When Is It Unconstitutional to Call Nonsense Nonsense?

Interesting comparison with how the law treats voodoo.

Maybe this is splitting hairs, but I think the voodoo-in-law example gives us a way out of this problem. A H.S. law teacher who says "the law considers voodoo such an ineffective means of murder, we don't even punish it" is making a statement of fact about how the law operates. The same teacher saying "I think voodoo is completely ineffective" is giving an unconstitutional personal opinion.

So, apply the same reasoning to science teachers and creationism. Maybe we can argue that it is completely constitutional for a teacher to say "according to the standards of science, creationism is so completely unsupported and in fact refuted by the evidence, that the scientific community considers it nonsense." However making a statement like "I think creationism is nonsense" is unconstitutional because the teacher isn't talking about what science says, he's talking about what he, the representative of the state, believes.

Like I said though, I'll totally understand if people think I'm splitting hairs.

This reminds me of the haunted house case my wife was taught in property law and contracts.

I think the Creationists are shooting themselves in the foot.

We now have a clear precedent where a court recognized that someone's RELIGIOUS freedom was infringed by someone else's comments regarding CREATIONISM.

That's a clear tie-in -- should the issue of whether or not Creationism should be allowed in public school classrooms ever come up again, this case would just be another nail in the coffin for them.

eric said: So, apply the same reasoning to science teachers and creationism. Maybe we can argue that it is completely constitutional for a teacher to say "according to the standards of science, creationism is so completely unsupported and in fact refuted by the evidence, that the scientific community considers it nonsense."

Aaron said: I think the Creationists are shooting themselves in the foot. We now have a clear precedent where a court recognized that someone's RELIGIOUS freedom was infringed by someone else's comments regarding CREATIONISM. That's a clear tie-in -- should the issue of whether or not Creationism should be allowed in public school classrooms ever come up again, this case would just be another nail in the coffin for them.

I love telling people I told you so.

Several months ago, in response to another post by Tim on free speech in public high schools, I said that reducing teachers to mere conveyors of the curriculum was a dangerous doctrine. Many people responded with demonstrably false accusations that I was a pro-ID troll, and one person resorted to behavior that bordered on internet stalking (looking up personal information about me and posting it PT).

The point is that the teacher's statements should be defended as part of the teacher's First Amendment (in this case free speech) rights. Unless the speech is disruptive to the educational process, constitutes harassment, or is time/place/age inappropriate, we should err on the side of protecting speech-even in the K-12 classroom. As long as a teacher is not proselytizing or propagandizing, or consistently bringing in controversial material that is completely unrelated to the topic, the teacher should be free to express his views on the subject matter at hand.

Unfortunately, this standard is no longer the case in high schools. To some degree it is in Universities.

At least in Universities, there is no standard of "sensitivity"-though Lord knows many people have tried and are still trying to create and enforce this standard. Even speech that in another setting might be construed as creating a "hostile environment" on the basis of protected characteristics can be protected if the speech is on a matter related to the topic at hand.

This is a very dangerous precedent and I pray it never makes it to higher ed. Given Ed Brayton's apparent hostility to free speech rights and his desire to subordinate them to the establishment clause, this may give Ed some heartburn. Apparently Tim doesn't get the free speech in the classroom issue too well either.

The only limit on expressing views about religion should be those where an individual student is being singled out for ridicule or harassment.

The point is that the teacher’s statements should be defended as part of the teacher’s First Amendment (in this case free speech) rights.

It's an awkward case.

In fairness, the teacher did cross the line by telling the kid that the creation story, and possibly his entire religious faith, was "idiotic".

While, technically, this may be a true statement of fact, it's also a direct insult to a Christian kid and was out of place in a public classroom. Government shouldn't advocate religion, but neither should it actively call your religion stupid.

The teacher could have said any of a number of objective things instead, like how creationism is absolutely unsupported by any evidence at all, and in fact, all the evidence points in the other direction.

Sadly, I predict that the subtleties of this case will be instantly lost, and within a week we'll hear about creationists trying to extend this precedent to any teacher who utters any statement regarding the validity of creationism, no matter how vacuous.

I also predict even more school districts trying to distance themselves completely from any controversy by simply deciding not to mention evolution at all.

I find myself agreeing with the ruling, particularly in the context of his other statements disparaging religion.

Creationism is superstitious nonsense, but that's a judgment about religion. True or not, the government can't be endorsing theism, anti-theism, or atheism.

I'm sure he could have easily gotten away with saying that creationism is wholly unsupported by science, and even contrary to science.

I really don't get the "free speech" aspect when the government is paying the teacher to teach without endorsing or maligning religion. Is there a "free speech" defense to teaching the same children "intelligent design," provided the teacher is deluded enough to believe that ID is science?

