Court won't stop teacher from challenging religion

[rug]

Saying teachers need to be free to discuss controversial subjects, a federal appeals court has dismissed a student's lawsuit against a high school history instructor whose classroom comments poked fun at creationism and religious fundamentalism.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Friday it did not have to decide whether some of the teacher's remarks - like his calling a former teacher's anti-evolution advocacy "religious, superstitious nonsense" - violated the constitutional requirement of government neutrality by expressing hostility toward religion.

Regardless, the court said, a public employee can be sued only for violating clearly established constitutional rights. If any rights were violated in this case, they were not clearly established, the court said, because no public school teacher has ever been held liable for criticizing religion in a classroom discussion.

While teachers discussing issues like religion "must be sensitive to students' personal beliefs," the court said, "teachers must also be given leeway to challenge students to develop their critical thinking skills."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/19/BAB71KPM9O.DTL

Text of decision:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/08/19/09-56689.pdf

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[kcks]

2. So

is this a two street if a teacher wants to discuss religion?

[Countdown_3_2_1]

4. Probably.

I wouldn't be surprised.

[cleanhippie]

7. No, not at all.

You should read the decision. It's all explained there.

Here is a link to a CSM article that explains it quite well.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0819/US-judges-rule-for-teacher-who-called-creationism-superstitious-nonsense

[cleanhippie]

6. Uhm, no. Thats not what the decision stated at all.

You should read it, it fully explains what was going on.

Here is a link to a CSM article that explains it quite well.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0819/US-judges-rule-for-teacher-who-called-creationism-superstitious-nonsense

[Deep13]

31. I don't think teachers are free to lie about the course material.

Religion has no place in a public science classroom and it seems like the teacher's comments were simply pointing that out.

[w0nderer]

3. k& r n/t

[Jim__]

5. The potential appeal to the Supremes is scary.

At least 4 of them will vote against the teacher.

[cleanhippie]

8. There shouldn't be any appeal, as the court did not rule on the constituionality.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0819/US-judges-rule-for-teacher-who-called-creationism-superstitious-nonsense

[rug]

10. That's incorrect.

"The San Francisco-based appeals court said the teacher was entitled to immunity because it was not clearly established in the law that a teacher’s expression of hostility to certain religious beliefs in a public school classroom would violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause."

That determination itself involves federal law which the Supreme Court can decide if it grants certiorari.

[cleanhippie]

12. Ok, I will take your word for it.

I'm no lawyer, obviously, and am just going by what I am reading in the news articles.

[Jim__]

45. The plaintiff's lawyer already stated his intention to appeal.

From the article cited in the OP:

Attorney Robert Tyler of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which represents the now-graduated Orange County student in the case, said he would ask the full appeals court for a rehearing and appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

"This case is about establishing legal precedent concerning the rights of children to be able to sit in a public school classroom without having their religion attacked," Tyler said. He said the court had deprived "millions of schoolchildren and tens of thousands of teachers" of guidance by sidestepping the constitutional question.

[darkstar3]

52. So it's about banning any possible blasphemy from school?

Yeah, I don't see that working.

[cleanhippie]

9. "The Court did not have to decide whether some of the teacher's remarks...violated the constitution"

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said Friday it did not have to decide whether some of the teacher's remarks - like his calling a former teacher's anti-evolution advocacy "religious, superstitious nonsense" - violated the constitutional requirement of government neutrality by expressing hostility toward religion.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/19/BAB71KPM9O.DTL#ixzz1VaItycNG

[moobu2]

11. Bible believing Christianists push creationism

as some sort of real scientific theory worthy of inclusion in public school science curriculum, THEN, whine to 'activists courts' because real science teachers attack their religious beliefs (thought it was a scientific theory lol).

I didn't read the entire article.

[humblebum]

13. It appears to me that it was a little more than simple criticism of religion.

If this is indeed what was said, "‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.”

He continued: “The other possibility is, it’s always been there.… Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic.”

