Teacher broke law by calling creationism "superstitious nonsense"

[Oliver]

A US teenager has successfully won a lawsuit against a teacher who described creationism as "superstitious nonsense".

Chad Farnan, a devout Christian studying at California's Capistrano Valley high school, persuaded a judge that his European history teacher, James Corbett, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which courts interpret as banning government employees from promoting, or displaying hostility towards, religion... [more]

LOL?

 

[Twiler]

He spent 18 months compiling a dossier??

 

[Ladewig]

link

Remaining to be determined in the case are fees and damages, which Farnan sought in his lawsuit. Monk said those will be determined at a future hearing, as well as whether there should be a court order preventing Corbett from making similar hostile remarks in the future.

[snip]


The judge found the school district, which paid to defend Corbett, would not be liable for Corbett's classroom conduct.

I am very curious what the final result will be.

 

[TraneWreck]

This one sounds like it won't be over for a good couple of years. I see appeals in its future...

 

[boloboffin]

Secret recordings and all. I'll bet the teacher had a reputation. I remember hearing about one teacher in Sunday School. I was primed for him as a young follower of fundy Christianity. He taught evolution and I was cool for it. I could respect "science in the science classroom and Bible at church." But when he closed his door and pulled out a Bible, I got upset. The teacher basically did the "day is as to the Lord as a thousand years" switcharoo to blow Genesis out to whatever time necessary for evolution. I even remember someone being comforted by that and remarking on it.

But then and now I object to that type of lesson in a public classroom. Then, I was upset that he twisted the clear language of Genesis to make room for evil evolution. Now, a Bible doesn't belong in a classroom, period. If he wanted to catch some people after class and share his opinion with them, that would have been fine. And even a word about how many faiths find a way to accommodate evolution in their beliefs may have been appropriate. But he stepped over a line.

I think the facts of evolution speak for themselves without needing to actively undermine the religious beliefs of student in a science class. I don't think the "controversy" needs to be taught. Creationism doesn't belong in a public science classroom in any way, shape, or form. If a student brings it up or tries to argue, the teacher should just remark that this is a science class and dealing with your faith and evolution is something that students should handle with their parents and their trusted community spiritual leaders. As long as students can learn the subject material and demonstrate an understanding of it on the test, that is all the teacher should require.

 

[slingblade]

Then this means there's (more?) legal precedent that ID is religion, since ID postulates a "creator" of some kind, and criticizing creationism is, by this suit, known as a violation of the establishment clause.

Um. Hooray.

 

[drkitten]

LOL?

There's another thread on this over in Education, btw.

Not really a big problem. The 1st Amendment protects religion from the state just as it protects the state from religion.

Sensible discussion of religion in the context of a school lesson is still legal:

However, Judge James Selna found in a 37-page ruling that almost all the statements cited by the plaintiff did not violate the establishment cause, including Corbett's view that "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth" – a reference to peasants who did not support the reforms of the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II for religious reasons. The judge said the statement was made in the context of an historical discussion. He dismissed other comments by Corbett that "conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work" and that there was as much evidence that God created the world "as there is that there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it".

The problem is when you simply dis religion without purpose, context, or support, that crosses the line.

Only one of Corbett's opinions fell foul of the First Amendment – his "unequivocal belief that creationism is superstitious nonsense". Judge Selna concluded that there was no legitimate secular purpose to the statement and it constituted "improper disapproval of religion in violation of the establishment clause".

So, basically, if you're going to disapprove of religion, make sure there is a legitimate reason, such as a relationship between the reason for your disapproval and the subject you're teaching.

As a Philadelphia Examiner article put it, "As Judge Selna observed, "Corbett could have criticized Peloza for teaching religious views in his class without disparaging those views." The putative truth of Dr. Corbett's statement does not, as some secular bloggers suggest, have any bearing on its constitutionality."

Here's the full context:

Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, “I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense.” (Id.) One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

[Nogbad]

Improper disapproval of religion?



Oh well I suppose the merry go round will continue. Next up will probably be someone for improper approval of religion.

