The American separation of state from religion. Good or bad idea?

[David B]

I wonder if the only people that bit of the constitution benefits are the members of the second oldest, but least honourable profession, myself.

OK, there are some good people who are lawyers, even if few and far between.

And I see the freethinking community using that legislation to do good stuff, sometimes.

But it looks a bit like a two edged sword, in the light of this.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html

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.

I gather, I don't know how correctly, that it was the fact that he said this while working in a state sponsored school that led to this judgement.

If the US Constitution actually does prevent teachers calling creationism superstitious nonsense, then so much the worse for the constitution, IMV.

David

[tjakey]

foxnews? You can be pretty sure this is out of context, fucked up, slanted, biased and complete horseshit.

[darjeeling]

foxnews? You can be pretty sure this is out of context, fucked up, slanted, biased and complete horseshit.

It's an article from the Associated Press.

[David B]

foxnews? You can be pretty sure this is out of context, fucked up, slanted, biased and complete horseshit.

Well, unless it is a complete storm in a teacup, I guess there will be some better commentary on what happened.

Maybe PZ will pick up in it, for instance.

Fox being garbage notwithstanding, I do find the story disquieting.

Time will tell, I suppose.

David

[Hevvin Machine]

The American separation of state from religion. Good or bad idea? It's a very good idea. Keep your nasty politics out of my religion. We already have quite enough without any outsiders.:mad:
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

foxnews? You can be pretty sure this is out of context, fucked up, slanted, biased and complete horseshit. This looks like my guess as well. A teacher saying "I think creationism is superstitious nonsense" is quite different from a teacher saying "Creationism is superstitious nonsense and therefore may not be discussed". I doubt that we will ever get the truth about what actually happened.
Hev

[BigEvil]

I will go back and see if I can find the judge's actual ruling, but the case involved alot more than just the "creationism is religious nonsense" stuff. It wasn't just a case on one thing the teacher did but a long sustained series. This first appeared in the news as the teacher being sued because he had told the kids that they "needed to take off their Jesus glasses."

My impression was that the teacher was systematically attacking christianity. Alot of the individual instances could be jusitied one way or another but as a whole, the charge was correct. I was under the impression that the judge just explained it in a very clumsy and stupid way.

But as I said, I will go back and see if I can actually find the actual ruling.

[BigEvil]

The judge's ruling can be found here. (http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/2009/05/01/Student%20lawsuit%20-%20final%20ruling.pdf) Its 37 pages long.

I'll look it over and post the parts I find interesting.

[BigEvil]

These are some of the statements made by the teacher that the judge did not find unconstitutional:

What do you think of somebody who thinks it’s necessary to lie in
order to make a religious point? . . . And um, this kid is in the class,
and, as I say, a Christian fundamentalist kid who wanted to be a
minister. . . . And, um, he was actually set on going – I mean, if your
parents go there, please, you know, don’t be too insulted. But he
wanted to go to Biola, which is the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, and
truly, as far as colleges go, it’s the – it is the college which George
Bush is being assigned to (inaudible), and it is the college that has no
academic integrity whatsoever. And it is a fundamentalist Christian
school. I think, a college that has basically one book.


Now, the Boy Scouts have said, unless you’re willing to love God,
and unless you’re willing to – unless you’re not gay, um – they are
saying, being gay excludes you. Not believing God or not professing
a belief in God also excludes you . . . But you see, until they started
these rules, Boy Scouts used to – or Boy Scout troops usually met at
schools, and places like that, parks, government buildings. They can’t
do that anymore. They can’t do that anymore, because now they are,
in their own mind, a homophobic and a racist organization. It’s that
simple. . . . It’s call[ed] separation of church and state. The Boy
Scouts can’t have it both ways. If they want to be an exclusive,
Christian organization or an exclusive, God-fearing organization, then
they can’t receive any more support from the state, and shouldn’t.

From the ruling:
Farnan argues that Corbett’s “only purpose in making these statements is to
make sure that the students who sit before him as a captive audience understand
that religion is irrational.” (Farnan’s Mot. p. 15.) The Unions respond that
Corbett’s statements were made for the purpose of teaching European history and
deductive reasoning. (Unions’ Opp. pp. 6-7.)

The judge decided with the teacher on this.

[BigEvil]

I supposed this is the big part here:

The Court turns first to Corbett’s statement regarding John Peloza
(“Peloza”). (Farnan’s Ex. I, pp. 222-25.) This statement presents the closest
question for the Court in assessing secular purpose. Peloza apparently brought suit
against Corbett because Corbett was the advisor to a student newspaper which ran
an article suggesting that Peloza was teaching religion rather than science in his
classroom. (Id.) Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, “was not
telling the kids [Peloza’s students] the scientific truth about evolution.” (Id.)
Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in
the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, “I will not leave John
Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense.”
(Id.) 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.

