Judge: "Creationism is Superstitious Nonsense" from Teacher Ruled Unconstitutional (speech, myth)
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.
Those that keep touting creationism vs. evolution in this thread are by extension conceding that this teacher violated the constitutional rights of this student. Otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to inject a different argument into the discussion at hand.
This teacher, and by extension, his/her fans on this forum, got owned. Sorry for your luck.
I don't believe that a person has the right to not be offended. Everyone has different sensibilities. Everyone also has an opinion. From the article it seems that the teacher was giving his opinion about a particular case. If the students were offended by his opinion, that is unfortunate, but it is not protected by the constitution. Now if the teacher told the students that they could not believe in intelligent design if they want to be in his class that would be a violation.
I have disagreed with teachers frequently, but I wouldn't take them to court over it. This student seems petty to me.
Excuse me? I don't find Creatiopnism or anything like it in my Bible (KJV). What religion is it that teaches kids illiterate nonsense? The Evangelical and Reformed Congregation of Neocon White Trash?
You don't find creationism in the King James Bible? Really?
I found on on-line text of the KJB, and the very first page starts:
1: Inthe beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
If that's not creationism, you'll have to give me your definition or example of the word.
I don't believe that a person has the right to not be offended. Everyone has different sensibilities. Everyone also has an opinion. From the article it seems that the teacher was giving his opinion about a particular case. If the students were offended by his opinion, that is unfortunate, but it is not protected by the constitution. Now if the teacher told the students that they could not believe in intelligent design if they want to be in his class that would be a violation.
I have disagreed with teachers frequently, but I wouldn't take them to court over it. This student seems petty to me.
This is where you're wrong.
"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."
Probably not. I guess the core issue is probably whether comments about religion fall within the scope of an advanced placement class in european history. I think generally the answer is probably yes, but his comments are judgemental, which isn't necessary (or appropriate) when teaching history. In a science class it would be unavoidable, but in any case he should phrase it better. There's nodoubt he was being insensitive, and that gives a sense of vindication to the ideas themselves, which haven't earned that. Since he made so many different comments I can't help wondering what context each came up in.
I do not feel he should be sanctioned unless he specifically used the term "Christianity." There ARE other forms of creationism.
Yes, but the brand of creationism that they want taught in American schools is just Christianity in disguise. It has a 7-day creation and Biblical concepts in it.
I don't believe that a person has the right to not be offended. Everyone has different sensibilities. Everyone also has an opinion. From the article it seems that the teacher was giving his opinion about a particular case. If the students were offended by his opinion, that is unfortunate, but it is not protected by the constitution. Now if the teacher told the students that they could not believe in intelligent design if they want to be in his class that would be a violation.
I have disagreed with teachers frequently, but I wouldn't take them to court over it. This student seems petty to me.
Exactly! I hate how people are so damn sue happy in this country.
The teacher has a right to state his opinion, he did not single out students, nor did he say Christianity is wrong.
"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."
I don't believe it was religious hostility. I just think the teacher was giving his opinion that ID is nonsense. To criticize something on it's merits is not hostility, it is part of science.
Yes, but the brand of creationism that they want taught in American schools is just Christianity in disguise. It has a 7-day creation and Biblical concepts in it.
But was it the brand this teacher claimed was "superstitious nonsense" or was he merely using the term in a broader sense?
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.
