A member of the GAWD cult brought Federal charges against a teacher and won

This shit pisses me off to no extent! Charged for violating his first amendment rights no less, all he did was tell the fucking little christian soldier that Creationism was "religious superstitious nonsense", it looks valid to me. Anyway read on.

A Mission Viejo high school history teacher violated the First Amendment by disparaging Christians during a classroom lecture, a federal judge ruled today.

James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, was found guilty of referring to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 classroom lecture, denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student, Chad Farnan.

The decision is the culmination of a 16-month legal battle between Corbett and Farnan – a conflict the judge said should remind teachers of their legal “boundaries” as public school employees. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-religion-court-2387684-farnan-selna

There was only one charge that Corbett was found guilty on. I'm certainly not defending Farnan - who is an obnoxious little god botherer.
And the judge did make a subtle link between xtianity and ID(iots) which may come in useful in the future.

I also smell appeal here.

Thanks.

I believe in being very intolerant and hateful to any that dare have religious beliefs. And don't get me started when someone dares try to remind me that the 1st amendment not only has the not promoting religion part, but also has the not prohibiting religion part. I go balistic. How dare someone assert anything is more "enlightened" than my beliefs.

Rock on Union, which Ivy League school did you go to? You are "enlightened"

But I'm just a product of public school and community college. Oh and I have an extremely low tolerance of any of the GAWD set. :evilgrin:

Sort of like the KKK member that at least acknowledges he is a bigot. I suppose that is something.

:rofl:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But that's on purpose to call more attention to it. Once the reader says well that is not really an equal comparison perhaps they will say, "the guy posting religious bigotry isn't that bad." Then maybe they will think, "hmmmmm, well bigotry because someone believes in God, probably not a good thing though". Think most posters on DU are not fans of religious bigotry but a core group on here seem to think it is fine.

No the offensive comment was the one made by the teacher to the student. Time for DU to quit celebrating religious bigotry.

but whether or not the teacher's comment was offensive isn't really relevant to the absurd, over the top offensive comparison with the KKK.

I'm just not a fan of bigotry and get sick of seeing religious bigotry and bigotry against the poor celebrated and cheered on this site. Goes against the spirit of what I think this site is about.

is not bigotry. the bible and koran are just books written by people who wanted to control others. There is nothing holy about them. That was just a marketing tactic.

:thumbsup:

nm

"WAAAAHHH, I'M SO OPPRESSED!"

Pathetic.

Could you, perhaps, give us some examples of that?

I'm more than a little puzzled at that statement because I've been here since 2002 and haven't seen that at all.

you're not singing to the choir here.:rofl:

But most on DU are not bigots against those with religious faith.

:thumbsup: x3

NT!

n/t

and over the top.

religion IS superstition. Believing in god is like believing in the tooth fairy. Believe if you want to but do not expect everyone to buy into your bullshit superstition.

Instead of calling Creationism "superstition" (which is my take on it too BTW) he could have said something like, "Creationism is a religious belief and therefore not subject to scientific proof. We don't discuss it here because this is a science class."

or student newspaper.



Very annoying, because hundreds of millions of Christians and Jews consider creationism superstitious nonsense too. But the judge seems to be saying that a public servant can't disparage anything that is a primarily religious belief.

Religious bigotry. Religious bigotry. Religious bigotry.

That's a popular theme for you. Attach bigotry to something and it sounds soooo oppressive. :scared:


Hey, If I'm also opposed to pedophilia, does that make me a pedophile bigot?
What about opposing torture? Am I a torture bigot?
Maybe I'm a Presbyterian and believe transubstantiation is a crock. Does that make me a Catholic bigot?


Sorry, but your bigotry bit is getting tired and worn. Time to move on.

How fucking DARE you!!??

Now THAT's chutzpah, brother...

then you are a fool and you open yourself to ridicule. If you are religious but acknowledge that science and religion are different and accept scientific explanations instead of church dogma you are "enlightened" and open yourself to no ridicule or scorn as far as I am concerned.

"If you let your belief in any god override science." (Italics added by me).
"If you are religious but... accept scientific explanations..."

I feel obliged to point out that "science" is as much a set of beliefs as any religion. It colors how one perceives the world, like any other religion. It is essentially just a highly rational "religion/system of thought".
It may be a more powerful system for explaining and manipulating the forces of our environment than most previous "religions", but are you sure you wish to fall into the trap of dogmatism?

Remember, the Sun rotates around the Earth just as readily as the Earth rotates around the Sun. It's just a matter of frames of reference, and being willing to put up with a much more difficult set of mathematics...

Remember, the Sun rotates around the Earth just as readily as the Earth rotates around the Sun. It's just a matter of frames of reference, and being willing to put up with a much more difficult set of mathematics...

My god, next I will read the earth is flat and the UNIVERSE goes around the Earth

Here is the MAJOR critical difference between Religious thought and science

IN order to be a good catholic (using it since it is well known) you need to believe that wine can transubstantiate into blood. No questions allowed

For thousands of years humans did believe the sun did indeed go around the Earth... but it was a theory, that once disproven it allowed people to move on to the theory that perhaps the earth rotates around the sun. That also helped explain some crazy things like mars seeming to go backwards every so often.

My god, no pun, but you need to re-read on how science is done and chiefly on the difference between theory and dogma... science uses theories, while religions use dogma

It's the newest line of bullshit from the "Flat Earth"-style idiots.
They took some science they didn't understand, and
twisted it to promote that "Sun goes around the Earth" hogwash.

Some utter LOON handed me a pamphlet about it recently.
I suspect we'll be seeing more of it for the next few years.

Fucking morans. :banghead:

(not recommended to exceed the damage for liver damage is not only probably but assured) sad I need to put this disclaimer

I was just trying to point out that the phrasing that reggie was using was making science sound like it, too, had a dogma to be submitted to.

And in pointing out that the Sun rotates around the Earth as easily as the Earth rotates around the Sun, I also pointed out that the mathematics are just more difficult. It's a matter of frames of reference. Einstein liked to use this sort of analogy when discussing relativity. A person is on a road when a train goes by. That person sees one of the cars of that train approach, and then pass by. Meanwhile, a person on that train car sees the person on the road approach from the opposite direction, then pass by.

From the frame of reference of the road, the train and its cars pass. From the frame of reference of the train, the road passes.

If I don't care how much more complicated the mathematics become as a result, then I can "approach" the universe from the fixed frame of reference of a point on the Earth. From that frame of reference, the entire universe rotates around me.

Does that make me God? Who gives a shit? That's not the point. The point is that "people of science" seem all too often to forget that point you just made of the difference between theory and dogma, and assume that the "truths" of science are "Truth" in some sort of Platonic sense of the word. My point, further, is that rather than getting lazy and taking all those truths to be rock solid, "people of science" should remember, in the back of their heads, that science is about theories, and realize everything might be proven to be completely different one day.

I mean, I doubt it. Occam's Razor and all that... but it'd be awfully ironic if science were to become dogmatic about its "Truths".

sci fi explores that every so often

There is a fundamental difference between the two examples (Earth & Sun vs. train and person). In the latter example, there is no acceleration involved, whereas in the first there is.

The train example refers to inertial reference frames. You are correct that it is impossible to differentiate between inertial reference frames by using internal measurements.

However, the example of the Earth going around the Sun or vice versa uses non-inertial reference frames and thus they can be differentiated from one another. This is due to the Earth being under constant acceleration as it travels around the Sun. If you assume the Earth as your reference frame, and that the Sun is orbiting the Earth, then you have to explain the centrifugal force felt on the Earth. This is a 'pseudo force' as it does not arise from any physical interaction, but rather from the acceleration of the non-inertial reference frame. Whereas when you take the Sun as your reference frame, and see the Earth as orbiting around it, there is no centrifugal force present.

