Teacher: 'I'm never negative toward religion'

[struggle4progress]

James Corbett, 62, defends his controversial teaching methods.
By SCOTT MARTINDALE
The Orange County Register

... Q. You routinely make provocative statements in class. How do you make sure you're not crossing any legal boundaries?

A. I just try to control myself. I am very careful with what I say to my class. It's important to try to provoke the students into some interest. Just keeping them awake can be a challenge. … There isn't a lot I can do for people who think I'm anti-Christian and that I'm trying to turn my kids into atheists ...

Q. People have accused you of being anti-Christian. What are your personal religious convictions?

A. The most important words ever spoken are: "Love your neighbors as yourself," "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and "Judge not, lest you be judged." We hear those words from a lot of religions. That's what I believe – that's the core of it. I'm eclectic with religion. I was baptized Catholic and have worn a Celtic cross around my neck for the past 50 years. Right now, I'd call myself a smorgasbord Catholic. Occasionally, I go to a church on holidays ...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-class-religion-2402308-people-kids

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. I'll bet this guy is one truly great teacher -

I'll bet he has changed lives with what he's done in the classroom. I have no doubt that he's a sincere and decent human being, a dedicated family man, and a gift to his chosen profession.

But, with one comment, he made a terrible mistake, and there's no taking it back. He overstepped by a lot the narrow leeway given to public school teachers when talking about religion. I wish I could find a way to defend what he said, because I don't want anything bad to happen to this fine man, but I can't.

He was careless with his use of the language, and he called a part of someone's religion "nonsense." While I happen to agree with him, I still have to admit that he blew it.

The test here is like this: imagine someone had mentioned the Kosher rule of not eating pork, and he had dismissed it as "religious, superstitious nonsense"? Yeah, it would have generated huge and justified outrage. The rule holds for this kid's demented Christian beliefs (I can say that - I'm not in a classroom that's partially paid for with Federal funds), just as it holds for any religion.

It's a terrible situation, and an unfortunate incident. The guy just lost his good sense and discipline for a moment, and a smart, opportunistic little Christian fuck took rightful advantage of it.

I hope it's over, and that he can get back to the business of being a great teacher .........................

[Baby Snooks]

4. But it's all nonsense...

And man created god in his image. And obviously not for the betterment of mankind.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. I agree .......

But the Establishment Clause in our precious Constitution gives us freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion, and no one gets to devalue anyone's religion where federal funds are involved

It's that simple.

Imagine. John Lennon got it right ..................

[struggle4progress]

9. He probably is a good teacher. His mistake doesn't seem major to me: he got in a pissing match

with a jack-ass who picked a fight and then sued on something like twenty counts, of which one prevailed. He should have known better, since he's supposed to be an adult role-model in his job, but I agree with you: I hope he can get back to his work as a teacher

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Is this that teacher who criticized creationism?

That was really stupid. Not much sympathy from this teacher, even if he does have a good reputation.

[yewberry]

3. What's really interesting to me about this issue

is that the teacher was criticizing Creationism and not religion. Isn't the assertion that his criticism of Creationism equals criticism of religion essentially an acknowledgment that Creationism is religion?

[msongs]

6. exactly. creationism is NOT a religion. nt

[yewberry]

8. It's dogma, even at its most "scientific."

Either they can argue that creationism is science, and allow criticism of it, or they acknowledge that creationism is dogma and should never be taught in schools. The two cannot be true at the same time.

Pretty simple.

[bemildred]

7. They ought to declare that Science is a religion too.

Then it would have the same protections. "You insulted Evolution!!!!"

[struggle4progress]

11. Shouting matches and name-calling do not really promote scientific ideas or values

One does not learn to appreciate the usefulness of a theory such as relativistic time-dilation or maize transposons or evolution because proponents of such ideas are especially good at emotional put-downs of people who disagree with them or because proponents can bluster more noisily than their opponents: such theories are accepted for other reasons

Critical investigation requires a dispassionate willingness to set aside one's personal preconceptions while considering the rational relationships between facts. Many bad habits interfere with developing such a skill, and to teach such a skill to the next generation, one must not only provide a good example but must also require the students to practice the skill regularly

[bemildred]

12. Thank you for explaining that. nt

[Fire1]

10. If it's going to be taught at all, both schools of thought should

be presented, imo.

[struggle4progress]

13. No. Science is concerned with naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena, supported

by observations and calculations. It requires no philosophical commitments to study, other than a dedication to observe closely and reason accurately

Modern evolutionary theory is based on the fossil record and current understandings of physics and biochemistry. Creationist explanations depend essentially on religious and/or philosophical arguments and assumptions. The first approach is scientific; the second is not. There is, of course, nothing wrong with discussing both approaches in (say) a philosophy classroom, but the second approach does not belong in a biology classroom

[Fire1]

14. "We've got fossils, we win!" No doubt this is your bumper

sticker and you're entitled to your 'theory.' There are many, however, who would argue that ALL evolution is driven by intelligence not just blind chance. Thus, students should be exposed to both theories, including DNA and communication, and let them subscribe to what makes the most sense to them.

[struggle4progress]

16. The fact that "many would argue XYZ" does not make XYZ a scientific theory

[Fire1]

18. DNA engineering and communication/information IS

science with credible theories and should be presented as such. Again, as long as other credible theories exist you can't objectively present ONE as being THE definitive answer.

[xocet]

15. Go Bronze Age! Go!!

Creationism is nonsense, and the idea that the earth is flat is nonsense as well. It is too bad that religious feelings are so delicate that they have to be treated with automatic deference. Of course, this reflexive deference is necessary because religion has a difficult time undergoing any sort of critical analysis. It tends to anger people when their core beliefs are shown to be the flimsiest sort of dogma. The core of religion is faith, and having faith simply means not thinking, but - instead - hoping and praying: i.e., doing nothing. It is funny that in 2000-or-so years of prayerful effort by lots and lots of faithful people, no solid evidence of the efficacy of prayer has ever been established. Prayer seems to be about as effective as homeopathy.

Oh well....

[struggle4progress]

17. The school being a state institution, the students held there as a captive audience have some

right not to be subjected to emotional propaganda from their teachers, either for or against religion: the non-establishment clause cuts both ways