Teacher Sued For Bashing Christianity -- Will Others Be Censored?

[Buttercup]

No, I don't think it is. Hitler's Youth groups were encouraged to spy on the adults in their lives and report political dissidents to the authorities so the appropriate punishment (imprisonment and / or death) could be meted out. Academics were among the first to be rounded up when the Nazis got rolling.

Authoritarians behave just like authoritarians, wherever and whenever you find them. The comparison is justified both by history and human psychology, and I think it would be naive to overlook it.

If we start to see a large cache of this type of behavior in our school systems, then I might come back and agree with you. For now, I'll just say it's a case of a mom who is having a thrill by causing problems for one teacher.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A number of people here have said the teach should not give his personal opinion.
Why on earth not?
Facts as they are known are mostly personal opinion that has become acceptable by the majority, it is rarely provable.
Good teachers always flesh out known" facts" with their own viewpoint and the viewpoint of known opponents.

It is parents and others with inherited ideas, and who can not think for themselves, that are the problem.

 

[Alceste]

But he didn't just comment on the ID issue. I don't think it's appropriate to say “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t always see the truth” or when he quoted Mark Twain’s quip that religion was invented when “the first conman met the first fool". Can't you understand how a Christian might find that very offensive?

Where we disagree is that I don't believe it is necessary for the government to shelter people from offense. I believe in freedom of expression except in cases advocating violence or hatred toward an identifiable minority. This teacher did not cross that line and his comments were relevant when taken in context of the class discussion, including the "Jesus goggles" one you keep quoting.

It's perfectly acceptable to ask for frank and critical discussion about religion. It's not ok to use slander as your impetus for discussion.

Again you assume his comments qualify as "slander" without any justification. What if the "conman / fool" comment was in response to a student asking "What did Mark Twain think of religion?" Do you know whether or not this is the case? Apparently even using only the heavily edited tape provided by the complainants a judge found that all but one of the teacher's comments were justifiable when taken in context.

 

[Alceste]

If we start to see a large cache of this type of behavior in our school systems, then I might come back and agree with you. For now, I'll just say it's a case of a mom who is having a thrill by causing problems for one teacher.

There have been other cases of American teachers being surreptitiously recorded by fundamentalist activists for the sole purpose of political persecution, I recall. I'm not saying the context is exactly the same, though. I'm saying the behavior of this student and his mother would have made Hitler proud.

 

[AxisMundi]

Well, no disrespect, but if that's the way you think it's appropriate to teach history and current events - always pussyfooting around the possible religious sensibilities of your teenage students, or their parents, or their pastors, or whomever you fear might be spying on you - I would find your classes thunderously dull and learn nothing at all.

Might I ask, how would you go about teaching about the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq without touching on the influence of Wahhabiism on the Islamic terrorists who handed the US their justification for war? What if you have a Wahhabi student? Should you suppress any hint of opinion - yours or your students - that the religiously motivated attack was wrong, just in case?

Non sequiturs and ad hominems, way to debate.

Firstly, it is hypocritical to demand that religious doctrines, such as Creationism and bible study, to be left out of public school curriculum while refusing to protect the children's religious rights, or to respect their religious beliefs as well.

Secondly, there is no footing involved whatsoever, ***** or otherwise, in demanding respect for other people's beliefs in a secular institution designed to cater to people of all walks of life.

 

[Buttercup]

A number of people here have said the teach should not give his personal opinion.
Why on earth not?
Facts as they are known are mostly personal opinion that has become acceptable by the majority, it is rarely provable.
Good teachers always flesh out known" facts" with their own viewpoint and the viewpoint of known opponents.

How on earth do you ever prove as fact that Jesus Christ lived let alone is God?

Where we disagree is that I don't believe it is necessary for the government to shelter people from offense.

I don't disagree with that thought and have never expressed that opinion.

I believe in freedom of expression except in cases advocating violence or hatred toward an identifiable minority. This teacher did not cross that line and his comments were relevant when taken in context of the class discussion, including the "Jesus goggles" one you keep quoting.

