Atheism and Freedom of Religion clash in classroom

MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
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 ruled Friday in a lawsuit student Chad Farnan filed in 2007, alleging that teacher James 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, which Farnan recorded, 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.

Selna wrote in his ruling 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.
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."

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."

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.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Click to expand...

Linky
 
So busting him for violating one part of the First Amendment requires violating another part of the First Amendment. Sweet!
 
Man that is a toughie, but I'd have to say I go with the idea of giving both viewpoints and no opinion, if it is the school's policy.
 
He was spouting his own viewpoints, regardless of what the school's policy might have been. In doing so, he was basically pressuring Christian students in a captive audience (in a state-funded public school with compulsory attendance) to no longer follow their faith, which treads on freedom of religion. But also, silencing him treads on freedom of speech.
 
Congress shall make no law....

it doesn't say a word about anyone shutting up.

The purposse of the 1st was to guarantee that the state did not interfere with religion or develop a state religion. Religion not getting involved with state was not the problem. Religious houses were often the major focal point of a ciommunity.

There is no such dog as seperation of church & state, in law.
 
that separation thing was merely to stop politics from the pulpit.
If is is in there, taxes are supposed to be paid.
 
I'm grateful to live here, such BS would never happen here since by law all education MUST be laical (secular?).

There are religious schools, but they only add extra religion courses and they are forbidden from altering curricular ones.
 
Public schools here are supposed to be secular, too, but this guy went past that and was trying to make it anti-religion instead of neutral.
 
Inkara1 said:
Public schools here are supposed to be secular, too, but this guy went past that and was trying to make it anti-religion instead of neutral.
Click to expand...

If religion contradicts science it is ok.

Gonz said:
secular schools in a catholic country?
Click to expand...

That's right, the church used to have a lot of control centuries ago. Laws have been relaxed in the last few years and now priests are allowed to vote again. They can't run for any public position thou, and the church still can't own property.
 
Luis G said:
If religion contradicts science it is ok.
Click to expand...

I've not seen a case of that yet, myself. (in my religion)
IMO they nearly perfectly compliment each other in many cases.

The only problem areas I see are 'theoretical'.

if it does conflict with some, I think that's fine.
 
1. Creationism is superstitious nonsense.
2. There is an element among atheists that frequently take such things too far (but they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who would take things too far the other way). Inky is correct, secular is not the same as irreligious or anti-religious. Teaching what is demonstrably a religious myth as "science" is, however a clear violation of the supposed secularism of public schools.
3. Separation of church and state was (and should continue to be) so obvious to the founders that they didn't think they needed to spell it out. They grossly overestimated the citizenry in general on this front. It's important to remember that said separation was never intended only to protect the non-religious.

Until we become a completely secular society we will continue to be at the mercy of charlatans and humbugs. The idea that religious beliefs should be given some kind of free pass and not be rigorously questioned is, frankly, stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top