Some Christians Have a Thin Skin!

[LAGC]

Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism 'Superstitious Nonsense'

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

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture.

U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Friday after a 16-month legal battle between student Chad Farnan and his former teacher, James Corbett.

Farnan sued in U.S. District Court in 2007, alleging that Corbett violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs.

The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made by Corbett during one day of class, all of which were recorded by Farnan, to support allegations of a broader teaching method that "favors irreligion over religion" and made Christian students feel uncomfortable.

During the course of the litigation, the judge found that most of the statements cited in the court papers did not violate the First Amendment because they did not refer directly to religion or were appropriate in the context of the classroom lecture.

But Selna ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.

Farnan is not interested in monetary damages, said his attorney, Jennifer Monk of the Murrieta-based Christian legal group Advocates for Faith & Freedom.

Instead, he plans to ask the court to prohibit Corbett from making similar comments in the future. Farnan's family would also like to see the school district offer teacher training and monitor Corbett's classroom for future violations, Monk said.

There are no plans to appeal the judge's rulings on the other statements listed in the litigation, she said.

"They lost, he violated the establishment clause," she told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "From our perspective, whether he violated it with one statement or with 19 statements is irrelevant."

In making his decision, Selna wrote that he tried to balance Farnan's and Corbett's rights.

"The court's ruling today reflects the constitutionally permissible need for expansive discussion even if a given topic may be offensive to a particular religion," the judge wrote.

"The decision also reflects that there are boundaries. ... The ruling today protects Farnan, but also protects teachers like Corbett in carrying out their teaching duties."

Corbett, a 20-year teaching veteran, remains at Capistrano Valley High School.

Farnan is now a junior at the school, but quit Corbett's Advanced Placement European history class after his teacher made the comments.

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.

Selna said that although Corbett was only found to have violated the establishment clause in a single instance, he could not excuse or overlook the behavior.

In a ruling last month, the judge dismissed all but two of the statements Farnan complained about, including Corbett's comment that "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

Also dismissed in April were comments such as, "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work" and "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

On Friday, Selna also dismissed one of the two remaining statements, saying that Corbett may have been attempting to quote Mark Twain when he said religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool."

Corbett has declined to comment throughout the litigation. His attorney, Dan Spradlin, did not immediately return a message left Monday by The Associated Press.

Spradlin has said, however, that Corbett made the remark about creationism during a classroom discussion about a 1993 case in which a former Capistrano Valley High science teacher sued the school district because it required instruction in evolution.

Spradlin has said Corbett was simply expressing his own opinion that the former teacher shouldn't have presented his religious views to students.

Farnan's family released a statement Friday calling the judge's ruling a vindication of the teen's constitutional rights.

The Capistrano Unified School District, which paid for Corbett's attorney, was found not liable for Corbett's classroom conduct.

[gratuitous]

1. I would bet $20 this is overturned on appeal

Because the superstitious nonsense of creationism has nothing to do with religion.

[TexasObserver]

3. Yep. Good bet. "9th circuit reverses Bush II Bible Thumping Judge!"

That's the headline I want to see.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. No, creationism is all about religion

Not the religion of most Christians in the world; but it is all about the religion of a subset of Christians (and, with some small details different that would nonetheless have them at each others' throats, of a subset of Muslims too). And because of that, the rulings are clear that creationism cannot be taught in American public schools.

The judgement is saying that the First Amendment also prevents government employees making remarks about purely religious beliefs, in their official capacity, that hurt the feelings of religious believers. That the remark may be perfectly justifiable doesn't matter.

[saltpoint]

79. Your read is very close to the bone on this case, IMO, but legal precedence

also stands against students' private beliefs if they are shown to be a disruption to the educational mission in public schools.

The article cited indicates that Mr. Corbett is reluctant to seek appeal; however if he were to change his mind I think the court precedent favors the interpretation that he was doing his job. Of all the comments deceitfully recorded by the student, only one was found to be a violation of the Establishment clause.

That one student objected to comments by Mark Twain, for example, suggests to me a teacher in touch with a wide range of material versus a very immature kid who wishes to impose a narrow viewpoint onto the larger process.

The whiff downstream on this case is that the kid and his parents set this teacher up as a personal vindication and only very, very narrowly "won" this case.

[paulsby]

112. creationism mythology

first of all, creationism is a mythology (yes, i said mythology) that several religions hold, not just christians and muslims. many jews hold the same creation story (it's in the torah fwiw) as many christians.

others, view it as allegory.

what people just need to grok is that the establishment clause works both ways (according to case law and precedent).

a teacher in a public school is just as wrong (constitutionally speaking) in denigrating religion, as he is in promoting it.

[tularetom]

2. Little Chad needs to toughen up - he won't be able to sue his way through life

And facts have a decided non christian bias.

[saltpoint]

4. Chad ought to listen more carefully to his teacher. I think his teacher

was right.

I think James Madison would think his teacher was right, too.

[Critters2]

5. This Christian agrees--creationism IS superstitious nonsense! nt

[sampsonblk]

133. That's interesting

What other parts of christianity do you find to be superstitious nonsense?


(And did you know that YouTube has all the original Star Trek episodes? My 7 year-old is fascinated.)

[ourbluenation]

147. it's not that interesting...lots of people who prescribe to a religion are down with the darwin...

I myself am a non believer so this was never a tough one for moi.

[Critters2]

150. Which if the two creation stories in Genesis do you think I should

subscribe to?

God gave me a brain. :eyes:

And a denomination that does not expect me to treat religious texts as scientific ones.

[Warpy]

6. Referring to it as nonsense was the problem

and yes, believers do have thin skins when outsiders tell them their beliefs are nonsense.

Had the teacher stuck to telling the student it was a class in science and not religion and that the students could learn all about creationism in their respective churches, now sit down and shut up, he likely wouldn't have lost the suit. Under those circumstances any students that continued to interrupt the class to spout creationism could have been labeled disruptive and ejected.

There is a line there between being informative and being insulting and the teacher did cross it.

Let's hope he deals with such students a little more diplomatically in the future.

[Hanse]

8. The problem began when the child decided to believe in nonsense.

The idea that the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter is equal to three is nonsense, and a verse in the Bible saying so doesn't make it any less nonsense.

[Warpy]

21. I doubt the kid had much say in the matter

and, since the family apparently has a history of suing over this stuff, was probably indoctrinated starting when he emerged from the womb.

Insisting religious belief has no place in a science classroom is one thing. Insulting that belief is another.

There is a line there and the teacher crossed it.

Still, you'd think it could have handled better than involving the courts.

[JonLP24]

23. I felt the teacher was telling the truth

If creationism isn't religous nonsense then what is creationism and where does it come from? Religion. Is it nonsense? I think so.

[saltpoint]

24. I agree. The public school teacher here appeared to speak from a tradition

of science that is appropriate in a public school classroom.

Understandably, it would be unacceptable to a fundamentalist Christian school, but Young Chad is not enrolled in a fundamentalist Christian school; Young Chad is enrolled in a public school.

Chad's teacher is not blocking Chad's path to any church of Chad's choice.

[paulsby]

28. read the ACTUAL decision

not the truncated media report.

the teacher went out of his way to mock the kid's religion.

it's all there in the decision.

i love the way people come to conclusions based on spoonfed media accounts/

*if* you believe in precedent and case law, it was a good decision.

legal analysis to follow if requested.

[saltpoint]

31. I wasn't in the classroom and am not privy to the decision start to finish.

I'm not claiming to have BEEN in the classroom; nor do I have a copy of the full decision.

I AM claiming that no Constitutional rights were violated by this child's teacher.

I find the case against the teacher to be specious and deceitful.

[paulsby]

37. are you aware of the relevant case law?

based on the relevant case law, the case is very understandable.

if you read the decision, the logic is clear.

also, unless you read the dccision, the teacher's pattern of behavior is not clearly outlined.

god knows (no pun intended) a media report won't give it to you

[saltpoint]

39. The media coverage here is not the issue. The impulse to bring suit

against a public school teacher by his student is the issue.

I argue that the action was unnecessary. The student's sensivilities were offended. Perhaps the teacher was very assertive in his claims against the student's beliefs.

My response to that is "tough shit." The problem, in so far as it is one, is solvable at other levels. The tape recordings were deceitful. The teacher is not less a citizen or owed fewer Constitutional protections because he is in a public school room than his student is, and in this case, the flashbpoint is a matter of personal and private belief, not public policy.

I hope the decision is challenged and I predict it will be overturned.

[paulsby]

46. actually that's incorrect

the teacher is an agent of the govt. (so am i fwiw). he cannot, according to case law state to his students

"the bible is inerrant truth. creation is correct and evolution is wrong"

similarly, according to CASE LAW, the converse being stated is EQUALLY violative of the 1st amendment establishment clause.

the teacher, much like the student, can believe whatever the fuck he wants.

furthermore, the teacher is free to express those beliefs OUTSIDE the classroom as vociferously as he likes.

while acting in official capacity, he cannot.

case law.

1st amendment

i don't LIKE the decision. i am saying it is consistent with rule of law, precedent, etc. things that are supposed to be important in a democratic republic.

[saltpoint]

48. Regarding the teacher's invocation of Mark Twain, then, as a specific

reference.

