Teacher broke law by calling creationism "superstitious nonsense"

[martu]

Have you bothered to read the judge's decision yet?

From the judge’s decision:

The Court turns first to Corbett’s statement regarding John Peloza (“Peloza”). (Farnan’s Ex. I, pp. 222-25.) This statement presents the closest question for the Court in assessing secular purpose. Peloza apparently brought suit against Corbett because Corbett was the advisor to a student newspaper which ran an article suggesting that Peloza was teaching religion rather than science in his classroom. (Id.) Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, “was not telling the kids [Peloza’s students] the scientific truth about evolution.” (Id.) 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.

Can Corbett express his opinion on Peloza’s teaching? I read this to say he can’t and that is what I find a shame.

Or have I read this wrong?

 

[joobz]

From the judge’s decision:



Can Corbett express his opinion on Peloza’s teaching? I read this to say he can’t and that is what I find a shame.
Or have I read this wrong?

yes he can express his opinion on the teacher's teaching style, methods, subject matter.... What Corbett can't do is give any statement in support or oposition to religion.

There are perfectly acceptable secular reasons to argue against creationist teaching. But the consitution strickly prohibits a teacher calling religion nonsense.

 

[drkitten]

Can Corbett express his opinion on Peloza’s teaching? I read this to say he can’t and that is what I find a shame.

Or have I read this wrong?

You have indeed read this wrong. Let me take that quote apart:

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.

The judge accepts that these statements would be legitimate. HOWEVER,

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.

Peloza's teaching is not "creationism." Criticizing creationism is not the same as criticizing Peloza's teaching.

A little later in the opinion:

The Court finds that Corbett’s statement primarily sends a message of disapproval of religion or creationism. As discussed above, Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” Corbett could have criticized Peloza for teaching religious views in class without disparaging those views.

Even criticizing creationism itself (or religious views directly) is legitimate in the proper context:

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.

(Corbett, cited in the decision).

[...]

Again, although one could possibly infer that Corbett was advocating generally accepted scientific reasoning over religious belief or faith, a reasonable observer would not find that this was the primary effect of the discussion. For example, in discussing creationism, Corbett stated that “cientifically, it’s nonsense.” Corbett did not say that he thinks creationism is nonsense but that generally accepted scientific principles do not logically lead to the theory of creationism. The Court recognizes, however, that common sense dictates that people of a certain religious faith may be offended by a comparison of their religion to “magic” and that this could be construed as being derogatory. Nevertheless, the Court cannot find that the primary effect of the lecture was to disapprove of religion. (Judge Selma's decision)

 

[martu]

yes he can express his opinion on the teacher's teaching style, methods, subject matter.... What Corbett can't do is give any statement in support or oposition to religion.

There are perfectly acceptable secular reasons to argue against creationist teaching. But the consitution strickly prohibits a teacher calling religion nonsense.

I disagree with the judge that calling creationism superstitious nonsense is opposing religion. From the point of view of the constitution he is right (well I hope he is, that's his job after all so I am taking his word on it) and that is what I find a shame.

So teachers aren't robots unless they talk about religion and when they do they become robots that can't offer an opinion. A pity.

 

[martu]

Even criticizing creationism itself (or religious views directly) is legitimate in the proper context:

Thanks that's clear and I have snipped the part where you walk me though it.

The quote I have left behind is what I find a pity, a teacher should be able to criticise creationism in any context.

 

[drkitten]

I disagree with the judge that calling creationism superstitious nonsense is opposing religion.

Well, I suppose that's your right, but from a legal point of view, "creationism" is well-established as being a type of religion. Therefore, opposition to creationism is by definition opposition to religion.

So teachers aren't robots unless they talk about religion and when they do they become robots that can't offer an opinion. A pity.

Have you actually read the decision? The judge himself says that you're false.

Teachers do not become robots that can't offer an opinion. The judge specifically allows Corbett (or any other teacher) to offer well-founded opinions.

 

[drkitten]

The quote I have left behind is what I find a pity, a teacher should be able to criticise creationism in any context.

No more than a teacher should be able to criticize atheism and preach the Gospel of John in any context.

 

[martu]

No more than a teacher should be able to criticize atheism and preach the Gospel of John in any context.

I think they should be able to do this too if they want and it is a pity they can't.

 

[drkitten]

I think they should be able to do this too if they want and it is a pity they can't.

We've done that experiment, though. (By "we" I mean "the United States.")

Not a pretty sight.

 

[martu]

Well, I suppose that's your right, but from a legal point of view, "creationism" is well-established as being a type of religion. Therefore, opposition to creationism is by definition opposition to religion.



Have you actually read the decision? The judge himself says that you're false.

