Posted on 05/05/2009 10:26:46 AM PDT by davidosborne
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
any guesses on how long it takes the “9th CIRCUS” to overturn this one?
“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”
I’m all for shaming school teachers, but this is just plain wrong. Making Christians uncomfortable is in no way establishing a religion. Stupid decision. I don’t care if the president said “Christianity is evil” in his inaugural address. It wouldn’t constitute the establishment of a religion. There is no Constitutional right not to hear criticism of your beliefs from a government employee.
“’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.”
This sort of sentence is what leaves me to believe extended study of the law drives people crazy. If that were the case, why in hell did he decide for the plaintiff?
I would normally be on the side of the student, and I would normally criticize the teacher for being a jerk. But I am at a loss to understand how a listener’s First Amendment rights can be violated by someone speaking their opinion.
This is one of those ‘slippery slope’ decisions.
On the one hand, the Judges’ decision depraves the teacher of his First Amendment rights.
The kid might not like what the teacher has to say, but there is nothing saying the kid couldn’t ignore it, if his beliefs are strong enough.
On the other hand, the kid actually is aiding in the ‘Separation of Church and State’ nonsense pushed by Liberals.
So who actually wins?
The kid for ‘fighting for his rights’?
Or the teacher who just had a Judge say that ‘Separation of Church and State’ exists?
This whole case begs the question, “What religion was the teacher attempting to establish?” Irreligion is not a religion. You may as well sue a teacher for elevating scientific inquiry over faith. This case was not about establishing anything. It was about an ideologue offending his students.
I forgot to update my tagline now that Specter is gone... Just 2 more RINOs to go and the GOP should be back on track...
“On the other hand, the kid actually is aiding in the ‘Separation of Church and State’ nonsense pushed by Liberals.”
It may aid the case of people who (irrationally) want to purge the marketplace of ideas (in which the government participates at least as ardently as any other group) of all religious speech. However, the teacher wasn’t backing any Church; he wasn’t promoting any religious idea. Which makes this decision all the more incomprehensible.
Since this is a majority Christian nation, they should NOT be required to PAY for anti-Christ fairy tales. You demonstrate by your very words that you have NO clue how it is that this nation unlike any in all of recorded history is BLESSSSSED.
IMHO.. the teacher “acting as an agent of Government” way overstepped... I can’t stand the fact that schools teach “billions of years” and “big bang” garbage as if it were fact.. but calling TRUTH a lie and calling a LIE truth is overstepping... IMHO
IF this 'student' and by the very nature of that POSITION in a 'school district, has NO choice but to sit and listen to his/her beliefs being ridiculed by somebody HIS parents are required by 'government' to PAY to PREACH to him/her they are ignorant. IT was not about just being a so called listener but to sit in a room being ridiculed for what one believes.
Bama won so I guess the rest of this nation must become Bamafied????
I agree with that. I do say, however, that evangelical atheists have a worldview and a belief system which operates in many ways like a religion. To attempt to rigorously scrub organized religion out of the fabric of society (as some people do) is tantamount to establishing a religion.
Mind you, I don't think the teacher was establishing anything. But in a broader context, I do not think that the intended purpose of the First Amendment was to create a world in which Atheism triumphs over all other worldviews.
“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.”
The religious hostility probably did it. I’m glad the kid won. Why should some kid have to sit in a classroom (presence is mandated by law. Kid can’t just get up and walk out) and put up with some pontificating bozo with a chip on his shoulder? This teacher is a government employee. Let him teach in a private school that is more in tune with his beliefs if they’ll have him.
Woo hoo! Way to go student! How many students would do that? 1 out of 1000?
This is one more example of why there simply shouldn’t be public schools at all. All these battles in the schools happen because they are government schools. Let the atheists go to their schools, let the Christians go to Christian schools, and none of these fights will ever come up.
I’m inclined to agree with you on this as a legal matter, even though I have little sympathy or respect for the teacher. I think people in public schools - teachers and students - are entitled to express their views on religion or controversial moral or philosophical issues without fear of lawsuits and without violating the Constitution. These are matters for tact and professional discipline - to be handled between parents, students, teachers, and administrators, not by the courts.
“Since this is a majority Christian nation, they should NOT be required to PAY for anti-Christ fairy tales”
If we don’t want teachers to insult our students’ beliefs, we have many alternatives short of marshalling the federal court system and the Constitution on our behalf.
“You demonstrate by your very words that you have NO clue how it is that this nation unlike any in all of recorded history is BLESSSSSED.”
Is that a legal argument? If we are really so blessed, we don’t need the Constitution to protect us from mouthy high school teachers.
BTTT
“IT was not about just being a so called listener but to sit in a room being ridiculed for what one believes.”
There is no Constitutional protection against being ridiculed by government agents. Certainly such protection doesn’t have anything to do with the First Amendment. Maybe James Madison scribbled something about uppity teachers in the margins, I don’t know.
Public school, science teachers shouldn’t waste valuable time teaching a non-related subject to students who need to learn real science. Teach the subject of origins in religious and philosophy classes, where matters of faith should be taught. Better yet, let the parents take care of it, or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.