A big problem, in my view, is that the teacher was calling the religion itself "superstition," which generally has connotations of somehow not being true. Strictly speaking, we can't even say that creationism is "not true," since there's always the Omphalos dodge, let alone can we imply that the religion is "not true". In most senses of "true," it is not, but "true" in religious claims is a good deal trickier. And anyway, the Constitution (at least as interpreted presently) forbids paying a teacher to say that the religion is "superstition". I would hope that if he had merely called it "nonsense" that he would have gotten away with it, because one could always presume that, in such a context, "nonsense" would be defined by the subject(s) being taught, in particular, science.

No, free speech is a right enjoyed by citizens. It does not apply to teachers being paid for teaching creationism/ID, to those in free associations (like science associations) which reject woo like astrology and ID, nor does it apply to teachers putting down a child's religion at taxpayers' expense. Stick with, indeed, the First Amendment, neither endorsing nor maligning religion.

Glen Davidson

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

It wasn't calling it "nonsense" that the court found wrong. The court found proper a different statement by Corbett about creationism: "It's not science. Scientifically, it's nonsense." The problem seems to have been calling it "religious, superstitious nonsense." The first statement clearly has a secular purpose of conveying that creationism isn't science; the second is framed in such a way as to denigrate a religious belief qua religion.

What an utter waste of tax payers money. It will be no surprise if this ruling is overturned during an appeal.

Ed Brayton clearly expressed the problem with this ruling when he wrote. "There is a difference between teaching things that conflict with religion, as any public school must do, and deliberately insulting the religious and claiming that all religion is a fraud believed in by fools."

Thus the reasoning for my comments.

The point is that in a classroom, students should be up to having their beliefs challenged and questioned. If all the teacher is doing is simply "speaking for the state", then in essence, the state is just writing the teacher's lesson plans and compelling speech. This is the direction that the courts have been trending (though they are not **quite** there yet), at least wrt K-12. This is a departure from earlier standards where the school district and the courts had to do a balancing act between the interest of free and open expression of ideas vs. the interest of age and context appropriate speech. In addition, school districts could punish speech that was indicative of gross incompetence. There were also some exceptions for K-12 with respect to speech that advocated communism or Nazism and many teachers have had to sign loyalty oaths-and still do in some states. But the basic doctrine was that with a few exceptions, K-12 was supposed to emulate the kind of free and open discussion of ideas one finds in a University, where historically courts have ruled against imposing or compelling orthodoxy. We are now pretty close to a standard in K-12 where the state can compel "orthodoxy" on the part of the teacher, and that seems to make a significant number of PT'ers happy.

Some of this seems to be motivated by an inappropriate corporate/right wing mentality (I mean right wing as in Ron Paul Libertarian-rather than social conservative right wing). Based on this doctrine, they see the state as having the right as employer to do whatever the hell it wants to do.

Others seem to be motivated by a desire to insure that Creationism/ID cannot be discussed in high schools.

I see it differently. First of all, I think there is a substantial public interest in having free and open discussion of ideas in K-12 (within age appropriate boundaries, reasonable curricular restrictions, and restrictions against proselytizing or harassment). After all, we are educating students not only with specific know how, but also the know how to participate in democratic debate in an ostensibly democratic society. The standard many on PT seem to wish for is to educate them to be good corporate clones-and thus to subordinate education to narrow technocratic instrumentalism while shoving standardized tests and state mandates down students' and teacher's throats. It's a very functional standard for a particular kind of corporate elitism.

The other interest IMO is the free speech rights of public employees and of public school students. The teacher shouldn't be seen as simply a mouthpiece for the state,chanelling a bulleted point list of politically correct mandates, but as someone who is being hired to help students grow in awareness and critical thinking. So IMO, a teacher does not only have the right, but even the responsibility to tell students that some things are in fact just ignorant nonsense. I wouldn't hesitate to tell my Cultural Anthropology students that Genesis and the Enuma Elish are both myths, and that neo-Darwinism is science. Nor would I hesitate to tell my students that the belief in a goddess cult of granola eating, peace loving, earth mothering pre-Indo-Europeans is a bunch of new age hooey. Fortunately for me, you people don't yet run Universities.

If all this means that some high school teacher is allowed to say that he doesn't agree with evolution, I can live with that-as long as evolution is properly and accurately taught.

Chip Said:, The point is that in a classroom, students should be up to having their beliefs challenged and questioned. If all the teacher is doing is simply “speaking for the state"

IANAL, but I think the problem with the K-12 venue is that the government compels children to be there. If the government can compel you to be somewhere, they can't then start making fun of your beliefs (especially religious beliefs), nor especially making fun of you because you believe them. Just as with someone compelled to be in a court room, you can't have This is unlike at a university, where attendance is voluntary. There, if you don't like what's being said, you can walk out; if you don't like your beliefs challenged, you don't have to be there. So, in the K-12 venue the government employee has to walk a fine line between saying what is true, without ridiculing any individual or group.

