment made in passing based on the lack of detail and one-sided account.

From the fact that only one brief, biased side of the story is given and the article suggesting that this was more than just a simple "I'll pray for him/her, now lets move on...', it's not exactly a huge leap of faith to assume that she has bigger motives and overstepped the mark.

Hence, indoctrination.

EDIT: Also, what phisheep wrote below.

 

[phisheep]

Gentlemen, we seem to be getting a bit hung up on definitions here, and it doesn't seem very fruitful.

The OP is not clear on exactly what was said, so we don't really have enough information to classify this as 'indoctrination' or not. But, as other posters have pointed out, there is some suggestion in the article that it went beyond merely 'offering to pray' and might have been significantly more.

There are three things that suggest to me that it went beyond reasonable bounds: it was a maths lesson, it was in the child's home, it was described by the teacher as 'sharing my testimony'. But really that's all we have to go on, at least unless and until other reports emerge.

One further thing causes me some concern, and this is not in the OP. The school in question - which is about 10 miles from me - specialises in taking on pupils who have been excluded from other schools. Typically these are pupils who are particularly disruptive for one reason or another, and typically they are particularly vulnerable. In these circumstances, what might seem perfectly ordinary to the teacher may well be perceived as indoctrination by the pupil - and these are circumstances where especial care is needed.

 

[SoulPlaya]

I would argue that anybody who communicates with some sort of deity is insane, yes, but that isn't my point.

Again, encouraging children to open up to the concept of prayer and miracles in a maths lesson when she has no permission or right to do so is indicative of what I would consider a 'nutjob'.



Please explain.

You think people who pray are insane? Do you believe they should be in a ward?

 

[liquid_gears]

You think people who pray are insane? Do you believe they should be in a ward?

EDIT: Wait. What?

Why are you purposefully changing and swapping words and statements around here?

Re-read what I wrote.

 

[Stumpokapow]

It should be fairly obvious, shouldn't it? There are no hard rules about it. But there are a hell of a lot of religious people out there in increasingly diversified communities, it would be obvious that it's something to bring up when discussing the origins of the universe.

It's not obvious to me, which is why I asked. Spell it out. Which specific topics in science classes do you feel are sufficiently contentious or controversial to merit examining social / religious attitudes?

 

[Joel Was Right]

I'd refer you to my earlier comment:



The crux of my 'indoctrination' argument is based on this:



From the fact that only one brief, biased side of the story is given and the article suggesting that this was more than just a simple "I'll pray for him/here, now lets move on...', it's not exactly a huge leap of faith to assume that she has bigger motives and overstepped the mark.

Hence, indoctrination.

So what you're basically saying is that, despite what we know, you think there was more to it than this and that she did actually try to indoctrinate the child? This is all based on the assumption that the story lacks crucial details? So you choose to subscribe to the assumption (one incidentally more damning to her and makes ridicule of her common sense not to try and behave in such a way particularly in her profession) and dismiss the information we are given - information which you refer to as the "bias one side of the story"?

Clearly I don't know you and if we are to hold assumptions with value here then let me make my own assumption. From what I can understand from above (hopefully I didn't misunderstand you, and if so I apologise fully), you have a certain dislike of theists and their beliefs being shared in public. If that is true then perhaps you are also bias and if so your assumptions are invalid. Now, I base that assumption not on vapour as you arguably have with your conclusions about the tutor and the article, but instead on your own comments and your display of logic here.

Personally I don't understand why people would jump to conclusions based on assumptions, especially ones that are not supported by anything. To suggest an alternative is one thing but to claim that that alternative is actually the truth with not even one single shred of even indirect evidence is not only silly but evidence of bias. IMO, of course

 

[Verano]

the teacher deserved it. Prayer doesn't work and doesn't belong in educational institutions. Leave all that bible stuff at church. That's why we have separation of church and state for a reason.

 

[Cyan]

Personally I don't understand why people would jump to conclusions based on assumptions, especially ones that are not supported by anything. To suggest an alternative is one thing but to claim that that alternative is actually the truth with not even one single shred of even indirect evidence is not only silly but evidence of bias. IMO, of course

I shared my testimony

a.k.a. proselytizing.

