'Judge rules teacher violated 1st Amendment... for calling Creationism bunk.'

Can anyone else smell the hypocrisy?



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html


So... for expressing an opinion that some ignorant kid didn't like, this guy is found guilty of violating the First Amendment?!?

:wtf:

If a kid gets an F on a spelling test, he can sue the teacher for violating his religious beliefs that "potato" ends with an "e."

This needs to be appealed and struck down.

Where will it stop?

Where this kind of right-wing judicial activism thrives.

Upping my donation AU.org today.

Of course the even crazier thing is that this is the same county that has Dana Rorhbacher (R-Taliban) as its representative, so it's no surprise that cases like this come up.

I just searched the first page of GD... should have gone deeper.

in that discussion that bore looking at again.

But the Christian student's Constitutional rights I guess are more important than this teacher's. (Federal judge, eh? Who appointed this asshat?) Wonder if this kid is going to sue everyone who says something his precious ears don't want to hear?

If the teacher was some bible thumping asshat who told his atheist student that "God exists and you are going to hell" would you still disagree with the court's decision?

It would still be protected speech.

I really do think that bullshit should not be taught in schools though.

And a clear violation of church and state.

Is barefoot a shoe? Is bald a hair color? Is doing nothing a hobby? I could go on...

--imm

Wow. Learn something new every day.

Sid

the lack of a belief in a god is not religion.... find another talking point.

Schools should teach causality. A person is free to believe that rocks fall upward, but if the teacher tells this person that this belief is nonsense, there shouldn't be a trial for that. The teacher is doing his job.

But this ludicrous equalization of science with science fiction does nothing to promote critical thinking in our students.

Creationism IS bunk, simple scientific truth.
And saying it is bunk is not equivalent to expressing religious views in class. Not the same thing at all.

In other words, once the teacher reports for duty at school or is otherwise directly in the activity of teaching students, his/her first amendment rights are pretty much left at the door. This is true for nearly all workplaces.

In the case of the student, if this is a public school, they do have the right to have an education unencumbered by religion or hostility to religion (separation of church and state), within the same strictures that otherwise apply to such protections. Students do, in fact, have the right to not be preached to either in favor of a particular religion(s) or in opposition to a particular religion(s).

Until we get beyond the idea that evolution is up for debate (not likely to happen without some amazing revelation), this case will always favor the student.

the student's first amendment rights:

>>{Corbett's comments} Therefore, no creation, unless you invoke magic. Science doesn’t
It’s not, ooh, then magic. That’s not the way we work.

Contrast that with creationists. They never try to disprove
creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s
deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.

. . .


{The Court} Even if one could infer religious disapproval from the above comments, a
reasonable observer would find that the primary effect of Corbett’s statements
above was to distinguish generally accepted scientific reasoning from religious
belief and to illustrate a historical shift from religious to scientific thinking.<<

http://www.faith-freedom.com/files/District%20Court%20Order_05%2001%2009.pdf (Sorry about the source for the opinion - if you want, you can set up a PACER account and get it directly from the federal court system at around $.08/page. I couldn't quickly find a non-biased source that had posted the opinion online.)

The comment the court condemned was not made in the context of discussing the scientific validity of creationism - it was made solely (in their opinion) as a condemnation of religion.

I didn't read the opinion closely enough to decide yet whether I agree about the context of the single (out of 20) comments they found violated the student's constitutional rights, but the fact that the court expressly rejected the assertion that the comment that "Scientifically, {creationism}'s nonsense" violated his rights tells me that the court was not just equating rejecting creationism as science with a violation of the first amendment.

No one deserves have that kind of contempt aimed at their religion in a public school. The teacher should've showed better judgment.

While I might agree with his perception and acknowledge his frustration with fundie kids, I do think he was unprofessional in this case.

I also think it should have been handled outside the court system. I mean, come on now! Violating a teenager's civil rights? That kid is going to hear a whole lot worse in the real world, if he's ever allowed to confront it after bible college.

we'd see just how devoid of de facto First Amendment rights he actually is. On any other First Amendment question, the courts' actions in favor of the kid would doubtless be much less aggressive. He's lucky his teacher hit on the religion-bashing taboo as opposed to violating his rights in some other way.

Is this a case of an acerbic, no-nonsense teacher faced with a young man who is constantly arguing over not being able to push his church-based interpretation in his homework and is bringing his personal Jaysus into the classroom. Or is this a case of a high-handed, short tempered teacher making statements to ridicule students who showed any inkling of religious - or any other type of orientation?

Big difference - in the first case, the kid himself is potentially disrupting the classroom while he's proselytizing his religion, and definitely should face some sort of consequence for that action. Being put down is relatively mild, compared to being kicked out of the class on some sort of "zero tolerance" rule.
In the second case, the teacher is creating a hostile environment for his students and equally should face consequences for his behavior - with his job, at the very least. There's a huge difference between "challenging" a student's potentially bad habits in ways that get through their fog of adolescent self-aggrandizement (teenagers are notoriously self-centered and unobservant) and intentionally hurting feelings.
Of course, once you get the standard OC helicopter parents involved, all rational methods of recourse tend to go out the window.
I've known both types of situations, and radicals of any stripe are uncomfortable to be around when you're trying to get a job done.