This is why a Foucault pendulum rotates throughout the day. We are observing it from inside the non-inertial reference frame of the rotating Earth. Thus we observe the Coriolis force effecting the plane in which the pendulum swings. If the universe was rotating around the Earth instead, the pendulum would not rotate throughout the day.

So, if you choose your reference as a fixed point upon the Earth, you will observe the Sun orbiting the Earth - However, a scientific analysis will show this to not be correct.

That is the beauty of science. It constantly challenges observation. By its very definition, science can not be dogmatic. Of course when people misinterpret it, or leave out import aspects (as did you in your example), it does fall apart. However, that's not really science at that point, is it?

If you want to try to argue that extreme point, you need to say "the universe rotates around the Earth just as readily...". Stellar parallax shows that the position of the Sun stays the same, relative to the other stars (unless you get down to the level of the rotation of the galaxy), while the earth orbits each year.

However, saying "the earth rotates around the Sun" is not dogmatism; it's a valid position with many good arguments and evidence for it. So I don't know why you brought this up to back up your 'dogmatic' claim.

Science is not a religion, and a fundamental aspect of it is the ability to examine previous theories and change conclusions if new evidence is found or analysed. As such, it isn't dogmatic.

I read this portion of a sentence: "If you are religious but acknowledge that science and religion are different and accept scientific explanations...", and found the choice of the word "accept" to describe how one should relate to "scientific explanations" to sound dogmatic.

If the sentence had been "If you are religious but acknowledge that science and religion are different and acknowledge scientific explanations..." I wouldn't have found myself feeling like a similar dogmatism was being implied.

If you look at post #194, you'll find that, when I explained myself, I did indeed say that the Universe would be revolving around the Earth if one chose to foist a new frame of reference upon the universe.

The dogma part of my contention is the detail that, because of good arguments and evidence (which are all completely valid within the system of thought that is science), many regard current scientific positions to be "Truth". I merely am arguing that it is a "Truth" relative to a system of thought/frame of reference.
It's essentially metaphysical relativity. Which, of course, is a term that yes, I did just make up. Ironically, the "rationalists" seem to get just as defensive as the "faithists" when their basic assumptions are questioned. In #194 I went ahead and explained in "science" terms. In #183 I settled for a casual "subjectivist" comment. The fact that I'm expected to cross over to "science" terminology to explain myself essentially, in my opinion, proves that science is the religion of the day. And those who aren't willing to consider that possibility, are the dogmatists of today. Meanwhile, the creationists are, in my opinion, the dogmatists of 200 years ago, still trying to desperately cling to the good old days.

I wonder why, when I was in school, there was a "Physics for Poets" class offered, but there was no "Poetry for Physicists" class offered?...

A fundamental concept in it is that observations are used to modify previous ideas. That is the opposite of dogma. So a scientific explanation, ie one arrived at through a scientific process of repeated hypothesis, observation, and modification of the hypotheses, is one that is more likely to get a good theory of what reality is than, say, Aristotle did.

It seems to me you think science is a fixed set of beliefs, that may get expanded into new areas, but will never change its existing theories. That's incorrect. There are all kinds of competing hypotheses in various areas of science, and their advocates have to put forward a lot of evidence to persuade people to accept them. And new evidence can change people's minds.

You have not made any decent argument that "science is the religion of the day" - you may also be expected to use English on this board, but that doesn't make English a 'religion of the day'. You said "it colors how one perceives the world, like any other religion." Many things color how you perceive the world, but that doesn't make them 'religions'. Political beliefs, personal circumstances like parenthood or old age, or the country you live in all do.

If you really want to argue that 'science is a religion', then give us the definition of 'religion' you're arguing for (and try to stay off the trivial uses like "he religiously read the newspaper every day"), and say why science fits that in your opinion.

Why 'physics for poets' and not vice versa? Because C.P. Snow's observation, from about 50 years ago, still largely applies, I think:

NT!

Perhaps that's the case at Jesus Chrispy University, but those of us who attended real schools understand the scientific method.

It is about people pushing their belief in God upon others in a Public school setting and calling it by some other name..Believe in God all you wish but do it in the manner Jesus suggested. In the Privacy of your own room and not in Public..Is that too difficult to understand?

instead of the devil smiley, but then I've always been a smartass when confronted by freeper type speach. And if you want to see klan talk just to freerepublic and you can get your fill.:rofl:

Just disppointed that I'm seeing bigotry here. Just hoping religious bigotry fades away here.

No one is hating people for being believers.

You are not oppressed.

Whenever I say something very stupid (which happens quite often), I try not to place blame on the public school system, and rather place the blame where it belongs-- on myself.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Love your attacking my internet forum posts. With an attack like that you must be an Ivy League grad, from which school. If you didn't go to one, you really should not attack anyone's internet postings as you're just as unenlightened as the rest of us.

Yoda you are maybe?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see the not promote and not prohibit sections? What can you not figure out. And I wonder if all of your posts on DU have used perfect Queen's English. If not, why not? Again which Ivy League school did you go to? You seem so "enlightened", just curious.

But the not promote part has constantly been extended to any part of government.

:shrug:

Too many seem to get memory loss after the not promote part.

Thank you for clarifying.

And yes, I do understand the "establishment clause" and I know what the Lemon test is. And I've read the Dover decision in its entirety.

Corbett was wrong in one respect and one respect only according to the judge. And I see no language in the Constitution that gives someone the right to be free from being offended. Chad Fornan and his fundy Talibornagain parents brought a frivolous lawsuit against a respected teacher.

I can respect that you have researched issues in this area.

No way I can respect this teacher though, no matter which student he was referring to. His statement was one of religious bigotry. Many on here act like this is Bill Mahrer on his HBO show making the comment. It is a teacher in a public school. Hateful comments like this by a government employee should come with a price.

If the student or parents had a problem they should have taken it to the school.

Farnan was "offended" but being offended is not grounds for a court case. If it is then we are going down the same road as places in the middle East where you can't criticize Muhammed.

I have no patience for people who believe that their "faith" should be free from being examined.

You think teachers should be the ones doing this? What type of country do you want? You certainly are no fan of the 1st amendment if you think the role of a government teacher at a high school level is to lambast a student over his faith and question it.

I'm not sure I wanted this as a court case, but I think the teacher should have been have some type of penalty against him.

was given a copy of the Jefferson Bible and that there was a time the Congress met on December 25

I want a country where we truly are not offended when a teacher says that this is magical thinking and does not belong in the public sphere

I want a country where church matters stay in the church...

And I believe many of the founders, save Adamns perhaps, would be offended by what we have become, where people defend this crap.

And before you say it, that country also had some serious issues... see slavery, miscegenation, and all that happy horse

If you want a country where Church matters stay at Church, then why do you want a teacher in a government school challeneging a student's belief on his faith. You seem to be contradicting yourself. And I would prefer that the schools not promote religion, but also prefer they would make sure they are following the first amendment on not prohibit.

Each generation has their issues. But, I'll take the America of today over almost any time in the past.

and is challenged and decides to sue.. then that student is wearing her faith on the sleeve

So yes it is the poor dear, who was raised to wear her religion on her sleeve, that is the problem here

I want a country where folks do not wear their faith on their sleeve

I KNOW most of the founders would be shocked at how religious this country HAS BECOME

This is not the first time, and thankfully the FIrst Grand Revival ended with people taking the faith back to the church, and the Second American Great Revival will end the same way.

Mark my words

And I do hope this teacher takes this to the United States Supreme Court

So you want a country where your view of the world is the one. For some their faith is very important. The founders put in the often disregarded not prohibit part for a reason. Seems like you are the one who is easily offended.