Is this one of the "hostile" behaviors to which Young Chad objected? And what will the poor soul do when he is asked to manage information far more provocative than Twain in his later life?

Should books by Twain be yanked from the library shelves to protect fragile religious sensibilities? How far should we go, then, in an arbitrary ruling against teachers or books or films etc in the arena of "protection of sensibilities?"

I regard this action as vindictive and unnecessary. The student's case is manipulative and anti-intellectual.

Not least, the public school instructor could be argued to be doing his job -- defending the tradition of scientific research against the imposition of private belief.

If there was a personal tension between teacher and student here, the problem is solvable inside the school community without hauling the goddam Courts into the picture.

Shame on this student and his family.

[paulsby]

105. the twain reference wasn't

according to the decision.

the decision iirc referenced 20 or so statements made by the teacher.

only one was viewed as a clear violation

that statement, taken with the totality of the circumstances, was viewed as substantial enough to violate the establishment clause.

i don't LIKE the decision. the teacher was undeniably an assmunch for ridiculing this kids beliefs over and over again .

but if you believe in rule of law, case law, and precedent, the decision was a sound one.

[saltpoint]

117. I get the arithmetic of objectionable statements and think it is quite

illuminating that not even the "Jesus glasses" quotation violated the Clause.

Quite an insight, that.

[Hosnon]

61. Actually...

the Court ruled that the teacher was not an "agent" of the government with regard to the statement It found to be violative of the Ist Amendment.

[spoony]

55. So if a Christian teacher had gone on

tirades against atheists, with the sort of insults described in the article, you and the rest of DUers arguing how hard done to this teacher is would still be defending him? After all, sensibilities be damned yeah?

[saltpoint]

58. The hinge would be whether the tax-supported public classroom should

sanction, especially to exclusional status, any religion, Christian or otherwise.

The student's religious beliefs are under personal challenge but not Constitutional prohibition.

He is free to accept the range of public opinion on matters of heart and mind, or if he wishes, he can withdraw from that arena of dispute into private enrollment in a school which endorses his beliefs.

His private belief is not superior to the public mission of education and should not be the subject of a suit against a public teacher.

[spoony]

60. So all of those quotes are necessary to the "mission of education"

Really? Mocking believers with the "spaghetti monster" nonsense is vital to teaching students? About what, how to deal with pricks?

[saltpoint]

62. As for pricks, though, what about pricks in the athletic department,

or pricks in the band room, or in the cheerleading squad, and so forth?

We all grow up into a complex world and learn to navigate it.

Almost NONE of us brings a suit against someone just for being a prick. And I don't think it has been established that this teacher is a "prick" OR that this student is NOT a "prick."

The student's action suggest a vindictive action. His family brought suit, seeking legal vindication of his private beliefs.

No. I do not feel that is a justified use of the courts.

[spoony]

64. Not all cases of being a prick violate Constitutional law

You'd have a case if he'd stopped at denouncing creationism and got on with the lessons, but it's clearly not what happened. The guy is an absolute prick to use his authority and bully-pulpit to make people feel bad for their beliefs that were outside the purview of his teaching, and in doing so he crossed a moral AND legal line. I'm not a fan of lawsuits for things like this, but it's far more justifiable than many are claiming (and I've seen lesser cases ravenously defended--people urging parents to file suits or school boards to start waving their axes--here when the tables were turned). In my opinion the teacher should have been dealt with in-house and sent to sensitivity classes or something similar.

[saltpoint]

65. I undersand the distinction you're making but do not see this as

a Constitutional dispute.

I believe it is a characterological dispute and believe that the student and his family are manipulative and self-serving.

This family's private belief is Constitutionally sanctioned but not at the expense of the mission of public education. They are the ones who crossed the line.

In that school's library, almost certainly, are works by authors far more provocative and challenging to this student's Creationist beliefs than anything he'll hear in any of his classes in that school.

[paulsby]

108. those authors are a totally different thing

are not being paid by the taxpayers to teach students.

the teachers are.

the case law is clear.

whether the case law is correctly applied to this case is arguable, but it's a decent argument.

you can have a book in the school library that says that christianity is evil.

you cannot have a teacher saying (while in school, and to students) that christianity is evil.

the analogy does not hold.

works of literature are not state paid and state authorized instructors of a captive audience.

it's a totally different thing

[saltpoint]

124. Those authors most certainly ARE part of the public education curricula.

And many more besides.

Those authors are among the most censored authors in the history of public education in the United States.

You should read Kurt Vonnegut's letter to a North Dakota school principal after the principal ordered copies of SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE burned in the basement furnace of the school.

The invocation by Mr. Corbett of those authors or any other he wished to invoke is absolutely the learning landscape that PUBLIC school students are expected to navigate. Would that we asked more of our PUBLIC school students than is currently the case and would that some folks weren't such total wusses that they can't handle a Salinger or a Vonnegut or a Golding, etc.

If Chad's family holds religious objections to such authors' works, or to teachers who introduce and teach them to PUBLIC school students, they are sanctioned under the law to withdraw their son and park him in a cozy little fundie school where humanists like Kurt Vonnegut will most certainly not be introduced.

[paulsby]

131. the case law and common sense

differentiates between a book that ridicules religion or certain religious principles and a TEACHER that does so.

just as there would be difference between a book that used the "n" word, such as huckleberry finn, and a teacher who does.

grok the difference?

[saltpoint]

135. I believe you are pretending that this is a matter for judicial consideration

above and beyond its being a solvable problem from the word 'go.'

When the finger points to the stars, the fool looks at the finger. Chad Farnan can only see the finger.

A public school instructor is a delivery system for knowledge. It is a PUBLIC act to educate all children. The Farnans are permitted a choice of schools for their son. They are NOT permitted a choice not to educate him in some equivalent venue regarding accreditation.

Twain and Vonnegut abide in the arsenal of PUBLIC knowledge, whether the Farnans like what they write or not. Mr. Corbett is an agent of the PUBLIC will to educate children.

[paulsby]

143. and mr corbett as a PUBLIC school employee

is beholden to abide by the constitution, specifically in this case, the 1st amendment.

he cannot proselytize (on duty/on campus)

similarly, he cannot ridicule religion.

if the kid in this case was an atheist, and the teacher vilified him for that, he would be equally wrong.

[saltpoint]

173. Your point ignores Corbett's being correct in his assertion. The issue

is plainly a case of one student wishing to silence his teacher because that teacher challenged that student's (incorrect) viewpoint.

A case cannot be made for Creationism. It is a belief. An abstract construct.

Corbett's role includes that of being a delivery mechanism for available facts. He properly represents universal Science in his response to Farnan's decidedly private/personal faith.

Antebellum courts sanctioned slavery; that didn't make it a humane idea. The larger landscape here, IMO, involves the duty of teachers to teach, to convey information, to offer information theretofore unconsidered, and to challenge the assumptions of their students.

Farnan's role, also IMO, should include respect for a veteran teacher who knows more about his subject than a 16-17-year old.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. The "spaghetti monster" remark was found to be acceptable by the ruling

The only remark that the judge decided had gone over the line was "(creationism is) religious, superstitious nonsense".

[saltpoint]

84. Yes. LOL! I have to admit I am taking deep, personal pleasure in the

judge's finding that the spaghetti monster remark was not found to violate Young Chad's rights.

What I actually think is that Young Chad needs a transcontinental road trip with the ghost of Jack Kerouac et al. It would do him a world of good.

[spoony]

103. If you'll read my post I was talking about all of the quotes.

Obviously. They were entered into the suit, and the discussion is about whether a suit is appropriate and I was countering the notion that what was alleged in the suit was somehow part of necessary pedagogy in the classroom.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. Only one remark by the teacher was ruled unacceptable

If you wanted to talk about the case, you'd do better to talk about the one unacceptable remark, rather than picking one remark from several that the judge decided weren't a problem.

Whether the remarks are 'necessary' for teaching isn't the question; it was whether they were allowed, by law. You're the one who introduced the red herring of 'necessary'.

[paulsby]

109. correct

it's clear that nearly everybody who does not support this ruling HASN'T read it.

god forbid people should read the ACTUAL ruling before kneejerking and saying it's a bad ruling.

thanks for injecting some facts into the rhetorical wild rumpus

[saltpoint]

87. And in any case, a federal judge found those statements to be appropriate

and within context.

You can take the matter up with that judge if you feel an error in judgment has been made, but this student will encounter significantly more provocative ideas and quotations if he furthers his study of History in his college years.

If he doesn't go to college, I suppose it won't be an issue, or at least not much of one. Or if he goes to a Bob Jones-type place, there's no likelihood of his ever being challenged there either.

But if he goes to a real university, say Michigan State or NYU or some other school with wide diversity which celebrates the universality of that diversity, he's in for a rough ride.

One teensy little phrase "won" him this case. Other than that, the federal judge sided with Mr. Corbett.

[paulsby]

106. the suit

was that the teacher's statements violated the establishment clause.

the establishment clause, according to case law, operates BOTH ways.

it is a violation for the teacher to (for example), have a bible prominently displayed on his desk.

that case was pressed by the ACLU and won. and i agree with it, fwiw.

it would not be a violation for a teacher to have the bible IN his desk, and he can read it on his lunch time, etc.

similarly, it is a violation for a teacher to express hostility to the kid's religion, while acting as a teacher.

look at it this way. would you be ok with the kid saying to a wiccan kid "your religion is a bunch of superstitious nonsense?"

