Lawsuit alleging anti-Christian statements to go forward

[drkitten]

In an education system that promotes seperation of Church and State, should such a conversation have taken place anyway?

Only if there was a valid secular purpose for it --- but promulgation of atheism as a belief system doesn't qualify.

On the other hand, if the teacher was role-playing in an effort to describe (for instance) the rise of atheism as a force in philosophy and science as part of the Enlightenment, then there's nothing (legally) wrong with it. I'd want to know more about the context in which those statements were uttered before I passed judgement. It's not like fundicrats are embarassed by out of context quote-mining.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's too bad that a person can get into trouble for telling the truth.

 

[linusrichard]

This depends on what one means by "irrational" - but in the strictest sense of the word, it is not necessarily true that religious belief is irrational, and it is generally untrue of traditional Christianity. Christianity does not generally advance propositions that contain formal contradictions or that otherwise can be readily negated on purely rational (i.e. logical) grounds. This is why some of the most consistently rational minds have managed to stick it out in Christianity (regardless of its arguable improbability) - not because they suspended their rational sense, but because Christian doctrine did not require them to.

I bolded the part I have trouble with. I don't think reason and logic are equivalent. There's nothing necessarily illogical about religion, but there's nothing rational about it. If "rational minds" manage to be Christian, it is exactly because they manage to suspend their rationality with respect to religion. This is not a criticism. Speaking as someone who is in love and a firm believer in love, I am not willing to criticize the irrational simply because it is irrational. I can recognize it when I see it, though.

By all appearances this is an Establishment Clause case, not a Free Exercise Clause case.

Of course, you are right. I don't know what I was thinking.

In an education system that promotes seperation of Church and State, should such a conversation have taken place anyway?

Nothing wrong with the subject matter. You can't teach European history well without talking about religion. I think there's an argument to be made that you can't teach it well without speaking critically of religion. But you can teach it without ridiculing religion. I think he crossed a line and deserves a reprimand. I don't know if he or the school deserve to lose a lawsuit.

As a separate point, if these kids feel they need to call the waaaambulance every time someone challenges their worldview, they're in for a rough time when they get to college. That's not in defense of the teacher, just a separate point.

 

[drkitten]

This depends on what one means by "irrational" - but in the strictest sense of the word, it is not necessarily true that religious belief is irrational, and it is generally untrue of traditional Christianity. Christianity does not generally advance propositions that contain formal contradictions or that otherwise can be readily negated on purely rational (i.e. logical) grounds.

Is it "rational" to believe in statements for which no evidence can be presented? There is no formal contradiction involved in Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage.

It's merely an "irrational" belief, and I have no problem characterizing it as such.

 

[JoeEllison]

It's too bad that a person can get into trouble for telling the truth.

Yes, well... as much as I agree with this "truth" I can't agree that it is bad that someone can get into trouble in this instance. Since in these matters, a court can probably only determine whether someone believes it to be true, it can easily set the stage for someone to promote any agenda in schools, even if it is stupid(like Christianity, for instance) and get away with it because they believe it is true.

 

[pgwenthold]

“When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth.”

As an example of how context matters, this could be a response to a statement the student made. For example, if the student said, "Well, I'm a christian, and my religion teaches..." something that is blatently false. In that case, it would be true that the student's "Jesus glasses" are obscuring the truth.

I don't know enough about European history to have a frinstance, but I could easily imagine something like that coming up in a discussion of evolution. "I don't believe it because I am a Christian and I believe the Bible."

 

[Olowkow]

The second statement is well-known and fairly widely believed by cultural anthropologists. It also has a much more famous phrasing, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Actually:
http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

 

[MG1962]

Only if there was a valid secular purpose for it --- but promulgation of atheism as a belief system doesn't qualify.

On the other hand, if the teacher was role-playing in an effort to describe (for instance) the rise of atheism as a force in philosophy and science as part of the Enlightenment, then there's nothing (legally) wrong with it. I'd want to know more about the context in which those statements were uttered before I passed judgement. It's not like fundicrats are embarassed by out of context quote-mining.

Okay, thank you for the clarification, and I agree, the context now becomes critical

 

[drkitten]

I don't know enough about European history to have a frinstance, but I could easily imagine something like that coming up in a discussion of evolution. "I don't believe it because I am a Christian and I believe the Bible."