You stated Bibles were given out until 1901, hmmm. That implies that our leaders were MORE religious in the past. I think the founders would be shocked in some ways at times, but I think they would be very disappointed that the not prohibit part is too often all but ignored.

look my specialty as a trained historian is the Enlightenment

I have a clue on how the foundational documents of this country were written

Now here is a clue as to what the Jefferson Bible is... Thomas Jefferson who was a Deist... and believed fully that religious faith did NOT belong in the public life, took the bible and took every damn miracle out of it. It was thin and it made a point

It mostly covered a code of ethics, but not any religious believes

Now here is your homework, google Jefferson Bible

Here you go

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

He separated the religious dogma, edited out, from the ethics, see the major difference? That was NOT wearing faith on sleeve

Now here is another thing for you to learn

Deist

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

This is what Jefferson, Madison and a few others were

This is a new agey kind of site... but has plenty of the PRIMARY materials from the time of Jefferson

After you read that... and internalize it, you may understand why I wrote what I wrote about separation of church and state and the milieu of the writing of the first amendment

Oh and I stand by what you said... by your definition of religious intolerance, he was pretty intolerant... very intolerant, as he had no patience for the magical thinking in Christianity... WOW I have said a mouthful I know

If everyone got a copy, guess what Bibles were handed out. Wow, you don't know history, you can't figure out that multiple copies mean that the plural of a word should be used? Should you really be talking down to me like you know a lot. I think not.

Your homework assignmnet is in Post 105. Someone too ignorant to not know the difference between the two 100 year wars really should quit giving history lessons.

I even told you where to go find them

THEY WERE NOT THE COPY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE

THEY HAD EVERY MIRACLE REMOVED FROM THEM

You really have no clue

There is more, you are intellectually incurious to find out

Thought you were going overboard on singular versus plural. Fine, it is Jefferson's splicing of the Bible. So yes I should haved said Jefferson Bibles. Are you happy? A rearranged text that yes should always be called out with the Jefferson Bible name rather than Bible.

Now explain why you didn't know there was a second 100 years war? Someone that is a trained historian, come on now.

the jefferson bibles were handed out to Congress to emphasize to them that miracles were not standard thinking in a secular state

This is why Jefferson wrote this. They removed all miracles since miracles are not something we emphasize in a secular state,

There is more, if you actually KNEW your US History, those bibles were all but popular with members of Congress coming from places that today are part of the deep south and bible belt, because they saw them as heretic. There is more. Jefferson and the crew that wrote the Constitution, by the way Jefferson didn't, he was in France as the US Ambassador, would have been horrified by the ID people and Jefferson railed against Christianity and what he called the miracles in Christianity. He took no prisoners

He would have used far worst language than this teacher, mostly he did. But then again the people in his time had a thicker skin and mostly kept RELIGION out of state policy, Ok.

There is more, there was no UNDER GOD until the 1950s, you tell me why Genius? WHY did the UNDER GOD clause was put in the Pledge of Allegiance? You know why? You know who wrote it? Oh yes a Minister, who felt no need to put this in this oath, so why was it put there? OH yes the cold war. I am sure you didn't know that

There is more. Your Ivy League school feel superior to me tell me that you have a huge chip on your shoulder, and hate people with an education. Aka you are following a classic US Tradition and hate any person with education. They didn't have to deal with it, but we have to. Now you obviously did not learn enough US History when at Brown, but it is not my job to do the remedial US History Education you obviously need. After all, you're incurious

have a good life

Ih and if this is haughty to you... well fine, it is.

After all, I read books, you may want to try that sometime.

I went to Duke not Brown. I use the Ivy League question to knock all the "enlightened" back to the real world. There is such an arrogance among some it is appalling, "I am trained". In what not knowing timelines?

But you act like such a know it all and tell me to read books. Where did you get your education from? Just curious since you are oh so smart.

You probably know that "In God We Trust became the official U.S. motto in 1956, but look out it was on coins in 1864. You know why, a minister felt it should happen. And all of this was was before recent days. It went away for 50 plus years and came back. Hmm, did you know this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

I'm a CPA not paid to study History like you are yet you were clueless and posted that the 100 year war was between Protestants and Catholics. That is beyond amazing for someone who is "trained" you give me grief for not phrasing things how you want yet you don't have sense enough to distinguish between the two hundred years wars.

And the link on the first amendment drivers was published by Harvard and I take the reasons in that that are published over your opinions any day of the week.

I read plenty and actually remember timelines, you don't. Learn how to follow a timeline and then get back to me. Talk about remedial, wow. Speaking of which "far worst", no it is far worse. If you are "trained" and struggling in history/religion debate with a CPA, what do you do when discussing with people who are actually trained?

No, it is a trade mark of the anti intellectual crowd

You may try readying on this

Try the Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby

Perhaps you will realize why your attitude is dangerous

Perhaps not

Here is another free clue I will offer to you... the pledge got the Under God during the COLD WAR by act of congress for the reasons I gave you. THE COLD WAR as the enemy was quite ungodly.

And you are a CPA... that is nice...

So the broad strokes of why the Jeffersom bible was given is... in a secular state you do not hold magical thinking. It is titled the way it is, but it is NOT a bible in ANY religious sense of the word. And having read plenty on Jefferson... he'd have some choice words, for you, and many folks in the RIGNT WING... you for not getting it... them... well he had no patience for that type that would love to establish a religion. You try to figure which one. I know that I have a hard time figuring it out, since they are almost mutually exclusive

The leaders of this country were FAR LESS religioius in this country until 1983 or so,, aka part of the Reagan Revolution. That is the moment it became cool to wear it on your sleeve.

This is not the first time we have a Great Revival, but it is the first time it enters the political sphere in this way

That is the point, and there is more... this case is part of a trend to get test cases to the USSC by the RIGHT WINGERS, the ID crew, to try to get that certified as science. It is bunk

Oh and the cultures are over... mark my words

Now if you want to discuss the broad factors fine, you don't, You are playing one up-manship. Me, I am not interested in up-manship. You thought a post with links to info was haughty, well so be it. Anti Intellectuals and the incurious think that. Have a good life... I am done

No, it is a trade mark of the anti intellectual crowd

You may try readying on this

Try the Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby

Perhaps you will realize why your attitude is dangerous

Perhaps not

Here is another free clue I will offer to you... the pledge got the Under God during the COLD WAR by act of congress for the reasons I gave you. THE COLD WAR as the enemy was quite ungodly.

And you are a CPA... that is nice...

So the broad strokes of why the Jeffersom bible was given is... in a secular state you do not hold magical thinking. It is titled the way it is, but it is NOT a bible in ANY religious sense of the word. And having read plenty on Jefferson... he'd have some choice words, for you, and many folks in the RIGNT WING... you for not getting it... them... well he had no patience for that type that would love to establish a religion. You try to figure which one. I know that I have a hard time figuring it out, since they are almost mutually exclusive

The leaders of this country were FAR LESS religioius in this country until 1983 or so,, aka part of the Reagan Revolution. That is the moment it became cool to wear it on your sleeve.

This is not the first time we have a Great Revival, but it is the first time it enters the political sphere in this way

That is the point, and there is more... this case is part of a trend to get test cases to the USSC by the RIGHT WINGERS, the ID crew, to try to get that certified as science. It is bunk

Oh and the cultures are over... mark my words

Now if you want to discuss the broad factors fine, you don't, You are playing one up-manship. Me, I am not interested in up-manship. You thought a post with links to info was haughty, well so be it. Anti Intellectuals and the incurious think that. Have a good life... I am done

You attack me one more time, then report me to the admins for attacking you.

And you are clearly interested in one up-manship, just reread or have someone else read your posts. Again, I don't study this area for a living you're saying you do. Your links are fine, it is the "I know all" and "you don't read and need remedial education". That is what is haughty. What is very sad and not a strong reflection of your critical reasoning ability is that you don't understand that is why I perceive your postings as haughty. Do you really not understand that? You need more "training" then.