Apparently, from what I can gather, if he had substituted "religous ideaology" for "superstitious nonsense", he would have been fine. The teacher is suppose to be neutral towards religion, calling it superstitious nonsense is not neutral. The judge equates creationism with religion. I do too, so I understand his logic.

[darjeeling]

I read through the ruling. It seems like a sound decision. The statement didn't satisfy the first two prongs of the Lemon test.

[BigEvil]

The ruling goes on to give other statements that the teacher made including:

“What was it that Mark Twain said? ‘Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.’”

“when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

The judge found these statement okay considering the context in which they were given. The judge also threw out some other statements concerning school condom's and school abstinance programs because there was nothing inherently anti-religious about them. The judge stated these were more liberal vs conservative statements that didn't fit charge of anti-religious.

[BigEvil]

I read through the ruling. It seems like a sound decision. The statement didn't satisfy the first two prongs of the Lemon test.

When I first glance over it a few days ago, I thought the judges ruling was sorta correct but clumsy. After re-reading it, I think he justified his ruling fairly well.

[Worldtraveller]

There's a decent analysis at Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/high_school_teacher_guilty_of.php).

The surprising part of this ruling is that the religious have spent so much time asserting ID and some types of creationism aren't religious in nature, and now the judge rules that disparaging ID violates the free practice part of the first amendment?!? I'm trying to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing. This ruling seems all over the place, though, and does more to muddle things than clarify anything.

The teacher does sound like he's a bit of a dick, but then, I can also understand an outburst like that if the students (or a student) was constantly arguing based on religious grounds. And it sounds like the student (Farnan) was just looking for an excuse (or maybe his parents?).

Anyway, the principle of separation of church and state, as enumerated in the first amendment, is a good idea for both government and religion. So in that sense, it is definitely a double edged sword.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of dominionists in the US, who try to rewrite history and twist the pretty clear words of the amendment to suit their own needs. Combine that with the strategy of claiming that not being able to force their views on to others in the public square counts as religious persecution, and infringes on their religious rights (to them, very few court cases have ever agreed), and you have the current long, colorful history of court cases like we do in the US.

[Matty]

foxnews? You can be pretty sure this is out of context, fucked up, slanted, biased and complete horseshit.

Thats one of the tidiest summations of Fox News i ever read. :notworthy:

[nygreenguy]

Apparently, from what I can gather, if he had substituted "religous ideaology" for "superstitious nonsense", he would have been fine. The teacher is suppose to be neutral towards religion, calling it superstitious nonsense is not neutral. The judge equates creationism with religion. I do too, so I understand his logic.

I think asking a teacher to be neutral about religion is like asking a scientist to be neutral on evolution. If this teacher simply added ghosts, or aliens or any other crazy idea, there wouldnt be a problem. Religion, however, is one giant pile of horseshit were expected to coddle.

:shithitfan:

[Rilx]

When I read the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ... "

it seems to direct Congress in legislation only. I (poor European) don't understand how it can be applied in this case. What's the trick?

[nygreenguy]

When I read the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ... "

it seems to direct Congress in legislation only. I (poor European) don't understand how it can be applied in this case. What's the trick?

It has generally been extended to all public agencies.

[Notta]

And public school teachers are employees of the state, so are not allowed to do or say anything that supports or denies one or any religious belief.

[David B]

And public school teachers are employees of the state, so are not allowed to do or say anything that supports or denies one or any religious belief.

Hence my reference to a two edged sword in the OP.

David

[BigEvil]

Apparently, from what I can gather, if he had substituted "religous ideaology" for "superstitious nonsense", he would have been fine. The teacher is suppose to be neutral towards religion, calling it superstitious nonsense is not neutral. The judge equates creationism with religion. I do too, so I understand his logic.

I think asking a teacher to be neutral about religion is like asking a scientist to be neutral on evolution. If this teacher simply added ghosts, or aliens or any other crazy idea, there wouldnt be a problem. Religion, however, is one giant pile of horseshit were expected to coddle.

:shithitfan:

A teacher doesn't have to coddle it if they teach in a private school. But in a public school, yep...they have to coddle the horseshit. And its a good thing in my opinion. The majority of American teachers arn't itching at the bit to denounce religion, they are itching to endorse it. And the school boards even more so. Its a crappy compromise, the virtue of it is that it is better than no compromise.

[BigEvil]

When I read the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ... "

it seems to direct Congress in legislation only. I (poor European) don't understand how it can be applied in this case. What's the trick?

Its interpeted in its historical context. By that interpetation, government (federal, state and local) must remain neutral on religion.

