Lawsuit alleging anti-Christian statements to go forward

[Lisa Simpson]

A lawsuit, brought by a high school student against his former AP European History teacher is going to be allowed to go forward. The student is alleging that the teacher made anti-Christian statements and thus violated the First Amendment.

Some of the statements:

“When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth.”

“How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to courter that rational approach."

"When you pray for divine intervention, you’re hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

Full article. (http://www.ocregister.com/news/lawsuit-corbett-case-1996170-attorney-judge)

For those not in the US, Advanced Placement courses are high school courses that are the equivalent of a beginning college course. If you pass an exam at the end of the course, you can skip taking that class in college.

[quixotecoyote]

I could see it going either way. It could be he's an atheist who shot his mouth off. It could also be a kid who tapes bits that sound bad out of context. For example, discussing an aspect of history where the historical record is challenged by a Christian student (slaves out of Egypt or somesuch).

[Beerina]

The second statement is well-known and fairly widely believed by cultural anthropologists. It also has a much more famous phrasing, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

I know a way out for this athiest. Claim he now wants to teach the controversy! :rolleyes:



Actually, nothing would be better than a long, drawn-out fight where experts demonstrate the illogic of religion when analyzed scientifically, as well as multitudes of case studies of religion being used to control the masses, to the enrichment of the religious leaders.

[Fnord]

A trial like this is long overdue.

Determining the precedence of the free exercise of religion or the freedom of speech (one over the other) would be an important step.

Free Religion over Free Speech == A teacher could be sued for giving poorer grades to Atheists than to Christians for homework work of equal quality.

Free Speech over Free Religion == Not much would change, as folks pretty much say what they want to, anyway.

[linusrichard]

Yes, context is key, especially for the first statement. There's really no way to gauge the appropriateness without knowing what preceded it.

The second one is simply a fact. How is it anti-Christian to say that religion is irrational? That's like if I'm eating a tuna sandwich and you point out that I'm eating fish. Is that an anti-tuna statement? No, it's just a description of the sandwich. Tuna is fish. Religion is irrational.

If the student hearing the comment is offended to hear religion described as irrational, that is a result of the student's opinion that the rational is superior to the irrational. If the student feels that the rational is superior to the irrational, then the student needs to take a look at his life and decide if he wants to remain a Christian (and indeed a theist) in contradiction to that value choice, or resolve the contradiction by abandoning either Christianity or his preference for the rational. It is not appropriate to blame (or sue) the person who merely points out what should be a value-neutral and uncontroversial statement: Religious belief is irrational.

As to the third statement, I think it looks like a ridiculing of religious belief. I don't particularly respect religious belief, but I respect religious believers, and I think it's possible to teach European history without ridiculing religious belief. At the minimum (and probably at the maximum) I think this merits a reprimand from the principal.

I'm much more concerned for the rights of the teacher than those of the student here. The student has the right to free exercise of religion, but that's not being violated here. The student wants the right to not have to hear what he considers criticisms of his beliefs. I don't think he does or should have that right.

It's interesting to me that you get Christians who will oppose anti-bullying legislation because they're afraid it will trample on their religious freedom to harass homosexuals, and then you get Christians who will go whining to the courts when a teacher says a few relatively innocent statements that offend their delicate sensibilities. To be fair, I don't know if this student is one who would oppose the anti-bullying legislation. I'm just saying is all.

[slingblade]

A trial like this is long overdue...


....because you so obviously need a refresher in constitutional law.

[Darth Rotor]

....because you so obviously need a refresher in constitutional law.
Is it your position that the teacher is hired by the school district as the judge of what is or is not a valid exercise of the first amendment? Is it within the teacher's job description to ridicule her students who are involved in that free exercise?

Tolerance is a two way street.

DR

[Cleon]

Assuming the claims are valid, and the quotes aren't being distorted, taken out of context, or lied about, this is a legitimate claim. IMO, telling his class that they shouldn't be Christian is just as bad as telling them that they should.

