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.
He incorporated his remarks into a lecture on European History. Please explain why the teacher felt it necessary to address this legal decision in the context of European History.
Perhaps he was lecturing on the Crusades, Martin Luther's break with Catholicism, or the many wars waged across Europe between Protestants and Catholics.
We have a teacher here (elementary school) who prays daily with her classes, who promotes her personal Protestant faith, and has more than once voiced criticism of a student's parents for not attending church. IMHO, that is much more damaging than this teacher's voicing his personal opinion during a
lecture to either middle school or high school students.
How was he attacked??? Because the teacher told his opinion? Creationism is NOT science, it is NOT provable and it should absolutely in NO WAY be taught in school, unless it's a private religious institution.
And really... if my beliefs were attacked and I threw a hissy fit and SUED over it, my beliefs obviously weren't all that stable to begin with. You can believe whatever you want, but keep religion out of the public school system, please.
People need to grow thicker skin and quit overreacting about getting their feelings hurt.
The teacher didn't just share his opinion. He incorporated that opinion into a classroom lecture. He disparaged religion in twenty different remarks over a single classroom lecture. The student taped this lecture because the teacher had been making such remarks regularly in the classroom. The lecture was supposed to be on European History. The comments were not relevant to European History.
And twenty times he went off-topic. The class was what, fifty minutes, 45 minutes? That's not going off-topic. That's deciding in advance that you are going to disrespect religion, and doing it over and over. That's an agenda.
This teacher was trying to make a point. And he made it. But he pushed the limits. The Establishment Clause is about not pushing a religious agenda. Slamming religion is just as much a religious agenda as preaching religion. It's just not as specific.
It's debatable whether he misinformed the students. The story of creation in the Bible has been translated multiple times. What that story actually said, in its original language, may be quite different than how we currently interpret it. And even if it is a baseless story, millions of people in the world believe that story. Calling it superstitious nonsense may be true from a scientific point of view, but a teacher of history should respect the social, cultural and historical significance of any creation myths.
This is so ridiculous. If you are having a conversation you do not merely say one statement. In 5 mins on the topic he could have said any number of things that could have offended anyone. The point is you do not have the constitutional right to not be offended.
The teacher was not proselytizing atheism in any way. He never said "you cant be christian" I have read the comments and this whole thing has been blown out of proportion by a 17 yr old who is acting like a baby.
A government employee has every right to criticize religion. They do not have the right to force others to practice their beliefs. There is a difference between making a comment and establishing a religion or lack of one.
Perhaps he was lecturing on the Crusades, Martin Luther's break with Catholicism, or the many wars waged across Europe between Protestants and Catholics.
We have a teacher here (elementary school) who prays daily with her classes, who promotes her personal Protestant faith, and has more than once voiced criticism of a student's parents for not attending church. IMHO, that is much more damaging than this teacher's voicing his personal opinion during a
lecture to either middle school or high school students.
I concur with you that the teacher you are familiar with is much more problematic than Mr Corbett.
But that doesn't mean that Mr Corbett's actions were acceptable. He'd made repeated disparaging remarks about religion and about the teacher in this other case over the term. One day the offended student taped the lecture. This was not idle classroom discussion. During that one classroom lecture the teacher made twenty disparaging remarks. That goes beyond a simple offering of an opinion.
I don't really care where you lean. In addition to ignoring common sense, this judge just ignored seven different rulings to make the erroneous decision he did: McClean v. Arkansas (1981), Seagraves v. California (1981); Edwards v. Aquillard (1987); Webster v. New Lenox (1990); Peloza v. Capistrano (1994); Freiler v. Tanqipahoa (1999); and LeVake v. Independent School District (2001).
I keep "injecting" employer into the situation because in Peloza v. Capistrano (1994) the 9th Circuit Court Ruled that the government can restrict the speech of its employees while on the job. If that speech was not restricted by the teacher's employer, then clearly the teacher is allowed to say anything they want.
So if its not in the handbook, its OK? Very, very weak. If Wal-mart doesn't have a sign telling employees not to take unpurchased goods into the restroom, then it's OK to do that under your rationale. Weak.
So if its not in the handbook, its OK? Very, very weak. If Wal-mart doesn't have a sign telling employees not to take unpurchased goods into the restroom, then it's OK to do that under your rationale. Weak.
Precedent plays a very big roll in deciding a case. It is important that our judicial system is consistent and just.
This is so ridiculous. If you are having a conversation you do not merely say one statement. In 5 mins on the topic he could have said any number of things that could have offended anyone. The point is you do not have the constitutional right to not be offended.
The teacher was not proselytizing atheism in any way. He never said "you cant be christian" I have read the comments and this whole thing has been blown out of proportion by a 17 yr old who is acting like a baby.
A government employee has every right to criticize religion. They do not have the right to force others to practice their beliefs. There is a difference between making a comment and establishing a religion or lack of one.
He's not having a conversation. He's lecturing. It doesn't matter if he's advocating atheism or not. What he's doing is including his opinions on religious matters in lectures in a secular classroom. He has the right to his opinion. And the court acceded to that right on the majority of his utterances. But just as a teacher should not be promoting religion in the classroom, a teacher should also not be denigrating religion in the classroom. Share an opinion, okay. Make snide comments twenty times during one classroom period, multiply those comments by the comments made in the four or five other classroom period, multiply by the days he is teaching, and he is proselytizing anti-religion.
Precedent plays a very big roll in deciding a case. It is important that our judicial system is consistent and just.
I don't disagree. But anything short of Glitch sitting in the judges chambers as he studied past precedent renders pretty much any legal theory he brings to the table a moot point. Anyone can Google court cases and profess that a judge is wrong based on what Google populates. Anyone who comes forth touting legal precedent had better be able to back it up with professional experience and/or scholarship. Glitch has yet to tell us that he is a legal scholar or a judge.
So if its not in the handbook, its OK? Very, very weak. If Wal-mart doesn't have a sign telling employees not to take unpurchased goods into the restroom, then it's OK to do that under your rationale. Weak.
It is called "Free Speech", you might consider the concept sometime. After all, our Founding Fathers added special protections in our US Constitution specifically to protect the individual's right to say something you find objectionable.
Or are you one of those fascist wannabes that want every thought and concept run past you for your approval before they are uttered? If you don't like what others have to say, don't listen, but you have no business to try and shut them up.
So if its not in the handbook, its OK? Very, very weak. If Wal-mart doesn't have a sign telling employees not to take unpurchased goods into the restroom, then it's OK to do that under your rationale. Weak.
Fortunately, the matter is closed and now the precedent is set. No more anti-religion or pro-religion innuendo permitted by public school teachers and zero tolerance for chastising a student based on their beliefs.
God bless America.
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.
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.