And the Culture wars are likely over until a Hispanic Catholic wins the presidency at some point and then guess what they are back. That will likely happen due to demogarphics, but will be different than the culture wars we have seen for sure.

I assume instead of the cultures you meant the culture wars.

BUT I was trained as a historian and know enough of US history to know that your comments fall in a school of thought, a US intellectual tradition

Read jacoby... she is rather accessible, and for sale right now.

and yes I reported every post where you attacked posters

Your Ivy league comments are insulting and a turn off

IN fact, trying to help here

Your first post on KKK... that is a personal attack, quite up-thread... Usually when I report I don;t let them know, you have a low post count, and likely do not know the rules of the road. And yes, each site has its rules...

So perhaps you may try to hold a mirror

Now... have a good night.. perhaps even a good life

I have been on here since 2004. I don't live on here though, so my post count is lower. Only post when a topic is really of interest to me. The original poster was very hateful and I wanted to call that out. Did you report the original poster, his post was bigoted. Did you report your own posts/attacks against me? You don't want to discuss anything excpet how informed you are and how anyone that dares disagree needs remedial education.

The kkk post was to say that bigotry sucks. I do know the rules of the road here and I know that religious bigotry on this site needs to go. And I know that many, many of your posts in this thread are pretty negative.

The Ivy League question is to get the high and mighty "I know it all posters" knocked off their perch of arrogance so that maybe they will approach a discussion wanting to discuss rather than with your "I have all the answers" approach.

And when you wrote "Did you report the original poster, his post was bigoted." it was my FUCKING opinion so unless your the thought police please stuff it in a pipe and smoke it!

and we learned in our anthropology, history, and molecular biology classes the creationism is not a scientific theory and that is is wrong and just superstition.

"There is such an arrogance among some it is appalling"

It's only "appalling" to the WILLFULLY IGNORANT such as YOU!

WE'RE "arrogant" BECAUSE WE DO KNOW BETTER!!!

No matter how the IGNORANT don't like it...

Being "enlightened" is a GOOD thing!!!

And you screwed up the 100 year wars? Goodness. And we wonder why our education system in the U.S. seems in trouble.

but that's ok, here is a link for you

http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/hundred_years_war.html

There is more, the thirty years war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

See there was a tradition of RELIGIOUS wars in Europe

The First Amendment also came out of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

It is directly related to this massive experience and STATE religions

But I am sure you knew that

I didn't want to use 50 links to educate you on time lines.

And yes you screwed up the 100 year war. You stated the 100 year war between Catholics and Protestants was the driver. Wrong. The first 100 year war happened before the Church of England broke off. Sure there were a lot of wars. But that was not fueled by Catholic vs. Protestant as you posted. Geez, you are trained in this.

Please show me where in the 100 year war link above it mentions Church or religion.

You went to school on this, you should make no mistakes, but you are. That is sad.

by the way there were religious factors in the 100 year wars, not that you'd know that

No, they technically did not involve protestants and catholics, gotcha, but they did

ANd I will not bother doing remedial education for you

Suffice it to say the link from wiki might have that specialized nugget you might look for... free clue involves France and some regions of Germany, it starts with an H

Religion plays some part in every war, but sometimes minor sometimes major. But you were clueless and posted Protestants and Catholics in 100 year war. You psoted that not be and then bragges that you are "trained"

You are a joke. Were you trained via an online degree? If this is what you do for a living, would find another field.

Again you keep saying remedial education, your training is from where? And how many scholars would agree with you that the 100 year war was driven by conflict between Protestants and Catholics? Just curious. Just because you say it is so, ummm not quite good enough, want someone who is actually respected as a historian and is really trained and published.

If you are trained surely you have published something on this? Tell us about what you have published on conflicts between Protestants and Catholics? Just curious, because you are "trained".

gods and the perfect people don't

Sorry I happen to be human.

Your point?

You want me to prostrate and beg forgiveness?

But if you think the 100 years war didn't have a major religious component, it did.

Not a minor one... but hey , I beg forgiveness, after all I do check on time lines all the time. NOT

Shocker I know...

Up-manship, this is what this is about

My issue is that time after time you tell me I have no clue and how you are so informed yet you miss something simple. And you continue to insult me. It is about up-manship for both of us. I will admit that, can you? But you say you are "trained" in this. And now you acknowledge you aren't focused on timelines. Not focused on timelines when discussing history? Yikes.

My advice don't be such an arrogant know it all. You want to do that go get an Ivy League education, get published, and don't make simple mistakes in something you are "trained" in. Still would be bad to be arrogant, but you would have more credibility.

Here is one that may come as a shock to you

Professional historians spend little time with time lines

But a long time with trends

Yep, even professional historians, my thesis adviser was good in that... make errors in dates. And he always loved, NOT, the smart ass in the class would ahem went but didn't that happen at (date) to the nervous laughter of the class? This is exactly what you are doing that same kind of stupid one up manship the class clown does, and don't want to learn a thing.

See what I told you about the First Ammendment... it is part of a TREND... a long TREND in European history... won't bother withe them furiener term... does not matter.

It is also part of a culture called the Enlightenment

And yes I like to live my life in THAT tradition

That INTELLECTUAL tradition is insulting and haughty to the willfully ignorant by its very nature. Whether that willfully ignorant is one Mr. Burke, defender of the divine right of kings in the 18th century, and boy he could write, or you is immaterial. That is the kind of person that you are... willfully ignorant.

And when presented with facts that most Americans don't know, see Jefferson Bible, you react in a predicted manner.

in a bookstore,

They went out of print a while ago

If you happen to be a book collector, some of them actually have some value

And the Deist, they were the inspiration, with the free masons, for the secret societies of the gaming world I created. I have had to actually dumb down a quite a bit of it, which is a shame truly.

readily available for less than $5 on the internet.

However, I had never heard of the Jefferson Bible and the item was actually published by the Government Printing Office at one time for distribution. 1905 was the last Governement Printing Press edition.

Check this out:

"Book Description: Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1904. Hardcover. Book Condition: Good. Bound in red morroco leather with gilt-stamped decorations. Leather to spine deteriorated somewhat, still presentable. Some gilt has flaked away, title worn but intact. Front board edge bumped. Hinges cracked but holding. Front fly leaf clipped from book but remains present. Pasted on fly leaf is a note dated 1905 from U.S. Representative John W. Maddox, who, during the Civil War, enlisted in the Confederate States Army in Company E, Sixth Georgia Cavalry, and later served as Mayor of Summerville, GA. The note references this book as the "last copy of the Jefferson Bible," and is addressed to Dr. Howard Felton. Mounted on front pastedown is the library plate of Dr. Felton. This book is from the private Library of Cartersville GA resident Dr. Howard E. Felton (son of Civil War surgeon and U.S. Congressman Dr. William Harrell Felton, and Senator Rebecca Latimer Felton. Rebecca Latimer Felton was the first female U.S. Senator. Both were interviewed multiple times by aspiring novelist Margaret Mitchell. Ms. Latimer told Ms. Mitchell of fleeing Bartow County Georgia as Sherman approached (and of making a dress from window drapes,) and Dr. Latimer recounted many experiences that would later be echoed by the GWTW character of Dr. Meade.) Purchased from the Public auction of the Felton Estate."


http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sortby=1&tn=Jefferson+Bible&x=64&y=16

I don't see how the teacher's comment constitutes a prohibition of the free exercise of religion. :shrug:

On the other hand, a federal court saying that a teacher who criticizes creationism is subject to fines and injunctions would suggest an infringement on freedom of speech ...

Could be construes as limiting/prohibiting a religious right. The fine may suggest freedom of speech, but again it may also shine a spotlight that the statements were themselves directed to infringe on the student's first amendment rights. Lot of gray in this.