It's not that difficult to figure out.

 

[Evolved1]

Teacher was in the wrong. End of story.

The punishment could have been limited to a reprimand, but I'm not crying any tears for her because she was suspended.

Another case where a religionist stepped over the line and, instead of admitting their own wrongdoing, they play the victim while using intolerant nonbelievers as a scapegoat.

 

[MisterHero]

I wonder how many people will lose their jobs for saying Happy Christmas

 

[Evolved1]

edit: actually nevermind... don't want to derail.

 

[besada]

I wonder how many people will lose their jobs for saying Happy Christmas

Millions, I'm sure. The pogrom against Christians continues, and no one is willing to defend them from the oppression of the heathen forces.

 

[Joel Was Right]

a.k.a. proselytizing.

It's not that difficult to figure out.

Bull. Even if we took that word literally in this context it would mean she proclaimed her beliefs. Anyone can use that term to describe any comment they've said that they've believed in - not just religious. And a declaration of faith comes no way near to indoctrinating or behaviour suggestive of intent to enforce her beliefs.

Many people misunderstand cases like this. If you have one woman who truly believes in Jesus Christ being her saviour, then she will ultimately view everything in the world as an object related to Christ himself - particularly people. From comments like "God bless you" to "God, I hope not", these are unconscious expressions of faith. If they come across a child who perhaps doesn't understand the concept of God, or an atheist, most of these people will not extend their comment or expression beyond just that. There is this fear amongst some that you'll get a preaching Joe dismissing every alternative wisdom that contradicts his faith. To many, this along with "blind faith" is both dangerous and detrimental, especially to children.

Unless she tried to enforce her views, she did nothing wrong. But its quite clear from some of the tone in language here that for people the issue isn't just indoctrination but any public religious discussion or references in school. The only thing this woman is guilty of is ignorance of the hostility of some people towards religion, because if you've been here on GAF, it is more than evident that such a hostility does exist. So whilst people may choose to assume that we are not getting the full story here because the content doesn't make sense, to me sadly it is more than plausible. Maybe that's why I question these assumptions.

 

[BronzeWolf]

I also don't think the family was responsible for the punishment the teacher received.

It seems the family complained and it was the administration decision to suspend her.

Also there was already a precedent with the teacher's friend suspension. The writing was on the wall, yet she kept pushing her beliefs where they were not welcomed

 

[phisheep]

More reports here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...cked-for-offering-to-pray-for-sick-pupil.html

and here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lost-job-told-praying-sick-girl-bullying.html

I find the different slants given to the incidents interesting

“I told the girl and her mother that there were people praying for them, and I asked the child if I could pray for her.

“She looked at her mother, who said: `We come from a family who do not believe` so I did not pray.”

Mrs Jones thought she left the family’s home on good terms but hours later was summoned to a meeting with her superiors.

that sounds pretty inocuous, but then

She was told the mother had complained that both she and her daughter were distressed by her testimony about miracles and her offer of saying a prayer. As a result they no longer wanted her as a tutor in their home.

funny - that wasn't mentioned before.

The other report gives more details:

On the fourth visit the girl stayed in her bedroom because she did not feel well enough for lessons, so Mrs Jones chatted to her mother and raised the subject of her faith, saying she believed God had saved her life.

The teacher said when she was a teenager she had been driving a tractor on the family farm near Carmarthen in Wales when it slid down a slope but came to a halt just before tipping over.

‘I shut my eyes and thought I was going to die,’ said Mrs Jones. ‘Then there was a sound of a rushing wind, like that described in the Bible, and then total stillness.

‘I was convinced it was a miracle. I shared my testimony to encourage the mother to believe that there is a God who answers prayer. I believe I have a personal relationship with God, who is a constant source of strength.’

Unbeknown to Mrs Jones, the mother complained about her comments to health authorities in the mistaken belief that they were her employers. It appears, however, that these criticisms were not passed on to Mrs Jones.

and then it happened again ...

Mrs Jones’s fifth lesson with the child passed without incident, but when she returned for her sixth session towards the end of last month, things went awry.