“All I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it,” the transcript says."

Then it is nothing more than atheist indoctrination which goes beyond opinion and needs to be treated as religious indoctrination.

The statement, "“The other possibility is, it’s always been there" - does not even rise to the level of theory, but is only hypothesis, and is a ridiculous one to many thinking people, myself included. Hopefully the Supreme Court will address atheist indoctrination.

[cleanhippie]

14. "it is nothing more than atheist indoctrination which goes beyond opinion"

Uhm, yeah, ok.

[humblebum]

15. You are wise to be saying "ok", because this is a serious matter

and if we have come to a point where this is acceptable but the opposite opinion is not allowed to be taught - then we have a problem that needs to be addressed legally, at the highest levels.

[cleanhippie]

16. Yeah, sure it is.

[humblebum]

17. And it is because of an attitude of indifference toward such as this is

why it needs to become a legal issue. And it has to some extent and it will continue to be, hopefully.

[cleanhippie]

18. Well, good luck with that.

[darkstar3]

20. Dude,

you got trolled.

[cleanhippie]

22. I know, but sometimes I cannot resist responding to his asinine bullshit statements.

Especially when I am bored.

I've taken to giving him my new "jerkoff" smiley I found as a response.

Feel free to use liberally.

[darkstar3]

21. You know,

most people masturbate in private. The rest of us don't wish to participate in you getting yourself off.

[Deep13]

Factually, scientifically, intellectually, logically creationism is crap.

The teacher is not doing his job if he does not discredit it. Facts are not democratic. If he said something along the lines of everyone being free to believe what he or she wants about creationism, that teacher would be lying.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. That's lambasting CREATIONISM, not religion.

None of that implies there is no God. "Atheist indoctrination" my ass.

I now refer you to my signature text below the spoof Garfield cartoon.

[dmallind]

44. Which one of those statements is false and why?

[tortoise1956]

19. I got major issues with this

Effectively the court opened the door for teachers to teach religious viewpoints in the classroom. This case is a poster child for fundamentalists who are looking to get their foot back in the public classroom door.

Besides, the teacher, as an authority figure to his students, must be extremely careful in how he coaches his remarks. From what I read, he was injecting his belief that there is no God into his classroom. Whether or not you believe in a deity, you should be bothered as hell that a teacher is trying to indoctrinate students. After all, the next time it could be your kid asking you why the teacher said you're gonna burn in Hell for denying God.

If you truly believe in the first amendment, this decision should scare the crap out of you. It does me.

[Leontius]

23. Exactly if "There is no God" is first amendment protected for a

state officer to say is his official position then "There is a God" is similarly protected speech for another state officer to say in the same capacity.

[darkstar3]

24. He talked about evidence in the classroom, from what I read.

Then, when he was asked his personal opinion on the subject of teaching creationism in a public school, he gave it.

This decision doesn't scare me at all. Now, had he actually been telling students in class that there are no gods in this universe and that it was pointless and stupid to believe in such things, that might come closer to opening the doors you fear. We have, however, no evidence of that.

[cleanhippie]

25. AND this is the same school (my Alma Mater, in fact!) where another teacher WAS teaching creationism

Another teacher had been actively teaching creationism is class, and was successfully sued for doing so. I think this was a "payback" case, even though the two are not equivalent.

[struggle4progress]

26. It's good to hear teachers have free speech rights, too.

But do I think teachers should try hard not to say things students can hear as ridicule -- especially in the public elementary and secondary schools

[darkstar3]

27. "Life sucks, get a fuckin' helmet.'

Kids are coddled enough, especially by teachers, without the worry of lawsuit every time a child is mildly offended. Kids and their parents would do well to remember that teaching requires the introduction of concepts and statements that not everyone will like or agree with. Anyone who wants to do away with educational material simply because it might be offensive to someone due to their unsubstantiated beliefs, is simply participating in the war on education led by the right wing.

