Taliban America

Interesting article

So, evidently, a teacher is forbidden to speak up against religious fanaticism? Reminds me of the taliban regime...

I would understand the verdict if the teacher had pissed on the bible, however, in this case he only spoke up for science.

Quote:

---

James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, referred to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 classroom lecture

---

To be honest, you could ask pretty much any serious scientist and they would say the same.

Anyway, it was a sad day for science indeed... I cant believe the court ruled against him

That's just everyday America. Only place in the Western Civilized World where people are condemned for not being publicly religious.

Uhm......

Freedom of speech...? :dizzy2:

Freedom of speech becomes a bit of a sticky issue when you're taking government money teaching in the government's schools. This is a ridiculous case, admittedly, but when you take Caesar's gold you have to abide by Caesar's rules.

An interesting question, though—when a religious tenet directly contradicts science, should a public teacher be allowed to say that the untrue is untrue? Can biology be taught to a Christian Scientist's child? May a geology teacher tell a young earth creationist the correct date of planet formation?

Maybe this guy got in trouble because he was a jerk about it. That's often the case. When you see a silly lawsuit, it's safe to assume there's a jerk somewhere.

This was a history teacher. And if you even skim the article, you see he apparently singled out one student.

Freedom of speech includes freedom of religion - and that means the government not bashing or attacking one religion.

Quote:

---

"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."

Click here to read a follow-up story that analyzes the judge's decision from a constitutional law perspective.

In a December 2007 lawsuit, Farnan, then a sophomore, accused Corbett of repeatedly promoting hostility toward Christians in class and advocating "irreligion over religion" in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

---

Saying he's not allowed to speak about creationism is BS. He's a public employee, so that means he can't attack a religion for no reason. If he was a science teacher and was saying Creationism went against established science, that'd be something.

Quote:

---

"Americans aren't civilized. They are barbarians."

---

Indeed. Ever since we started the modern democratic revolution, whilst Europe was ruled by despots.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

That's just everyday America. Only place in the Western Civilized World where people are condemned for not being publicly religious.

---

And yet, for some reason, our former president was routinely condemned for being publicly religious. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

As I always say "Americans aren't civilized. They are barbarians."

---

We are full of people who were either rejected by Europe or unhappy with where civilized Europe was taking them. What else would you expect? Wouldn't have it any other way. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

This was a history teacher. And if you even skim the article, you see he apparently singled out one student.

---

Thus confirming my "jerk" theory.

I'm very happy that I won't be teaching history in that place. Because, if that subject comes up(randomly or whatever), I'm going to respond just like this guy.

And I will most certainly bash religion(or said in another way, I will speak my mind on the subject), public employee or not. But I won't be punished for it ~:)

Gentlemen,

Please do not feed the troll.

Thank you Lemur, drone and Crazed Rabbit for responding in a constructive manner to a rather inflammatory thread title and opening post.

I would appreciate similar levels of wisdom from all participants if this thread is to remain open.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Lemur,

Quote:

---

Freedom of speech becomes a bit of a sticky issue when you're taking government money teaching in the government's schools. This is a ridiculous case, admittedly, but when you take Caesar's gold you have to abide by Caesar's rules.

---

It's a SCHOOL, the teacher should focus on teaching scientifical theorys, not religious dogma, no?

Quote:

---

An interesting question, though—when a religious tenet directly contradicts science, should a public teacher be allowed to say that the untrue is untrue? Can biology be taught to a Christian Scientist's child? May a geology teacher tell a young earth creationist the correct date of planet formation?

---

I fail to see how that is an interesting question? Of course a teacher should state that the untrue is untrue... and a teacher should also of course tell a young earth creationist the correct date of our planet.

If not, you'be in what the topic refer to as "Taliban America", or am I wrong?

Quote:

---

Maybe this guy got in trouble because he was a jerk about it. That's often the case. When you see a silly lawsuit, it's safe to assume there's a jerk somewhere.

---

This may be true. However, we don't know if the student was the jerk or the teacher. We only know what the verdict was, and what he got sentenced for. So that is the topic, speculation about who was a jerk must unfortunately remain speculation unless someone has more info?



Crazed Rabbit,

Quote:

---

Freedom of speech includes freedom of religion - and that means the government not bashing or attacking one religion.

---

Then you have to define "bashing or attacking". To state that the bible is wrong, is that bashing? is it an attack? Schools are, at least over here in Europe meant to transmit scientifical education to the students. If that means attacking religion where it#s obviosly flawed (like; creationism) then do so by all means.