She said that although the girl came downstairs in her dressing gown, she could not face a lesson, so the three of them chatted over cups of tea about books they were reading. Mrs Jones once again referred to the incident involving the tractor and spoke about her belief in Heaven.

‘I told them there were people praying for them, and I asked the child if I could pray for her,’ said Mrs Jones.

‘She looked at her mother, who said, “We come from a family who do not believe”, so I did not pray.

Seems to me that reports that say she was merely offering to pray were being disingenuous.

Seems also that the second complaint was justified - having already complained once and then there she was doing it again. It is a bit of an administrative cock-up that the first complaint went to the wrong place.

Perhaps the mother could have told the teacher first time round that this wasn't welcome - but really, that could be just the usual politeness to people in your own house. And perhaps she did, but it hasn't been reported.

Also it seems on the whole that the child is seriously ill rather than disruptive as I suggested earlier.

EDIT: There may be more details when our local paper comes out later in the week, they tend to be fairly even-handed about these things as both sides end up reading it.

 

[xelios]

Seems to me that reports that say she was merely offering to pray were being disingenuous.

Yep. Thanks for the additional info. Pretty much clears up what her intentions were.

 

[MisterHero]

Please post an example of anyone who ever has...

I guess what I'm trying to suggest is that it's getting easier and easier to 'insult' someone, even if the offender says things of harmless postive consequence.

Of course I (unlike others here) don't know the facts of the story so maybe she did cross the line.

Millions, I'm sure. The pogrom against Christians continues, and no one is willing to defend them from the oppression of the heathen forces.

Why does it have to be so confrontational?

 

[Joel Was Right]

More reports here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...cked-for-offering-to-pray-for-sick-pupil.html

and here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lost-job-told-praying-sick-girl-bullying.html

I find the different slants given to the incidents interesting



that sounds pretty inocuous, but then



funny - that wasn't mentioned before.

The other report gives more details:



and then it happened again ...



Seems to me that reports that say she was merely offering to pray were being disingenuous.

Seems also that the second complaint was justified - having already complained once and then there she was doing it again. It is a bit of an administrative cock-up that the first complaint went to the wrong place.

Perhaps the mother could have told the teacher first time round that this wasn't welcome - but really, that could be just the usual politeness to people in your own house. And perhaps she did, but it hasn't been reported.

Also it seems on the whole that the child is seriously ill rather than disruptive as I suggested earlier.

EDIT: There be more details when our local paper comes out later in the week, they tend to be fairly even-handed about these things as both sides end up reading it.

What do you mean by it "happened again"? From reading book links, both articles refer to the one same incident.

 

[rpmurphy]

If we were to assume that this was a one-time thing for the family, why couldn't they just be courteous and say no we don't believe in that and then let it be without having to alert her employer? If they had the same experience on multiple occasions from the service, then yeah, that would be something to leave a complaint about as they switch to a different one. I thought people still believed in tolerance, or was that just a passing fad?

Edit: Just read the additional details above. Family is in the wrong for a lack of courtesy for the teacher in faiing to tell her the first time that they were not believers, but instead filing a complaint behind her back. It's not like the daughter was ever present for the testimony either, it was just the mother who was the recipient. And the second time it was brought up again to the mother, she dropped the subject and didn't pray after finally telling her they didn't believe. Unless there's more details of the whole thing, this is all very stupid.

 

[xelios]

What do you mean by it "happened again"? From reading book links, both articles refer to the one same incident.

On the fourth visit the girl stayed in her bedroom because she did not feel well enough for lessons, so Mrs Jones chatted to her mother and raised the subject of her faith, saying she believed God had saved her life.

The teacher said when she was a teenager she had been driving a tractor on the family farm near Carmarthen in Wales when it slid down a slope but came to a halt just before tipping over.

‘I shut my eyes and thought I was going to die,’ said Mrs Jones. ‘Then there was a sound of a rushing wind, like that described in the Bible, and then total stillness.

‘I was convinced it was a miracle. I shared my testimony to encourage the mother to believe that there is a God who answers prayer. I believe I have a personal relationship with God, who is a constant source of strength.’

