As a teacher, and as a public employee, Ms. Knox does "have to tolerate anything others wish to do," within the limits of the law, even in this state.

Sadly, given the strength and the power of teachers' unions in New Jersey, it is likely Ms. Knox will get the handout she desires.

The important thing is that she's removed from the classroom. If she has the legal option to essentially retire in disgrace, that's fine with me.

The Union should set an example of her and have her terminated so they can demonstrate to the families and especially the children what is appropriate and what is not. No one can take issue with one's beliefs, but we certainly take issue with her behavior!

Could the author of this post clarify why a teacher's Facebook posts are grounds for dismissal? I totally disagree with the teacher's comments, and I think that my gay neighbors in Maplewood are a treasure! However, I would expect that people are free to say stupid things on Facebook.

I don't agree with her statements but she has the right to say them eventhough many may not agree with her statements. It is no different than someone saying they don't agree with same sex marriages or the homosexual lifestyles and continue to vote against making it legal based on their religious beliefs.. I try not to judge anyone's lifestyle because life is too short be happy while living the life you have and pray to whatever god you believe in will forgive you for whatever sins you may have committed....

She bitterly proclaims herself THE authority on morality and "natural" behavior, then applies for a questionable disability pension which she undoubtedly has spent a lifetime whining about other people receiving, i.e. those who "parade" their "immoral unnatural behaviors" and especially their partners. She had a contract. If she had posted pictures of herself naked she would be fired. Free speech means she won't be imprisoned for her perverse public behavior but she can't be a public school teacher. Someone else will determine if she's eligible for disability but if I were adjudicating I would stipulate a long and rigorous program of rehabilitative therapy.

Remember free speech? Do you think all of your kids teachers are perfect examples of society? the adults teaching your kids are into S&M, deviance, some are child molestors, I mean look at the catholic church? Loaded with child pedophiles. People can say what they want. And the private schools are worse because they don't adhere to the same government guidelines as public schools. At least your public school pervs have to be tricky to get through the system. However, catholic school teachers are probably the worst. At the end of the day what this woman thinks doesn't matter. She can say what she wants but at least she isn't molesting kids like a catholic school teacher. At least she has guts enough to have an opinion and she's not some drone.

Everyone has a right to give their opinion. Just like gays are trying to claim their rights in as many ways as possible, straight people have their rights too. Teacher should not be forced to retire and she does not deserve to be punished for that.

She should either fight the tenure charges or retire with whatever pension she is owed.No disability paymenty.

Although Ms. Knox's comments are not aligned with my own feelings and beliefs,
censorship and discrimination against individual opinions that differ from that which is being forced upon us in order to move us toward a socialist society is more troubling than her individual opinion. If we are to disallow her opinions, then how long will it be before our own opinions are attacked. See: The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
and, also see
1984 by George Orwell

This entire fiasco is a non issue. Our children are not learning because schools are not educating. They are too busy promoting this "TOLERANCE" garbage instead of teaching reading, writing, etc... One public educator has been quoted as saying that the "Mission of the Public Schools is <-- Note gramatical error) not to not tolerate intolerance" yet you can see even by comments here that if one does not pull the Gay Agenda cart, somehow THAT view isn't "tolerated" by the tolerance crowd. HYPOCRITES!

Mrs Knox - Do yourself a favor and sue the school district for sexual harassment. If they (the government aka schools) posted a bulletin board with gay things that "offended" you personally, that is a paramount offense in NJ. You "believed" that it sexually harassed you, and it is YOUR BELIEF that counts in court, not another Liberal "good intention" that as usual had unintended consequences and failed.

These are the twists and turns that you "Tolerance" people have brought upon us. Tolerence simply means that YOU do not have ANY PRINCIPLES!

BG - I agree with you, and took the opportunity to illustrate a point. Somehow educators are held up to a higher standard in all things when in reality they are specialized in specific things, and Omnipotence isn't one of them.
Anthony - I disagree with you, but follow me on why. What other "views" do you fell compelled to tell us that we need to leave at the front door? We are no longer told that we must "tolerate" the things that we disagree with, but are told that we need to ACCEPT AND EMBRACE those things regardless if we agree with them or not, yet if I utter an opinion that may have roots in religion, I am told "NO, NO, NO, Mr. Romer. You can't say that." Why not? (Continued)