If the teacher had said that there are no God and anyone believing so is retarded, then I would have agreed he did very wrong. However, he only attacked creationism. And creationism is in my eyes a fair target for a teacher responcible for educating the young generation.

Banquo's Ghost, is a troll someone who doesnt bring anything to the debate?

He could have said it in a different way. He could have mentioned the theory of creationism and then the theory of evolution. He could have used it as an example to point out the sometimes problematic relationship and the contradictions between religion and science and leave it up to his pupils to form their own opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

a 20-year teacher

---

Children teaching children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

He could have said it in a different way. He could have mentioned the theory of creationism and then the theory of evolution. He could have used it as an example to point out the sometimes problematic relationship and the contradictions between religion and science and leave it up to his pupils to form their own opinion.



Children teaching children?

---

please note creationism is not a valid scientific theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Children teaching children?

---

That means he has been teaching for 20 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

please note creationism is not a valid scientific theory.

---

I didn't meant it as such. Sorry for the misunderstanding :bow: What I was trying to say is, that the teacher should have said that some believe in creationism, how it conflicts with the theory of evolution, use it as an example of how religion and science sometimes conflict. He can even give his personal opinion as far as I concerned, but should make it clear that it is his personal opinion. Give the pupils the information and let them make up their own minds. People don't like other people thinking for them. Everybody has a set of brains and should be allowed to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That means he has been teaching for 20 years.

---

Who ever invented English, should be punished for making such an unclear language :mean:

I did not expect any better from the US. Unfortunately the country seems trapped in an escalating campaign of shutting people's mouths...

Religious dogmas have a tendency of screaming 'rape' and claiming their rights are infringed until the day they become dominant and shut all opinions against them.

Children go to school to learn the truth. If they want to listen to fairy tales they are free to do so after school. This is freedom of speech. Forcing teachers to not speak the truth is not freedom of speech, it is superstitious and nonsensical, to say the least.

Taliban? America as a Christian Taliban? Yes, based on this article, that is clearly a completely logical assumption. As an AmeriTalibani, I thank you for your recognition of our true nature. SRSLY.

Religion has no place in school. Heck, it has no place in a modern western country.

I'm fairly tired of religious nutjobs who keep attacking freedom of speech to prevent any form of criticism of their dogma.

The hypocrisy is laughable. They keep refering to freedom of speech and of religion to limit other people's freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Religion has no place in school. Heck, it has no place in a modern western country.

I'm fairly tired of religious nutjobs who keep attacking freedom of speech to prevent any form of criticism of their dogma.

The hypocrisy is laughable. They keep refering to freedom of speech and of religion to limit other people's freedom.

---

I agree that a religious course does not belong at school. Teaching a certain religion to children in a school funded by tax money is a big no no.

But that doesn't mean one cannot talk about religion in a history class.

Anyway, it's one thing to teach history and to mention the conflicts that there have been between religion and science (e.g. the conflict between Galilei and the Catholic Church) as historical facts, in the proces referring to a more present day example (creationsim vs. theory of evolution) and stating an own, personal opinion (and making it clear that it's the teacher's personal opinion) and then leaving it at that, let the pupils think for themselves, but calling the beliefs of a certain religion "superstitious nonsense" is something completely different and unnecessarily offensive.

:shrug:

Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech in class? Wouldn't that open the door for the so called religious nutjobs to spout their so called nonsense and present it as "science" as well? Every teacher with a strong conviction would then be free to indoctrinate his students with his visions. You can't say "freedom of speech", but only for opinion A, not for B and C, because B and C are nonsensic. So the answer to "should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech in class?" is "no", I guess.

If I am ever a teacher, I hope people won't have a problem with me denouncing the entire class as reprobate and sinners, since it is clear to me that that is what people are.

More seriously, the problem is not the content of the teacher's argument, but the way that he states it as fact. Whether or not you consider evolution to be a fact, religious views must be respected regardless of what the current scientific consensus is, especially considering that this man gets his pay-check from the government. He could have said "I think that creationism is supestitious nonsense". He doesn't even need to be nice and diplomatic about delivering his opinion - so long as he is clear that it is his own opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

That's just everyday America. Only place in the Western Civilized World where people are condemned for not being publicly religious.

---

Aye. When a country caves in to Christian fanaticism, Salazar is what you get.


(Which hopefully equally provokes those who think America is barbaric as well as those who support the US religious right)

Frankly, this case has occupied my mind for the past hour or so. Very interesting. Some thoughts:

- The reading of the First Amendment appeals to me: teachers, as government employees, must be neutral towards religion. They can neither promote it nor be disparaging about it.
In the current case, it prevents the teacher from making (alleged) disparaging remarks about religion.
It should shield students from Christian zealots as well. I'm too lazy to find a court case to support this.

