This just in:
August 24, 2011
Dear Post Scripts,
On Monday, AFA asked you to take action on behalf of Florida teacher Jerry Buell, who was unconstitutionally suspended by the Lake County school administration for posting his support for traditional marriage on his Facebook page.
Directly related to your taking action, along with other Christians, sending tens of thousands of emails to the Lake County School Board, the school has immediately rescinded its suspension of Mr. Buell and he will be back in his classroom tomorrow morning!
According to a just-held press conference by Mr. Buell and his legal representation, Liberty Counsel Attorney Harry Mihet, outside the Lake County Board of Education Administration Building, the school board acknowledged it violated Mr. Buell’s First Amendment rights by suspending him.
Your willingness to become involved in speaking out on behalf of religious liberties expedited Mr. Buell’s case. There is no doubt this case will have an impact on hundreds of other public schools who challenge educator’s right to share their closely held religious views in society.
Your actions made the difference!
Tim Wildmon
AFA
And we were proud to do it too! Everyone who supported us on this issue should take some satisfaction that your voice helped. Those who opposed – hope you learned a lesson!
But what about all those gay space alien Chimera children attending the school Buell teaches at. Won’t they feel unwelcome?
Though I disagree with his positions, I am glad he gets to keep his job.
Thank you for saying that Chris, a very mature position to take.
After doing some more reading on Mr. Buell, I think I might have to revise my opinion.
“Mihet said the school district questioned statements on Buell’s webpage and syllabus that expressed his belief in God.
On his school webpage, Buell wrote that he tries to “teach and lead my students as if Lake Co. Schools had hired Jesus Christ himself.”
His syllabus also offered this warning to students: “I teach God’s truth, I make very few compromises. If you believe you may have a problem with that, get your schedule changed, ’cause I ain’t changing!” On a separate document, he also said the classroom was his “mission field.””
Mihet said the webpage was since removed and Buell has been instructed to remove some parts of his syllabus.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/os-jerry-buell-facebook-rally-20110825,0,307026.story
While I didn’t like his Facebook postings, and thought they might make some of his students feel unwelcome in the classroom, in the end there was no evidence that he would allow his personal beliefs to interfere with his teaching. This, however, proves that he DOES allow his religious beliefs to dictate what he teaches in class. It is totally inappropriate to claim to teach “God’s truth” on a syllabus for a public school classroom. The education system does not pay Mr. Buell to teach “God’s truth,” they pay him to teach the curriculum, and if Buell is going beyond that to teach his own personal religious beliefs as part of his “mission field,” then he is breaking the law.
This blog post pretty much sums up my feelings.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/08/27/jerry-buell-i-rebuke-thee/
Chris, I tried to follow your link and it took me to an atheist webpage. But, the article didn’t show up. Bad link? Chris, obviously there’s a whole of information that is being taken out of context somewhere. let’s reserve judgement until all the facts are out here.
All we really know is that Buell was an exemplary teacher and there was never an issue with his teaching style or material until this face book thing came up.
That’s strange, Jack; the link is working for me. I don’t see what’s “obviously” being taken out of context, either. The statements were taken directly from Buell’s syllabus and the school webpage, and were reported by the Orlando Sentinel, not the atheist website. Those statements simply don’t belong on a syllabus or a public school website, and it would require quite a very strange context to make that OK.
I did find it hard to believe at first, because one would think the school district would have taken issue with this long before now. Then again, if I understand it Florida is a great deal more conservative than California, and they may not have seen a problem with Buell’s “mission” until it caused controversy for them.
If Buell feels the need to spread the gospel at work, then he should teach at a private Christian school, or consider the clergy. There’s no place for it in the public school system. Hopefully this was a learning experience both for him and the school district.
Chris, I would like to read the whole thing, not just excerpts. However, lets not lose sight of what’s really important – it’s how the man teaches his subject material. And so far the left has been unable to dig up any dirt there. In fact he seems like the model teacher. He has a fantastic track record – so why are certain people still persecuting the man? That’s a far better question than wondering about Buell’s religious convictions.