[saltpoint]

118. You assert what is given. The issue, IMO, is a broader question into

the role of public education versus the imposition of one student's private beliefs onto that process.

[paulsby]

134. the student

is not a public school employee.

the school can rightfully make all sorts of restrictions on the student, as long as they are content neutral and don't impose on protected freedoms.

for example, the school can say "no message t-shirts".

it cannot say it's ok to have message t-shirts, but NOT those that express religious beliefs.

the student's beliefs also need not be PRIVATE.

the kid is free to spout to his fellow students about his beliefs, while he is at school, although he can't interrupt the class.

whether those beliefs are religious, atheist, polytheist, or whatEver.

a teacher is restricted , while acting in official capacity and/or on campus/duty because they are representatives of the state and hold a position of authority.

again, it is not constitutional for a teacher to ridicule an atheist or promote his religion to a kid.

it is similarly not constitutional for a teacher to ridicule a kid's religion

good for goose, good for gander, etc.

[saltpoint]

136. Actually, a federal judge clearly felt that apart from parsing one

sentence of Corbett's public classroom demeanor into a violation of the Establishment Clause, a public school teacher may in fact restrict a student's private religious expression, including but not limited to refusal to acknowledge (let alone TEACH) Creationism; it is against the law to TEACH Creationism, as Creationism represents a PRIVATELY-held religious opinion which may not be imposed onto the educational process in a tax-supported public school.

Private religious expression, the courts have found, is "assured" but not "unlimited." That applies to Young Chad. It is instructive, IMO, that a federal judge had no difficulty whatsoever with the Constituionality of a public school instructor telling his then-16-year old student that he could not see the world clearly wearing his "Jesus glasses."

I believe Mr. Corbett was doing his job. I believe Mr. Corbett was quite correct about Creationism being nonsense. I believe a very long line of scientists will back Mr. Corbett's assertion. And I believe Chad Farnan is a manipulative little puke.

[Caliman73]

152. The given is what is important here.

The role of public education is well established as a secular curriculum. Most people understand that, therefore it is a given as well. The student does not have the right or the power to impose his personal beliefs into the curriculum. If the student had been disruptive to the process of teaching the curriculum, then the teacher could have told the student that the science classroom was not an appropriate venue for the discussion of religious or theological ideas. The teacher would have been well within his rights and role to do that. Had the student continued to attempt an imposition of religion into the subject then the teacher could have asked for the student to be removed. The problem is that the teacher had the authority and support of the state curriculum, the school district, and his status that the manager of the classroom to silence the argument in a way that was legally viable. The teacher instead chose to create a hostile environment (according to the ruling) by silencing the dissent with insults to the student's beliefs. There is a time and place for debate about religion but that time is not in the classroom and the teacher should not have engaged the debate openly while in his role as the classroom manager.

Whatever your views are regarding religion are irrelevant. The question was whether the teacher violated the law by creating a hostile environment based on his statements. I doubt that the court would have ruled against the teacher at all if he had merely said, "This is not the time nor the place to discuss religious views. We are in a classroom and our discussion is based on the approved curriculum."

[saltpoint]

172. It was the student who secretly taped his teacher. I would hold that

that in and of itself is hostile. Certainly it is deceitful and pre-meditated.

I would also assert that it was Farnan's express intent to disrupt the educational mission. Creationism is not sanctioned as science; it is also fair game as a target in a course on History or Comparative Literature. There is an "expectation of privacy" in a public restroom, for example; so there is an expectation of learning in a public school classroom, one essential component of which is either 1) the introduction of material theretofore unconsidered by students; and 2) the challenge of students' previously-held assumptions about subject material.

I hold that the public mission of Learning is at least as crucial as Chad Farnan's "comfort level" with a public instructor's remarks.

Not least to that point, Corbett was correct in his assertion.

[Caliman73]

176. What we think about his assertion is irrelevant

I know you want to keep coming back to the veracity of the teacher's statement. I agree that creationism is nonsense and has no place in a science classroom and can be discussed in historical and literary context. That is completely besides the point and is not what was argued in court. The role of teacher versus student and the inherent power imbalance was the issue. The student can create a hostile classroom environment, but there is recourse for that. He can be removed, given detention for disrupting the class, suspended, or even expelled for continual violations of policy. Students have less recourse when the teacher creates a hostile environment. Mr. Corbett could have simply directed the student to cease that line of conversation as it was not the topic of focus in the class. He instead chose to lower himself to the level of discussion of the student and engage in ridiculing the students belief. In his role as a public school teacher Mr. Corbett crossed the line from manager of the classroom, with the power to direct discussions and impose order in the classroom, to directly attacking the student's beliefs. Whether you or I agree with what Mr.Corbett said regarding creationism is not relevant.

The expectation of learning that you postulate in the public classroom is already measured by classroom participation, performance in testing, homework assignments, and other indicators. There is an established expectation of what a student in a particular class must demonstrate to achieve a certain level of proficiency. Most teachers have a rubric. Again, if the teacher feels that the student is not performing satisfactorily then there are steps that can be taken to correct that. If the teacher feels that the student is negatively impacting the other students' abilities to absorb the curriculum, there are ways that the issue can be addressed. Ridiculing the student for their religious beliefs in the classroom is not the acceptable way of doing that. As others have said, religion has NO place in the public classroom whether it is being imposed or repressed. The responsibility for keeping religion out of the classroom belongs to the teachers and they need to do so with respect to the rights of private citizens to hold and express those beliefs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. But the ruling wasn't about a pattern of behaviour

The pupil and his lawyers objected to many things the teacher said; but the judge only held one to have been a problem - the 'religious, superstitious nonsense' remark. All the rest he said were acceptable, because they were in the context of teaching history, or weren't actually about religion (eg they were about abortion instead). A fair amount of the ruling is about the lack of a pattern of behaviour, so that the school itself hasn't been held responsible - they can't police a single remark made by a teacher.

[paulsby]

111. correct

if i referenced a pattern, that was misleading, because it came down to one specific statement. you put it much better.

[Ms. Toad]

149. You really need to read the decision befor you opine

on whether it was correct or not. As I'm sure you're aware Fox news rarely reports anything accurately - and this case is no exception.

The teacher was allowed to say quite a few unnecessarily provocative things - all of which the court found did not violate anyone's constitutional rights. I think it was a close call on this particular comment. It might be overturned because summary judgments are not supposed to granted unless the matter is a slam dunks, and I don't think it is. But had it been decided after a full trial I doubt there is any appellate court that would reverse.

The decision isn't that hard to find, but here's a link (sorry about the source - if you don't want to be annoyed by the propoganda of the entity that purchased the copy and made it available without charge, feel free to set up your own PACER account and purchase a copy at around $.08 a page): http://www.faith-freedom.com/files/District%20Court%20Order_05%2001%2009.pdf

[Hosnon]

59. I read the decision, and "believe" in precedent and case law, and still think

the decision was bad.

The teacher clearly had a legitimate secular purpose (i.e., scientific education).

[paulsby]

114. imo, that's rubbish

he can teach as much science as he wants.

and nobody teaching scientific theory, fact, or the scientific method is affected whatsoever by this decision.

[saltpoint]

167. Although the context shifts, your calling someone's opinion "rubbish"

is exactly the same honest impulse Corbett exhibited with the word "nonsense."

Don't offer the legal context until you consider that your impulse to use "rubbish" and Corbett's impulse to use "nonsense" to express disagreement with others is exactly the same.

Were you a tax-supported public school teacher in this school district in California, your impulse to use "rubbish" or "nonsense" would be demonstrated by Selna's decision to be 'illegal,' but your impulse to assert disagreement would be honest dialogue.

Corbett may not be a gentle Buddhist seeking blessed union with all things. He might be a rose with thorns, as most of us are. Chad Farnan may not like his teacher much.

But consider again that Corbett's impulse -- and yours -- constitutes honorable disagreement of principle.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. He was mocking a fellow (former?) teacher's religious claims, not the kid's religion

He was explaining why he didn't give a teacher (who lost a case when he tried to teach creationism in a science class) the right of reply in the school magazine. He said the "religious, superstitious nonsense" shouldn't be printed as propaganda in the magazine.

But he said this when teaching his own (history) class, so I can see that this comes under the special protection from criticism by government employees that American law gives to religion. If he'd said "it's religious, and it makes no sense" perhaps he would have been OK.

[Warpy]

52. However, you do need to check the personal stuff at the door

when you have a job instructing other people in subject matter.

I would never have told a patient that the bible TV they were watching 24/7 was making them sicker, was a lot of hooey, and was geared at extorting money from people least able to afford it to keep the televangelists in mansions and mink.

It might have been the truth as I saw it, but it would have been impolite and counterproductive.

However, I'm not too polite to say that stuff in social situations or on the DU boards.

Interjecting too much personal stuff into a classroom or hospital room is simply unprofessional.

It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with this teacher. It should have been handled differently by all involved.