- I personally do not think the teacher was overtly anti-religious.

- The usual hypocrisy applies. Would these Christians also fund a court case that seeks to apply the First Amendment to prevent crosses in classrooms, prayers in school? To put an final end to what I consider the most infamous sentence of the American language, repeated daily by all American students:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.


- Freedom of Speech has different battlegrounds in Europe and America. The Americans don't understand why Europeans struggle with nazipropaganda. In nazi-propaganda threads Americans proudly boast that they have Freedom of Speech and that history is thus not a matter for their courts.
In matters of religion, the battleground in the US is about religion. Europeans, in turn, will boast that it is unthinkable in Europe that a judge should rule over the legal implications of saying that 'religion is a historical means of keeping the peasantry down'.
(Which is one the remarks by this teacher that was brought to court)

~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~

"There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed."

Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Weiss v. District Board, 1890-MAR-18.

:2thumbsup:

~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Who ever invented English, should be punished for making such an unclear language :mean:

---

I couldn't agree more. Civilized countries avoid the ambiguities of the Germanic languages by adopting a Latin one for public use. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the misguided francophile

I couldn't agree more. Civilized countries avoid the ambiguities of the Germanic languages by adopting a Latin one for public use. ~;)

---

One day, I'm going to come to Paris and talk some sense in to you, mon ami. In a man to man kinda way :whip:

~;)


Anyway, this thread has kept me busy as well.

Two things:

1) Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no", but I'd like to hear more from some of our US friends who are more sensitive when it comes to freedom of speech;
2) How about other employees? Can their employer limit their freedom of speech during work time? I'd say "obviously yes".
3) What is with Americans and their religion? "God bless America" vs. the concepts "secular state" and "seperation of church and state". I'm intrigued.

EDIT: there are three kinds of people: those who know how to count and those who don't :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Two things:

1)
2)
3)

---

There are two kinds of universe:

Reality. Where the laws of physics apply.

Surrealism. The realm of all things Belgian.



(Note: surrealism is a Belgian invention)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

What is with Americans and their religion? "God bless America" vs. the concepts "secular state" and "seperation of church and state". I'm intrigued.

---

It's a tension that has existed in America since well before the Revolution. Contrast the Puritans in Massachusetts with the profit-motivated tobacco farmers of Virginia (my people, BTW).

Note that the oath of the Presidency does not contain any reference to God, but that George Washington insisted that he be sworn on a Bible, and added the words, "So help me God," as well as kissing the Bible at the end. Everything but the kiss has survived intact for centuries, although it is codified nowhere.

Note that the Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by a socialist minister, and did not contain any reference to God until 1954, when it was thought that adding the words "under God" would help root out socialists and communists. Like the one who invented the Pledge in the first place.

Observe that the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by our second President and the first bill to be ratified by a unanimous senate, contained the following language: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [...]"

We're a nation of paradox and contradiction. I think it just adds to our charm and girlish figure.

Kadgar, I'm afraid Banquo is right; both your OP and your subsequent posts have had a certain lives-under-a-bridge-eating-wayfarers quality.

I stand by my "jerk" theory. You don't see lawsuits of this sort unless somebody is being unreasonable. That could have been the teacher picking on a student, which does happen. And that could be a student (and more likely his parents) jumping on a chance to sue the Great Satan for daring to contradict their Biblical literalism. I haven't read the court transcripts, so I wouldn't attempt to say who is the Jerk Prime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

1) Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no", but I'd like to hear more from some of our US friends who are more sensitive when it comes to freedom of speech;

---

Of course they should have unlimited freedom of speech, as everyone else. We don't limited freedom of speech. However, that means that he should in no way be punished by a court, it does not mean that he cannot be fired by his superior. Nor does it mean that said superior cannot be fired by said superior's superior. And so on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

2) How about other employees? Can their employer limit their freedom of speech during work time? I'd say "obviously yes".

---

In general, no. But again, they can fire people for being hostile/impolite, of course.

For the record, I wasn't flaming or trolling in any way. I was merely reflecting my opinion on how American values sometimes ranges the practice of what I call barbarian, when compared to my own values. The example cited in the OP is a very clear example of it. Rome may have exported have also reinvented Republicanism, but that doesn't negate the fact that they were barbarians in many ways, when compared with Modern European values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

I was merely reflecting my opinion on how American values sometimes ranges the practice of what I call barbarian, when compared to my own values.