Chris, I am using http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/08/27/jerry-buell-i-rebuke-thee/ and I got it to work this time. I think you might be reading into things…Buell said, he is not there to give his students a sermon, but he merely ministers to them as you would expect a good Christian/teacher to do. Every teacher ministers, that what teaching is! Nobody had challenged his curriculum.
To minster means: To attend to the wants and needs of others; “I have to minister to my mother all the time” Did you read that Chris? He attend to the wants and needs of others; as in, “I have to minister to my students all the time.” The wants and needs of his students.. that’s a teacher!!!.
He explains this and says, “That doesnt mean I give a sermon and serve communion each daywhat it means is I try my very best to teach and serve and minister to my students as a teacher led by and connected to the Creator. Chris….What’s wrong with that? He doesn’t say he is teaching Sunday school five days a week, he is merely trying to do his job as a decent Christian – I can’t believe we’re having this discussion over a good teacher’s high moral values, as if they were evil!!!!
Jack, I can’t help but wonder if we’d be having the same discussion if Mr. Buell were of another religion besides Christianity. Imagine if he were a Muslim who had written “I teach Allah’s truth” in his class syllabus. Or if his school website bio said, “I try to teach and lead my students as if Lake Co. schools had hired the prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him.” Christian conservatives would be the first to say that such language has no place on official school documents, and they’d be right. But no school district in America would ever allow this to be printed in the first place, and I doubt the teacher would even keep his job after attempting such a stunt.
I have no issue with Buell’s personal moral values, and I certainly don’t believe they are evil. I also have no interest in “digging up dirt” or “persecuting” the man. But the main reason I did not believe he should be fired for the Facebook incident is because there was no evidence that he would allow his religious views to intrude into the classroom. But according to his own syllabus, he already has. And he’s proud enough to brag about it. And it seems that the Lake Co. school district was more than willing to allow this conduct until it caused them controversy. Both Buell and the district were in clear violation of the separation of church and state.
Chris, set your mind at ease, I was thinking the very same thing and the answer from me is, no. I was thinking, suppose he was a Buddhist? But, okay, lets say Muslim, wouldn’t make a bit of difference to me. All I would care about, if he were teaching my kids, is his conduct in the classroom. As long as he was a good teacher, doing his job, I wouldn’t have a problem with his religion. This is a free speech right and I respect that. I was always taught to respect diversity. So as a kid I went to at least 8 kinds of churches for variety and to find what works for me. I still find religion a fascinating subject.
Chris: “The education system does not pay Mr. Buell to teach “God’s truth…” and
Jack: “Buell said, he is not there to give his students a sermon, but he merely ministers to them as you would expect a good Christian/teacher to do…”
What if what Buell meant was that he endeavors in his dealings with the students to be guided by his faith? It could mean things like not bearing false witness or treating others as you would have others treat you? What if all he meant is that he expects his students to treat each other and him with respect and not to lie or cheat?
Until 1947 this was not an issue. Now that it is it seems to me that we are losing a great opportunity for our students to learn about the various religions represented in their classrooms, including athiesm, simply because an extremely small minority says it is “offended”. Since when is knowledge about a subject or difference in belief something we censor and fear? Why are we restricting learning opportunities?
This entire issue is ridiculous. Micromanagement is killing education! We are allowing a few very rigid, small-minded individuals to control what happens in every classroom no matter the make-up of the class or the beliefs of the parents and teachers.
This is the very definition of tyranny.
And by the way…schools in America have made accomodation for religious beliefs. Prayer rooms for Muslims have been provided in some schools. Not long ago there was a story about Yoga being introduced into a schools.
Diversity! If diversity doesn’t include religious differences it’s a sham. If we can celebrate other differences why not religion. If we’re going to censor such things we might as well paint everyone green, issue unisex uniforms, shave all the heads, and impose a vow of silence!
