Wed, 05/06/2009 - 11:49pm — vastleft
Next up, biology classes where they show that women are fashioned out of men's ribs:
A US teenager has successfully won a lawsuit against a teacher who described creationism as "superstitious nonsense".
Chad Farnan, a devout Christian studying at California's Capistrano Valley high school, persuaded a judge that his European history teacher, James Corbett, violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which courts interpret as banning government employees from promoting, or displaying hostility towards, religion.
Since I'm not a government employee, I'll continue to call bullshit "bullshit."
»
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
can't find the link now
but earlier as i was surfing the web, i saw a discussion on this [at some blog, i think] where one or two constitutional lawyers [ok, so on the internet nobody knows you're a dog...] went into some detail --
apparently, there were several counts, something like 19 or 20 or 21. the judge[s?] agreed with one and threw out the rest. that one was because the teacher apparently called creationism "religious superstitious nonsense" and would probably have got off scot free if he had only called it "superstitious nonsense" without using the word "religious."
a govt employee can not actively disparage someone's religion, as that can be construed as the govt establishing one religion as preferable to another.
i have to admit, i'm pleasantly surprised that the teacher didn't get dinged for "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth".
otoh, it does sound a bit like the judge was trying too hard to give credence to both sides, in the way that the media now report both "sides" of any argument, even when one side is patently wrong.
You got it, hip
They got him on the establishment, clause. And, as you said, it seems the judge was trying to play this directly down the middle, which ultimately gives more deference to one side than it deserves.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
"improper disapproval of religion"
So who decides what's proper?
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Prosletyzing in a classroom
Is inappropriate, regardless of whose viewpoint they're prosletyzing.
I'm as hostile to organized religion as the next liberal, despite being pagan myself, but there is a line between decreeing that religious ideas are inappropriate in a science class, and being an asshole.
We need to keep religion out of the classroom, and that includes anti-religion.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Me, I like the idea of teachers who tell the truth
Teaching of evolution is under siege, and the textbooks have been dumbed down to accommodate fools and liars. I hope more educators will fight back.
I do too
But there is a line between teaching the truth, and unnecessarily demonizing religion and/or its adherents.* Especially since it is entirely possible for religious belief and a rational acceptance of scientific fact to exist in one person at the same time.
As we learned this election, people who feel unjustifiably attacked don't forgive easily, and are not likely to consider their attackers "allies". Teachers who go on diatribes about religion do just as much damage to their cause, by alienating rational religious people, who feel lumped in with the flat-earthers.
There is a way to fight back, and you don't need to demonize religion to do it.
*Speaking of lines, I don't know if this teacher crossed it. A judge determined that they did. I was mainly just addressing lambert's question about "improper". I would like to think we all agree that all prosletyzing is bad, especially in classrooms.
Someone who argues that all the world's problems are caused by religion, is no more credible than someone who argues that all the world's problems would be solved with more religion.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
My View Exactly
only you said it much more cogently.
Aeryl, you are right -- proselytization in class is abominable
BUT there's a difference between proselytizing (ridiculous religious superstitious nonsense) and demonstrating a fact.
Some "Christianists" will tell you that demonstrating facts interferes with their freedom of religion and speech.
(Like, the fact that they're not all simultaneously fried by thunderbolts is proof God has better things to do than focus 24/7/365 on their WATB
behavior. They'd be extinct if they were, as much as they wish they might be, each and every one the only living soldier in God's Army.)
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Of course there is a difference
And the ones that complain about their myths being excluded from science class, should be called upon for their ignorance.
But, you have to be wary and be careful not to lump all believers of a religion, in with the worst of its extremists.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
See, it's not just science class
They find it abhorrent that their myths don't RULE all things.
You know:
"Good morning, God. Thank you for making me white and rich (and male) and therefore a Lord of Creation on the Earth. Thank you for making me self-sufficient (except in my subservience to those portions of Your Holy Word convenient to further enriching me socially, financially and politically). Thank you for not making me a liberal (because if I had to pretend to believe that brown people, female people, poor people, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, atheist, Buddhist, agnostic, pagan, and gay people were really people, my head would explode)."
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
"superstitious nonsense" and "when you put on your Jesus glasses
...aren't facts, though. Well, at least the second one. It's a teacher being a total jerk, and now, apparently, violating the establishment clause according to the judge. I don't think I sympathize with the student, at all, in this. If he's like any of the other religious kids who try to stir shit in the classroom in public schools to get a rise out of their teacher and fellow classmates, than the kid's probably a jerk, too.
But, calling the kid's beliefs "superstitous nonsense" (which I personally agree with) and telling him "when you put on your Jesus glasses" is clearly outside of the bounds of what a public school teacher is allowed to do by law. A whole bunch of folks here are arguing this more generally, but I'm talking specifically about this case.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
Straw-man much?
"Someone who argues that all the world's problems are caused by religion, is no more credible than someone who argues that all the world's problems would be solved with more religion."
Who might this someone be?
My ex-husband,
the straw man.
Only it wasn't a brain he was missing....
Policy not party!
My partner for one
This is a convo had much around my house between The Sailor Boy and I. And I didn't say that someone HERE had made that argument, I was generalizing an argument I have heard athiests make plenty of times.* To which I always respond:
The problems with this world are not religion, they are human nature. Religion is a convenient justification by those who would like to go to war or persecute others, as to why they should do those things, and have others support for doing them. Which is why we should argue against using religious beliefs as justification for anything, and instead force those who argue as such, to provide rational reasoned explanations for their beliefs. And history has shown that acting out on basest natures needs no religious justification either.
*Which is why I added the caveat that I wasn't implying this about the teacher in question. I even added the * so you would notice. ;\
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond