Ok, where to start? I have so many problems with this.
First of all, he is showing elementary school children an R-rated movie without the parent’s permission.
Second, he is showing a Christianity based film in a public school, AND, using it to teach history, for that matter.
Third, he is obviously showing a bootlegged version. Now, let’s see if Mel is as vigorous in filing a lawsuit against this teacher as he has been with others accused of bootlegging it.
Meanwhile, this guy is on paid leave. What if he had shown sex scenes from another R-rated movie? The religious right would be all over this case. My guess is that they will be more forgiving though. After all, he was just trying to slip a little Christianity into the curriculum.
And yet, the fundies keep saying that Gays are pushing their “agenda” on everyone. This seems to be a relatively strong case of a Christian pushing their agenda on a bunch of school kids. How come it is alright when you are preading the good word, and yet not when you are pushing for a segment of society to be treated equally, in regard to the laws of the land.
And no, I am in no way trying to lump all Christians together. This is about a very specific group of Christians that want to push their religion on everyone, in the classroom, and within the Constitution, neither which should be allowed.
I think this teacher should be suspended for a long time. There’s no excuse for showing religion in school, the so-called “history” excuse notwithstanding. Taking it on himself to show “R” rated material without parental notification or consent rates a suspension as well. Setting the example for the kids of showing a bootleg copy of any movie should get the S.O.B. fired.
As far as history is concerned, the “gospels” are practically the only source of information about the alleged Christ. Contemporaneous histories are very thin on evidence that Jesus had any impact at all on his society. Flavius Josephus does mention him, almost in passing, and says as an afterthough something like, “It was said by some that he was the Christ.” I don’t have the history at hand. Several persons named Jesus show up up in Josephus’ history, but only one is identified as being from Nazareth, and only one paragraph is dedicated to a man Christians believe had enormous impact on his times. Strange. One might have expected more about the most important man of his age. But there’s always Matthew.
It largely depends on what the portions were. I could see using parts of movies to give a visual, arcitectural sense of historical time periods. In my mind that is a very valid teaching technique. I have not seen the movie, but I assume there are at least a few excerps that could be selected that would be educational without showing violence or politics. I would have to know exactly what was shown before making a conclusion about his actions.
The fact that it is likely bootlegged is a diferent matter, and does cause a problem.
That was my first reaction to the OP, too, but I tried to think of what sequence he could have shown that was neither overtly religious or bloodier than a slasher movie, and I couldn’t think of a single one. Unless the excerpts he showed to his class were edited together like a Michael Bay movie, I don’t think there’s anyway he doesn’t run afoul of either preaching in a public school or showing wildly inappropriate material to young children.
Having seen the movie twice now, I would have to say that there is very little in the film that could be reasonably argued as factual history and much of it is, in fact, historically inaccurate. There isn’t much in the way of architectual representation and some of what there is is incorrect (the visual depiction of Temple, for example).
I suppose you could use it to show people wearing sandals or something equally insignificant but the film is a liturgical piece of art from start to finish.
Certainly no part of the story could be argued as known history, it’s not even accurate in it’s depiction of crucifixion (JC carrying the entire cross instead of the crossbar, nails through the hands, etc.).
This teacher was attempting to pass off a religious story as history, was showing an R rated film without parental permission and was using a stolen copy.
That’s three big strikes right there. Whatever minimal hitorical value could have been derived from the film could have been found in much more appropriate (and unstolen) sources.
Yeah, and this guy has exhibited the kind of judgment that would warrant giving him the benefit of the doubt regarding which excerpts he showed the student. If you ask me, it’s not very likely that a teacher would go through the kind of rigmarole or break such obvious rules (laws?) if all he wanted to show were the more innocuous frames; he probly blasted them with both barrels.
Well 60 to 90 minutes does appear to be fairly damanging against the dude. I just think that the original article didn’t really explain enough to convict the guy.
Speaking of controversal people, I’m was also a little surprised that there is a Malcolm X Elementary school, as most school districs try to take the PC path of least resistance.
The best description of this man’s career is probably ‘fucked.’ Some people may kick up a fuss, but he broke the fucking law, along with (presumably) several school guidelines about the circumstances in which one can show an R-rated movie to one’s students. Do we have any idea how old the kids were?
There is some comparative religion that does seem to be alowed, even when considering seperation of church and state.
WISCONSIN MODEL ACADEMIC STANDARDS
FOR SOCIAL STUDIES
That said, at least within my school, all movies must be preaproved before showing. Showing a stolen R rated film of questional historical accuracy to 11 year olds should get him fired. I would be out for his blood if he showed it to my 11 year old. (She still gets nightmares from some of the more hard core of the Disney movies)
where the hell do these kids live. I’m from Detroit and now live in Oakland and have lived in some pretty bad neighborhoods in my life. But I can’t remember once seeing a guy flogged or nailed to a cross. I heard DC was bad but DAMN!!
As a dyed-in-the-wool deist liberal, I might be alone with this viewpoint, but:
I think showing a religious film is okay if a) it doesn’t prosetlyze, and b) it is used in the context of a religious studies or history class, in the same way I wouldn’t object to the Bible or Qu’ran or Gita or whatever.
You guys are assuming a lot from the story; we don’t know if this fella was trying to indoctrinate or preach to the kids.
On the other hand, showing 11-year olds a movie with torture scenes is patently inappropriate.
And Really Not All That Bright, it doesn’t really matter if it was morally right for him to show a religious movie or not, because he fucked up on so many other levels. He didn’t get parental permission for an R-rated film, and he showed the kids a bootleg movie. I mean…how very stupid can he get?
Well, I suppose his defense could always be that Jesus told him to do it.