However, it's definitely not cut-and-dried. I can easily see where a discussion on the use of Christianity (or any religion, really) to manipulate the public would lead to such statements. I can also see a Christian student wanting to "get" an outspoken, atheist teacher and digging for ways to get him fired.

[Radrook]

“When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth.”

“How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to courter that rational approach."

"When you pray for divine intervention, you’re hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."
======================================

bolding mine


Assuming all is quoted as was stated-it seems as if the teacher is violating her duty of professional impartiality in regards to religion.

[Fiona]

I am not American and I am sorry to say I do not understand the basis of this case. I checked Wiki and it says of the first amendment:

It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (the "Establishment Clause") or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I am obviously missing something quite fundamental. This teacher is not in a position to make laws and so I cannot see how the First Amendment comes into this. Can someone please explain

[drkitten]

I am obviously missing something quite fundamental. This teacher is not in a position to make laws and so I cannot see how the First Amendment comes into this. Can someone please explain

Government policy can be established in a number of ways besides "making a law." For example, the University of Maryland could establish an internal policy that all students were required to take (and pass) a course on Catholic theology in order to graduate, and this would not be a "law," merely a school requirement.

It would also be heinously unconstitutional, since the University of Maryland is an agent of the State (Maryland, in this case), and is acting to promulgate a blatantly discriminatory policy.

A teacher at a public school is in a similar position to make policy, at least as far as his/her classroom is concerned. "With great power comes great responsibility."

[Fiona]

Government policy can be established in a number of ways besides "making a law." For example, the University of Maryland could establish an internal policy that all students were required to take (and pass) a course on Catholic theology in order to graduate, and this would not be a "law," merely a school requirement.

It would also be heinously unconstitutional, since the University of Maryland is an agent of the State (Maryland, in this case), and is acting to promulgate a blatantly discriminatory policy.

A teacher at a public school is in a similar position to make policy, at least as far as his/her classroom is concerned. "With great power comes great responsibility."

So what in the uk would be covered by specific anti-discrimination laws is all under the aegis of the first amendment in America? And an individual can be said to be "establishing" a religion on his own, without any policy and without any overt discrimination at all? That is quite puzzling.

[JoeEllison]

Assuming the claims are valid, and the quotes aren't being distorted, taken out of context, or lied about, this is a legitimate claim. IMO, telling his class that they shouldn't be Christian is just as bad as telling them that they should.

However, it's definitely not cut-and-dried. I can easily see where a discussion on the use of Christianity (or any religion, really) to manipulate the public would lead to such statements. I can also see a Christian student wanting to "get" an outspoken, atheist teacher and digging for ways to get him fired.

Ditto.

[ceo_esq]

The second one is simply a fact. How is it anti-Christian to say that religion is irrational? That's like if I'm eating a tuna sandwich and you point out that I'm eating fish. Is that an anti-tuna statement? No, it's just a description of the sandwich. Tuna is fish. Religion is irrational.

If the student hearing the comment is offended to hear religion described as irrational, that is a result of the student's opinion that the rational is superior to the irrational. If the student feels that the rational is superior to the irrational, then the student needs to take a look at his life and decide if he wants to remain a Christian (and indeed a theist) in contradiction to that value choice, or resolve the contradiction by abandoning either Christianity or his preference for the rational. It is not appropriate to blame (or sue) the person who merely points out what should be a value-neutral and uncontroversial statement: Religious belief is irrational.

This depends on what one means by "irrational" - but in the strictest sense of the word, it is not necessarily true that religious belief is irrational, and it is generally untrue of traditional Christianity. Christianity does not generally advance propositions that contain formal contradictions or that otherwise can be readily negated on purely rational (i.e. logical) grounds. This is why some of the most consistently rational minds have managed to stick it out in Christianity (regardless of its arguable improbability) - not because they suspended their rational sense, but because Christian doctrine did not require them to.


I'm much more concerned for the rights of the teacher than those of the student here. The student has the right to free exercise of religion, but that's not being violated here.

By all appearances this is an Establishment Clause case, not a Free Exercise Clause case.