Teachers do not become robots that can't offer an opinion. The judge specifically allows Corbett (or any other teacher) to offer well-founded opinions.

Context my good Doctor, context - I think the context is irrelevant so all opinions in any context should be allowed. Poorly formed opinions should be permitted too.

The constitutions disagrees with me obviously.

 

[joobz]

I think they should be able to do this too if they want and it is a pity they can't.

You really think teachers should be allowed to preach from the Torah, Gospels, Book of Mormon, Quran, Gita, ...???

 

[martu]

We've done that experiment, though. (By "we" I mean "the United States.")

Not a pretty sight.

It doesn't seem to harm the UK. I had mandatory Christian worship every day and an hour long sermon once a month in a cathedral during my formative school years. We were also allowed to talk about religion with any teacher we wanted too.

 

[martu]

You really think teachers should be allowed to preach from the Torah, Gospels, Book of Mormon, Quran, Gita, ...???

I don't see why not as long as they are teaching what is expected of them. See my post above about my schooling.

 

[drkitten]

It doesn't seem to harm the UK.

Really? Ever hear of this little thing called the English Civil War?

Or the Martyr's Memorial?

 

[martu]

Though to be clear I am against faith schools, that is schools that preach only one religion. As long as the curriculum is secular I have no problem with teachers expressing their own opinions on religion.

 

[martu]

Really? Ever hear of this little thing called the English Civil War?

Or the Martyr's Memorial?

What has the English Civil War got to do with allowing teachers to express their own opinions on religion?

 

[drkitten]

What has the English Civil War got to do with allowing teachers to express their own opinions on religion?

One of the major causes of the English Civil War was conflict over picking the religion that the government was permitted to express in an official capacity.

People died because they chose wrongly.

 

[martu]

One of the major causes of the English Civil War was conflict over picking the religion that the government was permitted to express in an official capacity.

People died because they chose wrongly.

Frankly you've lost me. Do you think allowing teachers to expess their opinion on religious matters in any context will lead to a civil war?

 

[drkitten]

Do you think allowing teachers to expess their opinion on religious matters in any context will lead to a civil war?

No, but I think it's likely. As does the Supreme Court. “There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution”; Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 594 (1992).

Alternatively,

t is no defense to urge that the religious practices here may be relatively minor encroachments on the First Amendment. The breach of neutrality that is today a trickling stream may all too soon become a raging torrent and, in the words of Madison, ‘it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.

There are already cases on record where a teacher has been disciplined for downgrading pupils whose answers do not fit their religious ideas [without valid secular purpose], and there have been many other cases where a teachers has been sustained for downgrading pupils whose ideas do not fit their religious ideas but who have a valid secular purpose in doing so. (For example, biology teachers who fail creationists.) What is that if not "expressing their opinion on religion" -- in my opinion, this paper fails for religious reasons, and therefore you fail the course because this paper was 20% of your grade.

Extend this and you get a situation where access to education -- and by extension, access to higher socio-economic status -- is restricted to those of the majority-supported religion.

As I said, we've done this experiment. I have no urge to repeat it.

 

[martu]

“There are no de minimis violations of the Constitution”; Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 594 (1992). [/QUOTE]

I’m struggling to see how to be honest.

1) Mr A what is your opinion on Creationism?
2) Well I think it is superstitious nonsense
3) ??
4) Brother fighting brother, dogs teaming up with cats to fight other teams of dogs and cats, the horror.
5) Profit obviously.

What step or steps get us from 2) to 4)? Maybe I lack imagination.

Alternatively,


There are already cases on record where a teacher has been disciplined for downgrading pupils whose answers do not fit their religious ideas [without valid secular purpose], and there have been many other cases where a teachers has been sustained for downgrading pupils whose ideas do not fit their religious ideas but who have a valid secular purpose in doing so. (For example, biology teachers who fail creationists.) What is that if not "expressing their opinion on religion" -- in my opinion, this paper fails for religious reasons, and therefore you fail the course because this paper was 20% of your grade.

Extend this and you get a situation where access to education -- and by extension, access to higher socio-economic status -- is restricted to those of the majority-supported religion.

As I said, we've done this experiment. I have no urge to repeat it.

Well I have no idea how we manage to avoid this in the UK, do you have any idea? Seriously the data, UK, argues against you. Not that UK education is anything to brag about.

Out of interest do you have any links to those cases? I can’t see any reason why a teacher would mark a paper down for legitimate religious reasons. Illegitimate reasons could be judged by an independent party surely?

Your slippery slope of only those of a majority supported religion gaining a decent education is fantasy. What is stopping those of the minority religions starting their own schools? I do believe you have a few minority religion universities over there at the moment that are held in high regard. Not for biology teaching of course but you can’t have everything.