In what conceivable way did the teacher's comment infringe on religious rights? There is no right to not have one's beliefs challenged, nor even a right to not have one's beliefs ridiculed. Such a statement may (depending on the context) be a misuse of a teacher's authority in some way, but that's an entirely separate issue from the prohibition of one's religious rights. Having someone in authority say that your beliefs are silly simply isn't the same as having someone prohibit you from having those beliefs.

That student is still free to believe whatever superstitious horseshit he wishes to believe.

academically acceptable (i.e., nonsuperstitious) path without insulting the religious student's beliefs. I have often had to deal with these things in my own classes.

bellow...

The family has a history of frivolous lawsuits

And the kid tried to bring this into AP history, using biblical history... as in truly pushed the limits

From teaching in Kansas you know they have been looking for test cases all over the place

So I am not sure we got the full story, if you know what I mean. Why I want this to go to the 9th circuit, and from there to the USSC.

Me... am peachy keen in the environemnt we are living, that I never actually managed to get that job teaching at JC and write these days. Truly

They simply believe that insulting someone of faith is a great thing. You have found a more kind diplomatic way to disagree. Some posters on here want to cheer and say yay, let's insult someone because they have religious faith.

Wish more teachers had your sense of how to handle a discussion.

saying that creationism is superstition is not an insult. Look up the definitioin of the word superstition.

It doesn't fucking matter that believers think attacking the beliefs is bigotry, IT STILL ISN'T.

then public school teachers should call you on your stupidity. A fundie can say that the world is only 6000 years old and a history teacher can call bullshit saying that humans lived in communities for at least 10000 years if not longer.

So maybe I didn't make a real typo hmmmm. But should have typed everyone got a copy of the Jefferson Bible. But technically Bibles were handed out. And yes I know "you're enlightened" Until we find out you didn't go the Ivy League route and are just a simpleton like most of the rest of us.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

people who think religion is crock went to Yale or Harvard? I've got news for you, millions of us who went to public schools all the way through think religion is crock.

Seems you like to play the "let's-put-down-fancy-book-lernin'-educashun" card ... Hmmm, anti-intellectualism going hand-in-hand with religion ... How unusual. :eyes:

we can call religion superstition here. Religion has NO PLACE AT ALL IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS HERE EITHER!

them to change, at least on the surface and in public.

As for being able to criticize religions, you need to pay attention to some of the nonsense going on at the UN, and do it while you can.

superstitious su⋅per⋅sti⋅tious
   /ˌsupərˈstɪʃəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
–adjective
1. of the nature of, characterized by, or proceeding from superstition: superstitious fears.
2. pertaining to or connected with superstition: superstitious legends.
3. believing in, full of, or influenced by superstition.

superstition - 6 dictionary results
Superstition

su⋅per⋅sti⋅tion
   /ˌsupərˈstɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.


see, a belief or nation not based on reason or knowledge, all religions involving a diety fall into this category.
definition from dictionary.com

He didn't attack the believer for BEING a believer.

No matter how much you wish it, attacking beliefs (in this case, foolish ones) is NOT bigotry.

but ridiculing someone because of their silly ass superstitions is not prohibiting free execise of religion in my opinion. You can worship and drink the blood of whatever ghosts you want to, just be prepared to deal with people who think you are a fool for praying to ghosts.

nice reminder that tolerance goes both ways.

That poor child!! He heard an opinion!!

A bit of a difference. The teacher could have responded in a less hateful way and made his opinion known. Bigotry has no place in a classroom, even if it has a lot of support on DU.

This wasn't bigotry. You can say it was a thousand times, it still won't be.

an opinion he should not have heard in the classroom from his teacher. his phrasing was insensitive to say the least. students should not be subjected religious ridicule in the classroom period!

the historical record as well as scientific inquiry then yes, they deserve to be ridiculed for being simpletons living in the dark ages.

is more than just expressing an opnion. It is an abuse of his authority.

When I was in 11th grade, my very religious homeroom teacher humliated me in front of the entire class because I had worked on Easter Sunday rather than attending church. At the time, my father had been laid off, my mother couldn't work more than 20 hours a week because of poor health, and my three jobs were paying for most of our family's bills. For several months until Dad got another job I was feeding and largely supporting a family of eight, and was nearly killing myself to do so. I did not appreciate the fact that this a***ole of a teacher was ranting at me in front of all my classmates for not going to church, especially because I was already a budding agnostic by then.

Just as my 11th grade teacher abused his authority, the teacher who mocked the student's religious beliefs also abused his authority. He would have been within his rights to do what I often have to do, which is to say that the student's beliefs are a private matter, and that they are not part of what we are doing in the classroom. As I told one student, even if I had another job in which I was actually a minister in some church, I would not treat religion or religious texts as academically credible authorities in the classroom--or allow anyone else to do so, even if that person were part of my own congregation.

for not going to church and a teacher mocking someone because they cite religion as their reson to not believe in science?

Fact: creationism isn't science and has no evidence to support it.

Fact: it is religious.

Fact: it is superstition.

Which is precisely why you will never grow another inch intellectually. I INVITE people to challenge what I think because if my opinions can't stand up to scrutiny then they probably need some re-evaluation. You, on the other hand, get insulted if someone suggests your beliefs might be wrong.

That kid needs to be challenged. So do you frankly. That is the role a good school is supposed to play, to challenge students, to encourage them to think outside of the narrow spectrum they entered with. To become something better, more rounded, more confident in themselves and in what they think or believe. I am truly sorry that there are those who feel otherwise.

The classroom is not the place for religious discussion and certainly the teacher should not say a bigoted comment to the student. hink you are the one that shuns any opinion other than your own. The teacher could have phrased this a lot differently and made his point without being a bigot.

If I viewed as someone not "enlightened" because I criticize a teacher making bigoted comments, I'm fine with that.

Should a teacher have the right to say, "I think anyone that is gay is leading a lifestyle that goes against the biological design of nature and therefore something is wromg with them" and say this to a student who is gay. Per your logic, the teacher should be saying that to a gay student if the teacher believes that. Thoughts?

I think that pretty well illustrates why you aren't seeing this objectively. You see, Creationism *IS* superstitious claptrap. It just is. There is no evidence whatsoever to support such a silly idea, and libraries full of evidence that it is not true. I appreciate that you don't like this fact, but it the Truth nonetheless. You don't get to make up things and call them facts simply because you have chosen to believe in a fairy tale. You'll notice though that the teacher did not say "Creationism is superstition, therefore you are a moron". He simply stated the facts and let it be. In your gay student scenario you have a teacher observing that a gay lifestyle "goes against the biological design of nature", and while I would quibble with the way you worded that it could be said in a somewhat different way and be completely true and no, I wouldn't have a problem with that. The truth is the truth and we should ALL be able to hear it. Where your analogy fails though is that your made-up teacher then goes on to offer an opinion on gay people. Saying "Gay people committed to the lifestyle do not contribute to genetic diversity" or some such is fine, going on to add "therefore there is something wrong with you" is not.

A school is no place for the thin-skinned. If your beliefs can not stand up to scrutiny then you would do well to question them yourself, but if cannot do that at the very least don't expect others to indulge you. If you happen to believe you have a car pulled by 10 invisible unicorns, hey go for it, but don't expect me to refuse to discuss cars or oddly endowed equine animals in your presence.

I will agree with anybody who says Dr. Corbett overstepped with his language. However, the basis of everything is a teacher instructing a student that the AP Board will not factor Creationism into his answers. I can understand a simple meeting with the school principal to discuss the teacher's comments, but filing a lawsuit reeks of, well, you know.

religion is superstition I already gave you that definition
religion is also nonsense, anythin of trifling importance or of little or no use. As far as understanding that the world is older than 6000 years and that species have evolved religion is of no use.

nonsense - 9 dictionary results
non⋅sense
   /ˈnɒnsɛns, -səns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
–noun
1. words or language having little or no sense or meaning.
2. conduct, action, etc., that is senseless, foolish, or absurd: to have tolerated enough nonsense.
3. impudent, insubordinate, or otherwise objectionable behavior: He doesn't have to take that nonsense from you.
4. something absurd or fatuous: the utter nonsense of such a suggestion.
5. anything of trifling importance or of little or no use.
6. Genetics. a DNA sequence that does not code for an amino acid and is not transcribed (distinguished from sense ).