[bokonon]

Based just on the facts presented in the article, I'm sad to say that I do think the teacher crossed the line of what is proper in the classroom. Arguing that "Jesus glasses" obscure the truth is just as bad as arguing that "Jesus glasses" are necessary to see it. I think it would be okay to raise the question, but unless there was a lot of missing context that would make this statement a lot more hypothetical than it sounds, it does seem to me that he's adopting an editorial position that isn't appropriate in a history class. I'd be upset if a creationist was doing it in a science class, and I can't support this guy just because he's on Team Rational.

At the same time, I don't think he should lose his job over it. A reprimand, and a promise not to do it again, should be sufficient.

[Father Dagon]

A lawsuit, brought by a high school student against his former AP European History teacher is going to be allowed to go forward. The student is alleging that the teacher made anti-Christian statements and thus violated the First Amendment.:turbo facepalm:

[MG1962]

In an education system that promotes seperation of Church and State, should such a conversation have taken place anyway?

[shadron]

Actually, nothing would be better than a long, drawn-out fight where experts demonstrate the illogic of religion when analyzed scientifically, as well as multitudes of case studies of religion being used to control the masses, to the enrichment of the religious leaders.

Yeah, and I think I know just the judge...

[drkitten]

So what in the uk would be covered by specific anti-discrimination laws is all under the aegis of the first amendment in America?

No. The First Amendment specifically only applies to cases involving the government. The University of Maryland, for example, is subject to the First Amendment, but the Johns Hopkins University (a private school) is not -- but is subject to anti-discrimination laws.


And an individual can be said to be "establishing" a religion on his own, without any policy and without any overt discrimination at all? That is quite puzzling.

Not really. The First Amendment provides the basis for a claim of redress and a basis upon which the aggrieved can complain. It's fairly clear that the individual teacher has no authority to "establish" religion -- but it's also fairly clear that if he tried, he would be overstepping his authority (and the state has the duty to discipline him appropriately and to prevent recurrence).

The legal situation is fairly simple. Any actions that a government agent takes are, by definition, actions that the government takes. (this is true under UK law as well, I believe. What you do through an agent you do yourself. Every constable on the corner carries the Home Secretary's personal authority with him.) Thus, it's appropriate for the government to respond to complaints of individual abuse. (I think the legal phrase is something like respondeat superior.)

The only reason this went to trial at all is because the local school didn't respond appropriately (in the opinion of the student and his lawyer), and thus it's appropriate to bring them to task for their errant agent.

[JoeEllison]

This depends on what one means by "irrational" - but in the strictest sense of the word, it is not necessarily true that religious belief is irrational, and it is generally untrue of traditional Christianity. Christianity does not generally advance propositions that contain formal contradictions or that otherwise can be readily negated on purely rational (i.e. logical) grounds. This is why some of the most consistently rational minds have managed to stick it out in Christianity (regardless of its arguable improbability) - not because they suspended their rational sense, but because Christian doctrine did not require them to.


WHAT?!?!?!?! How much bad wine does it take to make Christianity "rational" by even the most generous definitions?

[drkitten]

In an education system that promotes seperation of Church and State, should such a conversation have taken place anyway?

Only if there was a valid secular purpose for it --- but promulgation of atheism as a belief system doesn't qualify.

On the other hand, if the teacher was role-playing in an effort to describe (for instance) the rise of atheism as a force in philosophy and science as part of the Enlightenment, then there's nothing (legally) wrong with it. I'd want to know more about the context in which those statements were uttered before I passed judgement. It's not like fundicrats are embarassed by out of context quote-mining.

[thaiboxerken]

It's too bad that a person can get into trouble for telling the truth.