And, as I've said several times now, I simply don't think it's wise to use such strong words against any religion and would relay my concerns to the instructor.

 

[monta]

It is worth reading the complaint and the ruling.

The problem I have with him is this, his opinions on political and religous opinions are almost identical to my own. But teaching isn't, or at least shouldn't be about drilling your own opinions into students.

If you take certain statements Corbett made and flip them, you can see he has a prejudice against religious people.

For example you take the statement that the most religious region in the US is the south and the most rape cases are in the south.

Change that statement to say most black people are in the south and most rapes are in the south, and there would be no question of this being prejudicial against black people.

If you can't make a statement about one group of people, you should not be able to make it about another.


http://www.thecapistranodispatch.com/uploads/pdfs/2007/News Documents/Corbett Complaint.pdf

http://images.ocregister.com/newsimages/2009/05/01/Student lawsuit - final ruling.pdf

 

[Alceste]

Non sequiturs and ad hominems, way to debate.

Keep whipping out them Latin words, champ. Makes you look real smart.

Firstly, it is hypocritical to demand that religious doctrines, such as Creationism and bible study, to be left out of public school curriculum while refusing to protect the children's religious rights, or to respect their religious beliefs as well.

Who is demanding that? I prefer that ID not be injected into a science curriculum and that Bible study not be given excessive time compared to Tao te Ching study, Koran study and Bhagavad Ghita study (etc), but I have no objection to studying or discussing religioun in the appropriate classes.

Secondly, there is no footing involved whatsoever, ***** or otherwise, in demanding respect for other people's beliefs in a secular institution designed to cater to people of all walks of life.

An accounts from a former Christian student seems to indicate that he does not lack respect for religious students.

What annoys me about this thread is that as soon as some harpy like this teabagging cow runs to the newspapers saying some teacher has slandered her son's religious beliefs, everybody immediately assumes it is true and the entire discussion revolves around the alleged misdeeds of the teacher. Nobody stops to consider the possibility that she might not be presenting an entirely objective picture of reality. That's the ***** of character assassination. The assassin always gets to walk away from the controversy scott free, smugly patting herself on the back.

There are two rules to civilized discourse: 1. Thou shalt not offend, and 2. Thou shalt not be too easily offended.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If the teacher said we should all bow down and pray to God, he would be strung up.

Saying religion is bunk is out of bounds too.

If someone wants to be able to give their opinion, they should be prepared to listen to everyone else's opinion as well.

When someone states an opinion as fact, that is proselytizing.

 

[berrychrisc]

Not. They teach their field to the best of their ability. A science teacher confronted with an outspoken creationist student shouldn't respond with ridicule.

The student shouldn't be ridiculed, but the teacher should be allowed to respond to the challenge by addressing the claims of creationists and refuting them scientifically with the body of evidence that is available to the contrary.

 

[Riverwolf]

The student shouldn't be ridiculed, but the teacher should be allowed to respond to the challenge by addressing the claims of creationists and refuting them scientifically with the body of evidence that is available to the contrary.

I disagree. The classroom is not a place of debate between the teacher and the student.

If confronted during class, the teacher should respond with something along the lines of, "Now is not the time or the place to debate." If the student persists, he or she is disrupting the class, and can be disciplined. Now, I think the best teacher would then ask to see the student after class to discuss the issue of classroom etiquette further, while reassuring the student that he or she is free to believe anything.

 

[AxisMundi]

Keep whipping out them Latin words, champ. Makes you look real smart.

And I notice you cannot defend yourself on those counts either.

Who is demanding that? I prefer that ID not be injected into a science curriculum and that Bible study not be given excessive time compared to Tao te Ching study, Koran study and Bhagavad Ghita study (etc), but I have no objection to studying or discussing religioun in the appropriate classes.

Religion belongs in church, at home, and in religious institutions. It has no place in public education at the elementary or high school levels.

An accounts from a former Christian student seems to indicate that he does not lack respect for religious students.

He certainly has no respect for fedral guidelines.

