Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does this law apply to all teachers, or just public school ones?

I had to get fingerprinted about a year and a half before I took the bar exam. Now that I'm in the system, I see no reason not to have more people in there as well.

generalgrog wrote:

gil gerard wrote:I would be more concerned that she is an educator with what I would consider a fundamentalist religious leaning, which should be out-moded in the 21st century. In other words, I don't want someone teaching my kid from a carriculum that includes the book of revelations.

So lets fire all the educators that have "fundamentalist religious leanings". Wwe could prolly eliminate 25% of all teachers in public schools that way.

GG

I would go for that. Fundamentalism has no place in education. The fact that she believes that such a thing as "a mark of the beast" could be interpreted literally indicates a predisposition toward zealotry, it's a good indication she also believes in other supernatural fictions like the possible exhistance of an anti-christ, (or a christ for that matter), a virgin birth, miraculouse healings, walking on water, exocism, etc.. I am for teaching science,math,history and anything else that will enlighten children and help prepare them for a productive,successful future. Teaching religion only encourages students to disregard the scientific process in favor of "faith". Faith is overrated, imho, we would be far better off to aproach problems from a scientific standpoint than to simply try and "pray them away". I don't think schools should be anything other than secular. Lets not forget that she isn't takeing a stand on constitutional grounds, she is doing so on religiouse grounds.

But i cant help but wonder. What if she is right?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

gil gerard wrote:Whether or not she submits, the government (and anyone else that looks hard enough) can find (probably has found) waaaay more info about her than a simple finger print would provide. Consider the provisions in the patriot and homeland security acts, they allowed for virtualy limitless access to surveilance of all your communications; phone,cell,email, etc... It is now widely known, that even though this was only going to be done to "suspected terrorists", our government was useing technology to "driftnet" information. They were (probably still are) essentialy monitoring all communications and filtering them through computers that would search for certain flagged words used in certain configureations, that would indicate whether or not you needed to be more closely observerd. This is Orwellian in it's scope; harkening back to Huxley's "brave new world", yet we let it go on under the pretense that, since we don't have anything to hide, it is somehow protecting us from "terrorists" to take away our right to privacy. The afore mentioned bills also included provisions so that "suspected terrorists" could be arrested without charge, held in secret, had their property confiscated, and be held without trial indefinitely. These flagged words are probably things like "jihad" or "AlQueaida" or "hijacking"; but could also be extended to unpopular political speach,socialist leanings, etc.. I am not a religious person at all, but if I were, this would have far more weight than fingerprinting.

I don't think there's some sort of conspiracy going on at the present; a lot the infrastructure for that kind of control is coming to place though, and that's not a good thing.

Also, anyone convicted of a crime in a federal court is not only fingerprinted, but must submit to haveing a blood sample taken and put into a national DNA registry. Some states also require this and some say that all children born in hospitals are put into the national registry as well, though that isn't confirmed. The bottom line here is that things done in the name of security are often cleverly disguised erosions on your right to privacy, but then the "right to privacy" is almost an outdated concept in the information age. Should she be forced to give up finger prints to have this job? Maybe it is to ensure the security of innocent children, maybe it is an invasion of the teachers privacy, dosn't realy matter when none of us has any real privacy anyway.

That's kind of a non-sequitur. There might be a lot of information available about her, but fingerprints are presumably not among them. There's no sense in saying "things are bad, so there's no point in trying to prevent things from getting worse".

I would be more concerned that she is an educator with what I would consider a fundamentalist religious leaning, which should be out-moded in the 21st century. In other words, I don't want someone teaching my kid from a carriculum that includes the book of revelations.

They should also stop Muslims from becoming bus drivers, because instead of going to their destination they'll always head towards Mecca.

I'm not saying we should just let our right to privacy go, since it has been so badly eroded already, nor am I talking about a conspiracy. We live in the information age and, like it or not, we are all being spied upon in some way almost constantly. Identity theft, spyware, gps phone tracking and even satellite surveilance are realities, and they affect all of us. It isn't a conspiracy because it isn't a secret, and it isn't just the government that spys on us, private enterprise driftnets as do hackers that are seeking personal info for financial gain. I don't know why fingerprinting would be the place to draw a line, if social security numbers or credit checks are not. Lets also not forget that she isn't takeing a stand on constitutional grounds, she is argueing that fingerprinting violates her religious belief. Wonder if teaching evolution does as well?