"I think anyone that is gay is leading a lifestyle that goes against the biological design of nature and therefore something is wromg with them"

Homosexuality has a very important role in nature, to prevent overpopulation and not serve as surrogate parents.

Them's just the facts.

NT!

Ohh, right, they're promoting one particular set of beliefs over any other set.

When the creationists include Zeus killing Kronos so that he could take over, and Ameterasu spearing a turtle to make Japan, and Brahma daydreaming up the universe... and so on, I'll take them seriously.

Until then, they'll just look like a bunch of people who have yet to read a second book to me.

and mock them (mostly) behind their back and off of DU.

I'm confused

You would think they would be allowed to acknowledge it as a belief held but then say the scientific belief is what is the focus of the curriculum.

This is not something that should be taught in any reputable school that receives tax money. It is religion cloaking itself as science - see the Dover decision if you need more information.

But perhaps acknowledged as a belief of many, but that the curriculum will be based on science.

And that it has a place in the curriculum.

No, it is neither - unless one believes that fairy tales should be taught as fact.

I thought the fairy tales comments stopped with Bill and Obama.

but a science class. As a biologist and former teaching assistant, it would have been silly for me to get up in front of the class and pepper my facts with "well, some people believe that horses with wings and a spiral horn on their snouts exist, but science has found no evidence of this." I'd be spending all my time commenting on myths instead of teaching FACTS.

The idea that "creationism" should even be "acknowledged" in a science class is absurd. There is absolutely NO reason to mention it. There are links to 41 creation myths from around the world at http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html -- why should a SCIENCE class waste time thinking about any of them? And what makes the myth laid out in Genesis any more compelling or "correct" than any of the other 40? It is, after all, in the larger scheme of things, just that, one more creation myth.

"Creationism" is for lazy-minded, incurious students who find evolution "too hard" to comprehend. Apparently the idea that a man came out of the sky and created everything in 6 days is easier on their little pea brains. I have NEVER met a "creationist," or read the writings of one, who had even a basic understanding of the principles of evolution.

NT!

Had Corbett phrased it differently, it would be a different matter. "Superstitious nonsense" goes well beyond the role of an instructor. That may be "true" but there are other ways to say it that aren't personally insulting.

Could have said, Creationism isn't grounded in scientific evidence, it is a religious point of view. That doesn't have anything to do with whether one should believe it or not, it simply isn't within the confines of science.

I'm actually angry at James Corbett for being a dick and thus causing this embarrassing flap where none should have been.

Some on here who only like the not promote part of the first amendment may lambast me, but I'm posting more than just that part. The first amendment has a "not promote" and I know this may shock "not prohibit" clause. Who knows perhaps the court found the statement as one that had the school seeking to infringe and prohibit the student's free exercise of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

How did the teacher become a member of congress and pass a law that promoted or prohibited religion? And if he didn't do that, then how is this a 1st amendment issue?

I'm not a lawyer, but haven't courts with the 1st amendment expanded the word Congress to include any governemnt organization. When a town thinks about a nativity exhibit on public land and that is challenged as a wall of seperation violation, I doubt the challenge is againt the U.S. Congress, but rather a government institution in the U.S. that has gone against the 1st amendment.

So I think the court here is following this pattern and viewing that a government instition and it's employees in the U.S. must follow the 1st amnedment.

He's still free to believe.

NT!

I didn't attend Capo, but a study group with him for AP Euro. He's a fantastic person and didn't deserve for this to happen to him. I'd like to make a few choice comments about the Farnans, but it seems they're prone to filing inane lawsuits.

If he's saying that to a kid in his class, yeah he deserves what he gets. Sounds like an intolerant bigot and classrooms don't need to be led by intolerant bigots.

But, but it is the truth, creationism is religion...

And no I am not intolerant, but this is just the kind of religious shit that bugs me

And if you want to call me intolerant so be it. This is a fact

Keep the public street to the public street, and the religion to the church

After all, the theory that dinosaurs were all killed off by an asteroid is accepted as fact, but there are new theories that challenge that.

As science minded folks often do they accept something as fact when it sometimes turns out to be wrong. But that is not all bad, as we tend to keep looking for answers.

I feel religion is the same way - folks accept something as fact even if they cannot prove it. They look at the evidence from themselves and others and make a hypothesis based on that - even if it flies in the face of accepted information.

that thinking changes

But creationism is 170 years old, created by one man by the name of Darby, and includes things like humans and dinos shared the planet

I have yet to see the evidence that humans shared the earth with dinos outside the Flinstones

Yes it is magical thinking and yes it is religion, not that far from what led to the burning of witches

The point is though, folks go with what info they have based on observations, theories, etc - even if all of that is wrong. In that sense, it is akin to a belief.

Religious people feel that they believe in something which we don't have the tools to prove yet to others, so go based on what they have seen/felt/etc. Just like folks in science go based on theory for now and then as technology catches up they work to prove such theories.

Sometimes, belief overrides common sense and what we observe and seem to know - and yet later on we learn that such beliefs were right on.

Similar to my ideas on ghosts - can't prove they exist or what they are, religion says you have a sould and that it goes to heaven or hell on death (well, some religions), science says we don't have one, and either way you go such things as ghosts don't exist (although I will note Jesus believed in them as well).

Yet people see them, I have caught evp's myself. I can't say what it all is, but to not investigate the whole thing further seems arrogant to me. As someone who loves science and always has I look for a middle ground (which is why I hate some ghost hunting shows, they have little scientific method - like when looking for evp's use several recorders from different brands, place them in strategic places and note their distances, see if you pick up the same thing on them all, and then work in zeroing in on the source, etc - I don't want entertained, I want answers).

On another note - Yes, I think some folks go a little overboard with things like humans and dinosaurs hung out together. But then I tend to be open minded because knowledge DOES change how we see the past and the future. Thinking we are right because we have not proven we are wrong seems like something a closed minded person would say (which is what fundies often do themselves).

observations and all that, have to be repeated

Not that every person will be involved in this repeating, but to use the most basic of examples that have changed

The theory of gravity... we know that things fall

Until one Isaac Newton looked at it from a math and physics point of view

His efforts led to the development of Classical Mechanics, but Classical is not enough of an explanation

And our understanding of gravity has changed from Classic, aka Newtonian, to what today we know as Quantum Physics and it is part of the elemental forces of nature.

Now God... every faith has principles of faith.

For Judaism, there is one god, he created the world and has no image... (there are a few more.. after all there are ten) and these you have to believe as a matter of faith, not allowed to question

In Catholicism you need to believe in the trinity, and the virgin birth, no evidence, this is faith

And this is where science, and religion parted ways.

In science you use you can ask, encouraged to do such, and you should be able to repeat your observations. That pesky scientific method, and one a historian of science called the path of religious revolutions.

In Religion you are not supposed to... there are things written in stone.

And the separation between the two, after all Newton dabbled in science as a hobby, and was far more interested in religious matters, see Bible Code and astrology, started happening around the time of Isaac Newton... he was one, but not just the only one responsible for that shift. My personal hero of the age was actually Keppler.

And ever since the two, especially at the most basic of levels, have been in-conflict, partly because very religious people, no matter what religion, do see this thinking, as a threat.