...
but when she returned for her sixth session towards the end of last month, things went awry.

She said that although the girl came downstairs in her dressing gown, she could not face a lesson, so the three of them chatted over cups of tea about books they were reading. Mrs Jones once again referred to the incident involving the tractor and spoke about her belief in Heaven.

The mother complained after the fourth lesson but I'm guessing the complaint didn't get to the teacher before the sixth lesson. Regardless...

"I shared my testimony to encourage the mother to believe that there is a God who answers prayer. "


Clears up her intentions. She was, by her own admission, trying to convert them to believing.

 

[QuadCore]

Good.

It's this kind of indoctrination, no matter how subtle that needs to be stopped. It has no place in the classroom.

Amen.

 

[besada]

Why does it have to be so confrontational?

Was that not the right answer? Was it four? That was my first guess.

 

[MisterHero]

Was that not the right answer? Was it four? That was my first guess.

Your subtle delivery of sarcasm eludes me.

 

[Joel Was Right]

The mother complained after the fourth lesson but I'm guessing the complaint didn't get to the teacher before the sixth lesson. Regardless...

"I shared my testimony to encourage the mother to believe that there is a God who answers prayer. "


Clears up her intentions. She was, by her own admission, trying to convert them to believing.

With this we begin to realise this woman wanted to introduce the concept of prayer and a God to the mother. The article however does note that in contrast to the sixth visit where she became aware of the complaints, she did not know of the original complaint made after the fourth visit in which she first started making religious references. After the mother told her she wasn't interested, she seemingly stopped making such comments. She was just plain ignorant. Even though my original sentiments were wrong, she does not deserve to be identified as someone who was trying indoctrinate people least of all someone who deserved the sack. Hopefully most can differentiate between that and her actions.

 

[BronzeWolf]

With this we begin to realise this woman wanted to introduce the concept of prayer and a God to the mother. The article however does note that in contrast to the sixth visit where she became aware of the complaints, she did not know of the original complaint made after the fourth visit in which she first started making religious references. After the mother told her she wasn't interested, she seemingly stopped making such comments. She was just plain ignorant. Even though my original sentiments were wrong, she does not deserve to be identified as someone who was trying indoctrinate people. Hopefully most can differentiate between that and her actions.

The problem is that there shouldn't be even a "first time" she talked about it.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Clears up her intentions. She was, by her own admission, trying to convert them to believing.

Yes, I guess you could say that. Still isn't a big deal as far as I'm concerned, unless she repeatedly bothered them with it. I guess this happened twice, although it's unclear if the teacher was told that they didn't appreciate it after the first talk.

 

[liquid_gears]

Teacher was in the wrong. End of story.

The punishment could have been limited to a reprimand, but I'm not crying any tears for her because she was suspended.

Another case where a religionist stepped over the line and, instead of admitting their own wrongdoing, they play the victim while using intolerant nonbelievers as a scapegoat.

From my understanding, a suspension is normal procedure while the matter is investigated.

- The parents complain to school
- The school looks into complaint
- The school suspends teacher (probably with full pay)
- The complaint is investigated
- Punishment (if any) is given

Besides, the parents are understandably annoyed and had every right to complain, it was the schools decision to suspend her.

So what you're basically saying is that, despite what we know, you think there was more to it than this and that she did actually try to indoctrinate the child? This is all based on the assumption that the story lacks crucial details? So you choose to subscribe to the assumption (one incidentally more damning to her and makes ridicule of her common sense not to try and behave in such a way particularly in her profession) and dismiss the information we are given - information which you refer to as the "bias one side of the story"?

Yes. I make good, logical assumptions based on what the article does and does not say, then I draw my own conclusions. I don't really see how this is a bad thing. Judging by the good post from phisheep above, I would say that I was quite accurate with my conclusions.

Clearly I don't know you and if we are to hold assumptions with value here then let me make my own assumption. From what I can understand from above (hopefully I didn't misunderstand you, and if so I apologise fully), you have a certain dislike of theists and their beliefs being shared in public. If that is true then perhaps you are also bias and if so your assumptions are invalid. Now, I base that assumption not on vapour as you arguably have with your conclusions about the tutor and the article, but instead on your own comments and your display of logic here.

