Seventh grader’s Bible taken away while reading during free time at school

[1still_waters]

Note also the woman subtley shows you exactly how they're going to try play this off so that they can throw the victim (the child) under the bus. The key clue is her "age appropriate" comment. Which seems to imply they will attempt to call the Bible inappropriate for the boy's age. Which is rather hilarious as Middle School is when you read Huckleberry Finn which is famous for being chock full of racial epithets, or Edgar Allan Poe which is just macabre.

Yeah maybe. But on the other hand, to give her the benefit of the doubt. she's probably between a rock and a hard place.
Kids are weird lil creatures and can say one thing one day and another thing another day.
So she's probably doing the best with what she can do.

She can't verify it happened, can't verify it didn't.

There is a kid who told his dad, who told media, it goes viral, by time it's viral, the kid gets shy, and now the lady has to write a nice press release.

Bless her heart.

Probably deserves more understanding than she's been given.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

HA! My hyper-parsing detected a non-answer.
She just replied back...

My email to her.



Her reply to the email.


-----------
Reference previous post...
http://christianchat.com/christian-...ng-during-free-time-school-2.html#post1843532



If that letter is real, I'm trying to parse the sentence in bold, then compare it to the claim that this event didn't happen.
Sometimes shifty legal words are used to give them wiggle room.

no individual was named as banning


All that says is that no individual was named.
In the world of slick legal talk and wiggle room, that doesn't mean the event didn't happen.
It just means someone wasn't named.
Why not just clearly say..."This event didn't happen."

Also twice it says...

We are happy to report that the child is, and has been, happily in school and his father very supportive of the district.






As mentioned, we have visited with the child and his father and the relationship between them and the district is a good one.


The child being happily in school, and the parent's being in a good relationship now, doesn't mean the event didn't happen.
All it means is that maybe they cleared the air and everyone is happy now.

That is an interesting response actually. It would seem to imply the parents would then be unwilling, or have "forgotten" the name of the teacher for which case you cannot reprimand the teacher. This would also explain the seemingly meaningless solution of talking at a workshop as you can only really address the incident and surrounding policies.

 

[1still_waters]

That is an interesting response actually. It would seem to imply the parents would then be unwilling, or have "forgotten" the name of the teacher for which case you cannot reprimand the teacher. This would also explain the seemingly meaningless solution of talking at a workshop as you can only really address the incident and surrounding policies.

Maybe, but if given the benefit of the doubt, and the kid really did forget, then the best you can make of the situation is to have a community event to discuss what can and can't be done in schools.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Yeah maybe. But on the other hand, to give her the benefit of the doubt. she's probably between a rock and a hard place.
Kids are weird lil creatures and can say one thing one day and another thing another day.
So she's probably doing the best with what she can do.

She can't verify it happened, can't verify it didn't.

There is a kid who told his dad, who told media, it goes viral, by time it's viral, the kid gets shy, and now the lady has to write a nice press release.

Bless her heart.

Probably deserves more understanding than she's been given.

She's easy to figure out, my grandpa was a superintendent. Their job is to protect their school's money at all costs. What is really telling is the child in the story. It seems to me that perhaps he likes his teacher and doesn't want anything bad to happen to him, which is fair enough.

 

[1still_waters]

Oh my word, this article is dated Dec 19, 2014.
She was JUST named superintendent of that school district.
So her first few weeks in, this happens.
Nationwide controversial story about religion.
Maher Officially Named as Superintendent : KMZU

Feel sorry for her now. Good grief.

 

[Oncefallen]

Actually it was just within her first couple of "official" weeks. The article stated she had been serving as interim superintendent prior to being appointed to the position permanently (although it didn't say how long she had been serving as interim).

The Marshall School District Board of Education officially named Dr. Carol Maher their new superintendent this week. Maher, who had served in the role on an interim basis, said she’s proud to now hold a permanent position. “I am very excited, very flattered, and very appreciative to the board that they have the faith in me to continue on and help to move the district forward with the help of lots of people.”

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Oh my word, this article is dated Dec 19, 2014.
She was JUST named superintendent of that school district.
So her first few weeks in, this happens.
Nationwide controversial story about religion.
Maher Officially Named as Superintendent : KMZU

Feel sorry for her now. Good grief.

Yea no doubt about that. She is blessed this lil kid has mercifully "forgot" about the incident. As long as they let him keep reading his Bible during his free time seems to me a happy ending for everyone involved. Not everyday we get a happy ending to these sort of stories.

 

[Percepi]

Yea I understood your reasoning. Though my point isn't so much on the teacher, for clearly the teacher banned the child because of his religion, merely s/he has not been named.

You literally only heard one side of the story. So, no, it's not clear that the teacher prohibited the child due to his religion.

Note how the superintendent says that the incident was misunderstood as well, which implies some incident did actually occur.

It's possible the kid started reading while the teacher was teaching. Just because he said he had some free time doesn't mean he actually did. Or maybe the teacher felt he should be doing other homework and she told him to put the Bible away until he finished everything. Who knows?

The solution provided is equally hilarious in that she says in so many meaningless words

Okay, now I'm just nitpicking. But what words were meaningless?

that they are going to do a lot of meaningless talking, but not take any real action against the offender.

Again, why do you assume the meeting would be meaningless? Furthermore, aren't you jumping to conclusions assuming the teacher is the offender?

Keep in mind, the father contacted the media before he even talked to the teacher or principal. We never got to hear what happened.

The key clue is her "age appropriate" comment. Which seems to imply they will attempt to call the Bible inappropriate for the boy's age.