[linusrichard]

This depends on what one means by "irrational" - but in the strictest sense of the word, it is not necessarily true that religious belief is irrational, and it is generally untrue of traditional Christianity. Christianity does not generally advance propositions that contain formal contradictions or that otherwise can be readily negated on purely rational (i.e. logical) grounds. This is why some of the most consistently rational minds have managed to stick it out in Christianity (regardless of its arguable improbability) - not because they suspended their rational sense, but because Christian doctrine did not require them to.
I bolded the part I have trouble with. I don't think reason and logic are equivalent. There's nothing necessarily illogical about religion, but there's nothing rational about it. If "rational minds" manage to be Christian, it is exactly because they manage to suspend their rationality with respect to religion. This is not a criticism. Speaking as someone who is in love and a firm believer in love, I am not willing to criticize the irrational simply because it is irrational. I can recognize it when I see it, though.

By all appearances this is an Establishment Clause case, not a Free Exercise Clause case.
Of course, you are right. I don't know what I was thinking.

In an education system that promotes seperation of Church and State, should such a conversation have taken place anyway?
Nothing wrong with the subject matter. You can't teach European history well without talking about religion. I think there's an argument to be made that you can't teach it well without speaking critically of religion. But you can teach it without ridiculing religion. I think he crossed a line and deserves a reprimand. I don't know if he or the school deserve to lose a lawsuit.

As a separate point, if these kids feel they need to call the waaaambulance every time someone challenges their worldview, they're in for a rough time when they get to college. That's not in defense of the teacher, just a separate point.

[drkitten]

This depends on what one means by "irrational" - but in the strictest sense of the word, it is not necessarily true that religious belief is irrational, and it is generally untrue of traditional Christianity. Christianity does not generally advance propositions that contain formal contradictions or that otherwise can be readily negated on purely rational (i.e. logical) grounds.

Is it "rational" to believe in statements for which no evidence can be presented? There is no formal contradiction involved in Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage.

It's merely an "irrational" belief, and I have no problem characterizing it as such.

[JoeEllison]

It's too bad that a person can get into trouble for telling the truth.

Yes, well... as much as I agree with this "truth" I can't agree that it is bad that someone can get into trouble in this instance. Since in these matters, a court can probably only determine whether someone believes it to be true, it can easily set the stage for someone to promote any agenda in schools, even if it is stupid(like Christianity, for instance) and get away with it because they believe it is true.

[pgwenthold]

“When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth.”

As an example of how context matters, this could be a response to a statement the student made. For example, if the student said, "Well, I'm a christian, and my religion teaches..." something that is blatently false. In that case, it would be true that the student's "Jesus glasses" are obscuring the truth.

I don't know enough about European history to have a frinstance, but I could easily imagine something like that coming up in a discussion of evolution. "I don't believe it because I am a Christian and I believe the Bible."

[Olowkow]

The second statement is well-known and fairly widely believed by cultural anthropologists. It also has a much more famous phrasing, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Actually:
http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

[MG1962]

Only if there was a valid secular purpose for it --- but promulgation of atheism as a belief system doesn't qualify.

On the other hand, if the teacher was role-playing in an effort to describe (for instance) the rise of atheism as a force in philosophy and science as part of the Enlightenment, then there's nothing (legally) wrong with it. I'd want to know more about the context in which those statements were uttered before I passed judgement. It's not like fundicrats are embarassed by out of context quote-mining.

Okay, thank you for the clarification, and I agree, the context now becomes critical

[drkitten]

I don't know enough about European history to have a frinstance, but I could easily imagine something like that coming up in a discussion of evolution. "I don't believe it because I am a Christian and I believe the Bible."

The Blood Libel or any of the similar anti-Semitic propaganda that a number of fundamentalists still seem to believe.

However, I still would still think that the teacher's response was out of line (and called for disciplinary actions). It's not the "Jesus glasses" that make people believe stupid things; as ceo_esq will quickly point out, there are lots of Christians that do believe in evolution and do not believe the Blood Libel.

[Fiona]

@drkitten. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

[pgwenthold]

However, I still would still think that the teacher's response was out of line (and called for disciplinary actions).


Possibly true, but not relevant. We are talking about the legal case, not whether the teacher was overly rude and disrespectful. The school would not be out of line to reprimand the teacher for his/her behavior.


It's not the "Jesus glasses" that make people believe stupid things; as ceo_esq will quickly point out, there are lots of Christians that do believe in evolution and do not believe the Blood Libel.