What annoys me about this thread is that as soon as some harpy like this teabagging cow runs to the newspapers saying some teacher has slandered her son's religious beliefs, everybody immediately assumes it is true and the entire discussion revolves around the alleged misdeeds of the teacher. Nobody stops to consider the possibility that she might not be presenting an entirely objective picture of reality. That's the ***** of character assassination. The assassin always gets to walk away from the controversy scott free, smugly patting herself on the back.

I do not buy into the mothers assertions at all. However, it cannot be denied that the man oversteped his limits as a public school educator. If he has done it once, chances are he has done so many times.

There are two rules to civilized discourse: 1. Thou shalt not offend, and 2. Thou shalt not be too easily offended.

and 3. Thou shalt not offer a double standard.

 

[AxisMundi]

I disagree. The classroom is not a place of debate between the teacher and the student.

If confronted during class, the teacher should respond with something along the lines of, "Now is not the time or the place to debate." If the student persists, he or she is disrupting the class, and can be disciplined. Now, I think the best teacher would then ask to see the student after class to discuss the issue of classroom etiquette further, while reassuring the student that he or she is free to believe anything.

Good point.

Debating the teaher in such a manner erodes at that teacher's authority.

Students, at all elvels of education, require an instructor in the front of the classroom, not a friend.

 

[Alceste]

It is worth reading the complaint and the ruling.

The problem I have with him is this, his opinions on political and religous opinions are almost identical to my own. But teaching isn't, or at least shouldn't be about drilling your own opinions into students.

If you take certain statements Corbett made and flip them, you can see he has a prejudice against religious people.

For example you take the statement that the most religious region in the US is the south and the most rape cases are in the south.

Change that statement to say most black people are in the south and most rapes are in the south, and there would be no question of this being prejudicial against black people.

If you can't make a statement about one group of people, you should not be able to make it about another.


http://www.thecapistranodispatch.com/uploads/pdfs/2007/News Documents/Corbett Complaint.pdf

http://images.ocregister.com/newsimages/2009/05/01/Student lawsuit - final ruling.pdf

IMO, in the context of discussing the relationship between morality and religion, it is valid to raise comparisons of crime rates between religious and irreligious states. Also, religious belief is, to borrow a phrase, "a lifestyle choice". It is not at all similar to ethnicity.

Anyway, thanks for the links. I disagree that he was "drilling his opinions into students". I think that's a mischaracterization of what was going on there. He is apparently a strongly opinionated person, but nothing I've read of his comments seems to indicate a desire to pressure students into conforming to his opinions. By all accounts, and as evidenced by his comments on the tapes, he welcomed debate and went out of his way to ensure his students knew it was safe to challenge him.

 

[monta]

What annoys me about this thread is that as soon as some harpy like this teabagging cow runs to the newspapers saying some teacher has slandered her son's religious beliefs, everybody immediately assumes it is true and the entire discussion revolves around the alleged misdeeds of the teacher. Nobody stops to consider the possibility that she might not be presenting an entirely objective picture of reality. That's the ***** of character assassination. The assassin always gets to walk away from the controversy scott free, smugly patting herself on the back.

There are two rules to civilized discourse: 1. Thou shalt not offend, and 2. Thou shalt not be too easily offended.

The origional ruling of the court seems very even handed to me and a constitutional violation was shown to have occured. You can't have a system where only the people you disagree with are not permitted to voice their opinions about religion.

Indeed, the Court finds it somewhat disturbing that the School Defendants
label C.F.’s position frivolous given that it was only application of the doctrine of
qualified immunity that spared Corbett from liability. The premise of that
defense—which the Court accepted—was that there was no clearly established
constitutional right on the facts of this case. (Docket 120 at 29.) C.F. set out to
prove a constitutional violation, and he did. The vagaries of the law in this area,
from which Corbett benefitted, do not undermine the substantive validity of C.F.’s
Establishment Clause claim, nor do they render his position frivolous. Moreover,
any suggestion that C.F. should have foreseen the applicability of qualified​

immunity, is belied by the School Defendants’ belated tender of the issue.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

http://files.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/news/2009/12/Farnan_ruling_121409.pdf

 

[Riverwolf]

Religion belongs in church, at home, and in religious institutions. It has no place in public education at the elementary or high school levels.

