Posted on 12/02/2004 3:56:16 PM PST by reportgirl73
GRAND ISLAND, N.Y. (AP) - An elementary school bus driver was fired after sharing a statistic she had read about embryonic stem cell research with students, then encouraging them to tell their parents about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Off to visit Grandma for her 94th birthday. Best wishes to Mrs. Mayor.
My Grandma just hit 98
God Bless her, I will pass it on to the Mrs.
Thanks Kuds
your damn right I do- I just think tort reform should be in place to take care of frivolous suits-
I like the 'loser pays' rule
Mr. K
I was wrong. I looked and found that it was not your wife that was terminated.
In any event, I am sorry that the women got fired and I hope she gets a just resolution.
Jim
It is my wife..
We have no real desire to file a lawsuit.
If the school continues down this road, things may change.
I am one of the biggest advocates for tort reform.
We live in NY state and this state is run by trial lawyers
and a bunch of ambulance chasers.
They must admit they fired my wife, they are choosing the wrong path as far as I am concerned.
It's the cover up that will take them down.
It is extremely despicable.
Yes it is. To automatically assume something is rather judgemental.
It is in Gods hands, may the results of all this Glorify Him!
We are just humble servants.
Not at all, I was demonstrating a fallacy in your logic. It seemed to me you were trying to support a specific judgment in this instance by stating a universal standard. I demonstrated that making such a standard universal was absurd.
The bus driver in question "just happened to" stumble into a position that fully half of the people in the United States disagrees with
Hardly. Most of the people don't care one way or the other. Those of us arguing the finer points of morality, law, and politics have to step back and realize this. Moreover, considering the age of the children, most of them probably didn't care either. To those few who might have taken an interest, it seems perfectly reasonable to supply them with facts that will help them form their own opinion.
It's not quite the same thing as a random, known crackpot disagreeing that grass is green. But you knew that.
Mentioning the crack pot was part of exposing your fallacy. I would describe the people objecting as being merely unreasonable (they might be full blown crack pots too, but there are things even AndyTheBear can't deduce). Not because they (presumably) believe using fetal stem cells is morally objectionable. That indeed is a complex moral issue. But because they (presumably) desire to suppress information--not information that challenges this moral belief mind you--but simple straight forward information which makes the moral question irrelevant. Among reasonable people one should expect this to end the divisiveness.
Really? I confess I haven't taken the time to read all the posts. Who is saying this?
Well said.
We did? I thought it was a national election to determine our president for the next four years.
"When 50% of the people in the United States disagree with a certain position, maybe you ought to refrain from discussing it with their children."
Did you read this before you posted it? Talk about respecting our freedom of speech!
Right on, except that they really have provided hope. The worst kind: false hope. Not any hope that would earn them private investment though (lets get the tax payer to fund it, including those idiot Christians...yeah thats the ticket--it'll just burn them up--the ignoramouses--and don't confuse us or our children with the facts--no crack pots here, no way).
Second, close to 68% of the American public voices opposition to use of embryos in any research. You are pulling a Dan Rather here.
I like Editor-surveyor's figures better the Diana. But I don't know who's right. Shall I venture a guess that it is the former because 68% is more specific then about 50%, suggesting some kind of quantification?
Third, when you send your children to government schools, you have relinquished all control over what they hear and what they are taught.
Which is why there needs to be reasonable limits set by society, the school board, and parents. All three of these entities being fallable (though the parents obviously being the primary advocate of their specific children, do have to accept that other parents have different interests)
In the larger, more pure sense, your right. As soon as the government took over the schools, they inherited a punnishing bus load of moral dilemas. They now are in the buisness of helping us raise our kids to be moral upstanding citizens--neccesitating oficial positions on what subjects they should and should not cover, and what to say about those subjects. This seems counter to the princibles put forth in the Bill of Rights.
No responsible parent sends their children to government schools at this point in time.
Ouch! That hurts.
My wife and I are sending our eight year old boy to the government schools. Our twin boy and girl (16 months old) are being taught at home, but we will proably send them in there in a few years time (unless it gets even worse).
Considering that you are a fellow Kalifornian, I find that troubling. We are tied with messachewsits for anti-family policies.
I live out in the bedroom community of Tracy (Central Valley) and commute into the Bay area for work. The local school district seems much more family friendly then the Bay Area counterparts (which is one of the reasons we moved--another being to afford a decent house rather then a dinky apartment).
Not far from you, in Byron, they have been teaching kids Islam in school.
What grade? And what are they actualy teaching them?
There is now. Its there, right next to the "Freedom for the press to protect their sources from Judicial Discovery" Clause, and the "Reproductive Rights" Clause, and the "All signs of Christianity must be banished from the public square" Clause, and the "People sometimes means State militias (and certainly not Bus Drivers)" Clause, and the brand new "Science facts that upset Liberal dogma have no place on public school buses" clause, that you and Diana have discovered.
Thank goodness there are brave souls like yourself standing up to right wing judicial activism.
Isn't that what happened here? Parents decided that the subject matter was inappropriate for their small children and objected?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.