Haele

You can argue that the teacher was endorsing religion, but if the students have the right to express their religious beliefs freely in class (and courts have held that they do), it's very hard to expect individual teachers to stay silent in the face of information that the teachers believe is erroneous.

I was a minister's kid and therefore chosen to read the Bible passage many, many days in high school by my home room teacher who told the class (way back when) that she did not believe in God. I was embarrassed by being singled out and hated having religion taught in school as a result, but the teacher was trying to handle a difficult situation as well as she could.

If a student is allowed to go on and on "preaching" or teaching the student's religious beliefs in the classroom, and the teacher does not respond, the teacher is tacitly endorsing the student's religious beliefs. There is no way to rule on this fairly. The judge should have declined to hear the case.

If I belong to a faith that believes illness is caused by demons, but the health teacher says that is bunk, then my rights are violated... right?

Seriously though... there are a number of very fine distinctions to play with here. Having read what's been said, I can understand the judge's reasoning... even though I disagree.

over the line was the comment about creationism.

Another defense of an "omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent" God by the believers.

And being a public school, it would certainly apply here as well.

Congress probably still has a chaplain and commences each session with prayer.

The current chaplain is Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin

To serve as Chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives is truly an honor and a privilege. To be both a minister of the Lord and an officer serving the United States government responds to a twofold call to serve others and offer prayer that unites Heaven and Earth.

With 435 Members in the House and their staffs, plus all the other wonderful people who serve here with committee work or in the Chamber, including teenage Pages, my pastoral duties are many and varied. My goal is to meet the needs of this working community on a personal level. The problems that weigh on hearts and the confusion that at times blocks clarity of thinking become my concerns.

The formal prayer before each legislative session of Congress, and even before days of pro forma sessions, casts a light on the day that awakens faith and calls forth a nation to stand with its leaders and affirm: “In God We Trust.” But daily prayer for the Members of the House cannot end there.


http://chaplain.house.gov/

Daniel P. Coughlin STL (born November 8, 1934) is the Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives. Appointed in March 2000, he is the first Roman Catholic priest to serve as House Chaplain.

. . . .

Reverend Coughlin's Opening Prayer for 18 June 2008 represented a political departure from his characteristically impartial invocations with the entreaty: "End this water-boarding of America's fields and rural towns even if we can no longer define torture ourselves."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_P._Coughlin

Probably a pretty decent fellow.

Here is a list of past chaplains.

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

but a tolerable acknowledgement of widely held beliefs. The ruling was made quite some time ago, but you do pose a rather interesting case that might be revisited at some point, especially in light of school prayer cases.

Had a hell of a time clicking the link though....do not like anything Fox.

"...The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility...."

I guess the excerpt explains the judges rationale, but I'm not sure a statement like this---

...when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

--- would meet the definition of "religious hostility".


These two were dismissed and may well demonstrate teaching stupidity.

"invented when the first con man met the first fool."
"when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

Not sure it's exactly a "win" for creationism.

That would be fine with me.

for one thing, the judge doesn't even understand the first amendment. I could go on from there, but that's enough.. if the JUDGE doesn't understand the law, then the judge has no business in his/her position.

It's actually pretty clear: the amendment is to protect the population FROM GOVERNMENT intereference in their ability to practice or ignore religion, to prevent them from speaking freely, etc.

When a judge tries to use the first amendment to abridge a CITIZEN's ability to do any of those, the point has been missed. Its not an amendment to protect one citizen from another, its an amendment to limit the government's ability to disproportionately create or enforce laws against the citizenry.


That is why I say the judge completely doesn't get the amendment, and to use the amendment as a tool to control classroom environments is fairly far afield, especially since the alleged agrieved group -- students -- are constantly found by courts (incorrectly in my mind) to have no rights in the first place . That is their view on drug searches, etc.

hope that clears up my view on the proper interpretation of the first amendment.

Its perhaps the best known Amendment of them all. If the teacher told the student he was not aloowed to say what he said, then THAT is infringing on 1st Amendment rights. Disagreeing with the student is not.

Then, he would have been expressing a factual matter pertaining directly to his curriculum and educational purview.

Evolution vs. Creationism is a matter of history too.

Agreed.

And America again makes itsself a fool in front of the world. Apparently nothing has changed in a hundered years.

This trial was about the Constitution.

Which implies that creationism is nonsense.

It's absurd. Both parties have a First Amendment right to express their views.

and an atheist student was suing because a religious teacher wouldn't stop insulting nonbelievers?

Period. If I brought my religious beliefs into a classroom setting, then I am asking for it.

thank goodness this judge has a law degree, eh?

Link

I think it's important to read the actual decision. It gives a much better understanding of the facts of the case than an article from foxnews.

I've always felt that advocating for any given religion has no place in the classroom and I would be a hypocrite if I didn't feel that the reverse was equally unacceptable.