Chip, I think you are reading too much into this discussion. These sort of discussions can and do take place, particularly at the high school level, but in other classes. Pt'er focus on good science being taught in science class. If a teacher states or implies that YEC, or OEC, or ID is science, then that is unconstitutional. I agree with others that teachers stating a negative opinion about religion is as bad as promoting religion.

I think we are reaching a point where it really becomes important for a teacher to deeply understand the characteristic misconceptions ID/creationism brings to the pantheon of the pseudo-sciences. These are different from other pseudo-sciences because they have been constructed to achieve specific sectarian objectives, but they constitute a pseudo-science nevertheless. And as a clear pseudo-science, it can be used against itself. ID/creationists have lost control of this, and they are stuck with it.

I have often used pseudo-science concepts as a good foil for correcting misconceptions and for introducing a little humor into a class as well. I know others who do this also. It can be done without disparaging any religion, but the results can be just as effective and stinging against any misuse of science, no matter who is doing the misusing.

And just let a pseudo-science advocate attempt to file a lawsuit claiming the pseudo-science is being discriminated against. He (it will almost always be a he) will have to demonstrate that his pseudo-science is in fact a productive science cited by others and contributing to an expanding understanding of the natural universe. And to do that, he will have to publicly associate himself with it. He will also have to demonstrate that the teacher was using the institutions and powers of government to screw up his student’s education.

Let a pseudo-science advocate try to bring religion into it. If a teacher can learn to accomplish the task of debunking the misconceptions without even mentioning religion, there is no reason to fear. In the case of ID/creationism, the pseudo-concepts used to mimic real concepts are so wrong that they can be added to the list of common misconceptions that are dead-enders.

With a little time and some thought, I think I could have a lot of fun with these.

can i talk about the FSM and should a teacher in a class room speak of it as "superstitious non-sense" its grounds for a 1st amendment case?

would "super natural non sense" have been a-ok?

I think Mike Elzinga is on the right track here. What comes across to me is an underlying dispute as to what exactly constitutes a religion, for legal purposes. And in practice, the answer seems to be any set of beliefs held strongly enough by enough people to have some political recognition and perhaps leverage.

After all, in its history science has established a great deal as being probably the case, and far more as being probably NOT the case. Given that the scope of science is anything that can be observed and tested effectively, what's been established covers an impressively wide territory, which makes it bound to conflict with belief systems outside science.

Implicitly, then, science courses cannot avoid touching on matters that risk conflicting with someone's religious faith somewhere somehow. Even if that faith isn't directly rejected as nonsense, it can (as creationists demonstrate) still mock the, uh, less-informed religious convictions. To creationists, the teaching of evolutionary biology IS, DIRECTLY religious teaching, since it smacks their faith upside the head so immediately. They sincerely see evolution"ism" as a religious faith, and wrong.

If belief in voodoo were as extensive, and its faithful so zealous, as creationists, then poking pins in dolls would almost surely be regarded as attempted murder. Hell, if Justice Scalia were as devout a voodoo believer as he is a bible-banger, he'd probably die of such treatment out of sheer religious conviction!

The Lemon test appears to require that any words that have either a religious purpose or a religious effect either by favouring or by denying a particular religious view must not be uttered by a public-school teacher (or any public employee) in the course of professional duty. Only words of demonstrably secular purpose or effect are admissable.

In particular, it seems that it is acceptable to remark specifically that a six-day recent creation and a Noachian Flood are not attested by any physical evidence and that there is ample evidence of a different (and enormously longer) history. That is a secular statement of fact. However, it is not acceptable to remark generally that insistance on Biblical literality is irrational, or superstitious, or some such. That is a statement of religious doctrine. But the latter follows necessarily from the former.

Further, it would seem that any words that might suggest the latter are borderline, and would be subject, in all likelihood, to further litigation. All that would be required would be a reliable record and a Biblical-literalist parent (or some other interested party?) willing to sue over some form of words that might be taken to mean rejection of their own religious dogma, to non-secular effect or purpose.

All of which means that no teacher in his or her right mind will stick the neck out so far as to say anything that might be construed as a denial of Biblical literality. How can any teacher, in the throes of answering a question, having to think on the feet, ensure that any words they use will be free of what a Court might hold blameworthy? Such a teacher can be certain that if a successful suit ensues - or even merely a troublesome one - they'll suffer dire consequences.

Inevitably, they'll avoid the entire issue. Soft-pedal evolution, present it as a "theory", not teach the known history of the Earth as fact, tip-toe around the evidence. In other words, not educate for fear of the consequences. And the crazies win again. Worse, they win without having to lift a finger.