[darjeeling]

The surprising part of this ruling is that the religious have spent so much time asserting ID and some types of creationism aren't religious in nature, and now the judge rules that disparaging ID violates the free practice part of the first amendment?!?

What's surprising about that? Just because 'the religious' argue one thing doesn't mean a court is going to accept that as the truth.

This ruling seems all over the place, though, and does more to muddle things than clarify anything.

How is it all over the place? I think it makes sense and clarifies things.

I think asking a teacher to be neutral about religion is like asking a scientist to be neutral on evolution.

That's bullshit. Religion's only relevant in some classroom discussions and in some subjects Expecting the elementary school art teacher or the high school geometry teacher to be neutral about religion isn't anything like expecting a scientist to be neutral on evolution.

If this teacher simply added ghosts, or aliens or any other crazy idea, there wouldnt be a problem.

And why is that? Because the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to aliens.

Religion, however, is one giant pile of horseshit were expected to coddle.

That's not even true. Did you read the statements that the judge deemed weren't in violation? He referred to creationism as nonsense in another statement, and that one wasn't a violation.

When I read the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ... "

it seems to direct Congress in legislation only. I (poor European) don't understand how it can be applied in this case. What's the trick?

People already answered this, but I'd like to add that you can't read just the Constitution. You have to look at case law for precedents. In this particular case, the judge used the Lemon test (the standards set by Lemon v Kurtzman).

[nygreenguy]

That's bullshit. Religion's only relevant in some classroom discussions and in some subjects Expecting the elementary school art teacher or the high school geometry teacher to be neutral about religion isn't anything like expecting a scientist to be neutral on evolution. And what the judge rules as unacceptable IS something that has to do with evolution. The teacher isnt allowed to criticize a religious idea that is blatantly false.



And why is that? Because the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to aliens. Exactly. It gives special protection to brain dead ideas, while ignoring all others.

Religion, however, is one giant pile of horseshit were expected to coddle.

That's not even true. Did you read the statements that the judge deemed weren't in violation? He referred to creationism as nonsense in another statement, and that one wasn't a violation. Yes, and I disagree with his NOT allowing the one he did. I also think I made it clear my comment was "in general" and not limited to this single instance.

It is CLEAR in American society that speaking negatively about religion is a big no-no. People get death threats for shit like this. And this is because we, as a country and a culture, cant accept criticism towards religion.

[crazyfingers]

foxnews? You can be pretty sure this is out of context, fucked up, slanted, biased and complete horseshit.

It's an article from the Associated Press.

There were something like 50 individual claims that the teacher said something out of line and only one of the 50 stuck.


Here's Toto's take.
http://www.freeratio.org//showthread.php?p=5919750#post5919750

[darjeeling]

That's bullshit. Religion's only relevant in some classroom discussions and in some subjects Expecting the elementary school art teacher or the high school geometry teacher to be neutral about religion isn't anything like expecting a scientist to be neutral on evolution. And what the judge rules as unacceptable IS something that has to do with evolution. The teacher isnt allowed to criticize a religious idea that is blatantly false.

I think you missed my point. You said asking a teacher to remain neutral on religion is like asking a scientist to remain neutral on evolution. That's absolutely untrue. Asking some teachers to remain neutral on religion isn't exactly a big deal at all. Is it unreasonable to ask a geometry teacher to remain neutral on religion? Or a Kindergarten teacher? Or an art teacher?

And, yes, teachers are allowed to criticize a religious idea that is blatantly false, but only in a way that doesn't violate the three prongs of the Lemon test. Did you really check the other statements that were deemed acceptable? The judge thought this was okay:
Therefore, no creation, unless you invoke magic. Science doesn’t
invoke magic. If we can’t explain something, we do not uphold that
position. It’s not, ooh, then magic. That’s not the way we work.
Contrast that with creationists. They never try to disprove
creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s
deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.

So do you still think that teachers can't challenge creationism?

And why is that? Because the Establishment Clause doesn't apply to aliens. Exactly. It gives special protection to brain dead ideas, while ignoring all others.

So how would you fix it? Get rid of the Establishment Clause?

It is CLEAR in American society that speaking negatively about religion is a big no-no. People get death threats for shit like this. And this is because we, as a country and a culture, cant accept criticism towards religion.

It depends where you are and on the specific situation. But generally speaking, yes - I'll grant you that point. The problem is that it's inaccurate to say that a teacher can't criticize creationism.

[nygreenguy]

So how would you fix it? Get rid of the Establishment Clause? No, but do something about fucked up interpretations about it.



It depends where you are and on the specific situation. But generally speaking, yes - I'll grant you that point. The problem is that it's inaccurate to say that a teacher can't criticize creationism. He was fired for stating a scientific fact that just happened to show a particular belief of a particular religion was wrong. How is that not preventing him from criticizing creationism?