I'm reasonably sure that muslims make perfectly adequite bus drivers. Some are probably great teachers as well. They should be allowed to teach, in muslim schools. The fact that she believes in the concept of a "mark of the beast" indicates which way her religiouse leanings are, so she should probably teach at a christian school. Thats where I would send my kids if I wanted them to learn about such things. If I want them to get a secular education that excludes religious theology, I send them to a public school. It dosn't matter to me which fictional deity she believes in, I would just rather my child learn something more useful than ancient religious theory.

gil gerard wrote:I'm not saying we should just let our right to privacy go, since it has been so badly eroded already, nor am I talking about a conspiracy. We live in the information age and, like it or not, we are all being spied upon in some way almost constantly. Identity theft, spyware, gps phone tracking and even satellite surveilance are realities, and they affect all of us. It isn't a conspiracy because it isn't a secret, and it isn't just the government that spys on us, private enterprise driftnets as do hackers that are seeking personal info for financial gain. I don't know why fingerprinting would be the place to draw a line, if social security numbers or credit checks are not.

It's not "the place to draw the line", it's a place to draw a line. The sum of the knowledge others have of you is lessened each time you deny them information. Trying to keep your fingerprints secure makes sense in that regard, and I wouldn't give a copy of my fingerprints to any person off the street.

The conspiracy note was in regards to the fear that the government may wire-tap looking for dissident political ideas. I wasn't sure if you were saying this was a possibility in the future or a possibility now, so I tried to avoid tying my comment to either case.

Lets also not forget that she isn't takeing a stand on constitutional grounds, she is argueing that fingerprinting violates her religious belief. Wonder if teaching evolution does as well?

I'm reasonably sure that muslims make perfectly adequite bus drivers. Some are probably great teachers as well. They should be allowed to teach, in muslim schools. The fact that she believes in the concept of a "mark of the beast" indicates which way her religiouse leanings are, so she should probably teach at a christian school. Thats where I would send my kids if I wanted them to learn about such things. If I want them to get a secular education that excludes religious theology, I send them to a public school. It dosn't matter to me which fictional deity she believes in, I would just rather my child learn something more useful than ancient religious theory.

The Muslim won't drive his bus towards Mecca, because a Muslim does not saturate every thing they do in their day-to-day life with religion, nor does a Christian. Saying that only atheists should be allowed to work in public schools because every religious person will attempt to teach "ancient religious theory" instead of the school's curriculum is ridiculous. The article didn't say she was teaching her class about the book of Revelations. In fact, it said her school thought she was a significant asset to teaching kindergarten. Evolution probably never even entered the picture, given the age of the children, and if it did become a problem the school would handle it, as they would handle anyone who started rambling on about things unrelated to the school's curriculum.

To tell you the truth, I've never heard a religious person declare that atheists should be regulated to teaching in "atheist schools" (because otherwise they'll read The God Delusion out loud in class instead Goodnight Moon).

(Also, the concerns about privacy and the religious concerns are closely tied. During the writing of Revelations the Romans put many measures in place to try and suppress Christianity, and these measures came into place through violations of personal liberty. Being religious doesn't mean a person can't have concerns about increasing government power.)

gil gerard wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

gil gerard wrote:I would be more concerned that she is an educator with what I would consider a fundamentalist religious leaning, which should be out-moded in the 21st century. In other words, I don't want someone teaching my kid from a carriculum that includes the book of revelations.

So lets fire all the educators that have "fundamentalist religious leanings". Wwe could prolly eliminate 25% of all teachers in public schools that way.

GG

I would go for that. Fundamentalism has no place in education. The fact that she believes that such a thing as "a mark of the beast" could be interpreted literally indicates a predisposition toward zealotry, it's a good indication she also believes in other supernatural fictions like the possible exhistance of an anti-christ, (or a christ for that matter), a virgin birth, miraculouse healings, walking on water, exocism, etc.. I am for teaching science,math,history and anything else that will enlighten children and help prepare them for a productive,successful future. Teaching religion only encourages students to disregard the scientific process in favor of "faith". Faith is overrated, imho, we would be far better off to aproach problems from a scientific standpoint than to simply try and "pray them away". I don't think schools should be anything other than secular. Lets not forget that she isn't takeing a stand on constitutional grounds, she is doing so on religiouse grounds.

You just slammed a whole lot of people there with your comments. This thread is closed.

I think its time to close the OT.