The Blood Libel or any of the similar anti-Semitic propaganda that a number of fundamentalists still seem to believe.

However, I still would still think that the teacher's response was out of line (and called for disciplinary actions). It's not the "Jesus glasses" that make people believe stupid things; as ceo_esq will quickly point out, there are lots of Christians that do believe in evolution and do not believe the Blood Libel.

 

[Fiona]

@drkitten. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

 

[pgwenthold]

However, I still would still think that the teacher's response was out of line (and called for disciplinary actions).

Possibly true, but not relevant. We are talking about the legal case, not whether the teacher was overly rude and disrespectful. The school would not be out of line to reprimand the teacher for his/her behavior.

It's not the "Jesus glasses" that make people believe stupid things; as ceo_esq will quickly point out, there are lots of Christians that do believe in evolution and do not believe the Blood Libel.

But that's a strawman. No one ever claimed that all (or even many or most) Christians can't see the truth because of Jesus goggles. My example was carefully constructed in that manner: "I don't believe because my religion teaches X" and the response is "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." The question is whether this student's "Jesus glasses" is keeping him/her from seeing the truth. What other Christians do is not pertain to the situation.

It is improper for the court to say, "Well, not all christians believe that way, so you are mistaken when you say your religion teaches X." It is not the court's or school's position to tell the student what their religion teaches. The only defense could be "that is a not a mainstream religion," and in that case the fact that you can recognize that there ARE religious sects that believe this way indicates it is not really out of the mainstream.

Now, I don't know what the actual situation was, but I am providing an example of context where the comments would not be constitutionally inappropriate.

 

[drkitten]

Possibly true, but not relevant. We are talking about the legal case, not whether the teacher was overly rude and disrespectful. The school would not be out of line to reprimand the teacher for his/her behavior.

But the school evidently didn't reprimand the teacher.

And I think we differ about the possible merits of the legal case. The student evidently found it necessary to drop the course mid-year and to continue through a private tutor. If the teacher is creating that hostile an environment, then the failure of the school to reprimand the teacher (or to make sure that the reprimand was effective enough) is indeed actionable.

No one ever claimed that all (or even many or most) Christians can't see the truth because of Jesus goggles. My example was carefully constructed in that manner: "I don't believe because my religion teaches X" and the response is "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

Which isn't how a typical person would read that sentence, I'm afraid. The use of "you" as a generic that applies to everyone is well-established in English linguistics. (There used to be a pronoun "one" that was used, but that's fallen out of common usage, to the point that you mostly hear that one used as a parody of pretentious academic writing.)

Even so, it's almost certainly actionable to disparage the student's personal religion in that way. The teacher at that point is picking and choosing from among religions in terms of which he supports and which he denigrates. That goes directly into the "sending the wrong message" effect of the Lemon test. If it's the student's "Jesus glasses" that are making him dumb, that's actionable ---- but if it's actually the student's "Bethel Church Baptist and Aluminum Siding Co. glasses" and the teacher is singling out BCBASCo., that's even worse.

Now, I don't know what the actual situation was, but I am providing an example of context where the comments would not be constitutionally inappropriate.

And I'm not convinced that the comments would be appropriate in that context.

 

[Nogbad]

But the school evidently didn't reprimand the teacher.

And I think we differ about the possible merits of the legal case. The student evidently found it necessary to drop the course mid-year and to continue through a private tutor. If the teacher is creating that hostile an environment, then the failure of the school to reprimand the teacher (or to make sure that the reprimand was effective enough) is indeed actionable.




Which isn't how a typical person would read that sentence, I'm afraid. The use of "you" as a generic that applies to everyone is well-established in English linguistics. (There used to be a pronoun "one" that was used, but that's fallen out of common usage, to the point that you mostly hear that one used as a parody of pretentious academic writing.)

Even so, it's almost certainly actionable to disparage the student's personal religion in that way. The teacher at that point is picking and choosing from among religions in terms of which he supports and which he denigrates. That goes directly into the "sending the wrong message" effect of the Lemon test. If it's the student's "Jesus glasses" that are making him dumb, that's actionable ---- but if it's actually the student's "Bethel Church Baptist and Aluminum Siding Co. glasses" and the teacher is singling out BCBASCo., that's even worse.