I admire the consistency, Jack, but it’s not a free speech issue. The first amendment does not grant Mr. Buell the right to endorse his religious beliefs on official school documents, as he has in the past. The school district seems to have realized this now, since they have removed the offending passages from the school website, and in a few days we will know exactly what other changes the school has requested he make.
Chris, I don’t think that is the issue. Okay, we can agree the school has the legal right in general terms to remove such things they deem is offensive from public docs and property. They are in theory upholding the community standards, and if the community standard says that this mans words offend, then I can respect that.*
Is that what we’re talking about?
I thought it was about the teacher being suspended over things said outside the school’s authority?
*If one atheist protests a religious icon on public property then we must certainly consider the atheist’s comments, rationalize them and come up with a response in accordance with the standards of said community. If he is found to be totally out of line, then his rants are meaningless and perhaps worse, counter to the good of the community. Then the community has the right to say screw you – if you don’t like it, then get the $#%^ out! That’s just my personal feelings, not necessarily the legal interpretation.
Tina: “What if what Buell meant was that he endeavors in his dealings with the students to be guided by his faith? It could mean things like not bearing false witness or treating others as you would have others treat you? What if all he meant is that he expects his students to treat each other and him with respect and not to lie or cheat?”
Then he should have expressed that in a secular manner as appropriate for the classroom. But by saying “I teach God’s truth” on his syllabus, he is violating the law and infringing on the constitutional rights of his students by using his government job in order to proselytize to a captive audience.
“Now that it is it seems to me that we are losing a great opportunity for our students to learn about the various religions represented in their classrooms, including athiesm, simply because an extremely small minority says it is “offended”. Since when is knowledge about a subject or difference in belief something we censor and fear? Why are we restricting learning opportunities?”
Tina, I don’t understand how these complaints relate to the matter of Mr. Buell. The problem is not that he was teaching children about religion (we don’t know if he was), the problem is that he said on the syllabus that he would “teach God’s truth.” Public schools can and do teach religion, but they can not present any one religion as “God’s truth.” And the reason people are raising questions about the syllabus and Mr. Buell’s other comments regarding his classroom is not because they are “offended,” it’s because what he did was illegal and unconstitutional.
Also, since when do you believe that teaching about different religions is a “great opportunity?” I could have sworn in the last thread about Mr. Buell, you came out against discussing religion in the classroom.
“Diversity! If diversity doesn’t include religious differences it’s a sham. If we can celebrate other differences why not religion. If we’re going to censor such things we might as well paint everyone green, issue unisex uniforms, shave all the heads, and impose a vow of silence!”
This is a pretty extreme reaction, and once again has nothing to do with the issue at hand. No one is trying to prevent diversity of religions from being discussed in the classroom. But teaching one religion as “God’s truth” is not the same thing as teaching a diversity of religions; if anything, it is counterproductive to that goal.
Jack: “Chris, I don’t think that is the issue. Okay, we can agree the school has the legal right in general terms to remove such things they deem is offensive from public docs and property. They are in theory upholding the community standards, and if the community standard says that this mans words offend, then I can respect that.”
The issue is not whether people were offended, and it has nothing to do with “community standards.” It has to do with the constitution and the law, both of which prohibit teachers from distributing syllabuses that claim they will teach them “God’s truth.” This is for very good reason. Teachers are employees of the government, and as such they represent the government in the classroom. Do we really want the government to be the arbiter of what constitutes “God’s truth?” Wouldn’t that give the government ultimate power?
“Is that what we’re talking about?
I thought it was about the teacher being suspended over things said outside the school’s authority?”
That was the initial issue. But then it was revealed that Mr. Buell has done far worse than make offensive comments on his personal Facebook page; he has tried to turn the classroom into a “mission field” where he “teach(es) God’s truth.” I didn’t believe he should be fired for the former; I think the latter is a firing offense, though given his otherwise good reputation as a teacher I will be satisfied if he promises not to continue such inappropriate, illegal and unconstitutional behavior, and if the district promises to not allow such conduct in the future.
supernatural jargon is amazing.