They have theorized that if you demand proof, you will stop believing. Given that believing in something bigger might be coded in the brain, no chance religion will die... but the two should be able to co-exist. But the very religious people... fundies, see this as a threat. A clear and present danger. And to be fair, some folks like dawkins see religious thinking as a threat to human survival

I will give one point to Dawkns... I agree, Millenarian thinking is a threat... and it has all to do with self-fulfilling prophecy. We do, after all, have the capacity to bring the end of the world and ahem fulfill prophecy.

Oh and as to Dinos co-existing with humans, if we find ever the evidence we would have to re-write the books of geology, and life on earth, which is also seen as a threat by fundies in the three revelatory religions. After all our relatives during that era were ittty little rodent like creatures that were able to survive the mess. And once they emerged well the ground was open, and many a niche was opened after the top animals went away. That said some dinos did evolve... into birds, so you could say that very technically when you eat a chicken, you are eating T-Rex, and I share my home with three dinos (Pisitachines, aka parrots) Alas, that is not what they mean... and no I will never eat T-Rex meat, nor share my home with a bona fide dino... and a long neck wold be hard to feed anyway... imagine the house breaking necessary...

Now I will say something that may be controversial, religion was adaptive until recently, but that is just my opinion. And if it is coded in the brain, that would evolution at its best. social evolution, or biological? The point is that it was, as it helped create a sense of identity and belonging. That was replaced about the same time the nation state started to rise... and with rationalist you also saw the rise of the nation state. These days we are superseding the state system of Metternich and moving towards a world system... so I don't know how religion will pan out, if we survive. But if religion was adaptive to early survival and it is indeed biological... it may disappear if it proves not to be adaptive..

Scientists DO NOT just go off "feelings" and then go looking for evidence. Quite the opposite.

And science doesn't assert that there is no soul. It simply concludes, rightly so based on the lack of evidence, that there's no reason to assert souls exist.

:-)

Hell even comparative religion... would be fun in-fact

in the 21st, comparative religion, theology, etc all should be taught... in the context of our history and how we have functioned as a society up to present because of religious dogma. A year in Seminary did wonders for me and opened my eyes to so much...

oh the late in the night discussions... and I mean deep discussions

We went into subjects (Liberation Theology for example... and how it evolved in the Catholic Church and Judaism, yes most people don't know the latter) We also went into Creationism...

And no, he made no fun of any of this, fer god sakes he was a Seminarian, and I don't know what happened to him after he was ordained

One of the most brilliant people I have ever met...

Then yes, I would call you intolerant. DU seems to be the place to be to insult any one that dares have religious faith, also a great place for insulting those of little financial means, nothing better than insulting a poor person living in a trailer. Disagreement is one thing, but the intolerant BS often seen on this forum is disappointing.

my view is this

I will not make fun of you for believing in whatever deity you happen to believe in, please have the courtesy to do the same unless we are actually having a discussion where this is relevant

Creationism is religious thinking, belongs in a theology or philosophy class, even religious studies, or comparative religion, or history if you are doing a survey of the history of religion

But not in a science class or in other areas of the curriculum

Also apparently the family has a history of frivolous lawsuits, and a teacher saying this is religious thinking is correct... very correct, and in fact, a matter of fact. It has precious little to do with first amendment rights

To use the words of the Founders, this is a matter for the private sphere, not the public sphere

I even dare say that some of our founders would shake their heads in disgust at how religious this country has become

Can agree with your request, but this teacher didn't play by those rules. If its a public school teachers should get in trouble for saying what he did. Its how it was worded, in a very hateful way. Gives a view into the mind of the teacher.

I sense that many on here wish this teacher had a march in his honor. Yay let's celebrate someone who says bigoted things. Yay.

it is

If that hurts your feelings, then I am sorry

As to a march... I hope he takes it all the way to the USSC, frankly

Where do I contribute to his defense fund?

After all does that mean facts are now verbotten in school?

Those who are fans of religious bigotry have new hero yay.

would be part of that group

I suspect he, and others who'd join him in shaking their heads in amazement, would have a few words

After all the Amendment you are bandying around, was written because of the 100 year war... a real nasty religious war... you know catholic, vs protestant, but I am sure you knew that

I could suggest a long lists of books on the Enlightenment, Deists and all that, but I suggest you start by googling Jefferson Bible

Imagine this, he'd have even more choice words than the teacher if he were around... something about myth and fantasy

What an arrogant post. Yikes. Did you go to an Ivy League school? I am sick of so many "I'm enlightened" arrogant posters on this forum. If you did not, then you are just a poor simpleton, as am I.

So why do you suppose again that Bibles were handed out until 1901 but yet things are more religious now? You did not comment on that?

You are so smart on history. Let's see the hundred years war happened between 1337- 1453. Wow a word search does not yield the word Catholic or Protestant, religion or even Church???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_years_wars

The Church of England split from the Catholic Church in 1534? Huh wasn't the 100 year war between France and England and of course all religious in nature. I think Wikipedia has the wrong timeline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

You must mean the Second Hundred Year's War, well someone as smart as you why didn't you think to indicate that? Hmmmm, think we all know why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Hundred_Years_War

The following was Digitized by our friends at Google. Page 152 has a nice write up on the reason for the first amendment. Sadly they don't mention your user name, or much on religious conflicts in Europe. But need for freedom concerning religion is important seems clear in it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=EICeS4NXJ8cC&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=%22reason+for+first+amendment%22&source=bl&ots=ZVucFNnXoG&sig=lq2KHOV5TbE9b6At9KIP6WNC2gQ&hl=en&ei=8xz9SZnOIIWEtwfe9N2iDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA152,M1


One of us needs a history lesson, it is you, but I am sure you knew that.

there is more, my area of specialty is the Enlightenment, you know that period

Here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Now enjoy your pizza, you will get one

Guaranteed

look up nonsense in a dictionary. Creationism is of no value for explaining the history of life on our planet.

NT!

You just summed up the cesspool that DU has become.

If I say your belief that chocolate sucks (were you to believe that) is insane, it doesn't mean I'm saying YOU are insane.

Jesus rising from the dead 3 days later is religious, superstitious nonsense as well, but I would expect any teacher telling his class such a thing would be rightfully reprimanded.

Teachers are still state employees, and they should respect the separation of church and state, despite their personal beliefs.

The correct response to a student's request to discuss creationism in history class is "discussing personal religious beliefs is outside the subject matter of this class."

kid wanted to use religious (biblical) history for AP history final

As I said, hope teacher has a defense fund... I'll gladly give money

if someone told you in science class that the dead could be brought back to life and cited jesus rising you can easily say it is nonsense.

He made an offhand remark about Christianity. Should he have done that? No, but the Farnans overreacted because of their...beliefs. My super-conservative Baptist history teacher tore into me for being an atheist. Did I sue? No, I complained to the principal, he did nothing and I moved on. I worked my ass off in that class just to stick it to the asshole.

Have you ever even met Dr. Corbett? He is far from an intolerant bigot. Why don't you sit down with the man before passing judgment.

Perhaps he's no less hateful than Miss California, but I sense he resents anyone that has religious beliefs. Just because he is a bigot against religion and that is a bigotry that is cheered by many on here doesn't make it okay.

Chad Farnan views Creationism as truth. In AP Euro, the test given at the end is not based on biblical history, but actual fact. AP European History covers the creation of Christianity and Farnan didn't agree with the facts. Creationism has no place in a public school classroom and Corbett was attempting to tell Farnan his beliefs wouldn't fly on the AP Test. Yes, he overreacted, but he does not, in any way, single out student because of their religion. He's had much more conservative students in his class.

Let me explain this to you. He is a teacher in a public "government" school. His comment was bigoted and can be seen as prohibiting the student's free exercise under the 1st amend. Religious bigotry should not be tolerated, heck its celebrated and promoted on here sometimes, just because the bigotry is popular among those who think they are so briiliant. Which Ivy League school did you go to? I've decided unless someone acting "enlightened" actually went to an Ivy League school I will remind them they are a simple commoner like myself.