[humblebum]

28. It's very easy to introduce students to alternative ideas without

going to those lengths. He was clearly pushing an atheistic point of view and intentionally ridiculing students' religious beliefs. No different than pushing religious ideas onto a captive audience.

[darkstar3]

29. Show me a quote of his where he states that gods don't exist.

I see quotes about lacking evidence, and I see quotes about creationism being superstitious nonsense. Neither one of those remotely qualify as "pushing an atheistic point of view."

Show me a quote that wouldn't be out of place in a group of well-educated teachers.

[humblebum]

34. No, but invoking the sacred name of the flying spaghetti monster

implies Pastafarianism, which of course implies an atheistic point of view. That coupled with the ridicule of religious belief and arguing that existence had no beginning, shouts atheism. No other possibility. Forcing Pastafarianism is a violation of the establishment clause.

[laconicsax]

37. You know what else implies an atheistic point of view?

-Physics
-Evolution by natural selection
-Chemistry

Is teaching these a violation of the Establishment Clause?

[humblebum]

40. No. Those really do not reflect an atheistic point of view.

One example would be how those subjects are taught in a Catholic school - just as they are generally taught in a public school, without any haranguing about spaghetti monsters, ridiculous superstitions, or overt theories of creation. Your example would imply that all chemists and physicians are/were atheists.

[laconicsax]

53. Really? Where is God in F=ma?

Where does God appear in SnO₂ + H₂ → Sn + 2H₂O?

Where does God figure into natural selection?

Like it or not, science explains how things work without needing a god. It operates from the perspective that there isn't a magic man behind the scenes.

[cleanhippie]

55. Oh, laconicsax, you forget about the "other" ways of knowing!!!!

You know, the "" factor.

[darkstar3]

38. You're grasping at straws.

He picked a silly example to illustrate the fact that there is no evidence for creationist claims. The fact that his chosen example is the flying spaghetti monster is most likely just a result of that being a favorite counter to creationist bullshit in current popular culture.

So you think that referring to creationism as religious, superstitious nonsense is ridicule of religion? I thought it was ridicule of creationism. Also, to state that ridicule of religion shouts atheism is to conflate, purposely, the positions of atheism and anti-theism.

And there is absolutely no way that you honestly believe that this teacher's statements constitute "forcing pastafarianism." No one, absolutely no one, is that thick.

[cleanhippie]

46. OK, I see now. This is all just a big gag to you. You have been playing us all along!

I have to admit, you kept up the act for a long time. Well done.

What gave you away was this... "invoking the sacred name of the flying spaghetti monster implies Pastafarianism, which of course implies an atheistic point of view."



Of course, even an imbecile knows that a statement like that is 100% bullshit, so you overdid it there and exposed your game.


I have to hand it to you, bum, you really had me believing that you really believed some of the stuff you posted. Yes, you got me.

So now that we all know you are just posting stuff like this to get a reaction (I think this is called "trolling", and may be against the rules, so be careful) it will be interesting to see where you go from here. I sure hope it is in a more intelligent and coherent direction.

[humblebum]

49. I do understand that when someone

invokes the sacred name of the "flying spaghetti monster" or refers to "Pastafarianism", that it is all done in "tongue and cheek". But when a teacher uses such a reference as something by which to equate another's religious beliefs to, especially in the confines of a public school, and directed at students, there is a problem.

Students should not have to their religious beliefs attacked by one in authority. That is wrong and that is what happened in this case, and the use of such terminology identifies the teacher as an unbeliever, and probably atheist, if they use such terminology. Goes beyond mere criticism of religion to condemnation and ridicule.

[cleanhippie]

50. Ahh, bum, keeping up the act, I see. The teacher did not equate anything.

Corbett said there was as much evidence that God created the universe "as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it."
Thats a factual statement, arrived at logically. Or has ANY sense of logic escaped you?

But I see that you are doing one of two things, bum. Either you TRULY believe the things you post, which would indicate a serious disconnect with reality, or you are just playing games, trying to be the obtuse antagonist who posts over-the-top nonsense to see what kind of responses he can get as a form of entertainment.

