Lawsuit alleging anti-Christian statements to go forward

[Lisa Simpson]

A lawsuit, brought by a high school student against his former AP European History teacher is going to be allowed to go forward. The student is alleging that the teacher made anti-Christian statements and thus violated the First Amendment.

Some of the statements:

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

“How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to courter that rational approach."

"When you pray for divine intervention, you’re hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

Full article.

For those not in the US, Advanced Placement courses are high school courses that are the equivalent of a beginning college course. If you pass an exam at the end of the course, you can skip taking that class in college.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I could see it going either way. It could be he's an atheist who shot his mouth off. It could also be a kid who tapes bits that sound bad out of context. For example, discussing an aspect of history where the historical record is challenged by a Christian student (slaves out of Egypt or somesuch).

 

[Beerina]

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."

I know a way out for this athiest. Claim he now wants to teach the controversy!



Actually, nothing would be better than a long, drawn-out fight where experts demonstrate the illogic of religion when analyzed scientifically, as well as multitudes of case studies of religion being used to control the masses, to the enrichment of the religious leaders.

 

[Fnord]

A trial like this is long overdue.

Determining the precedence of the free exercise of religion or the freedom of speech (one over the other) would be an important step.

Free Religion over Free Speech == A teacher could be sued for giving poorer grades to Atheists than to Christians for homework work of equal quality.

Free Speech over Free Religion == Not much would change, as folks pretty much say what they want to, anyway.

 

[linusrichard]

Yes, context is key, especially for the first statement. There's really no way to gauge the appropriateness without knowing what preceded it.

The second one is simply a fact. How is it anti-Christian to say that religion is irrational? That's like if I'm eating a tuna sandwich and you point out that I'm eating fish. Is that an anti-tuna statement? No, it's just a description of the sandwich. Tuna is fish. Religion is irrational.

If the student hearing the comment is offended to hear religion described as irrational, that is a result of the student's opinion that the rational is superior to the irrational. If the student feels that the rational is superior to the irrational, then the student needs to take a look at his life and decide if he wants to remain a Christian (and indeed a theist) in contradiction to that value choice, or resolve the contradiction by abandoning either Christianity or his preference for the rational. It is not appropriate to blame (or sue) the person who merely points out what should be a value-neutral and uncontroversial statement: Religious belief is irrational.

As to the third statement, I think it looks like a ridiculing of religious belief. I don't particularly respect religious belief, but I respect religious believers, and I think it's possible to teach European history without ridiculing religious belief. At the minimum (and probably at the maximum) I think this merits a reprimand from the principal.

I'm much more concerned for the rights of the teacher than those of the student here. The student has the right to free exercise of religion, but that's not being violated here. The student wants the right to not have to hear what he considers criticisms of his beliefs. I don't think he does or should have that right.

It's interesting to me that you get Christians who will oppose anti-bullying legislation because they're afraid it will trample on their religious freedom to harass homosexuals, and then you get Christians who will go whining to the courts when a teacher says a few relatively innocent statements that offend their delicate sensibilities. To be fair, I don't know if this student is one who would oppose the anti-bullying legislation. I'm just saying is all.

 

[slingblade]

A trial like this is long overdue...

....because you so obviously need a refresher in constitutional law.

 

[Darth Rotor]

....because you so obviously need a refresher in constitutional law.

Is it your position that the teacher is hired by the school district as the judge of what is or is not a valid exercise of the first amendment? Is it within the teacher's job description to ridicule her students who are involved in that free exercise?

Tolerance is a two way street.

DR

 

[Cleon]

Assuming the claims are valid, and the quotes aren't being distorted, taken out of context, or lied about, this is a legitimate claim. IMO, telling his class that they shouldn't be Christian is just as bad as telling them that they should.

However, it's definitely not cut-and-dried. I can easily see where a discussion on the use of Christianity (or any religion, really) to manipulate the public would lead to such statements. I can also see a Christian student wanting to "get" an outspoken, atheist teacher and digging for ways to get him fired.

 

[Radrook]

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

“How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to courter that rational approach."

"When you pray for divine intervention, you’re hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."
======================================

bolding mine


Assuming all is quoted as was stated-it seems as if the teacher is violating her duty of professional impartiality in regards to religion.

 

[Fiona]

I am not American and I am sorry to say I do not understand the basis of this case. I checked Wiki and it says of the first amendment:

It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (the "Establishment Clause") or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I am obviously missing something quite fundamental. This teacher is not in a position to make laws and so I cannot see how the First Amendment comes into this. Can someone please explain

 

[drkitten]

I am obviously missing something quite fundamental. This teacher is not in a position to make laws and so I cannot see how the First Amendment comes into this. Can someone please explain

Government policy can be established in a number of ways besides "making a law." For example, the University of Maryland could establish an internal policy that all students were required to take (and pass) a course on Catholic theology in order to graduate, and this would not be a "law," merely a school requirement.

