Excuses for fakes

[DavidGYoung]

Suppose this time it is not a church, but a taxpayer-funded primary or secondary school. There are two teachers who, from time to time, make comments on religious belief that are outside their remit as school teachers.

Teacher A occasionally remarks that belief in God, intercessory prayer and life after death are delusional and that anyone in the class who believes in any of them is foolish.

Teacher B occasionally remarks that there is a God who has a message for the children in the class and that he or she has been entrusted with this message.

The school's lawyers have pointed out that the budget only runs to fighting one lawsuit if, after firing these two teachers, either one of them sues. As a result, they suggest that you only try to kick one of them off the staff. Which one would you be more enthusiastic to fire and why?

[Athanasius]

Why were they fired?

[DavidGYoung]

You clearly have not bothered to read the post that you have replied to.

[Athanasius]

You clearly have not bothered to read the post that you have replied to.

Should I accuse you of clearly dodging yet another question about yet another hypothetical? Of course I've read your little scenario.

"Why were they fired?" is the question that informs the lawsuit. So again, I ask, if we're to choose between the two to fire one, why were they fired?

Maybe we should fire the legal team.

[RabbiKnife]

You clearly have not bothered to read the post that you have replied to.

Should I accuse you of clearly dodging yet another question about yet another hypothetical? Of course I've read your little scenario.

"Why were they fired?" is the question that informs the lawsuit. So again, I ask, if we're to choose between the two to fire one, why were they fired?

Maybe we should fire the legal team.

Killing the lawyers is usually a good first step

[ProDeo]

Kalman versus Cortes, recent case in 2010.

Edit - topic blasphemy.

[tango]

Suppose this time it is not a church, but a taxpayer-funded primary or secondary school. There are two teachers who, from time to time, make comments on religious belief that are outside their remit as school teachers.

Teacher A occasionally remarks that belief in God, intercessory prayer and life after death are delusional and that anyone in the class who believes in any of them is foolish.

Teacher B occasionally remarks that there is a God who has a message for the children in the class and that he or she has been entrusted with this message.

The school's lawyers have pointed out that the budget only runs to fighting one lawsuit if, after firing these two teachers, either one of them sues. As a result, they suggest that you only try to kick one of them off the staff. Which one would you be more enthusiastic to fire and why?

Both are bringing their personal faith into the classroom. I'm not sure that either one of them reaches the level of needing to be fired for it although I'd disagree with both of them. So on that basis perhaps the answer is to fire neither of them and save the expense of even one lawsuit.

[ProDeo]

@Athanasius

Sleep paralysis is a state, during waking up or falling asleep, in which one is conscious but in a complete state of full-body paralysis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis

The last ~10 years I have periods of Sleep Paralysis, the mind becomes awake but has not yet control over the body. During that time you feel completely paralyzed as if your body is wrapped in duck tape. And the mind randomly starts to make up crazy things, from unable to put on my clothes, or being in a pool of water and unable to swim and thus drowning, or some some guy who wants to shoot me, etc.

That kind of fun.

I've had that, too, along with night terrors. It wasn't that.

Had my daily afternoon nap. 3 of the 4 usual suspects that sometimes hunt me during dreaming came along, one of them, being shot for no good reason. Killers came and started to shoot people, I already had 2 bullets in my body but still alive. One of the killers came to finish the job and put his gun on my ear. And I said, wait, wait a moment and I put my hand on my ear and said to him - now it will hurt less....

Ha ha......

[DavidGYoung]

Athanasius, it is crystal-clear in my hypothetical scenario that the teachers were not fired. That is why 'Why were they fired?' shows you haven't read the post. 'Why would they be fired?' is, of course, another question altogether and would be relevant to the post.

[Athanasius]

Athanasius, it is crystal-clear in my hypothetical scenario that the teachers were not fired. That is why 'Why were they fired?' shows you haven't read the post. 'Why would they be fired?' is, of course, another question altogether and would be relevant to the post.

As I already explained, the question of which you're going to fire is predicated on a consideration of the eventuality of answering "why were they fired"? Assuming, of course, that the legal team is competent. I could ask again, but really, when you don't engage with your own ill-thought-through hypothetical what's the point?

[Slug1]

Athanasius, it is crystal-clear in my hypothetical scenario that the teachers were not fired. That is why 'Why were they fired?' shows you haven't read the post. 'Why would they be fired?' is, of course, another question altogether and would be relevant to the post.

As I already explained, the question of which you're going to fire is predicated on a consideration of the eventuality of answering "why were they fired"? Assuming, of course, that the legal team is competent. I could ask again, but really, when you don't engage with your own ill-thought-through hypothetical what's the point?

Yep. It can be frustrating to directly respond, only to be ignored and then read another random post.