But that's a strawman. No one ever claimed that all (or even many or most) Christians can't see the truth because of Jesus goggles. My example was carefully constructed in that manner: "I don't believe because my religion teaches X" and the response is "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." The question is whether this student's "Jesus glasses" is keeping him/her from seeing the truth. What other Christians do is not pertain to the situation.

It is improper for the court to say, "Well, not all christians believe that way, so you are mistaken when you say your religion teaches X." It is not the court's or school's position to tell the student what their religion teaches. The only defense could be "that is a not a mainstream religion," and in that case the fact that you can recognize that there ARE religious sects that believe this way indicates it is not really out of the mainstream.

Now, I don't know what the actual situation was, but I am providing an example of context where the comments would not be constitutionally inappropriate.

[drkitten]

Possibly true, but not relevant. We are talking about the legal case, not whether the teacher was overly rude and disrespectful. The school would not be out of line to reprimand the teacher for his/her behavior.

But the school evidently didn't reprimand the teacher.

And I think we differ about the possible merits of the legal case. The student evidently found it necessary to drop the course mid-year and to continue through a private tutor. If the teacher is creating that hostile an environment, then the failure of the school to reprimand the teacher (or to make sure that the reprimand was effective enough) is indeed actionable.


No one ever claimed that all (or even many or most) Christians can't see the truth because of Jesus goggles. My example was carefully constructed in that manner: "I don't believe because my religion teaches X" and the response is "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth."

Which isn't how a typical person would read that sentence, I'm afraid. The use of "you" as a generic that applies to everyone is well-established in English linguistics. (There used to be a pronoun "one" that was used, but that's fallen out of common usage, to the point that you mostly hear that one used as a parody of pretentious academic writing.)

Even so, it's almost certainly actionable to disparage the student's personal religion in that way. The teacher at that point is picking and choosing from among religions in terms of which he supports and which he denigrates. That goes directly into the "sending the wrong message" effect of the Lemon test. If it's the student's "Jesus glasses" that are making him dumb, that's actionable ---- but if it's actually the student's "Bethel Church Baptist and Aluminum Siding Co. glasses" and the teacher is singling out BCBASCo., that's even worse.



Now, I don't know what the actual situation was, but I am providing an example of context where the comments would not be constitutionally inappropriate.

And I'm not convinced that the comments would be appropriate in that context.

[Nogbad]

But the school evidently didn't reprimand the teacher.

And I think we differ about the possible merits of the legal case. The student evidently found it necessary to drop the course mid-year and to continue through a private tutor. If the teacher is creating that hostile an environment, then the failure of the school to reprimand the teacher (or to make sure that the reprimand was effective enough) is indeed actionable.




Which isn't how a typical person would read that sentence, I'm afraid. The use of "you" as a generic that applies to everyone is well-established in English linguistics. (There used to be a pronoun "one" that was used, but that's fallen out of common usage, to the point that you mostly hear that one used as a parody of pretentious academic writing.)

Even so, it's almost certainly actionable to disparage the student's personal religion in that way. The teacher at that point is picking and choosing from among religions in terms of which he supports and which he denigrates. That goes directly into the "sending the wrong message" effect of the Lemon test. If it's the student's "Jesus glasses" that are making him dumb, that's actionable ---- but if it's actually the student's "Bethel Church Baptist and Aluminum Siding Co. glasses" and the teacher is singling out BCBASCo., that's even worse.




And I'm not convinced that the comments would be appropriate in that context.

Meh! I think there is still a place for the use of "one" in a sentence to indicate a generic statement. It is less ambigious in my view.

The course is European History - a subject in which it would not be hard to say challenging things regarding religion. If the comments were directed at the individual student then one might need to read any essays submitted to determine exactly what the tutor was being critical of. If it was a generic "you" and he was talking about say the mass execution of the Cathars, the Spanish Inquisition, the Peasants revolt following Luther's declaration or the 17th century witch hunts then the tutor might have made some very valid points - regardless of whether the students felt uncomfortable with them or not. One of the objects of a university education is to challenge the students to think - not spoon feed them some orthodoxy as if they were at kindergarten.