All of which means that no teacher in his or her right mind will stick the neck out so far as to say anything that might be construed as a denial of Biblical literality.

What if a teacher pointed out that Darwin thought wiping out "savages" was sad but necessary? E.g. in Australia. (Ironically, there's a Darwin University in Oz.)

Shouldn't he be sacked?

Will it be a non-story because the DI “doesn’t endorse the teaching of creationism’? or will they crow because their sympathies (I believe) would be with the plaintiff - or will they be outraged (not bloody likely) because of the censorship being imposed on this teacher’s ‘academic freedom’ IMHO the DI will side with the teacher who was denied a forum for creationism in the school newspaper - they will claim HE is the one being censored -

— jasonmitchell

novparl said: What if a teacher pointed out that Darwin thought wiping out "savages" was sad but necessary?

To begin with, the court concludes that it "cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in [the] statement," applying the Lemon test's "secular purpose" prong. But I would think the legitimate secular purpose is clear: The speaker is trying to get students to accept the theory of evolution, which he believes to be much more conducive to scientific thinking, and much more likely to produce useful results, than creationism. That's a perfectly secular purpose. To be sure, it's a purpose that is accomplished using the means of deriding religion. But that doesn't stop the purpose (promoting belief in a scientific theory that the speaker thinks is sound, useful, and conducive to scientific thinking) from being secular.

Chip Poirot said: The point is that in a classroom, students should be up to having their beliefs challenged and questioned.

If all the teacher is doing is simply "speaking for the state", then in essence, the state is just writing the teacher's lesson plans and compelling speech.

This is a departure from earlier standards where...with a few exceptions, K-12 was supposed to emulate the kind of free and open discussion of ideas one finds in a University

novparl said: What if a teacher pointed out that Darwin thought wiping out "savages" was sad but necessary? E.g. in Australia. (Ironically, there's a Darwin University in Oz.) Shouldn't he be sacked?

novparl said: What if a teacher pointed out that Darwin thought wiping out "savages" was sad but necessary? E.g. in Australia. (Ironically, there's a Darwin University in Oz.) Shouldn't he be sacked?

The "savages" were not in fact exterminated. The last Australian census in 2005 gave a population of 410 000 claiming to be Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. This is probably about the same as populated the continent when the first European settlers arrived.

This is not in any way to whitewash the hideous history, which is inexcusable and indefensible. The Tasmanian Aboriginal people - possibly a different genetic group altogether - were wiped out more or less completely, and only survive in a relatively small number of people who have some Tasmanian Aboriginal ancestors. There may have been as few as 5000 Tasmanian Aboriginals. Nobody knows.

We have said sorry. Fat lot of use that was. You have stumbled across the secret shame of my country.

eric said:

Chip Poirot said: The point is that in a classroom, students should be up to having their beliefs challenged and questioned.

That depends on the class. There is little reason to intentionally discuss religion in Chemistry class - you should be teaching chemistry.

I have rather mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think the court erred in condemning the teacher for referring to creationism as "superstitious nonsense", when, in fact, there is recent legal precedent which would support the teacher, though it is not binding on the State of California (I am referring of course to Judge John Jones's decision at the end of the Dover trial.). On the other hand, the court was well within its rights to condemn the teacher's anti-religious stance on First Amendment grounds.

John Kwok said: I have rather mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think the court erred in condemning the teacher for referring to creationism as "superstitious nonsense", when, in fact, there is recent legal precedent which would support the teacher, though it is not binding on the State of California (I am referring of course to Judge John Jones's decision at the end of the Dover trial.). On the other hand, the court was well within its rights to condemn the teacher's anti-religious stance on First Amendment grounds.

John Kwok said: I meant Second Amendment grounds, not First Amendment, and, in particular, would concur with their invoking the Establishment Clause, except with respect to the teacher's harsh, but accurate, assessment of creationism:

John Kwok said: I have rather mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think the court erred in condemning the teacher for referring to creationism as "superstitious nonsense", when, in fact, there is recent legal precedent which would support the teacher, though it is not binding on the State of California (I am referring of course to Judge John Jones's decision at the end of the Dover trial.). On the other hand, the court was well within its rights to condemn the teacher's anti-religious stance on First Amendment grounds.

John Kwok said: I meant Second Amendment grounds, not First Amendment,

tomh said:

John Kwok said: I meant Second Amendment grounds, not First Amendment,

Was the Militia involved?

I don't think appealing to the Dover decision would help defend the "superstitious nonsense" remark: Judge J.J. the Third only found that ID was Creationism and not science, he did not say it was all "superstitious nonsense." He even allowed that it might be open to further study, just not as science but as religious philosophy.

Of course, I think he was being a rather charitable than the situation called for, because ID really is superstitious nonsense.