I would admit to certain dislike of theists who display and promote their beliefs in public (e.g. there is a stall that I walk past every day on my way to work. It's full of catholics shouting at and bombarding passerby's with the 'name of christ' 'the Lord's name' etc). Of course I dislike them.

But there is a huge difference between such behaviour in public and in the classroom. In the educational system, there is absolutely no place whatsoever for the type of behaviour in the OP.

Personally I don't understand why people would jump to conclusions based on assumptions, especially ones that are not supported by anything. To suggest an alternative is one thing but to claim that that alternative is actually the truth with not even one single shred of even indirect evidence is not only silly but evidence of bias. IMO, of course

This is basically what science is. You make some good assumptions based on a limited set of parameters and then you draw a preliminary hypothesis. You then set about proving your hypothesis and amend it accordingly. This doesn't indicate any bias or silliness.

From the articles that phisheep has posted, the people who assumed that there was more to this article and than the OP first gave are probably right (although there were hints of the craziness of the teacher in the first article). The other articles have just reaffirmed my initial thoughts.

 

[Joel Was Right]

The problem is that there shouldn't be even a "first time" she talked about it.

So no one can offer an ill child a prayer, and explain why they themselves believe in prayer? I think the context behind the first comments was the poorly child. For example let's say you are a devout parent and your child is feeling ill and you decide to pray for them not thinking it was anything of a medical emergency. Then her tutor sits down with you and talks about some drugs that can help her or a subject relating to her condition. Would you feel offended by someone suggesting an alternative view to the child's condition?

...

I disagreed with your logic and the new articles don't change that. Either way that discussion is long past now

 

[KHarvey16]

Exactly! Imagine a situation like this: her teacher, a person in a place of authority, someone who is trusted to teach the child and pass along truths, suggests if she prayed she could get better. Then we're talking about miracles and how prayer has helped other people, and what happens? What does this do to the child? This person has told her she can get help if her parents and her believed just as she does.

Did it happen like this? Maybe, maybe not. Without any word from the parent(s) we don't know.

I'll just quote this.

 

[Count Dookkake]

So no one can offer an ill child a prayer, and explain why they themselves believe in prayer? I think the context behind the first comments was the poorly child. For example let's say you are a devout parent and your child is feeling ill and you decide to pray for them not thinking it was anything of a medical emergency. Then her tutor sits down with you and talks about some drugs that can help her or a subject relating to her condition. Would you feel offended by someone suggesting an alternative view to the child's condition?

Why do something that may possibly further harm the ill child?

Take a look at the Templeton prayer study.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Why do something that may possibly further harm the ill child?

Take a look at the Templeton prayer study.

Well if the child has e.g. a headache, then you obviously won't feel like making a prayer will further harm them. That's not to say however if you felt it was more serious that you wouldn't then ignore calling an ambulance

Of course I can understand what you're saying, there is a fine line between this. But hopefully that doesn't undermine my original point that offering a prayer or talking about the held belief in the power of prayer should not be construed in the negative. This woman's intentions were merely for the sake of the child. We may disagree on her methodology, but that's as far as the disagreements should go IMO

 

[itsinmyveins]

I'll just quote this.

Wasn't she only talking to the mother the first time, by the way, who then complained about it?

 

[Evolved1]

With this we begin to realise this woman wanted to introduce the concept of prayer and a God to the mother. The article however does note that in contrast to the sixth visit where she became aware of the complaints, she did not know of the original complaint made after the fourth visit in which she first started making religious references. After the mother told her she wasn't interested, she seemingly stopped making such comments. She was just plain ignorant. Even though my original sentiments were wrong, she does not deserve to be identified as someone who was trying indoctrinate people least of all someone who deserved the sack. Hopefully most can differentiate between that and her actions.

Moot point. It was wrong the first time. Even if the family was receptive, it still would've been inappropriate to pray for a child while she was there serving in the capacity of teacher.

That's not what she's being paid for, and a teacher should be extra careful to avoid these generally contentious issues like religion... she certainly shouldn't raise them herself.