That said, maybe they just couldn't stand one another and it snowballed :)

[Safe-Keeper]

As Fnord says, 'assuming all is quoted as was stated-it seems as if the teacher is violating her duty of professional impartiality in regards to religion.' At least in Houston Independent School district, which I attended from 01-04, the teacher is required to be impartial on religion.

[pgwenthold]

And I think we differ about the possible merits of the legal case. The student evidently found it necessary to drop the course mid-year and to continue through a private tutor. If the teacher is creating that hostile an environment, then the failure of the school to reprimand the teacher (or to make sure that the reprimand was effective enough) is indeed actionable.


In the situation I provided, is the teacher creating the hostile environment? Or is it the student, who refuses to accept the teacher's information on the grounds that it goes against his religion?

Please note, I am referring ONLY to the situation I described, which may or may not have any resemblence to what actually happened. IF the student refuses to listen to the teacher's teachings on the grounds that it goes against his religion, then the teacher's comment is just a response to that.


Which isn't how a typical person would read that sentence, I'm afraid.


Depends completely on the context. In most situations, I don't disagree. However, I provided a specific example where it was used to refer to that student's refusal to see beyond the religion.


The use of "you" as a generic that applies to everyone is well-established in English linguistics.


And it is also used to refer to the specific person. It depends on the context, and in the example I gave, the context was that it referred to that student.


Even so, it's almost certainly actionable to disparage the student's personal religion in that way. The teacher at that point is picking and choosing from among religions in terms of which he supports and which he denigrates.


Unless it can be shown that it serves a secular purpose. And it does. The teacher only denigrates the student who let's religion cloud their judgement so to ignore the (legitimate) material being taught in an AP class.

Your argument is no different from the creationist "You can't teach evolution because it goes against my religion" which the courts don't accept.
That passes the Lemon test.

[thaiboxerken]

I have to wonder if the student or mother approached anyone in the school, either the teacher or his superiors, about this before deciding to file suit. It seems to me that the teacher's only fault is to be abrasive, which would could have been solved by simple confrontation on a professional level.

[A Christian Sceptic]

From the article:

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees, says Corbett typically spent "a large portion of class time propagating his personal views to a captive audience." He railed against Christianity and Christian viewpoints on topics such as birth control, teenage sex, homosexuality and erectile dysfunction, according to the lawsuit.


Erectile Dysfunction?
Anyone know how that topic would have fit into a European History class - or even how his remarks on this could be considered Anti-Christian? I didn't know there was a Christian viewpoint on ED. I know there is for ID, but ED?

[Professor Yaffle]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GFRB_enGB226GB226&q=christianity+erectile+dysfunction

[madurobob]

I have to wonder if the student or mother approached anyone in the school, either the teacher or his superiors, about this before deciding to file suit. It seems to me that the teacher's only fault is to be abrasive, which would could have been solved by simple confrontation on a professional level.

Pure conjecture on my part, but I doubt the judge would have granted a trial if the complainants had not properly followed the grievance procedures within the school system first and received no satisfaction.

From reading the story the teacher sounds way out of line - but we're only given the complainants viewpoint. Its entirely possible that the student was baiting the teacher by proslytizing in class. If so, the teacher was dumb to respond in kind, but maybe not quite as out-of-line as it looks.

I wonder what other students in the class have to say and if they can be compelled to testify at the trial? I noted the mention of an "outpouring of support" but I'm not sure what that means.

[A Christian Sceptic]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GFRB_enGB226GB226&q=christianity+erectile+dysfunction

??

And how does ED fit in to European History?

[Safe-Keeper]

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and attorney fees, says Corbett typically spent "a large portion of class time propagating his personal views to a captive audience." He railed against Christianity and Christian viewpoints on topics such as birth control, teenage sex, homosexuality and erectile dysfunction, according to the lawsuit.Now, this I can agree whole-heartedly with. I have an anthropology teacher at my school who's so biased it's a shame. She takes every opportunity to spout her warped political and social views and doesn't even try to be objective. It was a major pain, and I ended up dropping the class after having had her as a teacher for one and a half years. I just couldn't take it anymore.