[hunter]

70. What if bible TV told them to check out of the hospital and trust in God to cure them?

Let's assume it's something that is easily cured in a hospital with the right meds, but fatal otherwise.

Wouldn't you try to convince them to stay in the hospital and take their meds? Maybe if you were some sort of Christian, wouldn't you call a chaplain of the patient's religion to help you convince the patient to stay?

I know you have to let them go sometimes, Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions, etc., but you don't ever just write them off and send them home to die.

I've got a small collection of high school students' creationist writings, and it might make you weep. These kid's intellectual development and curiousity is crippled by their family's religious beliefs. If their families were binding their girl's feet or beating their sons to "toughen them up" we'd be angry. But filling a kid's minds with poisonous falsehoods for religious reasons is somehow okay.

:grr:

[Warpy]

89. Hospitals aren't prisons

and I learned a long time ago that people will make their own choices.

The issue actually did come up. I provided them with an "against medical advice" discharge form and called the doc who came in and told them about the medical consequences.

The ones who left were all back within 24 hours after god seemed disinclined to heal them.

The kids whose writings you have are still kids. More than a handful will eventually rebel.

Both my parents died unbelievers. I had nothing to do with it and was surprised at the death bed announcements.

Anyone with the capacity to rebel will do so. I don't really care what gets the rest through a long and fearful night.

[hunter]

95. I have met a few paleontologists and evolutionary biologists who were religious rebels.

But a lot of kids are not so sharp. Some kids survive having holes drilled in their heads without any obvious intellectual deficits, but most kids don't. Courts will side against parent's religious beliefs in circumstances where the child's life is in danger.

As a Christian my own argument to any creationist parent who becomes a disruptive nuisance is this: God leaves open His entire Creation for our exploration. Ignoring the vast history of the Universe in favor of a short story that is obviously an allegory is an overt denial of the Creator, and a blasphemy of greater consequence than atheism. Even if atheists don't know God Himself, at the very least, they know his Creation better than any creationist.

It's my own fancy way of telling creationists they're going to hell.

I've met a few creationists who I get along with, but they are always the sort who see the entire universe and life itself as an expression of God. Everything is a story, everything is an allegory. Their universe is as big as my own and they are not threatened by Darwin. It's the small minded believers living in a tiny little universe of their own dull imagination who make me angry.

[Warpy]

96. You have an elegant way of dealing with them

that can only come from a fellow believer.

I've often found that the worst tirades come from the secret doubters.

They've never managed to convince me nor, I suspect, themselves.

[Sophree]

161. hunter, you rock!

:yourock:

I'm probably one of those "creationists" that you refer to, who sees the entire universe and life as an expression of God, although I really just think of myself as a Christian. But I'm not threatened by Darwin or science or feel they are a threat to my beliefs. In fact, I believe that the more we mere humans discover, the better is our understanding of His creation.

Anyway, I love your response to the dunderheaded parents- good on ya!

[paulsby]

113. that's irrelevant

the issue is not whether the teacher is right, it's whether he can AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL teacher make statements either promoting religious beliefs, or denigrating them.

according to case law in regards to the establishment clause , EITHER is a violation.

as a govt. employee, i cannot tell my "clients" that creationism is a superstitious myth, or my belief.

personally, i think it's a myth, and i'm free to spout as much as i want OFF DUTY.

[Hosnon]

57. Surely you're not asserting that the lack of scientific value in the Bible renders the

non-scientific aspects equally worthless?

[timtom]

86. What do you mean "the circumference of a circle

divided by its diameter is equal to three is nonsense"?

It is not nonsense. It is simply less accurate than pi. But, what IS the value of pi?

[konnichi wa]

93. Actually it is not less accurate, it is simply less precise.

It's completely accurate to zero decimal places (which of course is worthless in real world calculations).
I never thought using it as a biblical 'error' was very productive; there are plenty other flat-out wrong and impossible biblical passages that work much better. :-)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

[timtom]

97. I used "accurate" as though it were interchangeable with

"precise". That was neither accurate nor precise of me.

[konnichi wa]

102. LOL...well, it isn't as if most people would notice.

We science types tend to be a little bit anal. :D

[saltpoint]

9. An individual in a public school may believe in Creationism but is

subject to that belief being challenged, by his teacher in this case, and by any number of books in the library as well.

He may hold to his belief as he wishes and as he is sanctioned to do by the Constitution, but he may not impose it onto his science class, his English class, or his History class, etc.

He may only accept his role as one individual among many individuals.

I hope the teacher elects to challenge this and I predict the teacher will prevail.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Family has a history of suing

this is a case test, and I am almost betting they will go to the USSC

And we had a LONG thread on this already

[Creena]

90. Yeah, let's not get into that again LOL.

Although, a minor correction. It's not that they have a history of suing, but the family's dislike of challenging their religious beliefs.

A simple Google search of the kid's name will also give a glimpse into his personality. From talking with friends who have kids that went to Capo with him...it's rather dead on.

[BalancedGoat]

14. Beat me to the punch.

Teachers need to check their personal beliefs with regard to religion, be they for or against, at the door.

At the same time, saying something like "Creationism is a religious belief that is not backed by sound science and as such has no place in the classroom" should be perfectly acceptable.

[tammywammy]

15. Agreed n/t

[Hanse]

17. Evolution is not a personal belief.

Creationism makes claims about the natural world. Those claims are wrong, nonsensical, and just plain stupid.

[Warpy]

53. No, which is why evolution belongs in the science classroom

and creationism belongs in the churches.

That point can be made without disparaging anybody's belief system.

[spoony]

56. Quite right, I've never had a professor

feel the need to say the sorts of things described in the article when discussing evolution. Basically they said what you said, and that was that.

[Hosnon]

54. I agree. I'm as anti-religion as they come but see no value in ridiculing the beliefs of others. nt.

[Caliman73]

153. While I am not specifically anti-religion

I find fundamentalism to be ridiculous, and I assert the right to ridicule and be ridiculed, but the context of the relationship and consequences are important. The teacher should have just cut off debate and re focused on the curriculum. If the student became disruptive then the teacher would have had all the right to remove him from the classroom.

[Arugula Latte]

7. Ancient Hebrew mythology must be upheld, apparently.

[timtom]

88. This thread contains some of the most vigorous debate

on this subject I have ever seen on this subject. Most of the points/counterpoints are even-handed.

Your comment, then seems glaringly fatuous and out of place, as it adds nothing to the sum of human understanding.

[grantcart]

11. I wonder which of the two creation stories in Genesis Farnan and his family believe are true?

[jaysunb]

12. " Some Christians" are not Christians...

:evilgri:

[saltpoint]

13. It is the separation of Church and State that was violated by the student, IMO.

Young Chad is free to haul his Creationist hind end down to any church in town that expouses that belief. No one is going to stop him.

The public school classroom is not his classroom alone; it is everyone's classroom, and everyone is not on the same Creatinist page as Young Chad.

[CAG]

20. Young Chad is free to sit in a high school classroom without his beliefs

being repeatedly, disrespectfully, verbally dissed by an adult teacher in authority.

[saltpoint]

22. The case against the teacher is not there, IMO. A public school teacher

is no less a citizen than one of his students. If Young Chad thinks Darwin sucks, he's free to say so. I would advise him to be prepared before the next essay test on that subject, however.

Equally, his public school teacher is free under the First Amendment to declare Creationism to be nonsense.

[CAG]

25. I agree that the case is not there. A public school teacher is free under

the First Amendment to act like an immature a$%hole.

[saltpoint]

26. And some teachers do, but I'm still not seeing that evidenced here.

Is it this student's view that his teacher's persistent opinion, however expressed, is a violation of rights?

The Court decision appeared to endorse that view. I don't endorse it, and hope that the decision is challenged.

The student may believe anything he wishes. I don't have a problem with that. But to sue for its exclusional protection in a tax-supported public classroom is quite another story.

There are any number of fundamentalist Creation-teaching private schools Young Chad can enroll in on a moment's notice. They'd be absolutely delighted to have him.

[CAG]

34. Once again...I'm agreeing with you on the "suing" crap, but

"when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." One, of course, could insert "Mohammed" or "Abraham" or "Dalai Lama" or "Darwin" for "Jesus" if they wanted to fling an insult to a student of different beliefs.

"Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies — that's interfering with God's work"

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

Religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool."

These and other comments by a public school teacher in the classroom full of minors who are supposed to be sitting there getting a public school education is uncalled for, unprofessional, and conduct becoming of an a$%hole. I guess we disagree on that point. If theres something else to talk about other than 1) they shouldn't have sued or 2) the teacher is a you-know-what, let me know...

[saltpoint]

35. The action taken against this teacher was a legal action. We agree that

no Constitutional rights were violated.

I think Young Chad has some very serious challenges ahead of him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. The judge did not find any of those unacceptable

because of the context in which they were made (teaching history, and talking about the attitudes people have). Only the 'religious, superstitious nonsense' remark (which was about a previous case in which a fellow teacher had been stopped teaching creationism in science class) was found to be a violation.

[paulsby]

32. not according to relevant case law

established long before this case.

if a teacher, in his official capacity (vs his conduct while NOT at school) expresses hostility to religion, that is a violation of the 1st amendment.

read the case law.

read the ACTUAL instant case decision.

cites available upon request

[saltpoint]

36. You've typed this now 3 times in this thread.

What the hell -- go for 4.