Glen. You insist that the nation does not have a religious foundation and to prove your point you present the many religions of the various founders and patriots. If I understand the poster's meaning, we were not founded by any one organized demonination, but that does not me the founding of the country was not religious in its construct. Consider the Declaration Of Independence which is the signature document that announces to the world who we as Americans are and for what we stand and thus our desire for separation ("to place before mankind the common sense of the subject in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent," as Jefferson offered). It makes reference to God four times: "Nature's God" "Creator" "Supreme Judge of the world" "divine Prividence". They certainly differed on their views of God's involvement in their lives. Sure, a few were Deists who believed that God merely set the wheels in motion and let events take their course. Others espoused a more interpersonal relationship with God as specifically manifested in Christ. There was even a Catholic. But most were Episc., Congreg. or Presby. Regardless, they believed that the rights with which all people are endowed came not from a king but from a higher power in God and thus could not be taken away by any earthly monarch. So to say that religion was not deeply ingrained in our nation's founding is categorically false and revisionist.

Glen. As for the separation of Church and State (the phrase which comes not from the Constitution but rather a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, fifteen years after the Constitution was ratified) that concept again does not mean that religion has no place in public life. It simply means that the Framers (a different batch than the Revolutionaries of 1776) wanted to avoid the foundation of any 'state' religion as they had had to endure under the Crown with the C of E. The wording of the First Amendment is, after all, 'freedom OF religion" not FROM religion. Again, these were very religious folks despite what the modern secular education agenda may wish to proffer. (I think even the least religious among them then would be considered highly pious by today's standards)

Glen. This is a debate that has been going on for well over 200 years and will not be resolved on a Patch thread. All I will say is that we are discussing two different ideas and thus going past each other. You are talking about organized religion. In that respect, you are correct in that the Founders did not believe in the government establishing a one true church above all others. Hence the First Amendment which is there to prevent just such a Church Of England type of scenario in which the King was also church head. But I am talking about faith in a higher power which and its import in governing the affairs of men and as an extension how they govern. The Declaration is not a 'religious' document, rather a political one. But the very essence of its meaning is that, as the text says, "all men are created equal...that they are endowed by THEIR CREATOR (emphasis added) with certain unalienable rights, etc..." In other words, the power government is derived from the governed who in turn derive their rights to be protected by said government from God, not a monarch. So in that sense, you cannot completely separate the religious implications of our founding from its meaning because God was to them the source of their moral superiority to the Crown. As for the Constitution, a separate subject, clearly these men did not intend that non-believers should so intrude upon the accepted tenets of faith's role in government as to stamp out and and all public references to God.

Glen. These guys lived in much harder and crueler times. We tend to forget about what life was like for them as we are (understandably) so far removed from their experiences. As you discuss, religious persecution in 18th Century Britain was quite real and brutal...even fatal. That to them was what establishment of religion surely meant. Not a Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall. In fact, I think it would be laughable to a guy who stood in line of battle at Monmouth or Cowpens, who may have had a deist to his left and a Presbyterian to his right, that atheists would feel they have the right to stamp out any and all reference to the God (one they deeply believed in and from whom the entire moral foundation of the new nation was derived in His rights granted them) anywhere in a public square simply because they feel "offended". There is no right in this world that you should go through life without having your feelings hurt. And if I may offer in closing (you get last word) in turn when such a non-belief is prosecuted so zealously and fervently it takes on the characteristic of having it's own belief system that, though may have no faith in a higher being, certainly seems to worship at the altar of secular humanism where man and his basest of animal instincts tempered by a sense of 'morals' (sans the arbiter of said morals in God) are raised to a pedestal not much unlike a divine machination in its own right. Food for thought.

Glen --
You are missing the point with everything everyone else says so I will type this slowly for you. (And I agree with Brad - He knows what he is talking about so how could the two of us be wrong about the same issues?)

1. I am not obsessed with gays, nor do I hate them. I take issue with the demands that are placed upon everybody else which has gone from "understanding" their lifestyle, to "tolerating" their lifestyle and now we are forced to "accept and embrace" that lifestyle or face the consequences regardless of what you personally think. Perhaps better stated, some of us don't like others of us waving their wieners at our faces.

2. You claim to be a Christian, yet have exhibited anti-Christian bigotry yourself which makes me seriously question your interpretation of faith. You ridiculed others for their beliefs, and I do not see a difference between what YOU said, and Mrs. Knox. I don't care what people do, but when they do it publicly, it's a problem. I defended Mrs. Knox on Facebook, and people threatened to contact MY employer and have ME fired, even though I never said anything that was anti-gay.