[Nogbad]

??

And how does ED fit in to European History?

Not tonight Josephine? :boggled:

It is perfectly possible to cover a broad range of topics in passing but harder to make them a main issue. If it is one student who has an issue then one wonders where the problem might be. If a lot of students have an issue then that is a different matter.

[A Christian Sceptic]

This story reminded me of this:

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/03/02/unhinged-teacher-caught-on-tape/

A World Geography teacher who was recorded going on an Anti-Bush rant. :)

[Gazpacho]

Advocates for Faith and Freedom was nice enough to send me copy of the amended complaint.
http://home.comcast.net/~mylesw/Farnan.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/%7Emylesw/Farnan.pdf)

There are a few quotations that seem to have nothing to do with religious belief per se

[bignickel]

I had a history teacher in H.S. who spouted off every opportunity he got about how liberals were destroying America. He once tried to show how Tri-Star Pictures was trying to warp our 'fragile little minds' by producing such stuff as "Silent Night, Deadly Night" (or whatever killer Santa movie was out in the 80's), and picking apart the corporate groups that make up Tri-Star to show their 'liberal agenda'.

For some reason, it never occurred to me at all to sue. Perhaps I might have had a case if I sued because a teacher was wasting my precious class time with stupid conspiracy theories.

[Nihilus]

Assuming the claims are valid, and the quotes aren't being distorted, taken out of context, or lied about, this is a legitimate claim. IMO, telling his class that they shouldn't be Christian is just as bad as telling them that they should.

However, it's definitely not cut-and-dried. I can easily see where a discussion on the use of Christianity (or any religion, really) to manipulate the public would lead to such statements. I can also see a Christian student wanting to "get" an outspoken, atheist teacher and digging for ways to get him fired.
Echo.

[Marc L]

Advocates for Faith and Freedom was nice enough to send me copy of the amended complaint.
http://home.comcast.net/~mylesw/Farnan.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/%7Emylesw/Farnan.pdf)

There are a few quotations that seem to have nothing to do with religious belief per se

I can definitely see the kid's point on a couple of those statements. A few of them, though, looked more like drawing a comparison, not just being disparaging. I'd still like to know more about the entire context of the discussions, though.

Marc

[pipelineaudio]

Its funny how exactly parallel this is with the canadian thought crimes legislation/truth is no defense thing

Its even more interesting to see how left and right are exactly flipped on that case vs this one

Not that I expect critical thinking or skepticism around here lately, Im just saying, its something to think about

[Cleon]

Its funny how exactly parallel this is with the canadian thought crimes legislation/truth is no defense thing

Its even more interesting to see how left and right are exactly flipped on that case vs this one

Not that I expect critical thinking or skepticism around here lately, Im just saying, its something to think about

What the hell are you talking about?

[Fnord]

....because you so obviously need a refresher in constitutional law.

Perhaps, but I'm not alone. Ask a tenth-grader what the sixth amendment says, and they're likely to say "Thou shalt not kill".

[ImaginalDisc]

Perhaps, but I'm not alone. Ask a tenth-grader what the sixth amendment says, and they're likely to say "Thou shalt not kill".

Do you have a poll to back that up, or did you pull your implication that most students confuse the Bill of Rights for the Ten Commandments out of your pious behind?

[thaiboxerken]

Perhaps, but I'm not alone. Ask a tenth-grader what the sixth amendment says, and they're likely to say "Thou shalt not kill".

If true, this only goes to show that our education system is poorly lacking. It's nice to see that you compare your education with tenth-graders though.

[Lisa Simpson]

And...I just got called for jury duty at the very courthouse this trial will be taking place at. So, what are the odds a militant agnostic like me would get on this jury?

[Fnord]

If true, this only goes to show that our education system is poorly lacking. It's nice to see that you compare your education with tenth-graders though.

