Should this teacher be fired?

[Bryan]

Link me to them--I must have missed them.

Uh, no. It does not violate the separation of church and state to talk about some religion or another in a non-dogmatic, matter-of-fact way, especially when there is some relation to literature that the class is assigned to read.

MacDonald's argument dogmatically offered insufficient options (a type of the fallacy of bifurcation). That's dogmatic.

Uh, because there is no endorsement unless he says something like that. And if there's no endorsement, there is no violation.

Hey, everybody, remember back when Strife used to insist on religious neutrality? Now only endorsement violates church-state separation.

BTW, why isn't the presentation of an argument that paints a religion as contradictory an endorsement of contrary religious positions? Can our public schools teach lessons that ridicule Scientology since it doesn't constitute an endorsement?

Have you explained all of this to the Anti-Defamation League, Strifey? I'm sure it will be news to them.

Depends how you mean. If the presentation of factual material makes a child question the beliefs he's been brought up with, that is no fault of the teacher or school.

Can you explain how a fallacious argument constitutes "factual material"?

Would you consider it a violation of separation of church and state for a child brought up by creationists to be taught modern biology?

It does seem to endorse those religions that accept whatever particular tenets of modern biology do not coincide with the beliefs of the creationists--unless perhaps the biology were not taught dogmatically on those points. Why isn't it a violation of church-state separation, IYO?