In Senior English, we studied a bit of the Book of Genesis: not as a religious text, but as literature, alongside the Odyssey and Macbeth. As a make-up assignment, she asked me to do a small report on the gospels.

Do you think my teacher did wrong? (Certainly she didn't teach the Odyssey very well, 'cause she kept spoiling it and we never did finish Macbeth.)

 

[gnomon]

After listening to the recording and reviewing the transcript, the Court notes
that Farnan leaves out the following important statements from the above
discussion. Corbett stated that the “kid who wanted to be a minister” (the
“student&#8221 was “absolutely brilliant.” (Farnan’s Ex. B, p. 36.) Corbett also stated
that, in response to his question about whether it is necessary to lie to make a
religious point, the student gave an answer that almost caused Corbett to tear up
because “it was so dead on.” (Id. at 38.) Corbett stated that he knew the answer
would be right because he knew the student was a Christian fundamentalist. (Id.)
The student stated, “I don’t think the message of Jesus Christ needs any help from
liars.” (Id.) Corbett then explained on the recording that he said, “Yeah, right.
You figured it out, you know, who-hoo.” (Id.) These statements are respectful
and, if anything, approving of the Christian student and his religious views.

That section than goes on to show how Farnan, the student, left out quoted material in his complaint in which Corbett and a fellow teacher, who Corbett remarks is a fundamentalist Christian, both would try to talk a student out of going to Biola and attending a seminary school, such as Harvard, as a better choice.

The only thing the court found in which Corbett's comments provided no legitimate secular purpose was the comment regarding creationism as superstitious nonsense.

That's it. Taking bits of statements made by Corbett out of context in order to cast him as disparaging religion seemed to be the primary goal of this student. If that's the best the student could do than it was **** poor.

And take the phrase "creationism is superstitious nonsense" which was apparently made while referencing a fellow teachers attempt to present creationism in a school newspaper. First of all, was this statement even made in the classroom or during class time. Second, creationism is superstitious nonsense. Creationism in the context of school in regards to evolution is not a mythological religious belief. It's a literalism of religion put forth as good as empirical science. Nonsense. It's based on superstition. Superstition - a credulous belief based on no evidence.

Thus, creationism is superstitious nonsense.

So now the teacher is being punished for putting forth a quick statement that is quite frankly a true statement.

All this is in the ruling.

 

[AxisMundi]

In Senior English, we studied a bit of the Book of Genesis: not as a religious text, but as literature, alongside the Odyssey and Macbeth. As a make-up assignment, she asked me to do a small report on the gospels.

Do you think my teacher did wrong? (Certainly she didn't teach the Odyssey very well, 'cause she kept spoiling it and we never did finish Macbeth.)

Absolutely wrong.

Since when is Genesis and the gospels English in origin?

 

[Alceste]

And I notice you cannot defend yourself on those counts either.

I don't feel the need. I disagree with your assessment but it isn't relevant to this discussion.

Religion belongs in church, at home, and in religious institutions. It has no place in public education at the elementary or high school levels.

Again, please tell me how to teach European History and current events without touching on the subject of religion?

He certainly has no respect for fedral guidelines.

If you read the links Monta provided, you will discover that the court found otherwise for the vast majority of the comments in question.

I do not buy into the mothers assertions at all. However, it cannot be denied that the man oversteped his limits as a public school educator.

. You don't have any problem at all stringing those two sentences together back to back? lol.

and 3. Thou shalt not offer a double standard.

What double standard are you referring to? Your ignoratio elenchi from earlier about the hypocrisy of wanting to keep the study of religion out of schools while defending a teacher for expressing irreligious views?

 

[darkendless]

I'm so glad i dont live in America, screw the first ammendment. That poor little child getting their beliefs challenged, oh no! Instead of growing up and learning from this experience and developing critical reasoning they will now put their head back in the sand and continue on their way to being a sponge.