Creationism is a word with a pretty specific meaning in our culture: It means a belief that the world is approximately 10,000 yo, that there was a literal flood, that Noah really had two of every “kind” in an arc, etc.

Wheels said: I don't think appealing to the Dover decision would help defend the "superstitious nonsense" remark: Judge J.J. the Third only found that ID was Creationism and not science, he did not say it was all "superstitious nonsense." He even allowed that it might be open to further study, just not as science but as religious philosophy.
Of course, I think he was being a rather charitable than the situation called for, because ID really is superstitious nonsense.

Teachers ARE representatives of the state while in the classroom, and their job IS to teach the established curriculum. Education is also a scientific discipline, an occupation, and an art. Most people seem to agree that this teacher crossed the line in terms of the constitution, but he probably also violated (at least) the spirit of some district rules, definitely violated education principles, and displayed bad form. A teacher can cut through religious nonsense in his/her classroom while obeying the rules. Good training is needed. But if Creationists launch a suing campaign, that can be difficult.

Chip Poirot said: What I said was that in the context of teaching the curriculum, the teacher has the right to engage in the relevant free expression of ideas, given an age appropriate context.

Some subjects/topics permit of more open discussion than others. But teachers are paid for their knowledge of the subject matter-not just to channel the state's opinion.

But there should never be a state imposed orthodoxy on the curriculum. And for the record, I do not now nor have I ever advocated teaching YEC, ID, "teach the controversy", or any of the pseudo-academic freedom bills sponsored by the DI.

The student should be encouraged (if he or she sees fit) to challenge the teacher's viewpoint and should not be downgraded for disagreeing. Nor should the student be singled out for ridicule.

Teachers should not have to parse words in the classroom.

Disco propangandized us for years by repeating the lie (they were well aware of the different varieties of creationism) that creationism = YEC. The objective was to make you think that IDC was not creationism, but of course it is precisely special creation.

— Pete Dunkelberg

Chip Poirot said: But teachers are paid for their knowledge of the subject matter-not just to channel the state's opinion.

A very US-centric note, but if anybody’s interested, this afternoon (Wednesday) on MSNBC’s “Hardball” Tom Tancredo (a republican bigwig and former presidential candidate) and Chris Mathews are arguing evolution versus intelligent design.

Mathews has been probing the Republican war on science for two days, since he opened up the can of worms with climate change denial on Monday.

Tancredo is spinning furiously for ID, slinging the usual bull-pookey about ID being a reasonable alternative supported by large groups of scientists.

Though unconvincing, Tancredo is, however, doing somewhat better than Mathew’s guest last night, some congressman who, when asked point-blank “do you believe in evolution” spun like a freakin’ turbine for 6 minutes to avoid directly answering the question.

Mathews, who once in a while gets fed up with evasive and vacuous answers, just kept asking the question. The congressman kept spinning, and spinning, and spinning. It were ugly. And hilarious.

If anybody wants to catch it, Hardball will be rebroadcast tonight at 7pm and midnight EDT, and, likely, about a zillion places online.

The point is that the teacher’s statements should be defended as part of the teacher’s First Amendment (in this case free speech) rights. Unless the speech is disruptive to the educational process, constitutes harassment, or is time/place/age inappropriate, we should err on the side of protecting speech-even in the K-12 classroom.

As long as a teacher is not proselytizing or propagandizing,

or consistently bringing in controversial material that is completely unrelated to the topic,

the teacher should be free to express his views on the subject matter at hand.

stevaroni said: Tancredo is spinning furiously for ID, slinging the usual bull-pookey about ID being a reasonable alternative supported by large groups of scientists.

It appears that the majority of the Republican Party is running in fear of the ID/creationist and right-wing fundamentalist agenda.

harold said: And that is what we do, you self-contradicting troll with a stealth ID agenda.

Teachers shouldn't be spending a lot of time on opinion at all: not their opinions, not their spouses' opinions, not "the state's opinions" -- whatever that means.

Creationism refers to special creation; species, or at least kinds, are separate creations and do not have common ancestors. Of course the Designer would have to design new DNA, not just new outward shapes. The initial tetrapod population could have been made from modified fish eggs in one fell swoop. Strong geology denial (YEC) is another layer on top of special creation. Old earth creationists used to have more influence among creationists and may regain greater influence in the future. Even now they have organizations such as Reasons to Believe. Disco propangandized us for years by repeating the lie (they were well aware of the different varieties of creationism) that creationism = YEC. The objective was to make you think that IDC was not creationism, but of course it is precisely special creation.

The crux of the problem here is the statement "No person could reasonably believe the state was disestablishing religion."