Either way, your credibility is at (or below) zero, and further responses deserve nothing more than an icon to show exactly what it is you are doing...

[humblebum]

51. That single statement:

"...as much evidence that God created the universe "as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it" cuts to the heart of the matter and clearly distinguishes the secular POV from the "non-secular" POV. That so-called logic is a very narrowly focused kind of logic and not shared by a believer. That is the crucial difference and one not lost on the teacher. Nothing is more narrowly-focused than secular logic,e.g."if something cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched, then it doesn't exist, or probably doesn't exist, or can't exist ... ." If a teacher is not aware of different forms of "logic", then that person should not be a teacher.

Definitely and unmistakably atheistic indoctrination.

[cleanhippie]

54. Oh, yes, of course.

[struggle4progress]

36. The court's decision makes the pedagogical method sound somewhat more defensible,

since the teacher made clear from the get-go that he would generally start each class with some controversial bomb-throwing to spark discussion. And some features of the case reasonably clear that the suit was largely driven by a rightwing litigation group

I think the court reached the correct decision

But I'll stand by what I said: adolescents often have enough trouble constructing careful arguments from facts, without being ridiculed, so I'm not sure I consider the pedagogical method entirely sound here

[darkstar3]

39. 3 things:

1. Well timed and well formed criticism in front of classmates is a legitimate method to increase a student's desire to seek accurate knowledge.
2. Adolescent troubles could be mitigated far more effectively with proper engagement of parents, and proper counseling services, then they ever could by forcing teachers to treat each idiotic idea as valid.
3. The fact that you worked the phrase "pedagogical method" into your previous post twice shows that you are entirely too concerned with coming across as smarter than other users. It is possible to express your opinion intelligently without invoking words and phrases so infrequently used that only teachers, and former teachers (like myself), would recognize them.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. ''I think the court reached the correct decision''

You know, I always thought you were not really a fanatic. Thank you for saying that.

[struggle4progress]

43. I spent most of my childhood arguing with school authorities who insisted on

mandatory school prayers despite the supreme court decisions. I remember the first time somebody called me a "communist" -- I was in fourth grade, and I was arguing in favor of school integration. I grew up surrounded by rightwing authoritarians who played abusive mind-games with anyone who disagreed with them -- so I dislike abusive mind games

You know what brought me back to Christianity after I had dealt with all those folk for years? I met a group of activist anti-death-penalty, anti-homophobic, anti-war, feminist, pro-environment Catholics -- and I started reading some stuff by Catholic Marxists. And I started trying to ditch some of my stereotypes about people

[cleanhippie]

47. I think you have it right, but remember, this was an AP History class, college level.

The students in AP classes are mature enough to handle this kind of stimulation, thats why they are there in the first place.

[Iggo]

30. Creationism is religious superstitious nonsense.

Anyone offended?

[Deep13]

33. Facts are stubborn things.

If a teacher cannot discredit creationism then he can't discredit my faith-based alternative to gravity: intelligent falling. Gravity is only a theory, after all.

[backscatter712]

48. Not me. Creationism is superstitious nonsense!

C'mon, let's see someone get their panties in a twist!

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[struggle4progress]

35. CF ... v CAPISTRANO ...

... Farnan ... was offended by comments Corbett made during class that Farnan characterizes as “derogatory, disparaging, and belittling regarding religion and Christianity in particular.” Neither Farnan nor his parents ever discussed this concern with Corbett or any other school official. Rather, before completing the first semester of AP Euro, Farnan withdrew from the class and filed this lawsuit ... The only cases that Farnan argued in his briefs clearly establish the law in the relevant educational context involve claims that school officials were promoting religion rather than expressing hostility toward it, and challenge systemic actions such as state laws and school district policies rather than parsing individual teachers’ classroom discussions ... The Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of protecting the “robust exchange of ideas” in education, “which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues.’ ” ...
<pdf:> http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/08/19/09-56689.pdf