[paulsby]

38. and numerous people have kneejerked

(far more than 3 times) without considering the relevant case law, reading the decision (iow actually understanding non-disputed case facts), etc.

it's insane to come to a conclusion of constitutional law based on some media report.

do you trust the media to give a clear account of ANY issue, let alone an issue of constitutional law

[saltpoint]

41. You might do yourself a kindness and move away from "case law" when in fact

this dispute is over private religious sensibilities.

We "kneejerkers" might hold that a private religious belief should not be imposed onto public policy.

[paulsby]

43. that's exactly what the case law established PRIOR TO THIS CASE

the teacher, as an agent of the govt. cannot in their official capacity express hostility towards religion.

that is THEIR private religious belief being imposed.

get it?

i'm not saying i like the decision. i am saying that IF you believe in rule of law and precedent, and IF you know the case law, it's a reasonable conclusion.

[saltpoint]

45. I get that the court action was specious.

I have no respect for it as a remedy to the "problem" of a full-of-himself student taking revenge on a public school teacher who challenged his private faith.

It's tough all over. One must expect to be challenged on one's personal beliefs. That's a huge part of what education IS.

If this student does not wish to be challenged -- if he is that fragile -- I suggest his parents enroll him in a fundamentalist private school. He should be pampered there very nicely.

[paulsby]

107. the issue is not what the student wishes

it is what the law allows and prohibits.

i went to private school for most of my life. i didn't have to deal with this crap.

i had an outwardly atheist teacher for instance, who regularly ridiculed religion.

and several religious teachers who expressed the exact opposite belief.

all totally ok in my private religious school.

and neither would be acceptable in a public school.

i can cut the irony with a ladle.

[saltpoint]

119. We disagree. One federal judge had an entire tape's worth of "objectionable

comment" and tilted the decision on the basis of the thinnest one of the batch.

Religious freedom is assured but it is not unlimited.

And that would go for students and teachers both.

[paulsby]

132. the case law says that religious freedom means that

1) the school (public) cannot promote religion
2) the school (public) cannot ridicule religion

the teacher, being an employee thereof is similarly restricted, while teaching.

that's fair.

i would guess most people here are very interested in (1) above

many on the right (at least of the religious persuasion) are very interested in (2) above.

BOTH are important.

a religious kid should be protected in a public school from a teacher ridiculing his religion, JUST as an atheist kid should be protected from being ridiculed for his LACK of religion.

[saltpoint]

137. You continue to repeat a point that IMO does not apply to the

present circumstance.

As I've indicated, I do not see this as a matter for any court. It is in the courts to begin with because, as the OP very properly asserts in the subject line, some Christians have a thin skin. In this case, a Creationist Christian, almost certainly placing the Farnan family in the far-right fundamentalist camp.

Yes, the Constitution permits a family to hold and practice fundamentalist beliefs. I have no problem with that as a choice if others wish to make it. It's not for me but it's sanctioned for them to make that choice, albeit demonstrably anti-scientific and anti-intellectual. In other posts in this thread the issue of Corbett's not being a science / physiology teacher is addressed, and pretty well, IMO, and I endorse Corbett's invocation of evolution as fact. The Farnans are Constitutionally sanctioned to disagree but the First Amendment clearly protects Corbett as "an agent of the government," to isolate the Farnans' claim that public school assertions of the legitimacy of Creationism is specious. Were that not the case and Corbett not protected, a federal judge would have allowed the "nonsense" statement and agreed with the Farnans that Corbett "bullied" his student.

If it is illegal for Corbett to teach Creationism, if he had been so inclined, and it is illegal (specifically in case law coming from a precedent case from this very same school system, by the way), it cannot be held that Corbett's refusal to acknowledge Creationism as "legitimate" runs counter to the public mission. The Farnans' argument appears to boil down to "I'm furious at Corbett because he's bullying our dear son with scientific facts." Facts have a way of bullying the befuddled in the real world. IMO this is such a circumstance.

The Farnans' case is therefore retaliatory, not expository. It was an act of deceit for their son to secretly tape his instructor. The legality of secret taping notwithstanding, it was nevertheless an act of deceit. If the Farnans felt that Corbett was "bullying" their son the proper venue for clarification and resolution is the office of the school principal, not a federal court.

The Farnans squawked because a public school teacher challenged their anti-intellectual smugness. IMO that is the only reason this ever reached the court.

Whether Creationism is "nonsense" is pertinent to the decision but stands alone as a point in evidence of a public school teacher doing his job.

[paulsby]

145. you are using the exact same argument the right uses

why does this not surprise me.

the argument is " these atheists just have a thin skin. they are just whining to the ACLU etc."

does it bother you that if the kid in this case was an atheist, and had made the complaint that the teacher was trying to proselytize him, that the right would be making your argument?

it should.

i don't give a flying fuck what the petitioners religion or politics are. it's irrelevant, whether a left wing christian, a right wing christian, a right wing atheist, a left wing buddhist, etc. etc.

it doesn't matter. the constitution DOES>

you completely miss the point. the teacher is not prohibited from stating the facts of evolution. he is prohibited from ridiculing religion. there is a difference.

you may not grok it, but it is substantial, qualitative difference, and one the courts have repeatedly distinguished.

fwiw, i have NO problem with secret taping. i happen to live in a two party state (although even here taping would arguably be legal, since the prohibition applies to PRIVATE conversation and a teacher addressing the class is not a private conversation).

taping helps bring facts to light and eliminates he said/he said accusations vs. an impartial evidence gatherer (the tape recorder).

most importantly, the issue is not whether or not creationism is nonsense. fwiw, i believe it is mythology, not truth.

that is 100% irrelevant. the teacher is constitutionally prohibited from ridiculing religion (or atheism fwiw).

kids attending public school are constitutionally protected from teachers ridiculing their religion or lack thereof.

period.

i support the right of atheists to be free from religious proselytization by state actors (such as public school teachers)

similarly, i support the right of theists, no matter what religion they believe, to be free from ridicule of their religion by state actors. period.

would you say the ACLU case where the teacher was challenged for having a bible on his desk was similarly "squawking" and "retaliatory not expository?"

i predict you wouldn't say that.

i respect the constitution, and that includes the rights of those i strongly disagree with, like creationists.

do i think it's nonsense? yes. and i am free to say that. as is corbett. but NOT while his speech is being paid for by the state.

that's the rub.

[saltpoint]

160. Your notion that I'm using rightwing argument tactics earned you

a huge laugh among those gathered at my house. LOL!

In my take, Selna's decision actually favored Corbett. And properly so. If the flashpoint was Farnan's protections, Selna obviously sympathized with Corbett's repeated and pointed assault on Farnan's personal beliefs.

The decision rendered is superficially an endorsement of Farnan's right to be protected, but in publicly shoving aside the other controversial statements, Selna's sympathy for Corbett is plain.

Additionally and not least, the school system was not liable for the actions of this one instructor. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the plaintiff's claim of rights violation.

This is why an appeal would be instructive.

[paulsby]

162. i would like to see an appeal too

all that more to flesh out the underlying issues even more.

just like i'm glad to see the suit in the first place, despite your claims that it was whining, etc.

it helps resolve a constitutional dispute.

that's a GOOD thing

[saltpoint]

163. Well we certainly disagree that it was a good thing.

I think Chad Farnan is a cry-baby.

I think his parents must be fools.

It should never have reached the courts.

[paulsby]

165. thank you for reinforcing my point

that is EXACTLY the argument that many on the right use against for example (the name escapes me of the plaintiff) the guy who pressed the pledge of allegiance case, etc.

same argument. just from the other side. in that case, it was an atheist (with no standing fwiw due to lack of custody of his daughter but i digress) claiming the school violated the establishment clause ... establishment of religion in a public school

in this case, it;'s a theist claiming the school violated the establishment clause ... from the converse angle (which case law says is equally egregious)

hmm...

[saltpoint]

169. Sorry, but it's quite a reach to align my interpretation of public school

curricula with the Right when Creationism as expoused by the Farnans is among the primary components of the Right's anti-public education agenda.

I think you know that.

[paulsby]

170. i am aligning your tactics

because they are exactly the same.

the underlying argument may be different but the tactics are the same.

the anti's in the allegiance case claimed it was whiny etc. and the person should just accept it and it's not a big deal, and not a constitutional violation, etc.

that may be hard for you to see since you are within the prism.

from the outside, it's clear

[saltpoint]

171. We are all of us in awe of your outside-the-prism mastery of events.

[paulsby]

30. not according to relevant case law

a teacher (in a public school) is an agent of the govt.

and case law says it is a violation of the first amendment for the govt. to establish religion OR demonstrate hostility towards religion.


read the ACTUAL decision, not the media account. read the case law

[saltpoint]

33. The First Amendment is clear enough. A public school teacher in his very

role as agent of the government does not surrender his or her First Amendment rights under the Constitution inside a public classroom.

The problem in this case, IMO, is characterological, not Constitutional.

[paulsby]

42. the case law says you are wrong

cites available upon request.

a public school teacher or ANY govt. agent cannot in their official capacity, either promote religion *or* establish hostility towards it

the ruling was a result of precedent.