It would also be heinously unconstitutional, since the University of Maryland is an agent of the State (Maryland, in this case), and is acting to promulgate a blatantly discriminatory policy.

A teacher at a public school is in a similar position to make policy, at least as far as his/her classroom is concerned. "With great power comes great responsibility."

 

[Fiona]

Government policy can be established in a number of ways besides "making a law." For example, the University of Maryland could establish an internal policy that all students were required to take (and pass) a course on Catholic theology in order to graduate, and this would not be a "law," merely a school requirement.

It would also be heinously unconstitutional, since the University of Maryland is an agent of the State (Maryland, in this case), and is acting to promulgate a blatantly discriminatory policy.

A teacher at a public school is in a similar position to make policy, at least as far as his/her classroom is concerned. "With great power comes great responsibility."

So what in the uk would be covered by specific anti-discrimination laws is all under the aegis of the first amendment in America? And an individual can be said to be "establishing" a religion on his own, without any policy and without any overt discrimination at all? That is quite puzzling.

 

[JoeEllison]

Assuming the claims are valid, and the quotes aren't being distorted, taken out of context, or lied about, this is a legitimate claim. IMO, telling his class that they shouldn't be Christian is just as bad as telling them that they should.

However, it's definitely not cut-and-dried. I can easily see where a discussion on the use of Christianity (or any religion, really) to manipulate the public would lead to such statements. I can also see a Christian student wanting to "get" an outspoken, atheist teacher and digging for ways to get him fired.

Ditto.

 

[ceo_esq]

The second one is simply a fact. How is it anti-Christian to say that religion is irrational? That's like if I'm eating a tuna sandwich and you point out that I'm eating fish. Is that an anti-tuna statement? No, it's just a description of the sandwich. Tuna is fish. Religion is irrational.

If the student hearing the comment is offended to hear religion described as irrational, that is a result of the student's opinion that the rational is superior to the irrational. If the student feels that the rational is superior to the irrational, then the student needs to take a look at his life and decide if he wants to remain a Christian (and indeed a theist) in contradiction to that value choice, or resolve the contradiction by abandoning either Christianity or his preference for the rational. It is not appropriate to blame (or sue) the person who merely points out what should be a value-neutral and uncontroversial statement: Religious belief is irrational.

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'm much more concerned for the rights of the teacher than those of the student here. The student has the right to free exercise of religion, but that's not being violated here.

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

 

[bokonon]

Based just on the facts presented in the article, I'm sad to say that I do think the teacher crossed the line of what is proper in the classroom. Arguing that "Jesus glasses" obscure the truth is just as bad as arguing that "Jesus glasses" are necessary to see it. I think it would be okay to raise the question, but unless there was a lot of missing context that would make this statement a lot more hypothetical than it sounds, it does seem to me that he's adopting an editorial position that isn't appropriate in a history class. I'd be upset if a creationist was doing it in a science class, and I can't support this guy just because he's on Team Rational.

At the same time, I don't think he should lose his job over it. A reprimand, and a promise not to do it again, should be sufficient.

 

[Father Dagon]

A lawsuit, brought by a high school student against his former AP European History teacher is going to be allowed to go forward. The student is alleging that the teacher made anti-Christian statements and thus violated the First Amendment.

:turbo facepalm:

 

[MG1962]

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

 

[shadron]

Actually, nothing would be better than a long, drawn-out fight where experts demonstrate the illogic of religion when analyzed scientifically, as well as multitudes of case studies of religion being used to control the masses, to the enrichment of the religious leaders.

Yeah, and I think I know just the judge...

 

[drkitten]

So what in the uk would be covered by specific anti-discrimination laws is all under the aegis of the first amendment in America?

No. The First Amendment specifically only applies to cases involving the government. The University of Maryland, for example, is subject to the First Amendment, but the Johns Hopkins University (a private school) is not -- but is subject to anti-discrimination laws.

And an individual can be said to be "establishing" a religion on his own, without any policy and without any overt discrimination at all? That is quite puzzling.

Not really. The First Amendment provides the basis for a claim of redress and a basis upon which the aggrieved can complain. It's fairly clear that the individual teacher has no authority to "establish" religion -- but it's also fairly clear that if he tried, he would be overstepping his authority (and the state has the duty to discipline him appropriately and to prevent recurrence).

The legal situation is fairly simple. Any actions that a government agent takes are, by definition, actions that the government takes. (this is true under UK law as well, I believe. What you do through an agent you do yourself. Every constable on the corner carries the Home Secretary's personal authority with him.) Thus, it's appropriate for the government to respond to complaints of individual abuse. (I think the legal phrase is something like respondeat superior.)

The only reason this went to trial at all is because the local school didn't respond appropriately (in the opinion of the student and his lawyer), and thus it's appropriate to bring them to task for their errant agent.

 

[JoeEllison]

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.

WHAT?!?!?!?! How much bad wine does it take to make Christianity "rational" by even the most generous definitions?