And I'm not convinced that the comments would be appropriate in that context.

Meh! I think there is still a place for the use of "one" in a sentence to indicate a generic statement. It is less ambigious in my view.

The course is European History - a subject in which it would not be hard to say challenging things regarding religion. If the comments were directed at the individual student then one might need to read any essays submitted to determine exactly what the tutor was being critical of. If it was a generic "you" and he was talking about say the mass execution of the Cathars, the Spanish Inquisition, the Peasants revolt following Luther's declaration or the 17th century witch hunts then the tutor might have made some very valid points - regardless of whether the students felt uncomfortable with them or not. One of the objects of a university education is to challenge the students to think - not spoon feed them some orthodoxy as if they were at kindergarten.

That said, maybe they just couldn't stand one another and it snowballed

 

[Safe-Keeper]

As Fnord says, 'assuming all is quoted as was stated-it seems as if the teacher is violating her duty of professional impartiality in regards to religion.' At least in Houston Independent School district, which I attended from 01-04, the teacher is required to be impartial on religion.

 

[pgwenthold]

And I think we differ about the possible merits of the legal case. The student evidently found it necessary to drop the course mid-year and to continue through a private tutor. If the teacher is creating that hostile an environment, then the failure of the school to reprimand the teacher (or to make sure that the reprimand was effective enough) is indeed actionable.

In the situation I provided, is the teacher creating the hostile environment? Or is it the student, who refuses to accept the teacher's information on the grounds that it goes against his religion?

Please note, I am referring ONLY to the situation I described, which may or may not have any resemblence to what actually happened. IF the student refuses to listen to the teacher's teachings on the grounds that it goes against his religion, then the teacher's comment is just a response to that.

Which isn't how a typical person would read that sentence, I'm afraid.

Depends completely on the context. In most situations, I don't disagree. However, I provided a specific example where it was used to refer to that student's refusal to see beyond the religion.

The use of "you" as a generic that applies to everyone is well-established in English linguistics.

And it is also used to refer to the specific person. It depends on the context, and in the example I gave, the context was that it referred to that student.

Even so, it's almost certainly actionable to disparage the student's personal religion in that way. The teacher at that point is picking and choosing from among religions in terms of which he supports and which he denigrates.

Unless it can be shown that it serves a secular purpose. And it does. The teacher only denigrates the student who let's religion cloud their judgement so to ignore the (legitimate) material being taught in an AP class.

Your argument is no different from the creationist "You can't teach evolution because it goes against my religion" which the courts don't accept.
That passes the Lemon test.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I have to wonder if the student or mother approached anyone in the school, either the teacher or his superiors, about this before deciding to file suit. It seems to me that the teacher's only fault is to be abrasive, which would could have been solved by simple confrontation on a professional level.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

From the article:

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees, says Corbett typically spent "a large portion of class time propagating his personal views to a captive audience." He railed against Christianity and Christian viewpoints on topics such as birth control, teenage sex, homosexuality and erectile dysfunction, according to the lawsuit.

Erectile Dysfunction?
Anyone know how that topic would have fit into a European History class - or even how his remarks on this could be considered Anti-Christian? I didn't know there was a Christian viewpoint on ED. I know there is for ID, but ED?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...B226GB226&q=christianity+erectile+dysfunction

 

[madurobob]

I have to wonder if the student or mother approached anyone in the school, either the teacher or his superiors, about this before deciding to file suit. It seems to me that the teacher's only fault is to be abrasive, which would could have been solved by simple confrontation on a professional level.

Pure conjecture on my part, but I doubt the judge would have granted a trial if the complainants had not properly followed the grievance procedures within the school system first and received no satisfaction.

From reading the story the teacher sounds way out of line - but we're only given the complainants viewpoint. Its entirely possible that the student was baiting the teacher by proslytizing in class. If so, the teacher was dumb to respond in kind, but maybe not quite as out-of-line as it looks.

I wonder what other students in the class have to say and if they can be compelled to testify at the trial? I noted the mention of an "outpouring of support" but I'm not sure what that means.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...B226GB226&q=christianity+erectile+dysfunction

??

And how does ED fit in to European History?