---

I fully support the timeless tradition of naming anything and everything outside of Mediterranean Europe civilization 'barbaric'. :beam:

Nevertheless, the barbarians do have an anthropologic appeal. We must study their exotic ways to increase our knowledge. :book:

Quote:

---

The United States Constitution prohibits any law “respecting an
establishment of religion.” U.S. Const. Amend. I. The parties agree that the
appropriate test for determining whether Corbett’s statements were permissible
under the Establishment Clause is found in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

There, the Supreme Court established a three-pronged standard in its review
of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor
inhibits religion;
finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

---

This is suprisingly (or maybe not) close to the proudly secular French/Belgian/Portuguese law. No excessive government entanglement with religion in public schools.

Andres: Should teachers have unlimited freedom of speech when teaching in their classroom. Imo, the answer is "no"
My first answer would be 'no' too. Alas, this case reminds me that 'no entanglement' also means that there must be a limit to anti-religious statements.

(With the disclaimer that Freedom of speech is far too often invoked. It should mean freedom from criminal persecution. Not the freedom to say anything anytime, for which it strangely has become shorthand in recent years.
For example, a teacher has the 'freedom of speech' to repeatedly say 'Hey jude' and nothing else. A math teacher however can not invoke 'freedom of speech' when he's fired for only singing Beatles songs instead of teaching math)


This 'no entaglement' rule gives me a problem. Because I feel it supports that sphere of untouchability that religion has demanded for itself. That it makes an exception for religion above all other thought. An exception that makes religion impervious, untouchable to public critique.
A teacher can disparage 'flat earth' theory. But not 'young earth' theory. The latter is deemed 'sacred thought' by some. Hence, taboo. Untouchable, unmentionable.

How to reconcile my two diverging thoughts, I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~

"There is no such source and cause of strife, quarrel, fights, malignant opposition, persecution, and war, and all evil in the state, as religion. Let it once enter our civil affairs, our government would soon be destroyed. Let it once enter our common schools, they would be destroyed."

Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Weiss v. District Board, 1890-MAR-18.

:2thumbsup:

~~-~~-~~<<o0o>>~~-~~-~~

---

In God we trust.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Observe that the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by our second President and the first bill to be ratified by a unanimous senate, contained the following language: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [...]"

---

You're right but truth is in the details. We were not founded on Cristian religion on that we do not use the Bible like a constitution (and etc. I'm no theologian). It is undeniable, however, that most of the founders were deeply spiritual in their belief of Judeo-Christian as well as Grecko-Roman values. Without God there is no natural law. It's freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

Having read part of the ruling it seems that there's absolutely no consequenses for the teacher for losing this trial. The court just determined that some of his comments violate the establishment clause.

If he persevered in this kind of remarks, I'd have no problem giving him the sack :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

This 'no entaglement' rule gives me a problem. Because I feel it supports that sphere of untouchability that religion has demanded for itself. That it makes an exception for religion above all other thought. An exception that makes religion impervious, untouchable to public critique.
A teacher can disparage 'flat earth' theory. But not 'young earth' theory. The latter is deemed 'sacred thought' by some. Hence, taboo. Untouchable, unmentionable.

---

That doesn't seem to be the case. From the ruling:

Quote:

---

The Court also noted that “the state has
no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to
them.” Id. at 107 (citing Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 505
(1952)).
...
Likewise, in Epperson v. State of Ark., 393 U.S. 97, 89 (1968), the Supreme
Court struck down Arkansas statutes forbidding the teaching of evolution in public
schools and in colleges and universities, finding that the statutes violated the
Establishment Clause. The Court found that the statutes were unconstitutional
even if they merely prohibited teachers from stating that the theory of evolution is
true.
...
One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his
religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the
students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief
that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” The Court cannot discern a legitimate
secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement
therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the
Establishment Clause.

---

If I understand this reasoning correctly, it's permissable for (a representative of) the state to say "the theory of evolution it's true". Saying "creationism is blatantly false bull:daisy:" would not be.

EDIT: just to add, a teacher wouldn't have any business deriding a student for being a libertarian or a socialist either.

In God we trust does not neccesarily mean the Christian God nor does it force its handler to make spiritual decisons. The mere fact it is on millions of bills merely makes it a ceremonial thing.


The teacher was a jerk. And if he is so big on this science stuff why did he half to resort to name calling? Sounds like one of those stupid Chrisitians. There should be a full investagation to make sure this man is in fact an atheist.