It's ignorant. She should have known better. You're defending someone who doesn't respect her position as a paid educator enough to abide by the rules.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Can you rephrase that?

Why do something to add to the child's problems?

Look up the Templeton prayer study.

 

[phisheep]

With this we begin to realise this woman wanted to introduce the concept of prayer and a God to the mother. The article however does note that in contrast to the sixth visit where she became aware of the complaints, she did not know of the original complaint made after the fourth visit in which she first started making religious references. After the mother told her she wasn't interested, she seemingly stopped making such comments. She was just plain ignorant. Even though my original sentiments were wrong, she does not deserve to be identified as someone who was trying indoctrinate people least of all someone who deserved the sack. Hopefully most can differentiate between that and her actions.

I suspect that if this had been the only incident she would not have been sacked (or suspended, depending on which report you read).

But there is more in the Daily Mail report:

Mrs Jones said that during the meeting Ms Robinson told her that talking about faith issues in the house of a pupil could be regarded as bullying.

Ms Robinson also asked Mrs Jones why she had ignored her advice not to pray or speak about her faith at work, a reference to an occasion three years ago when the teacher had prayed for a girl with period pains.

The girl appears to have complained and Ms Robinson had told Mrs Jones to be more professional, but Mrs Jones said there had been no written warning.

On that basis, the sacking/suspension/whatever seems more justified.

Incidentally, I hear locally that Mrs Jones is an outstanding maths teacher. It would be a shame to lose her, but I wish she had just stuck to the maths.

 

[BronzeWolf]

So no one can offer an ill child a prayer, and explain why they themselves believe in prayer? I think the context behind the first comments was the poorly child. For example let's say you are a devout parent and your child is feeling ill and you decide to pray for them not thinking it was anything of a medical emergency. Then her tutor sits down with you and talks about some drugs that can help her or a subject relating to her condition. Would you feel offended by someone suggesting an alternative view to the child's condition?



I disagreed with your logic and the new articles don't change that. Either way that discussion is long past now

You've got to understand that the position of a teacher is much different than any other stranger. As a teacher, one must be extremely cautious of the statements one makes. About the situation you speak of, I wouldn't feel offended but I would question the expertise of a tutor in relation with medical treatments and would rather let the administration know that a tutor is not qualified to give medical advice.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Why do something to add to the child's problems?

Look up the Templeton prayer study.

From what I found googling it, all that study seems to do is show that prayer doesn't help patients get better?

 

[Count Dookkake]

From what I found googling it, all that study seems to do is show that prayer doesn't help patients get better?

No, there is a comical bonus.

It actually made patients worse when they wre aware of the prayer!

:lol

 

[Wickerbasket]

So no one can offer an ill child a prayer, and explain why they themselves believe in prayer? I think the context behind the first comments was the poorly child. For example let's say you are a devout parent and your child is feeling ill and you decide to pray for them not thinking it was anything of a medical emergency. Then her tutor sits down with you and talks about some drugs that can help her or a subject relating to her condition. Would you feel offended by someone suggesting an alternative view to the child's condition?

Well no, because in that situation the advise being given is the proper course of action to be taken and the person offering the alternative hasn't mentioned religion at all. If they came in offering a voodoo alternative and suggested I sacrifice my cat then I might be somewhat less receptive.

 

[Evolved1]

What if instead of religion she wanted to talk about some alternative "herbal" cures, and how they worked for her?

 

[Joel Was Right]

Moot point. It was wrong the first time. Even if the family was receptive, it still would've been inappropriate to pray for a child while she was there serving in the capacity of teacher.

That's not what she's being paid for, and a teacher should be extra careful to avoid these generally contentious issues like religion... she certainly shouldn't raise them herself.

It's ignorant. She should have known better. You're defending someone who doesn't respect her position as a paid educator enough to abide by the rules.

Inappropriate? Forming an intimate relationship between tutor and pupil is inappropriate. Taking that child out of the house for whatever reason without informing the parent or gaining their consent is inappropriate. A male tutor playing with a female pupil is inappropriate. Offering a prayer for an ill child is not inappropriate and personally I'm kinda distressed at you thinking it is.