Sorry, but you're quote mining. You're taking the word "age appropriate" then assuming they're going to try and call the Bible inappropriate. Let's look at the email:

During school time when there is a choice in reading material, students are allowed to read whatever they wish, as long as it is age appropriate. This includes religious material.

In short, you're wrong.

You don't have all the details, so you're picking a part and interpreting every little thing the same way astrologers interpret the meaning of star formations.

She's easy to figure out

No, she isn't. Everything you're saying is speculation.

My take on this issue is that the superintendent is trying to figure out what happened and how to solve this issue without stirring a bunch of unnecessary hype. I'm not sure why she said the teacher wasn't named, but there are numerous reasons. Maybe the kid and the father realized they may have jumped the gun. Or maybe they did name the teacher and the superintendent is trying to protect the teacher's identity. After all, the last thing a superintendent wants is for anyone to have their image ruined. Often people who are accused of crimes obtain a negative image. And even after they are proven innocent, they still have this negative image attached to them. Keep in mind, I'm only speculating myself.

 

[christianteacher]

Thank you percepi for your sensible comments. As a public middle school teacher for nearly 20 years I know a studentsversion of what happened in the classroom is often not what actually took place. I was accused of racism once because I told a student he had to put his magazine away and work on one of his23 missing assignments, I didn't know he was looking at Essence magazine. Mom called the next day to chew me out for telling him he couldn't read a magazine about black people in my classroom. Clearly a missunderstanding! Who is to say that something similar didn't happen here? Thank goodness she didn't call the news before talking to me!!

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Go to and read what the principal said a few days ago. Go to and do some research on this school district.

Do not blame this kid or the father for going to the media. They could have easily gone to the lawyers instead, and just the proceedings alone would wrack this school district badly. It does not take a legal genius to figure out if they wished it that they could plunder this school into shambles.

The superintendent does not care about image. If that were the case this teacher would all ready be in front of the cameras, and on the way to an early retirement. All good superintendents care about the school's money and resources, and this particular school is vulnerable in that regard. Lo, I have heard the voice of the woman chatting by her fireside, she cares about her school's resources indeed. Which indeed is prudent for her principal and her teacher have nearly cost it much

They ought be thankful to God and to this young child whom shows his love for the Lord by extending his mercy to this whole school system. I suggest she not hearken to the principal's subtle suggestions and allow this kid to maintain his Bible, and have the atheist teacher apologize in private. Do not cast your subtle blame on this child or his father, for they have done no wrong. I shall leave it at that and that is my final comment on this subject.

 

[christianteacher]

Maybe they didn't go to lawyers because they didn't have a case, too many people assume they know what really happened and pass judgment when they only know one side of the story.

 

[Percepi]

Go to and read what the principal said a few days ago. Go to and do some research on this school district.

If I missed something, let me know what it is.

Do not blame this kid or the father for going to the media.

If they had gone to the lawyer, "Don't blame the kid or the father for going to the lawyer, they could have burned the school down." Just because they could have done something else doesn't excuse their actions. Furthermore, you're ignoring why it was wrong for them to go to the media.

The father went to the media without looking into what actually happened. That's irresponsible.

It does not take a legal genius to figure out if they wished it that they could plunder this school into shambles.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure he would have been told, "You didn't even talk to the teacher yet? Here's my number. Call me after you know what's going on." That is to say, he would have a very hard time suing without looking into what actually happened first.

The superintendent does not care about image. If that were the case this teacher would all ready be in front of the cameras, and on the way to an early retirement.

Maybe not?

Your argument is essentially, "I think she should have done this. Since she didn't, she MUST have been guilty!" You keep saying she should have handled the situation a certain way, but you're not self aware enough to understand that there might be reasons you're unaware of.

They ought be thankful to God and to this young child whom shows his love for the Lord by extending his mercy to this whole school system. I suggest she not hearken to the principal's subtle suggestions and allow this kid to maintain his Bible, and have the atheist teacher apologize in private. Do not cast your subtle blame on this child or his father, for they have done no wrong. I shall leave it at that and that is my final comment on this subject.

You have no idea what happened. The kid could have been telling the truth or he could have been wrong. But the father was most definitely wrong to go to the media without even looking into what actually happened first.

 

[skipp]

The principal says that the incident never happened: Public School Bible Ban? Missouri Middle School Says the Bible Isn't Banned, Despite Student's Claim

I tend to believe him here. The whole thing seemed a bit fishy, what with the dad running to the media before he talked to anyone at the school and also the fact that he has now went quiet. As Christians we need to be careful when it comes to underresearched, overly sensational news stories.

 

[Human]

You know I hear about this stuff a lot anymore. It wasn't long ago that I was in school and none of this kind of stuff ever happened. People were allowed to pray, read whatever book, wear whatever religious clothing, etc. and no one ever got in trouble and none of this ever became a problem.

When I was in elementary school even they had all sorts of religious books on all sorts of religions in the library, including The Bible.

What changed so fast? Or is this more of a regional issue?

The bible shouldn't be read to pupils by staff in state schools because America is a multicultural society with a secular government that gives equal rights to all relgions. Reading the bible in front of a class of multicultural and religiously diverse students isn't fair in that regard. No religious material should be read to students outside of religious or literary study classes, and even then it should retain its function -- to educate children about literary work or religious diversity, not to indoctrinate or convert.

That said, if the student really was on his own time, I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to read a bible. It does, however, from previous posts, seem like the student was mistaken, as was his father.