[saltpoint]

44. I still see no case against the teacher. Sorry. I also don't see the need to

do the Scopes trial every 2 weeks in this country.

The student's private beliefs cannot be imposed onto a public policy. That violates Church and State separation.

The student's position here is specious because he claims hostility against his faith; none is expressed but in defense of his teacher's sensibilities; the difference is that a public school must sanction all views and the student, if his believes are more central to him than public education policy, may withdraw from the public school and enroll in a private school where his believes will not be challenged.

If the public school teacher was intemperate in his remarks against Creationism, that is a problem addressed in conference with the teacher, the principal, the student, and the student's parents.

Instead we get the judicial "remedy," and I am calling bullshit on that.

[paulsby]

110. these cases are pressed all the time

by the aclu and others. one recent case pressed by the ACLU said that a teacher cannot display a bible on his desk.

*if* you truly believe in religious liberty and the rule of law, precedent, etc. you will give advocates a fair hearing.

you may call bullshit on the judicial remedy, but the constitution exists to protect ALL of us, even creationists.

i think creationism is foolish, but it does not follow that i think that a public school teacher should be free to ridicule a student's beliefs vis a vis same.

a teacher is free to teach facts and theories that contradict creationism, and those are 100% protected. this case acknowledges that.

for example, nobody is saying the teacher (note this teacher was a history teacher not a science teacher, but i digress) couldn't have talked about the fossil record, dinosaurs, carbon dating, or all sorts of stuff that contradicts creationism.

[saltpoint]

120. The court action was specious in and of itself and the imposition of

one student's private limitations onto a broader process violates that process.

Were this decision appealed I think you would see it reversed, and on very strong grounds.

[paulsby]

130. i follow legal blogs closely

and there is hardly a consensus it will be reversed fwiw.

this has nothing to do with "one student's private limitations"

it has to do with constitutional principles. it doesn't matter WHAT the kids religion was.

the teacher, in a public school, has no right to ridicule a student's religion any more than he would have a right to impose his own religious beliefs on them.

if the kid was an atheist, suing because a teacher insisted that god exists and the kid better get right by god, would you be equally vociferous in your claims that the court action was specious?

[saltpoint]

138. As to your question, it was answered with conviction in a precedent case,

cited elsewhere in this thread, in the very same school district, some years ago.

It is not legal to teach Creationism in a public school. That is not in dispute here.

The Farnans' claim holds that Corbett violated their son's rights by asserting that Creationism is "nonsense."

I believe an extremely large group of scientists would hold with Corbett's assertion, whether posters on your legal blogs like it or not. Law, like pedagogies, is capable of mutation. At the moment the question you ask has been decided long ago and is resonant in the Farnans' claim as a point AGAINST their claim, not for it.

The school district was not held liable in the Farnans' complaint. There's a huge comment in that fact that has not been properly evaluated regarding Corbett's "guilt."

The student in question has placed a grocery bag over his face and then is whining that he can't see anything. It will not do to punish his teacher for saying, "Well, idiot, remove the bag."

Were Corbett to appeal, I believe his chances for satisfaction are quite good. If there are scientists who will endorse his claim on Creationism being "nonsense," there are also attorneys who would be likely, IMO, to urge him to seek satisfaction against the Farnans.

I believe the legal action taken by the Farnans in this case is a violation of the pact between government and the citizenry. The government mandates education. The citizenry is beholden to that mandate. Corbett is a veteran eacher and he was correct in his assertion.

IMO the burden of proof that Corbett was not doing his job should fall onto the Farnans and the matter should be discussed in the principal's office of this high school and most certainly not in a federal court.

[paulsby]

142. the govt. mandates education...

correct.

and they are beholden to constitutional principles in doing so.

the establishment clause (per case law) says that they cannot promote religion.

conversely, they cannot denigrate it as well.

[saltpoint]

168. The denigraton in question involved the predetermined deceit of

Chad Farnan in secret taping of his teacher.

In other words, it was an ambush.

Corbett called Creationism "nonsense," even as you respond to another poster in this thread, calling "rubbish" to a point of view.

One venue is a public classroom; I get that. The other is a cyberspace opinion board. But consider that the impulse to use "nonsense" or "rubbish" is exactly the same.

At the emotional level your "rubbish" exactly equals Corbett's "nonsense."

[timtom]

99. But, is the teacher free to declare that evolution is bunk?

[saltpoint]

122. Strange to say, in that very same school district was a precdent case,

in which a teacher attempted to teach Creationism and was found in violation.

Religious expression is sanctioned but the sanction must bear its own limits. The courts particularly do not look favorably on the distribution of "religious pamphlets" by students except at specific times and places on the school campus.

The overdrive here appears to be that determination of religious "freedom" may not bring pressure to bear on other kids who may not wish to receive the pamphlets, and regarding classroom conduct, the expression may not be a disruption of the educational process.

The vein running strong through this construction is the public will versus the private limitation.

The law prohibts a public school teacher from teaching Creationism; it would then logically suggest that a public school teacher should not be limited in his assertion of adherence to law.

IMO the student's private religious beliefs should be fully sanctioned, but not in a venue wholly supported by public tax dollars.

[timtom]

139. Thank you for an excellent answer.

And, let me compliment you on your clarity of thought and expression. I would say you're one of the best on this board.

[saltpoint]

156. timtom, I have read your contribution in this thread as well and hold

your remarks very high.

What I plan to do about it is this: read more of your posts in more threads on this site.

Thank you.

[LeftyMom]

50. His beliefs are in direct conflict with the available facts, teachers are purveyors of facts,

If the student had argued with his math teacher about the value of pi, since the bible says it's three, would anybody sane have faulted the math teacher for insisting that the bible is incorrect and pi really is 3.14...?

If the student doesn't want to hear any information contradictory to his religious beliefs, he either needs to shut up about them in class or pursue another educational option. If he wants to make his case for creationism, pi being three, insects having four legs or rabbits chewing cud, he's going to have to understand that more informed people have both the right and the obligation to correct his erroneous thinking in front of the same classmates he's trying to persuade.

Creationist organizations train students to bring this kind of nonsense up in the classroom in the hope that other students fall for their bullshit. Court decisions that prevent teachers from shutting this sort of intentional disruption down are a disservice to all students.

[yodoobo]

73. The student has no duty to uphold seperation of Church and State

Since the students are not an agent of the state, they have no burden to uphold this separation.

The establishment clause is a limit on government, not individual citizens.

While you are certainly quite right in your assertion, its a point without any relevance to the case.

[saltpoint]

75. The State may not divert or otherwise exclude students from holding

a specific or particular belief, however, it is not beholden to the confines of that particular belief in administering its primary mission.

More directly, there is no legal justification which sanctions the teaching of Creationism, even as a reaction to evolution. A religious point of view may not be taught in a school classroom supported by public dollars. Mr. Corbett labeled as "nonsense" Chad's Creationist viewpoint and in fact as regards the tenets of science, Mr. Corbett is exactly right. Chad demanded vindication for his private views in a tax-supported public venue which is not bound by any law whatsoever to teach Creationism and in fact is restricted from doing so.

Again, the setting is a public school. Private schools are available across the country if this family feels that the mission of the public school, which would certainly include a survey of Darwin and scientific research in its core curriculum (Corbett taught an advanced placement class, by the way; if Chad thinks Mr. Corbett's class is his last battle, I think he's got another think comin'), was in significant degree contrary to or offense to their faith, they are faced with the choice of remaining in place with their son so enrolled or enrolling him in a private school as an alternative accredited setting to meet his qualifying criteria for graduation.

The public school is not a venue for their private beliefs. It is a tax-supported school setting. A universality of beliefs is implied. This student brought a tape recorder into his classroom and secretly taped remarks he found offensive. The conflict was ongoing and the flashpoint was one student's private religious assertion versus his teacher's instinct for what was sound public education.

The teacher was doing his job. His student baited the circumstance and then ambused the teacher on a specious claim. It was a deceitful, manipulative, and dishonorable action by the student and his parents. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Since Epperson v. Arkansas, "Creationism" has not been found to be a persuasive argument for inclusion in public schools' curricula:

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97 (1968).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas

The decision in Epperson was the first in a series of legal setbacks to creationists wanting to promote creationism through America's public schools. These include:

Wright v. Houston Independent School District (1972)
Willoughby v. Stever (1973)
Daniel v. Waters (1975)
Hendren v. Campbell (1977)
Segraves v. California (1981)
McLean v. Arkansas (1982)
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)
Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990)
Bishop v. Aronov (1991)
Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994)
Hellend v. South Bend Community School Corporation (1996)
Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (1997)
Edwards v. California University of Pennsylvania (1998)
LeVake v. Independent School District 656 (2000)
Selman v. Cobb County School District (2005)
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)

Note that two of these test cases appear to have emerged from the Capistrano Unified School District. Note also that religious conduct on the part of students, if felt to be disruptive to the educational mission, may be legally restricted.

There is also the broader cultural argument against the imposition of private religious practice onto general public policy, including but not limited to schools and libraries and women's reproductive freedom.

Creationism -- and its very close cousin, "Intelligent Design" -- are the sheep's costume the fundamentalist wolf wears after he has devoured grandma and waits for Red Riding Hood to show up with the goodies.

