Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just curious, are you a judge or constitutional scholar?
It seems the judge in this case disagrees with you wholeheartedly. I tend to lean more on his legal argument than I do yours.
I'm not sure why you keep injecting "employer" into the situation, as if employers are the gateway to free- or suppressed-speech.
Judges have been wrong in the past and this one is wrong too. Telling a student the truth is not a crime. Scientifically speaking creation is nonsense. It is a fact that the world is not 10000 years old or younger. When teachers cannot teach facts because they might offend some people's religious sensibilities, we are living in a theocracy.
It doesn't matter what they were doing on the topic. I don't recall it being against the law to get off topic. He did not misinform the students, he was teaching about an event and his comments were in that context.
And twenty times he went off-topic. The class was what, fifty minutes, 45 minutes? That's not going off-topic. That's deciding in advance that you are going to disrespect religion, and doing it over and over. That's an agenda.
This teacher was trying to make a point. And he made it. But he pushed the limits. The Establishment Clause is about not pushing a religious agenda. Slamming religion is just as much a religious agenda as preaching religion. It's just not as specific.
It's debatable whether he misinformed the students. The story of creation in the Bible has been translated multiple times. What that story actually said, in its original language, may be quite different than how we currently interpret it. And even if it is a baseless story, millions of people in the world believe that story. Calling it superstitious nonsense may be true from a scientific point of view, but a teacher of history should respect the social, cultural and historical significance of any creation myths.
Unless creationism is now being construed as being propogated in Europe, why was creationism being discussed anyway? We'll never know that answer, but the fact still remains that a judge interpreted the Constitution as he saw legally admissable, and this teacher lost.
Well I'm sure it will be appealed. This judge has a strange understanding of the establishment clause, and it probably won't be upheld.
I am not sure that I agree with the courts that the Establishment Clause prohibits government employees from displaying religious hostility. I guess one can make the case that the government cannot endorse any religion and that by disparaging a religion, you necessarily endorse others, but I am not sure that I completely buy into that.
I have read about this case awhile go. Creationism is not science and teaching it is a violation of church and state, but that doesn't give Corbett (the teacher) the right to openly disparage Christianity. His comments are rude and offensive and should be reserve for internet forums .
While I find his statements slightly amusing, I can also see how they are offensive if you are a Christian. There needs to be a degree of civility when teaching. Unfortunately, the school could not remedy Corbett's behavior and this had to be taken to court.
Even as an atheist, I am not going to send my (hypothetical) child to school to hear anti-religious remarks. Teach history and leave it at that.
Why arent you all sticking up for his freedom of speech now? He had every right to say that.
Awww religious people are so insecure in their little faith that it hurts them if someone calls it out for what it really is. So cute.
Public. High school. Teacher.
Where are all you nutty liberals yelling for seperation of church and state now? Your actual belief is not that we should have seperation of church and state, but that we should have persecution of church by state.
Just curious, are you a judge or constitutional scholar?
It seems the judge in this case disagrees with you wholeheartedly. I tend to lean more on his legal argument than I do yours.
I was a high school teacher for 35 years - retired in 2003. No one ever told me what I could or could not discuss in my classroom. Of course, common sense ruled, which meant certain sensitive subjects had to be handled in a sensitive manner.
My classroom discussions covered just about everything at one time or another. It was not my job to impose my beliefs on my students, but rather to encourage them to form their own. To that I end, I facilitated many student vs. student discussions on a variety of controversial topics.
So I guess you would'nt have an issue if your family's beliefs were attacked by a teacher while in school?
How was he attacked??? Because the teacher told his opinion? Creationism is NOT science, it is NOT provable and it should absolutely in NO WAY be taught in school, unless it's a private religious institution.
And really... if my beliefs were attacked and I threw a hissy fit and SUED over it, my beliefs obviously weren't all that stable to begin with. You can believe whatever you want, but keep religion out of the public school system, please.
People need to grow thicker skin and quit overreacting about getting their feelings hurt.
It doesn't matter. It's not illegal to talk about american history in a european history class. Perhaps it was related to a decision in europe. The point is it doesn't matter why the class was talking about it. It's not like the teacher walked into class and said 'ok guys I'm going to teach a class on why christianity is wrong.' The student was overly sensitive and would never have complained if the teacher had made comments about any other creation story being nonsense.
Actually, it may very well be that the teacher walked into class and said, "Ok, guys I'm going to teach a class on why Christianity is wrong."
The student recorded the entire lecture. Twenty statements criticized religion and Christianity. This was not a religion-neutral lecture.
Just curious, are you a judge or constitutional scholar?
It seems the judge in this case disagrees with you wholeheartedly. I tend to lean more on his legal argument than I do yours.
I'm not sure why you keep injecting "employer" into the situation, as if employers are the gateway to free- or suppressed-speech.
I don't really care where you lean. In addition to ignoring common sense, this judge just ignored seven different rulings to make the erroneous decision he did: McClean v. Arkansas (1981), Seagraves v. California (1981); Edwards v. Aquillard (1987); Webster v. New Lenox (1990); Peloza v. Capistrano (1994); Freiler v. Tanqipahoa (1999); and LeVake v. Independent School District (2001).
I keep "injecting" employer into the situation because in Peloza v. Capistrano (1994) the 9th Circuit Court Ruled that the government can restrict the speech of its employees while on the job. If that speech was not restricted by the teacher's employer, then clearly the teacher is allowed to say anything they want.
Judges have been wrong in the past and this one is wrong too. Telling a student the truth is not a crime. Scientifically speaking creation is nonsense. It is a fact that the world is not 10000 years old or younger. When teachers cannot teach facts because they might offend some people's religious sensibilities, we are living in a theocracy.
This is where you're wrong. The words "superstitious nonsense" imply that a certain religion is inherently a blindly accepted belief or notion. This oversteps the bounds of disagreement and instead imposes a hostility towards that certain religion. The judge found that this teacher overstepped the bounds of the Establishment Clause, which protects that student from the hostility.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