The trick is to protect the rights of the students while also protecting a teacher's right to hold a broad discussion of issues that may be offensive to particular religions. After reading through the ruling it seems clear to me that the judge did a fair job of walking that fine line. A number of the more absurd claims that were made by the kid's lawyer were rightly rejected by the judge.

really??

so, let me get this straight:

"science" teachers talking about how humans and dinosaurs coexisted, and that the world is only @6,000 years old - OK

calling creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture - NOT OK.

am i reading this correctly???

Science teachers can not teach Creationism. The Dover case pretty much locked that up.

However, as a representative of the state, a teacher cannot show hostility toward religion. That's how this case was decided. He may have been pushed, but had he simply said, "Creationism is not science," he would have been OK.

--imm

in other words, he could've stuck to the facts and got his point across.

unfortunately everyone has their boiling point. looks like he reached his.

I'm surprised I lasted in the classroom, though teaching in NYC, I rarely got challenged on religion. But you said it, "stick to the facts."

--imm

That statement failed the first prong of the "lemon test".

--imm

It's a fact that Creationism is superstitious nonsense, by definition, and any secularist with half a brain would agree.

Aside from denigrating and attacking a particular religious belief what other purpose was there for that statement?

Education.

is that he was frustrated, as was stated upthread. for all we know this kid could have been baiting the teacher for a month. as a teacher the job is to teach, to enlighten, and help them figure out things on their own. he said what he felt needed to be said.

i personally don't see anything wrong with the teacher's comment, but the courts did. as much as i see the court's point, it still needed to be said.

why not start teaching that the world is flat again? or how about the sun revolves around the world? letting this creationism shit into schools will plunge our children's education and future that much further down the toilet.

as to how the court interpreted that comment. It did NOT violate the student's rights.

If not, why not?

My assumption is that it's simply not a 'popular' enough belief.

(simplified for brevity)

IF flat earthism was a religious belief, he would have been permitted to say flat earthism is not science but he would not have been able to say flat earthism (the religious belief) was bunk.

Can the Judge or a Prosecutor prove that creationism isn't bunk? The burden of proof is supposed to fall on the State right?

:dunce:

WTF?

This judge ought to be disbarred. He has just violated the guys 1st amendment rights by ruling that the guy violated the 1st amendment rights of a student because he was dismissive of the students opinion. At least, this is a violation if you follow the logic of his ruling.

Any time you disagree with someone's idea(s) and say so you have violated the other person's 1st amendment freedoms.

This "judge" ought to study the law and, in the process, read the Constitution that he just ruled was violated.

To wit:

Amendment I

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.

If this teacher is not a legislative body or lawmaker I don't think he can violate the 1st amendment. Even extended to the logical extreme, you can't say that this teacher did anything but tell the student that his idea was utter nonsense.

I was told my ideas were utter nonsense many times during my formal education. Often the teacher was right. Sometimes they were wrong. But I can't say I ever felt that my 1st amendment freedoms were violated...

Saying someone's beliefs are bunk is sure to be offensive. Stating that Creationism cannot be defined as a scientific theory (and even better explaining why, from a clinical standpoint) might bruise the tender of faith but would wouldn't be spit in the eye.

Stating that Creationism is superstitious nonsense is an opinion. There is no way to prove or disprove the point but it is easy to point out that Creationism is not a scientific hypothesis and should stick with that. The teacher selected the words very, very, very poorly regardless if you think he is right as rain or not.

Teachers are in a very sensitive spot and can slip right into Establishment. I think the opposite would be abundantly clear. If some fundie was shoving his beliefs on your kids, folks would rightfully be up in arms and there is no difference here, other than folks opinion of the validity of the statement.

It appears to me that it is a teaching effectiveness issue rather than a constitutional issue.

I mean, look at Glenn Beck, Limpballs, etc.

Of all the hard-hitting statements Corbett made in class, Selna found that only one "violated" the Clause, leaving ALL the others floating in the air as quite acceptable, legal, and legitimate criticisms of this one student.

In the complex response Selna offered it seems to me he has imbedded a strong message to this student, a message suggesting that the big wide world awaits him, and that as he grows into adulthood he isn't going to be able to sue his way through.

I think this could be the final test of this crap!

It is a lot more complex than the Fox article makes it out to be.

The court rejected 19 other statements made by Corbett - some of them pretty outrageous - because it viewed them in the context in which they were made. One of the comments the court REJECTED because it determined it DID NOT violate Farnham's rights was "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." (Pages 16-18)

The problem the court found with the comment about creationism was that in the context it was made it was clearly condemning religion (in the Court's opinion) - something that state is not permitted to do (any more than it is permitted to promote religion - although how well it conforms to that policy is questionable). There were other, far longer and far more dismissive of creationism as science that were found DID NOT violate Farnam's rights (pages 26-28 of the opinion). Statements found DID NOT violate Farnam's first amendment rights included this exchange: "Contrast that with creationists. They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense."

The opinion can be found here: http://www.faith-freedom.com/files/District%20Court%20Order_05%2001%2009.pdf (I am NOT endorsing the site - it is just the first location I found a copy of the opinion so I could read directly what the court said - not Fox's interpretation of what the court said.)

I've come to understand this, but there is no lack of irony nonetheless.

Welcome to the USA in the 21st century. In some aspects, it's more backward than in 1776.