 

[Roma]

Public school, better not have any opinion an anything at all,
this gets worse in public university.

 

[joobz]

Improper disapproval of religion?



Oh well I suppose the merry go round will continue. Next up will probably be someone for improper approval of religion.

And why do you find this bad?
It makes sense that if religion and state are to be held seperate, than any improper reference to religion should be considered unconstitutional.

 

[slingblade]

Public school, better not have any opinion an anything at all,
this gets worse in public university.

It does? Sorry, Roma, but that wasn't my experience.

 

[Nogbad]

And why do you find this bad?
It makes sense that if religion and state are to be held seperate, than any improper reference to religion should be considered unconstitutional.

Different culture I guess. I recall someone mentioning creationism in Biology class and our teacher having to sit down she laughed so much.

We Scots are a cruel race though.

An opinion is just an opinion. If she had spent hours wasting class time explaining why it was so laughable then I could see a point in complaining (although not litigation). She, however, concluded her laughter with "right you lot lets do science"

For a teacher to say I think it is superstitious nonsense or I think it is all lovely and true is neither here nor there. If teachers cannot be personalties in their own right they might as well sit the kids in front of a robot.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

And why do you find this bad?
It makes sense that if religion and state are to be held seperate, than any improper reference to religion should be considered unconstitutional.

Agreed.

This decision seems like a win to me.

 

[martu]

And why do you find this bad?
It makes sense that if religion and state are to be held seperate, than any improper reference to religion should be considered unconstitutional.

Who defines what is improper? The teacher's statement is a fact don't you agree, when did facts become improper?

 

[joobz]

Who defines what is improper?

School board and the constitution.

The teacher's statement is a fact don't you agree, when did facts become improper?

When there's a constitutional amendment barring the statement of such facts in classrooms.

 

[NorfolkAtheist]

Who defines what is improper?

The Constitution and applicable legal precedents. Then the courts decide when there is a dispute.

The teacher's statement is a fact don't you agree, when did facts become improper?

It's also a fact that it's a violation of The Establishment Clause.

The teacher isn't free to teach this fact simply for the sake of teaching it. You simply can not constitutionally do that in a public school on the public's dime and he almost certainly knew this when he took the job. If he was able to incorporate this fact into the context of the subject he's paid to teach it would be fine.

Furthermore, I would go farther and say that some facts, even ones whose teaching wouldn't violate our Constition, are improper to say in a history class.

 

[martu]

School board and the constitution.


When there's a constitutional amendment barring the statement of such facts in classrooms.

Really? That's ridiculous in my opinion. In the UK we can call it what it is, nonsense. Maybe you guys need a state religion?

 

[martu]

The Constitution and applicable legal precedents. Then the courts decide when there is a dispute.



It's also a fact that it's a violation of The Establishment Clause.

The teacher isn't free to teach this fact simply for the sake of teaching it. You simply can not constitutionally do that in a public school on the public's dime and he almost certainly knew this when he took the job. If he was able to incorporate this fact into the context of the subject he's paid to teach it would be fine.

Furthermore, I would go farther and say that some facts, even ones whose teaching wouldn't violate our Constition, are improper to say in a history class.

What facts exactly?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Who defines what is improper?

This has been covered in by the two posters above: The First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, bar the government from condoning or condemning religious beliefs and practices.

The teacher's statement is a fact don't you agree, when did facts become improper?

Religious beliefs derive there protection under the Establishment Clause from the fact that they are religious beliefs and not from the fact that they are true. This prevents the government from using the force of law to promote what its officials believe is true and suppress what they believe is false.

 

[martu]

This has been covered in by the two posters above: The First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, bar the government from condoning or condemning religious beliefs and practices.



Religious beliefs derive there protection under the Establishment Clause from the fact that they are religious beliefs and not from the fact that they are true. This prevents the government from using the force of law to promote what its officials believe is true and suppress what they believe is false.

Thanks. What has belief got to do with it? Facts aren't a matter of opinion this is ridiculous.