I suspect that if this had been the only incident she would not have been sacked (or suspended, depending on which report you read).

But there is more in the Daily Mail report:



On that basis, the sacking/suspension/whatever seems more justified.

Incidentally, I hear locally that Mrs Jones is an outstanding maths teacher. It would be a shame to lose her, but I wish she had just stuck to the maths.

Fucks sake, if one of the reasons why we as a society choose to disassociate ourselves with religion is because we deem intolerant and unethical then how the heck did we get to the point that interpreting prayers for ill children as something worth firing a teacher of all people for. She didn't damn anyone to hell or speak of the "fires of hell" or the lures of Satan or anything that could be interpreted in such a manner, but praying for ill children now equates to this reaction?

Well no, because in that situation the advise being given is the proper course of action to be taken and the person offering the alternative hasn't mentioned religion at all. If they came in offering a voodoo alternative and suggested I sacrifice my cat then I might be somewhat less receptive.

Yes, because sacrificing your cat is tantamount to praying for the wellness of a child. What harm would prayer have done in this instance?

 

[BronzeWolf]

What if instead of religion she wanted to talk about some alternative "herbal" cures, and how they worked for her?

She is not there to give medical advice. She is there to teach maths

snippet

Why is so hard for this person to JUST TEACH MATHS?

 

[liquid_gears]

From what I found googling it, all that study seems to do is show that prayer doesn't help patients get better?

It makes them worse. :lol

I've never heard of this study but I'm going to look into it. Awesome.

EDIT Beaten.

 

[itsinmyveins]

No, there is a comical bonus.

It actually made patients worse when they wre aware of the prayer!

:lol

So, what conclusion did they come to then? Prayer affects people in a negative way when they're about to undergo surgery because what? They worry more? Either way, I assume that most people who pray for others or for themselves or whatever do it because it takes the focus off whatever issue is at hand or it makes them feel more at ease.

 

[xelios]

Offering a prayer

Offering a prayer

With this we begin to realise this woman wanted to introduce the concept of prayer and a God to the mother.

This goes beyond "offering a prayer" first of all.

Her admitted goal was to, "Encourage the mother to believe there is a God who answers prayers." If she was only concerned for the well-being of the child and thought prayer would be helpful, she simply could have prayed for her in private without mention to anyone.

What role does trying to convert the mother to Christianity play in simply wanting to say a prayer for the child? There is no reason. It's because she was also fishing for men, and I'd wager she thought the situation the daughter was in put the mother at a vulnerable enough position to accept an alternative (Christ).

Because there is no way this math teacher is ignorant enough to believe this grown woman has not been "introduced to the concept" of God and prayer. She knows as well as I do most everyone has been introduced to the concepts, and have either chosen to believe in them or not. As a teacher it was unprofessional of her to try and change that.

 

[Joel Was Right]

She is not there to give medical advice. She is there to teach maths

Why is so hard for this person to JUST TEACH MATHS?

Because she was stupid enough to care for the child's well-being. And without violating the parents' responsibility or care by recommending how they take care of their child, she offered a prayer. What a remarkably irresponsible and foolish thing to do. She should never work again.

Seriously?

 

[Wickerbasket]

What if instead of religion she wanted to talk about some alternative "herbal" cures, and how they worked for her?

Well I'd kindly inform her that herbal cures that work ARE medicine. So there's no real need to use anything that isn't scientifically proven to work. I'm sure once that's explained she'd pardon her ignorance and be on her way.

Honestly though, as long as someone's not trying to push their unfounded beliefs onto me I couldn't give a damn what they believe as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[Evolved1]

She is not there to give medical advice. She is there to teach maths
Why is so hard for this person to JUST TEACH MATHS?

Yeah... that's my point. I was just trying to demonstrate that if you took the special treatment of religion out of the equation and substituted it with something similar, the situation doesn't look quite as innocuous.

Well I'd kindly inform her that herbal cures that work ARE medicine. So there's no real need to use anything that isn't scientifically proven to work. I'm sure once that's explained she'd pardon her ignorance and be on her way.

Probably my fault for a bad example... but I was implying "alternative herbal" as in "snake oil".