[darjeeling]

So how would you fix it? Get rid of the Establishment Clause? No, but do something about fucked up interpretations about it.

Do you have any specific ideas?

It depends where you are and on the specific situation. But generally speaking, yes - I'll grant you that point. The problem is that it's inaccurate to say that a teacher can't criticize creationism. He was fired for stating a scientific fact that just happened to show a particular belief of a particular religion was wrong. How is that not preventing him from criticizing creationism?

He wasn't fired. And the school district paid for his attorney. And he called creationism "nonsense" in another statement without violating the Establishment Clause. He's certainly capable of criticizing creationism, but it can't be with the primary purpose of being hostile towards religion.

[epepke]

When I read the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ... "

it seems to direct Congress in legislation only. I (poor European) don't understand how it can be applied in this case. What's the trick?

You have gotten some good answers, but let me expand. We had a civil war. Out of that we got the Fourteenth Amendment. Here's part of it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See the bolded part. This has since been interpreted to mean, at minimum, that if Congress cannot make a law that abridges a right (which is stronger than a privilege, of course) then no state can do it either.

[BigEvil]

While it was technically a victory for the student, it was a very hollow victory. They offered to drop the charges if the school would fire the teacher. That was what they wanted, to have the teacher fired. The school refused, and the teacher still has his job.

What did the student get? He got the court to say that the teacher should have called a part of his religion scientific nonsense instead of scientific and superstitious nonsense. Some victory. I fail to see how this is a big deal for evolution.

[David M]

The surprising part of this ruling is that the religious have spent so much time asserting ID and some types of creationism aren't religious in nature, and now the judge rules that disparaging ID violates the free practice part of the first amendment?!? I'm trying to decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing. This ruling seems all over the place, though, and does more to muddle things than clarify anything.

But the courts do keep pointing out that the religious are lying about this and creationism and ID are religious in nature, so it is consistent with the legal position on these that they count as religion.

If the constitution effectively says that those in government service cannot promote any religion it should also mean that they cannot denigrate any religion. It was a poor choice of words by the teacher that lead to this. And the court ruled that other criticisms he made of creationism were fine.

If the court had ruled it is ok for the teacher to denigrate christianty it would have opened the doors for officials to denigrate non-christian religions as well, and that would be far more likely IMO given what seems to be the prevailing attitude in parts of the US.

[halii]

That's bullshit. Religion's only relevant in some classroom discussions and in some subjects Expecting the elementary school art teacher or the high school geometry teacher to be neutral about religion isn't anything like expecting a scientist to be neutral on evolution. And what the judge rules as unacceptable IS something that has to do with evolution. The teacher isnt allowed to criticize a religious idea that is blatantly false.

I think you missed my point. You said asking a teacher to remain neutral on religion is like asking a scientist to remain neutral on evolution. That's absolutely untrue. well i guess it's like asking a scientist to remain neutral on evolution if he was teaching art class or math.

Religion doesn't have to be a subject in any classroom. Sometimes kids like to be cocky and bring it up in class whenever evolution is mentioned or discussed. Mostly teachers can criticize creationism without criticizing religion or those who choose to believe in the religion. all you can say is that isn't grounded in science, it's grounded in religion. There is nothing scientific about it.

you don't have to name call or super slam it. I was interested to see that saying "when you put on your jesus glasses, you can't see the truth" was an acceptable statement to make but "superstitious nonsense" was not acceptable.

[Daydream]

The divorce between church and state should be absolute.

[BigEvil]

The teacher, Jim Corbett, responds to the ruling (http://open.salon.com/blog/corribean/2009/05/09/dr_james_jesus_glasses_corbett)with an interesting essay that is worth reading.

A couple of excerpts:

If Chad's lawyers, the "Advocates for Faith and Freedom," and his parents were actually concerned with protecting the boy, why didn't they simply come to me and ask me to explain my comments? Neither they nor the Farmans ever expressed concerns to me nor to any administrators before they came to school with attorneys and reporters in tow to drop a lawsuit on the desk of Tom Ressler, our principal.

Every year in July, I send a letter home to students who have signed up for my class. Chad admitted under oath that he received that letter. The letter says, in part:

"Most days we will spend a few minutes (sometimes more) at the beginning of class discussing current events from either The Orange County Register or the L.A. Times. I may also use material from a variety of news Web sites. Discussion will be quite provocative, and focus on the 'lessons' of history. My goal is to have you go home with something that will provoke discussion with your parents. Students may offer any perspective without concern that anything they say will impact either my attitude toward them or their grades. I encourage a full range of views."

I included my home phone number and e-mail address in that letter and encouraged parents to contact me if they had any concerns. Chad admitted under oath that my lectures prompted many discussions with his parents.