(Cont)

3. Mrs. Knox was offended by a bulletin board promoting the gay agenda. Why is UHS promoting this garbage in the first place? I have a thick skin and can take this stuff, but others cannot, so who's rights are greater here? The Gay crowd or the Sexually Harassed crowd?

If we start demanding the firing of people who disagree with our own misguided views, what's next? Death squads? That's a stretch but should make you think.

In California, schools are starting to do "GREAT GAYS IN HISTORY" things. Why can't it just be "GREAT PEOPLE IN HISTORY?" Why is there this need to announce to the world that you are gay? Then you complain that people don't like you.

Folks, if you ever get into trouble at work, just say "You're only picking on me because I'm gay" and you'll see how quickly they back off. One guy (as relayed to me on Huffington Post) saved his job by claiming to be gay when the layoff ax hit his company. How is that fair to everybody else, if "fairness" is what we are told we should strive for?

Martin you said it all so correctly and clearly. I am not sure why Gay agendas are advertised in schools or any such institutuions where kids/ people go to learn Math. science and language. If being gay is normal then why is there a need to "come out" or "promote"? Why is there a need to be distinguished? I do not really care for Gay or not Gay but it does bother me and scares me to see how these kind of things are being forced upon us. Why can they not live like all the rest? Without making everyone else's life difficult?

Glen, you seem to have the penchant for making the quantum leap of misreading respectful disagreement as hateful obsessions. I am not "obsessed" with atheists. I get annoyed by them however when, as we just saw, an ACLU lawyer driving by a cross that was erected 53 years ago on a highway median strip in Massachusetts that simply said "worship" and demanded it be removed or conversely the median strip be opened up to all religions. Again, as I said, in a nation that is predominantly Christian, every once in a blue moon a religious minority will have to get offended. Honestly, just how sensitive are atheists and far left liberals that such a symbol should give offense? Hell, as a Catholic I must endure my religion being bashed on a regular basis...even in this thread. Should I demand to see school history curriculums that tell of the Inquisition and Crusades and insist that pro-Catholic counterlessons be inserted such as charitable works and martyrs around the world otherwise I could interpret that as anti-Catholic bias and thus the public schools sowing hatred of a certain church? I supposed I could and I bet some pro bono lawyer looking to make a publicity splash may take even the case. But why? As I said, there is no inherent right to never be offended or insulted in this world. I argue it is the atheists and their hand-maiden the so-called ACLU who are the ones obsessed...after all, in 53 years no one else Middleboro Mass even cared. Physician heal thyself.

Glen, I am also well aware of who the Deists were in our founding, although if you are looking at someone like Franklin, based on his own autobiography, his belief in the impartial God tended to wane over his lifetime (his strongest pro-Deism sentiments attended what could be considered a youthful rebellion to more orthodox faiths to which he was exposed). I assume you mean Jefferson, Madison, possibly Hamilton and Washington who had deist beliefs? But what of the other 54 signers of Declaration or 54 present at the Constitutional Convention who were not? Were they insignificant simply because no monuments in DC are built in their honor? Of course not. They ALL had a hand in creating the nation. We put men like Washington and Jefferson and Franklin on a pedestal today but back then they were of a larger group of learned intelligent and, yes, quite religious cream of American society that together formed the country. The wonderful Gouveneur Morris (whose preamble we still admire today), Charles Carrol (the richest man and Roman Catholic), John Jay our first Chief Justice (who was so protestant Christian to a fault that he wanted Catholics barred from serving in government, much to Carrol's chagrin I reckon). The list goes on and on. I do not 'dismiss' the deists--you again are reaching for insults that are simply not there. You seem to, however, be quite dismissive of the other scores of men who risked just as much and made their own voices heard at our birth. IMHO.

back to the question of a disability pension or loss of tenure...Why disability?! Is she ill, that's what disability is for (paid for by us taxpayers). We all have the freedom of speach but most of us know when its better to refrain or be prepared to stand behind what we say not run to the doctor. Like it or not, as a public school teacher, she does have to bite her tongue - she doesn't have to approve of every situation. What if her rants were against any ethnic group, would she get away with that? As far as her pension, she worked and earned it, she should get what she earned.

All this woman needs is someone to love her and a very good therapist. She is clearly lacking something in her personal life. If she were happy with herself and her circumstances, she wouldn't need to vent her misguided hate on Facebook. She's just your run of the mill bigot. Who we, well adjusted citizens, are happy to "tolerate". Have a great summer Ms.Knox!!!