The State, I believe, disestablished all religions when the First Amendment to the Constitution was adopted. Disestablishment is not the question. Indeed, it is the disestablishment of any form of religion, and the formal prohibition of the State from taking a position on the exercise or non-exercise of any religion, that is the issue here. The question is, "Did the State, through the words of its agent, the teacher, take a position for or against a particular religion?"

At least one person thought so, and a court agreed with them. In one particular only, but nevertheless. Perhaps one could argue that this attitude is not reasonable, but in that case the argument would turn on the question of what is meant by the word "reasonable". Plainly, the court held (in one particular) that the State had indeed taken up a position on religion, which it is forbidden to do.

The problem is this: some positions, held to be religious principles, are directly contradicted by the necessary implications of empirical, demonstrable, observed fact. May a teacher say so?

And if the teacher may say so, may he or she proceed to the necessary implication: that such a position is false to fact, even if it be a religious doctrine?

It appears that the majority of the Republican Party is running in fear of the ID/creationist and right-wing fundamentalist agenda. As long as they continue to keep genuflecting to that “base”, they will never find their way out of the wilderness.

— Mike Elzinga

Yesterday voters in the Mt. Vernon City School District passed a renewal of an operating levy by a 61%-39% margin. Like the Dover, PA, school board elections in 2005, it appears that the ballot box clout of the fundamentalists is a whole lot less powerful than they’d like us to believe.

Chip Poirot said: The point is that in areas where discussion is called for, the teacher should be in a position to express his or views on the subject matter. And as I said, that comes with a responsibility to do so in a scholarly fashion.

eric said:

Chip Poirot said: The point is that in areas where discussion is called for, the teacher should be in a position to express his or views on the subject matter. And as I said, that comes with a responsibility to do so in a scholarly fashion.

Chip, Earlier you said "there should never be a state imposed orthodoxy on the curriculum." Is 'responsibility to do so in a scholarly fashion" an imposed orthodoxy? You also mentioned relevance earlier. Well, who decides what is relevant? The teacher and the teacher alone? The teacher's boss? The teacher's boss's boss? The community? We have legal suits going on here. Real decisions have to be made, right now. You can't punt on this one - you're going to have to bell the cat and decide who has the authority to dictate what goes on in the class room. In Chip's world, who is that?

And in Chip's ideal world, is it the case that "some teaching may be unprofessional, but anything the teacher decides to teach is legal" or is it "some teaching is illegal regardless of what the teacher thinks, because it is unprofessional."

Right now, we have the latter. Everyone here arguing against you is arguing for the latter.

You seem to be arguing for the former: for the position of "well, I'll admit some teaching may be a bad idea, but legally anything goes."

The real problem rest in the belief systems being elevated as correct in the public school system. Here is a case where the belief system "I believe there is no God" is once again showing signs of its not very contagious promotion (that it is an unpopular belief system does not make it ok to promote it in public schools.)

The body of scientific work demonstrating the infestation the the atheistic belief system is growing, both in and outside of biology. We will come to see the day when the courts rule against the promotion of elevating Darwin as having a theory of worth instead of telling the truth - that this is only done to promote the central doctrine of the atheist as though science supports it, when in fact, science has no such power at all.

The creationist do not fill our elementary biology text books - the Darwinist do. Their fall via scientific exposure to their real nature is upon us. As modern statistics clearly show, the atheist comprise the ONLY statistically significant group promoting no toleration for the freedom of religion, and in part they do this via Darwin and the militant neo-Darwinst preaching. It is WAY past time to exercise our rights reflected in the First Amendment, and expel that religious group from the text books of our children.

Chip Poirot said: So, for example, let's say that a high school teacher has to teach about Manifest Destiny in American History and the textbook whitewashes the destruction of Native Americans. The teacher should be protected in speech that criticizes this whitewashing. Or suppose in a European history course during class discussion about the policies of the Spanish Hapsburgs, the teacher draws parallels with modern American politics. That speech should be protected.

I have been pretty specific that the speech needs to be on topic and that it needs to be competent.

One of the problems IMO is the emphasis in education departments on teaching technique over mastery of the subject matter. If teachers had Master's degrees in history, sociology or biology, rather than Masters' degrees in "science ed" and "math ed" we would have a better all around academic atmosphere in K-12.

The real problem rest in the belief systems being elevated as correct in the public school system. Here is a case where the belief system “I believe there is no God”...

The creationist do not fill our elementary biology text books - the Darwinist do.

It's made Ken Ham's blog today:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/05/07/transformation/

No nasty comments so they (AiG) must be pretty Happy about the ruling.

The ACLU appears to have been caught on the hop on this one.

eric said: So I'm going to build on your example but try and keep it PT-relevant: as long as a biology teacher covers the subject of evolution, they are competent and what they say is age appropriate, any criticism they want to throw at evolution, no matter how crazy, is protected content?

