Teacher sued for remarks "hostile" to religion

[Rake]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-religion-court-2387684-farnan-selna

 

Well, I was searching the OC register's website when I came across this. Basically about a kid filing a lawsuit against his AP euro teacher, claiming the teacher was hostile towards religion. The judge already ruled that one of the teacher's comments violated the establishment. The comment was, ""I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense."

 

Was the right decision made? What is your opinion on the teacher's comments, did he violate the establishment clause?

[Achilles]

Yeah, based on what we have here, he was out of line. As a teacher, he should have handled it differently.

[Q]

I agree with Achilles, while also recognizing that a teacher spouting pro-religious dogma in a public school classroom would be in equal violation of the First Amendment.

[Totenkopf]

I third the motion.

[Darth Avlectus]

Agreed: teachers are supposed to be neutral, their beliefs and biases notwithstanding. They are there to teach, not indoctrinate--whatever direction thy're following.

[Tommycat]

Well this is just great... a topic on religion we all agree on. Guess that means the world is going to end soon.

 

A teacher in a public school should neither raise up nor degrade religion in the classroom.

[EnderWiggin]

Well this is just great... a topic on religion we all agree on. Guess that means the world is going to end soon.

 

A teacher in a public school should neither raise up nor degrade religion in the classroom.

 

*world ends*

 

 

_EW_

[kipperthefrog]

I am amazed to see that we are willing to recognize that what that teacher did was wrong, even though that teacher shares some of our point of view on religion. If it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, would religious fundamentalists think that was wrong?

 

Yeah, based on what we have here, he was out of line. As a teacher, he should have handled it differently.

 

How would you have handled it?

[Achilles]

I am amazed to see that we are willing to recognize that what that teacher did was wrong, even though that teacher shares some of our point of view on religion.

If you wait long enough, people will eventually surprise you.

 

If it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, would religious fundamentalists think that was wrong?

I wouldn't count on it.

 

How would you have handled it?

"We don't discuss religion in this classroom" probably would have been sufficient.

[kipperthefrog]

f it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, I doubt he would have got in trouble.

[Totenkopf]

......If it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, would religious fundamentalists think that was wrong?

 

 

Perhaps you should do some research of your own. I'm sure there are fundamentalist websites out there. Join one and take an informal poll.

[Darth Avlectus]

Well this is just great... a topic on religion we all agree on. Guess that means the world is going to end soon.

 

A teacher in a public school should neither raise up nor degrade religion in the classroom.

 

*world ends*

 

 

_EW_

 

 

 

I am amazed to see that we are willing to recognize that what that teacher did was wrong, even though that teacher shares some of our point of view on religion.

 

Well, sharing a pov is one thing, stepping over clearly drawn lines of respect, and I dresay professionality, is quite another. Those bounds are there for the very reason of avoiding stuff like this from happening in the first place, no?

 

If it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, would religious fundamentalists think that was wrong?

 

I would not think so, but even fundamentalists are human...anyone who can make mistakes and be wrong. So there is a... chance to the contrary.

Would it really matter in a public school? There are guidelines to be adhered to. Teachers are expected to follow them. They don't and this is what happens.

If it intrigues you...why not find out more?

[Achilles]

f it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, I doubt he would have got in trouble.

It depends. There have been more than a handful of cases where a theist teacher has been busted for violating the establishment clause. I really don't know if there is enough data to establish anything conclusive (if someone knows differently, please jump in). The way the statistics break down though, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the 90-something percent of theists are more likely to jump on the ~10 percent of non-theists than vice versa. Again, I'm totally guessing here.

[Totenkopf]

Something tells me that a greater % of atheists would be likelier than than theists to make noise in such an event. Now, whether more theists in raw numbers would complain is something else entirely.

[Q]

f it had been a religious teacher spouting religious dogma, I doubt he would have got in trouble.

The religious would stand just as much of a chance of insulting the wrong person as the non-religious.

[Achilles]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the math doesn't make sense. Again, ~90% theists, ~10 non-theists. With numbers like this, I don't see how the odds are 50/50.

[Q]

Not every religious person follows the same religion.

 

And within each religion there are doctrinal differences between different denominations.

[Achilles]

Not every religious person follows the same religion.

 

And within each religion there are doctrinal differences between different denominations.

But all that takes place within the ~90% theistic group.

[Q]

Did I say that the wrong person had to be non-religious?

[Achilles]

No, you didn't, but I don't see how that matters.

 

If I have 100 people in a room, ~90 of them are going to have some religious belief and ~10 of them won't. I don't get how that group of 10 is just as likely to offend "the wrong person" as the group of 90 (i.e. your argument in post 15). Especially considering the very valid point you raised in post 17.

[Q]

Because each group thinks that any belief system other than theirs is false, regardless of their particular belief system.

[Achilles]

Right, which means that someone in the group of ~90 is far more likely to offend someone than someone in that group of ~10.

 

Which is completely consistent with post 17, but would seem to pose a problem for post 15 (which is what I originally asked you to clarify).

[Q]

Not when one of that group of 10 declares that all religion is superstitious nonsense. In doing so, he's just offended 90 people, or a good percentage of that 90.

[Achilles]

I'm still not sure how that makes 50/50 viable.

[Totenkopf]

What does 50/50 have to do with anything? We already know that the theistic crowd outnumbers the antitheistic/atheistic in America. Question, based on your WAG, was which side was more likely to jump down the other's throat. I'd wager the latter group would make a much bigger noise if the situation were reversed as a % of it's size. Even if only 10 out of 100, I'm sure more of those 10 as a % than of the 90 as a % would make a bigger stink. Minority groups may be smaller in size, but many of them are much more vocal than majority groups.