U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2012, 05:57 PM
LML
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,109 posts, read 7,907,921 times
Reputation: 5152

Advertisements

He told us that we would suffer for His Name's sake and, compared to the killing and torture of Christians that is going on in other places in the world this isn't suffering. HOWEVER, it saddens me that a teacher would be allowed to do this to a student and, were it my child, I would have done the same as his parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2012, 06:19 PM
 
1,003 posts, read 594,315 times
Reputation: 448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
I presume you've read the court documents. Which of the teacher's statements do you feel are in violation of the 1st, in the context of the class' discussions?
Having read the documents, I can't say that I find anything so egregious and clear-cut that it should have been taken to court. I agree with the court's findings.

However, having read the documents, I can say that the teacher really was being disparaging about religion and probably did deserve a reprimand from the school administration. Just because some behavior is legal doesn't mean it's appropriate, especially when it is a teacher talking to children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 06:37 PM
 
29,759 posts, read 15,151,907 times
Reputation: 15545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kkaos2 View Post
However, having read the documents, I can say that the teacher really was being disparaging about religion and probably did deserve a reprimand from the school administration. Just because some behavior is legal doesn't mean it's appropriate, especially when it is a teacher talking to children.
Time to open that skating rink in Hades, because we agree. He could have dialed it back without losing the implied lessons, I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,891 posts, read 15,742,751 times
Reputation: 3123
You should be free to say anything about anyone or any group. Duke it out in the marketplace of ideas.

Last edited by shorebaby; 03-03-2012 at 06:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,891 posts, read 15,742,751 times
Reputation: 3123
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD1978 View Post
The Supreme Court has agreed with nothing. Much like with science books, it appears Christians have trouble reading Supreme Court opinions, or even general rules concerning the process of granting cert.

As to the case itself, it's a non-issue. A teacher expressed an opinion, a kid expressed religious hogwash. Meh. Kids are stupid, they occasionally need correction.
As I wrote above, teachers should be able to describe religion the way you do. The kids should also be able to point out to the teachers that atheists are intolerant, bigoted, tools. But in a respectful way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2012, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,079 posts, read 17,000,013 times
Reputation: 7700
As usual, if you get your opinions from radical websites, you're going to get radical interpretations which contain only a modicum of truth, but never the WHOLE truth. You'd think the OP would know better by now, given how many times his carefully spun opinion pieces have been slapped down.

So, let's see if we can do it again:

Here's the 9th Circuit's opinion. Forget all that other stuff which explains the case and concentrate just on this:

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. I. The government runs afoul of the Establishment Clause through dispar- agement as well as endorsement of religion. See Catholic League for Religious & Civil Rights v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 624 F.3d 1043, 1060 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (Silverman, J., concurring); id. at 1053-54 (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting); see also Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 532 (1993). In this case, a former public high school student alleges that his history teacher violated his rights under the Establishment Clause by making comments during class that were hostile to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular. Mindful that there has never been any prior reported case holding that a teacher violated the Constitution under comparable circumstances, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the teacher is entitled to quali- fied immunity. Because it is readily apparent that the law was not clearly established at the time of the events in question, and because we may resolve the appeal on that basis alone, we decline to pass upon the constitutionality of the teacher’s challenged statements. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815-18 (2009).

Amendment 1 of the Constitution is considered to have been violated if government disparages religion, as well as when it endorses one. However, the decision which set that precedent was not made until 2010, AFTER the events contained in the allegation occurred. Consequently, the court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the teachers behavior in this case because his actions pre-dated that precedent. They neither ruled a teacher has the Constitutional protection to make such comments, or that he doesn't.

The opinion piece posted by the OP is flat out wrong in it's claim that teachers now have Constitutional protection when they disparage Christianity. Either the author of that piece KNEW he was lying, or he's a total idiot who doesn't understand how to read a court decision. In either case, it won't matter to those thirsting for a reason to be outraged. They'll immediately lap it up without question because it feeds their already held prejudices.

And, as for those "liberal" members of the 9th Circuit? This case was heard by 2 Circuit Court justices and a Federal District Court judge sitting in. The two Circuit Court judges, A. Wallace Tashima and Raymond C. Fisher, were appointed by Pres. Bill Clinton and confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate in 1995 and 1999. The District Court judge, Mark L. Wolf, was appointed by Ronald Reagan and confirmed by the Republican controlled Senate in 1985.

It seems that if the 9th Circuit is packed with "liberals," it's the GOP who put them there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,079 posts, read 17,000,013 times
Reputation: 7700
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit View Post
You'd think the OP would know better by now, given how many times his carefully spun opinion pieces have been slapped down.

So, let's see if we can do it again:

Well, it's been nearly 24 hours and still no response.

Sorry, Roy. Looks like it's happened again!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 08:32 PM
 
Location: On the road
2,642 posts, read 1,819,081 times
Reputation: 2866
From the case document:

Quote:
Corbett has taught in the Capistrano Unified School District (District) for more than 20 years, and has taught AP Euro for more than 16 years. He is presently the only teacher who teaches AP Euro at Capistrano Valley High School.
Corbett is a Christian who regularly prays and attends church services. Farnan is also a Christian, and believes in creationism. He was offended by comments Corbett made during class that Farnan characterizes as “derogatory, disparaging, and belittling regarding religion and Christianity in particular.” Neither Farnan nor his parents ever discussed this concern with Corbett or any other school official. Rather, before completing the first semester of AP Euro, Farnan withdrew from the class and filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights under the Establishment Clause. Farnan has since graduated from high school and begun college.
So the teacher is a Christian.
That denies one of the major presumptions of the OP.

Last edited by LarsMac; 03-05-2012 at 09:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 08:37 PM
 
Location: West Egg
2,161 posts, read 1,604,475 times
Reputation: 1278
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
From the case document:

So the teacher is a Christian. The denies one of the major presumptions of the OP.
From what I read of the decision, it sounds like the teacher did a lot of playing the Devil's Advocate and pushing students to contend with various positions. Pretty scary stuff! Probably wants them dabbling in dangerous things like critical thinking.

I bet he's even a snob who hopes they can all go to college ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2012, 09:07 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,583 posts, read 11,736,379 times
Reputation: 15397
First and foremost, let me say that I am not in favor of any student's religious beliefs being ridiculed in the classroom. It's a matter of being publicly denounced and humiliated in front of others. Something similar has happened to me, but I am a member of a religious minority.

But ... did this really happen? Or, was the teacher merely expressing an opinion? Teachers and students alike are protected by the US Constitution on matters of free speech, are they not?

I wasn't there, and I have not read all the court testimony, so I don't know. I'm inclined to give the teacher (and the higher Courts) the benefit of the doubt.

As an American of Eurasian descent, I have experienced disapproval and jest because of my Buddhist faith. It was rather lonely in an environment where Protestants, Catholics, and Jews made up nearly the entire student/faculty body. Once I was called by "an idol worshiper" in front of others, but rather than be insulted I merely explained that yes we have a Buddha statue in my house in the same way a Catholic might have a crucifix on the wall or a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary on the front lawn; icons are a part of our heritage. Looking back, I think these challenges to my religion were a good thing, a positive thing, it gave me an opportunity to gently and quietly educate others about Buddhism without getting angry or defensive or hostile. I stood up for my faith in the most eloquent and good-natured way I could; and I made many friends ... especially with the Jewish kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top