I think you are going to run into the "No true Scotsman" argument problem. Unless you are willing to simply ad hoc define the ID position as incompetent, your criteria do not prevent it from entering the classroom. And frankly, even as a person opposed to teaching creationism, I find that sort of argument unappealing and unconvincing.

I have been pretty specific that the speech needs to be on topic and that it needs to be competent.

Yes, but as is often the case in these discussions, the real issue is who gets to decide what counts as on topic and competent. Teacher Corbett obviously thought that telling kids that creationism is 'religious, superstitious nonsense' is on topic and age appropriate. The School administration disagrees. Who gets to make that call?

If your answer is "the administration" (or any other, outside authority) then you, Chip, must live with the idea of imposing an orthodoxy. And you will have to live with the perfectly mundane problem that sometimes administrations make good choices, sometimes they make bad choices, but even when they make bad choices, they are still the ones that get to make the choice.

If your answer is "the teacher," you successfully avoid imposing orthodoxy, but then anything goes in the classroom - every teacher is a law unto himself. But you can't talk about relevancy, competency, etc... and dodge the question of how the system resolves conflicts when the teacher and the administration disagree on what counts as relevant.

One of the problems IMO is the emphasis in education departments on teaching technique over mastery of the subject matter. If teachers had Master's degrees in history, sociology or biology, rather than Masters' degrees in "science ed" and "math ed" we would have a better all around academic atmosphere in K-12.

If you think math teachers should have masters in math before they can teach math, then why do you support a history teacher teaching about what counts as good science even when he has no degree in science? Why do you support a teacher opining on religion in the classroom when he has no religion degree?

That is not my view and nothing I have ever said on PT-or anywhere else- supports this **False** accusation against me. If you disagree with me you should be able to do so without calling names. And if you must call names, call accurate names.

Chip Poirot -

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but there is a reason for that.

Neither I nor any other non-creationist here is advocating unreasonable restrictions on teachers' expression.

On one hand, you seem to be saying "I only oppose unreasonable restrictions on teachers' expression".

On the other hand, whenever you show up to argue, it's to defend an example of a teacher who seems to have clearly crossed the line.

Chip Poirot said: By your standard I have to tell my anthropology students that one is as justified to believe that Marduk made humans out of the blood of Tiamat as one is to believe that we are descended from Chimps,

And the teacher must say something like: according to the standards of science, it is an error to believe the earth is 10,000 yo-but the teacher cannot say it is religious superstitious nonsense to believe the earth is 10,000 yo.

How in the world is a teacher supposed to navigate through this mine field, encourage open class discussion, and then have to turn around and parse words lest the teacher be sued for saying something that offended someone's sense of entitlement?

What I see happening here is the religious right adopting the tendency of the PC left to oppose saying anything that might potentially be deemed offensive to some group of victims.

harold said: Chip Poirot - Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but there is a reason for that. Neither I nor any other non-creationist here is advocating unreasonable restrictions on teachers' expression. On one hand, you seem to be saying "I only oppose unreasonable restrictions on teachers' expression". On the other hand, whenever you show up to argue, it's to defend an example of a teacher who seems to have clearly crossed the line.

If you had two student papers in front of you, and one gave a reasoned description of the origin of religion in Babylonian civilization in politics, and the other paper had one sentence on it that read “religion is superstitious nonsense,” would you grade them the same? No - because they are different in content, in validity, in reasoning. What is true for a student’s argument is true for a teacher’s.

An untenured teacher was fired for saying during a classroom discussion on civics that she had honked in support of an anti-war protest (that might not have been why she was fired, but that was how the case was decided).

Well, that’s simple enough to fix. All the creationists have to do is to produce some evidence - any evidence - that creation exists.

— stevaroni

Chip Poirot said: Eric Said

If you had two student papers in front of you, and one gave a reasoned description of the origin of religion in Babylonian civilization in politics, and the other paper had one sentence on it that read “religion is superstitious nonsense,” would you grade them the same? No - because they are different in content, in validity, in reasoning. What is true for a student’s argument is true for a teacher’s.

If that was the only thing the student said I would fail it because it would almost certainly not answer the question.

By your standard, I would not be able to use works by Marvin Harris in a high school anthropology class-but I could use a post-modern writer because a post modern writer,in advocating epistemological relativism, would say something like "by the standards of modern science...but we shouldn't privilege modern science...".

But let's put this incident into another context. Suppose a teacher was teaching that space aliens built Macchu Picchu in a world history class or archaeology class. A colleague of his says I just can't stomach this: this guy is peddling new age hocus pocus instead of teaching world history. Suppose there is a student in the class who is a Raelian. Would you believe that this student's constitutional rights were violated because the teacher made fun of a belief that space aliens built Macchu Picchu?

I refuse to believe that this student's constitutional rights were violated or that we need to ban rhetoric and polemic from class.