Debating this is obviously not worth my time.

I went to Wellesley.

For grad school. Both good schools. And sad, you find little wrong with what the tecaher said. Sadly I have decided only those who went to the Ivy League schools are "enlightened", you are I are just common poor souls.

So, Wellesley alumni Madeline Albright and Hillary Clinton aren't enlightened? I don't understand how a person's schooling has any effect on their knowledge. If I gloated and mentioned my graduate acceptance to Columbia, is my opinion more important? Am I still "enlightened" even though I turned it down to care for my sick mother?

My problem is the use of "bigot" to describe Dr. Corbett. It's disrespectful to him, but more so to all those who died at hands of bigotry. By your logic, Chad suffered the same fate as Matthew Shepherd?

that is so cool that only the rich like George W. Bush, who went to yale are enlightened whereas someone like me, who studied history just like Bush, but at the University of Illinois at Chicago is just a simpleton. Gee I wish I were as enlightened as W. is....

They're not Ivy League.

You should save the big words for actual bigotry, that is, repressing someone based on skin color, ideology, or gender. REPRESSING, not insulting. Sheesh.

If he insulted the student, tough shit. That kids needs to grow a thicker skin and quit whining. He's never going to get anywhere in the real world.

ATTACKING A BELIEF IS NOT BIGOTRY.

and is not a bigot nor resentful of anyone that has a religious belief. I grew up in a religious home, I respect many people that are religious, did a year in seminary hopeful of becoming a Minister and I certainly don't think I am bigoted but I do believe that "creationism' is 'religious, superstitious nonsense'.

Stop ASSuming things about this teacher, you haven't a damn clue what your talking about.

You'd think if this teacher is the hateful, intolerant bigot (you do love that word, don't you?) your making him out to be he would have had several situations like this one come up, but 20+ years of teaching and this is the first, and by reading the history (you know, reading, not "sensing") of the student and his parents are their personal crusade to incorporate their religious believes into the school system you know he was trying his best to get a rise out of him so that he could waste tax payers money by suing him.

look up the words in the dictionary. creationism is nonsense and superstition.

removed from the reciting of the Pledge in public schools.

Also, it brands creationism as a religious belief, not a science. That's another nail in the god squad's coffin.

Still, it's a sad day when a teacher can be found guilty of speaking an obvious truth.

BTW - my kids are in the same school system, but in a town on the other side of the 5 from Mission Viejo.

I feel so alone. :cry:

THis kind of shit really irks me

You can attempt to contact him to ask through the school's website if you'd like. I'm sure he appreciates knowing people support him.

http://www.cvhs.com/misc/cms_contact?d=x&id=1148451141465&return_url=1241315671133

I e-mailed him last night and if I get a response I'll ask about the defense fund.

And to keep up the good work.

I'm personally a fan when those who make bigoted comments get a lot of negative feedback. Hate isnt the answer to hate, but maybe he'll figure out that while saying bigoted comments may garner a few cheers, maybe its just not an acceptable thing to do.

we even used to burn people for that, or press them to death

But when someone like Don Imus says bigoted things, think its great a price is paid. You may celebrate bigotry, I do not. You have a rainbow image in your posts, what if a teacher says, "that lifestyle is nonsense, not what nature intended". I think that would be inappropriate and the teacher should pay a price. But based on your logic, nope.

should be stoned

And "liberal thinking" such as that ungodly evolution, should not be taught... and they have been working for that for decades

I am sure you are all for that, or to give you the benift of the doubt you don't realize this. The case was not because junior was insulted... there are ulterior motives, nor is this the first case, or sadly the last.

Look religious nuts would love to stone people.. and impose their way on the country.

He only challenged the kid a little by stating a fact... it is magical thinking

As to rosey... not really. Just knowing where we have been as a country helps to see where we are going to.

The problem is this country is quite ahistorical about its own hsitory... so most people, like you, don't know what the Jefferson Bible is for example, or that we have had one Religious Revival, in the 19th century, and that one went away... and this one shares many elements with that one. Soon this one shall pass too. Personally I cannot wait for that day to get here. Oh and the new generation of evangelicals, the young ones, have already hinted that the culture wars (this is part of them) are over.

The student might have been persistent and obnoxious leading up to the teacher's remark. (I'll bet he was.) AFAIAC, the teacher's statements are not bigoted.

--imm

NT!

NT!

Bashing creationism isn't the same as bashing religion or bashing Christianity. I know people who are religious who think that Creationism (as commonly understood) is religious, superstitious nonsense.

So he gets sued for telling the truth?

Fuck the gawd squad...

RL

It doesn't fit.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

This teacher said that Creationism was "religious, superstitious nonsense" which is his OPINION which should be protected speech. I don't see hate or intolerance in that statment - just disagreement which is still allowed, right? I didn't see where it says what led to that point, but I don't see those words as intolerant anymore than it is intolerant to SUE someone because they don't share your faith and say it in the classroon. I think the teachers feelings about creationism are those of atheists and even many Christians who believe in God, but also have faith in science. Rulings like this stifle debate and effectively make it illegal in discussions in schools to disagree with Christians. Ridiculous! Christians claim they want God in schools, but they don't want honest points of view. Whose the bigot?

Imagine the uproar on Fox and AM Radio if a Christian teacher happened to mention that evolution was superstitious nonsense (which probably happens), was sued and a judge ruled against them.

Sorry that some were offended by this man's statement and maybe his 1st amendment rights are suspended while he's in school (??), but the fact that this made it to a courtroom and further that the teacher lost, is proof that Christian fundamentalist have way too much influence and that some judges are more swayed by their faith than the law.

Is speech that you can argue should be protected but it is bigoted.

This teacher's comment sure sounds bigoted. I see hate in the words. Not as much hate as the original poster has, but hate still.

You see hate and I see disagreement. Reading the link I see that this was not just about 1 line, but the lawsuit was about ongoing comments that the student felt were disparaging his beliefs. Still....When is speech NOT protected? It's not so simple, IMO. Even if true, is having and expressing athiest views illegal in public schools?

Maybe any and all discussion of religion should stay out of public schools PERIOD, but isn't it the religious folks that keep arguing AGAINST that? If they want to bring up this dialog then the other opinions must also be tolerated.

by a careful examination of what creationism claims, and comparison with actual facts. It doesn't mean there was any prejudice; and neither is it just his own opinion - most of the world think creationism is wrong. And it fits a definition of 'superstitious' too - 'relating to a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation'. So calling creationism "religious, superstitious nonsense" is not bigotry.

However, the First Amendment isn't about bigotry; previous court decisions have held that a statement by a public employee, as part of his job, that disparages a primarily religious belief, without a good secular purpose for the disparagement, break the amendment. That there are good arguments that the belief is nonsense doesn't affect the judgement.

NT!

keep trying to mess with educational standards in this country (and in my state, Kansas!), especially their attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution in science classes.

BUT I have no more right as a teacher to try to shove my nonbelief down any believing student's throat than a believer has to try to shove his or her belief down a nonbelieving student's throat.

I understand the teacher's frustration with the Creationism/ID claptrap. I sometimes have to deal with students trying to bring religion into their essays in my own classes, even though I teach college English. They hate when I tell them that a religious authority--even the bible or the Qur'an--is not academically credible evidence to be used in a research paper. But there are ways of explaining to them what is and is not acceptable in an academic paper without insulting their religious beliefs, even though I personally also happen to consider most of what they believe to be superstitious nonsense.

I don't want believers foisting their beliefs on me; similarly, I have absolutely no right to use my power in the classroom to insult their beliefs.

Even though I understand and share the teacher's frustration, he definitely crossed a line he should not have crossed.

Great post. Wish your approach was followed by everyone.