[depakid]

16. It's a martyr complex

An unattractive quality inmost ofther nations- but somhow it thrives in the states.

[saltpoint]

19. Hi, depakid. I agree. There appears to be a strong element of martyrdom

at play. The tape recorder component is especially obnoxious, IMO.

What will Young Chad do when he encounters people who disagree with him next year, or the year after, or on into college and young adulthood?

He could be in for quite a difficult patch for the next oh, 70 or 80 years.

[CAG]

18. After reading the article and the alleged quotes by the teacher,

I don't understand how the teacher violated any constitutional rights, but I do understand that the teacher seems to have acted like an a#%hole. Imagine the uproar here if the roles had been reversed, and a christian teacher would have said equally mean-spirited comments to a non-christian high school student. I don't know if I would be hearing how the high school student would be "thin-skinned" after taking the repeated verbal blows.

[LAGC]

27. The thing is...

When I was in 8th grade we had this History teacher who made no secret about being a Roman Catholic. Now, time and time again he'd make his views about God known to all. But nobody (to my knowledge) ever went to the principal over it, let alone SUED him, because it was pretty much understood by all that it was just his personal opinion being espoused, nothing more. It wasn't like he was TEACHING it as doctrine or something. Thats the difference here, IMHO. Seems like people these days are just too eager to sue over the tiniest of shit.

[CAG]

40. I agree about the stupidity of the lawsuit (see my other posts above), but

if the roman catholic public school (I assume?) teacher made disparaging remarks to a minor about the minor's beliefs in the classroom in front of other peers, that roman catholic teacher also deserves the title "a$%hole of the day".

I also don't remember any posts here at DU about the atheist father being "thin-skinned" when he went on his suing spree a few years back (pardon me for not remembering his name), and I doubt many at DU would be calling a muslim high school student "thin-skinned" if they brought up a suit if similar demeaning comments were made towards them.

[LAGC]

49. No, it was a public school.

The History teacher of mine in question was in a public school setting, but we still tolerated his religious OPINIONS from time to time.

But I agree -- people are way too quick to sue, regardless of religious persuasion...

[fishwax]

29. the ruling is BS

(It's also been discussed at length here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5584743)

On edit: Welcome to DU :hi:

[ismnotwasm]

47. Wow

Creationism the pseudo-science is superstitious nonsense at it's very best. Manipulative and malignant opportunism at worst.

People can and do believe in a creator Deity all they want, the condition of faith makes it real-a unarguable fact- to them. It's still not supported by science, and should be separate from science.

Good teachers challenge their students, but perhaps this guy could have used a little more sensitivity, he sounds pretty rude. The kid was probably pretty rude as well, but the teacher isn't going to sue the kid. I don't understand how this case made it to court in the first place, much less was won--other than someone had some cash to spare in a lawsuit-- it's clearly a internal school matter.

I remember a professor of psychology telling a story about a young women who refused to believe that men did not have on less rib because of the creation story. This teacher did all kinds of things to convince her and when faced by physical evidence she chalked it up to Satan and temptation. He gave it up as a lost cause.

[spoony]

51. Sorry but if we're going to treat teachers as agents of the state

and say the establishment clause applies to them, then it cuts this way, too. If religious opinions have no place in the mouth of a teacher in front of their class, then this decision was correct.

[Goblinmonger]

101. That's not a religious opinion.

It is a scientific fact.

[anonymous171]

63. Creationism should be considered its own religion, like Mormonism. nt

[Occam Bandage]

66. Do you believe teachers should be allowed to say "God is real and sinners go to hell?"

If not, then you agree with this decision. The Establishment Clause cuts both ways.

[saltpoint]

67. Thank you for expanding the borders of the discussion.

I consider the case of the public school teacher whose personal / private spiritual views are kept personal and private, but who nevertheless offers an extraordinarily effective segment of instruction on William Golding's LORD OF THE FLIES.

Which Golding described as "a Judeo-Christian allegory."

There in a public school classroom comes a skilled teacher's pedagogical instruction of a work laden with Judeo-Christian imagery and ideas, but as a focused instruction and not an endorsement of Jewish and/or Christian tenets.

It is a volatile soul who objects to that sort of skilled rendering of a complex work even as it is a cowardly school system which refuses to assign it as part of a core curriculum.

There is also Steinbeck and his socialist politics. And Vonnegut and his salty-tongued soldiers in SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE. Both authors routinely banned in public schools, even through high school.

The objection of one family in the present case seems to me to be an objection based on a disputation of temperaments more than an argument over "Creationism." I'd favor the skilled teacher over the ideologue, even if I agree with the ideology, but in any case would suggest that the characterological dispute be resolved in the principal's office with all parties present and accounted for.

That it went to the courts is disgraceful, IMO.

[Hosnon]

68. Edit: I don't agree with that statement but also don't agree with the decision. nt.

[Sophree]

164. Yes it does.

Thank you for pointing out the 2 parts of the Establishment Clause. Non-believers tend to conveniently leave off (or forget about?) the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the Clause. I've often seen non-believers who are adamant about freedom of speech in all other areas advocate limitations on religious speech.

Believers often fail to realize the importance (to their own faith!) of the first part- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," I mean do they really want one person or group of persons deciding what all Americans should believe? You can't get 2 people within the same congregation to agree on the interpretation of ALL parts of Scripture.

It's a pet peeve of mine, so thank you for being a voice of reason.

[hunter]

69. Creationism is "religious, superstitious nonsense."

And creationists can be quite annoying. Parents actually coach their kids on how they might disrupt biology classes.

There are more subtle ways to keep the superstitious kids quiet, but imagine if some parent was suing because a teacher had insulted their family's religious beliefs that the Bible supported slavery, and that Africans were obviously meant to be slaves.

The falsehoods of creationism arise from a similar sort of ignorance and have no place in the classroom. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. This is a very calculated legal assault by the creationists meant to intimidate less outspoken teachers and school administrators.

[Smith_3]

71. Creationism IS nonsense. nt

[mr blur]

72. RELIGION is Superstitious Nonsense (nt)

[saltpoint]

74. If Young Chad believes in Creationism, that's just dandy. No teacher, Mr.

Corbett or anyone else so far as is known, is blocking Chad's path to any church of Chad's choice which endorses and promotes that viewpoint.

Those churches are sanctioned by the Constitution and are tax-exempt.

Public schools, where Mr. Corbett teaches and where Chad is enrolled, are tax-supported by public tax dollars and their mission is not to mollycoddle fundamentalists.

This young man's private beliefs are not Constitutionally denied or threatened. He is free to accept the universality of belief in a public school setting or if he is too fragile for that goal he can hunker down in a fundamentalist Christian school more to his liking.

I consider that Corbett may have been -- or may possibly have been -- more pointed than necessary in his defense of scientific research, but I believe this student was -- or may possibly have been -- a vindictive and manipulative personality. The claim against his teacher is specious. What a rotten lesson for this kid's parents to teach him. How selfish of them to wish to impose their private belief onto the various expressions of a public school setting.

Typical fundamentalist control-freak deceit and manipulation.

[hayu_lol]

76. No one seems to have noticed that this was a class...

not of science, but an AP class in European History.

European History is full of religious wars, stresses, and strains over a long period of time.

If this student disagreed with the teacher(feud going on for 16 months?), then he could have simply changed to a regular class in history. Why did the student stay with this instructor?

It would be enlightening, to say the least, to see the transcript made from the tape recording that the student produced. No info stating that the tape recording was legal.

[saltpoint]

77. Excellent points. Recording someone without their consent suggests

at the very least manipulation and deceit, if not illegality.

It appears to me that this student and his family wanted a skirmish. They picked a fight. I can't help but notice that this kid is still in high school. In a couple of years he can choose an insular fundie college and likely do just fine. But if he chooses a major university he will encounter far more provocatively and controversial ideas than anything Mr. Corbett is dishing out.

I agree with you -- that transcript might be very illuminating.

[Ms. Toad]

148. The case itself is illuminating. You should read it.

Mr Corbett was permitted to say all sorts of things about creationism not being scientifically valid - and was even allowed to use a phrase along the lines of putting on one's Jesus glasses blinds one to the truth.

The court found that 19 out of 20 statements made by Mr. Corbett (many of which are quoted in the opinion) were just fine and dandy. The single comment he made asserting that creationism (a religious belief) was superstitious nonsense was the ONLY one deemed to violate the students' rights because it denigrated the students' beliefs and had no secular purpose (unlike the extended discussion he had regarding the scientific invalidity of creationism).

[saltpoint]

155. Yes. 10 of 20. that's very interesting in and of itself.

Farnan won the case on the thinnest of technicalities. Most of the rest of the decision clearly acknwoledges Corbett's right to teach as he did.

[saltpoint]

157. Ms. Toad, forgive me my typos.

I meant to type '19' and not '10.'

I AM bad at math, yes. But not THAT bad!

[hunter]

98. Those evil Europeans tried to murder God.

By Divine Providence the True Believers found Refuge in the United States and the True Faith blossomed.

God Bless America!

Sorry all you Native Americans. It was God's will. Now, if only God could do something about those homosexuals. Hmmmmm....