What do you expect from the American Public School system? What with the teachers' unions fighting against merit-based pay and promotion, the administrators padding their own payrolls, the school boards fighting over whether Evolution, Creationism, or both will be part of the curriculum, and the government cutting back on funding for education to pay for GWB's private little war, it's a wonder I can think at all!

(Apologies to Paul Simon ... the musician, not the politician.)

BTW: Constitutional law simply is not my forté -- electrical engineering is. I sacrificed a future as a "Rennaissance Man" in favor of receiving a regular paycheck.

[thaiboxerken]

What do you expect from the American Public School system?

Not much, but even less if Christians like you get their way.

[Fnord]

Not much, but even less if Christians like you get their way.
... and it's all so easy, too!

[Radrook]

The college I attended had professors ranting off subject about their racial discriminatory preferences, and their avant garde sexual preferences. So I hesitate to attribute this to the public school system and tend to view it more as a cultural characteristic extremely expressed in some individuals. Unfortunately, at the university level-some of these predisposed individuals view tenor as a license to dispense with all emotional inhibitions. The true victims in this whole charade are the students who depend on these buffoons for the quality of education but who are subjected to such gratuitous tripe instead.

[Tricky]

The college I attended had professors ranting off subject about their racial discriminatory preferences, and their avant garde sexual preferences. So I hesitate to attribute this to the public school system and tend to view it more as a cultural characteristic extremely expressed in some individuals. Unfortunately, at the university level-some of these predisposed individuals view tenor as a license to dispense with all emotional inhibitions. The true victims in this whole charade are the students who depend on these buffoons for the quality of education but who are subjected to such gratuitous tripe instead.
What was your major? Religious studies?

[Aoidoi]

And...I just got called for jury duty at the very courthouse this trial will be taking place at. So, what are the odds a militant agnostic like me would get on this jury?As you've already heard about the case, probably pretty bad regardless of your agnosticism.

Interesting case. I had a few teachers who were very devout in one way or another, but none of them were ever obnoxious enough to push religion during class (nor, for that matter, were any athiest or unsupportedly anti-religious views pushed that I recall). We had some pretty wide ranging discussions in my AP European History class, including references to Catherine the Great's supposed fondness for horses, so I can see how any number of things could end up under discussion. With a good teacher in a history class many topics can make for interesting and fruitful discussions.

I'd be interested to hear if other students felt he was pushing the subject, or if this particular student was singled out, and whether it was deservedly so. Even in a history class sometimes wrong is just wrong, after all.

Or maybe he stepped over the line. I suppose more info will come out over time.

[linusrichard]

What was your major? Religious studies?
No... Vocal Performance, apparently.
Unfortunately, at the university level-some of these predisposed individuals view tenor as a license to dispense with all emotional inhibitions.


Give me those manly and reserved baritones any day.

[James Fox]

I think the teacher blew it and missed an opportunity. Teachers can raise questions and encourage debate. What this teacher did would have the end result of squelching debate. The teacher was, it seems to me, demanding her opinion be validated based on her position of authority. Not a very good teaching methodology. Way back when… I had a number of great teachers who saw part of their job to get students to think for themselves, ask critical and skeptical questions and to be willing and able to support our claims and positions. A Christian in that class may be encouraged to question her religious beliefs by a teacher who asks students to think and question statements made by an authorities or doctrines that have no rational or credible evidence. Being derisive is more likely to encourage the religious as they tend to love being persecuted and Christians are taught that persecution means you are being good Christians.

[Robin]

Perhaps, but I'm not alone. Ask a tenth-grader what the sixth amendment says, and they're likely to say "Thou shalt not kill".
That is interesting, you say that American kids are idiots? I didn't know that, I had assumed they were of at least average intelligence.

Here in Australia there are very few high school kids who get the Bible mixed up with the US Constitution, or with any constitution for that matter.

[Dr Adequate]

And how does ED fit in to European History? Well, if Henry VIII had been able to get it up with Catherine of Aragon ...