Science has no place in a European History class. The teacher has no right to challenge my belief system! The teacher's job is to explain how Europeans became Godless Gay-Marrying Socialists, and why the United States is the greatest nation on Earth. It's not because of Darwin, it's in spite of him!

(I can think like a fundamentalist, but it makes me feel dirty.)

[anonymous171]

100. Maybe he wanted to learn about European history?

:shrug:

[saltpoint]

125. I kind of wish he DID want to learn it, but he quit Mr. Corbett's advanced

placement class as a result of Corbett's denunciation of Creationism.

I would personally wish for Chad that he pursue an interest in world history -- including Europe -- and if he does, he is likely to encounter things he doesn't know about world history right now.

The Inquisition is going to be an interesting chapter for him, just for starters.

The Emperor Julian is going to be as well.

The world of history goes back quite a bit farther and presents many a vivid challenge to fundamentalist Christian beliefs, and young Chad is not going to be able to make them go away with a tape recorder and a court case.

[saltpoint]

80. Who would Jesus secretly record?

[Strong Atheist]

91. I was going to say "Welcome to DU!", but instead I will add you to the

"Honored elder" and "Quiet Types" next weekend...

[LAGC]

92. Hehe

Yeah, I registered clear back in 2001, just been lurking most of this time, making a post-reply here and there... only got around to donating just yesterday. I plan on being more active in the future, though.

Its a great board!

[Strong Atheist]

94. Well, in that case, Welcome to DU! anyway

:toast:

It is a great board, with some good people ...

[saltpoint]

121. Lurk ye no more and accept our welcome.

Good to have you aboard.

[Joe Chi Minh]

115. The idiocy of you Serendipitous Design people never ceases to amaze me.

Physicists have established that our universe appeared at a particular point when time began - its being co-terminous with space.

Can you get your head around pre-time! No. You know nothing, zilch, about the orgin of our universe that hasn't been handed down by physicists - and THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ORIGINS OF OUR UNIVERSE. Capisce? They seem to have established that it began with a jet of sub-atomic particles from what they call the Peculiarity. Where was this supremely enigmatic Peculiarity when the jet issued from, since space didn't exist?

You could go and on at the incapacity of our feeble, worldly, desperately limited, human intelligence, pointing to the proliferation of such paradoxes at the extremes, and you lot are dopey enough to claim you know fersure God doesn't exist and didn't create the universe!!!! Grow up, for crying out loud.

[Union Label]

116. Sorry your a couple of days late with that one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5584743

[dysfunctional press]

144. sorry, but you used the wrong form of "you're" in your subject line.

[Union Label]

146. Damn the punctuation police are out to get me

And? :nopity:

[Critters2]

151. I would've put some form of punctuation after "Damn"---

an exclamation point, a comma, something. :)

[dysfunctional press]

166. the op has every right to post whatever topic he desires...

and people who want to be the 'content police' shouldn't be so stupid when it comes spelling/grammar- it really brings out the idiocy in your eyes...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. Some teachers are idiots with little common sense.

[saltpoint]

127. But there's no evidence to suggest that Mr. Corbett is one such.

Some students from fundamentalist families are manipulative little shits, too.

There's very likely a lot more to the human side of this story months and months prior to the court decision.

[FreedomRain]

126. y

Back when I was a Christian child, I objected to my 5th grade Science teacher's evolution section . (In Africa, so constitution did not apply). He took me aside and said, "You believe in God? You believe he was super powerful? Well maybe evolution is the way God actually made the world, and those primitive people who wrote the story wouldn't understand it explained to them, just like some of the tribesmen in the bush don't understand cameras or airplanes. So God made them a simple story they could understand and tell their children until writing and science were invented." That worked for me until college, when I saw that the "You may not ask questions" aspect of religion was at odds with science, and I made my choice. I suggest this intermediate step to anyone who finds himself teaching a child with hardcore beliefs.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[upi402]

129. no worries, thick skulls n/t

no text

[redqueen]

140. It was a set up, it seems.

I expect more of this kind of crap to happen.

[saltpoint]

141. I agree. On both counts. It does have the feel of an ambush and it is

likely to recur in other settings.

[old mark]

154. Many "christians" have no fucking brains at all. They believe in

magic - their "religion" is a a mash of stolen bits and pieces from other earlier religions, and most of them don't know any of their "religion"s history or real philosophy.
"The bible says it - I believe it - that settles it" - brain dead assholes.

Yes, I had the benefit of a "christian" education and upbringing, K-12 plus a little time in a religious college.

Assholes.

mark

[hyphenate]

158. I read about this the other day

and find the judge to be as big a moron as the idiot kid who filed the suit. It was a class. It had NOTHING to do with religion. Bye, bye, fundie guy! Public schools are secular. And the RR has to start remembering that, with their teacher's pet out of the white house. THEY are the ones who have to play nice, now.

If I had anything to say about it, the kid would be sent to detention every single day until he finally took the smirk off his face for fucking over a teacher. If he didn't like the teacher, fine--transfer OUT of it. Or go home to fundie parents and whine and complain to them. Secular schools shouldn't be blackmailed by the RR.

This argument is sure to change--I hope--over the next four years, as more liberal judges are hired, and their cases reviewed. What was acceptable for the most part from some of the judges out there while bush was prez is going to suddenly be unacceptable under the dems. It's in the workup to these cases where we see a lot of change in thinking about where religion's place is, and isn't.

[saltpoint]

159. I would like to see Mr. Corbett robustly supported by his colleagues and

the parents of that high school.

Certainly he should go on teaching. From what I can see from a distance, he is exactly correct on Creationism -- it is in fact ridiculous nonsense.

The Constitution allows Chad Farnan to be a holder of that belief or some other belief. The decision technically favors Farnan under the Establishment Clause; however it plainly "sides" with James Corbett.

As Ms. Toad and others have indicated in this thread, of the 20 statements which Farnan secretly and deceitfully recorded, a federal judge found that only one statement, the "nonsense" statement, violated this student's protections.

I believe an appeal would be instructive. I like Corbett's chances. Laws can change. Decisions can be appealed. I think this one is ripe for re-examination.

There is also the pedagogical virtue in a veteran History teacher versed in the scientific principles which significantly inform that History. It seems to me that Corbett is correct in his assertion about Creationism, not a small point. It became the tripswitch for a law suit, but it is a wobbly justice which punishes a teacher for correctly representing scientific advancement. In its logical extreme, Farnan's claim mutates to human sacrifice to appease angry deities. That is, it is no more accurate to say that Athena will protect you than it is for Farnan to insist that Creationism is the truth. The Athena theory has been found to be incorrect. It's a lovely tale. But it's not science. I not only have no problem at all with Corbett calling a ridiculous piece of nonsense a ridiculous piece of nonsense, I think he should be given a raise.

To the misshapen debate that a public school instructor who advocates for Creationism could impose same upon secular humanist or otherwise diverse student populations, the difference IMO is the playing field. Science is one of the most crucial instruments we have to evaluate our existence. I am Constitutionally sanctioned in declaring that "Charles Darwin was a fool," but the tradition of scientific inquiry would demonstrate that I would be entirely wrong. He was in fact NOT a fool.

The fool would be a teacher who told me to eschew Darwin.

There is no equivalent tradition that demonstrates the viability of Creationism. Corbett called it "nonsense," and again, I hold with Corbett. It most certainly IS nonsense.

The courts have also strongly held that students' religious activity may not disrupt the public mission. IMO Farnan was deceitful in his motives and intent and designed an ambush to vindicate his own narrow viewpoints rather than accept the mission of his school in challenging his core assumptions.

Farnan is 16 or 17 years old. He's in school to learn, not to limit.

If someone tells me the universe was created by springing out of a jack-in-the-box, I am going to tell that person that that theory is nonsense. The bones in the natural history museum and many thousands of scientists will back my characterization.

There are practitioners of a livid Christian fundamentalism who handle rattlesnakes. In my opinion a good teacher would urge his students not to pick up poisonous snakes. It would be good advice. "Ye shall take up serpents" is Constitutionally sanctioned. That doesn't make it a good idea.

And who picked this fight, anyway? Selna, a federal judge, found that it was quite within zone for Corbett to tell Farnan that he could not see things clearly wearing his "Jesus glasses." Zowie. That and 18 other statements along similar lines directed smackdab at Farnan were within zone. The decision, rendered in favor of Farnan on the thinnest of remarks, actually plainly endorsed the classroom teacher. Selna didn't let us go outside to play but he pointedly threw open every shutter on the house, and the light shines in.

Only the one statement, declaring Creationism to be nonsense, tripswitched this judicial conclusion, and as noted above, Corbett spoke truthfully. Creationism IS nonsense.

This case was an ambush. It was a betrayal of the mission of public education. It was a betrayal of Madison's vision for learning and an informed citizenry. It was an overt disruption of class focus. It was an impudent insult to a veteran teacher.

Shame on Chad Farnan and shame on his parents.

[saltpoint]

174. An interesting cross-section of viewpoints is contained in the Dawkins link

here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3808,Judge-SoCal-teacher-violated-First-Amendment,AP-in-SFGate,page2#372321

[TWiley]

175. But Religion is Superstitious Nonsense .... where is the problem?