Chip Poirot -

Just so that everybody can be reassured and absolutely clear where you're coming from, can you address these questions that I asked earlier? Actually, I added a ninth one.

The views alluded to in these questions are very common, especially in aggregate.

Although every single one of the views alluded to is legal to hold and can be expressed freely, people who hold each and every one of them often complain about the lack of "freedom of expression" or "academic freedom" in venues that are inappropriate.

1. Although you say you don’t support ID, do you believe that the diversity of life on earth is explained by the theory of evolution?

2. Do you accept the mainstream historical version of the Nazi holocaust?

3. What is your opinion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and court decisions that closely preceded it? Do you accept this development as valid and appropriate US law?

4. Do you believe that mainstream medicine deals as effectively with most conditions as holistic or other health systems? If not, do you believe that it is critical to warn people of this, wherever possible? Do you believe that some or all mainstream physicians are conspiring to hide knowledge that would lead to major health improvements?

5. Do you agree that human activity currently has a net warming impact on the global climate? If not, do you feel that any group of people are advancing this view for conspiratorial reasons?

6. Do you feel that taxation systems in the US represent theft or some other type of human rights violation? Do you feel that it is important to express this view, wherever possible?

7. Do you believe that extraterrestrial aliens are contacting individual humans, whether through abductions or in some other way? Do you feel that it is important to get this message out?

8. Do you believe that the Christian God or some other deity may punish the entire population of the US, or parts of the US for some sort of sinful behavior by a subset of individuals, possibly by using natural disasters to inflict suffering?

9. Do you agree that HIV is the cause of AIDS? If not, do you think some experts are engaged in a conspiracy to advance the idea that it is?

harold said: Chip Poirot - Just so that everybody can be reassured and absolutely clear where you're coming from, can you address these questions that I asked earlier? Actually, I added a ninth one. The views alluded to in these questions are very common, especially in aggregate. Although every single one of the views alluded to is legal to hold and can be expressed freely, people who hold each and every one of them often complain about the lack of "freedom of expression" or "academic freedom" in venues that are inappropriate.

1. Although you say you don’t support ID, do you believe that the diversity of life on earth is explained by the theory of evolution?

2. Do you accept the mainstream historical version of the Nazi holocaust?

3. What is your opinion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and court decisions that closely preceded it? Do you accept this development as valid and appropriate US law?

4. Do you believe that mainstream medicine deals as effectively with most conditions as holistic or other health systems?

If not, do you believe that it is critical to warn people of this, wherever possible? Do you believe that some or all mainstream physicians are conspiring to hide knowledge that would lead to major health improvements?

5. Do you agree that human activity currently has a net warming impact on the global climate? If not, do you feel that any group of people are advancing this view for conspiratorial reasons?

6. Do you feel that taxation systems in the US represent theft or some other type of human rights violation? Do you feel that it is important to express this view, wherever possible?

7. Do you believe that extraterrestrial aliens are contacting individual humans, whether through abductions or in some other way? Do you feel that it is important to get this message out?

8. Do you believe that the Christian God or some other deity may punish the entire population of the US, or parts of the US for some sort of sinful behavior by a subset of individuals, possibly by using natural disasters to inflict suffering?

9. Do you agree that HIV is the cause of AIDS? If not, do you think some experts are engaged in a conspiracy to advance the idea that it is?

If I'm teaching a class on Ancient Greece do I have to show the proper piety towards the Greek Gods?

Chip Poirot said: If I'm teaching a class on Ancient Greece do I have to show the proper piety towards the Greek Gods?

Chip Poirot said: If I'm teaching a class on Ancient Greece do I have to show the proper piety towards the Greek Gods?

Now that I've answered Harold's questions (every single one of which in my mind was irrelevant to the question at hand) let me take it one more time from the top. I'll add some new information as we go along.

First,this isn't a decisive ruling per se: it's a denial of summary judgement on only one count, among multiple allegations. So a good deal of the student's suit was tossed. Apparently the American Federation of Teachers are in on my "stealth creationism", as the AFT joined this case as co-defendants with the District and the Teacher in asking for summary judgement. Furthermore, it appears that neither Tim nor Ed Brayton nor Volokh have given us the whole story. For example, neither Ed nor Tim provide us with the opposition brief or the amicus briefs.

Second, Tim and Ed don't even give us the whole background on the Court's opinion (as it turns out the Court's opinion is not as bad as I thought, though I still think the reasonig is spurious). All the alleged statements happened during an AP history course in the context of class discussion of the curriculum. The Court acknowledged that Corbett's use of current events to illustrate points in a history class is in fact a legitimate instructional method, and therefore not in and of itself problematic. The Court also acknowledged that discussion of these events would of necessity provoke controversy and lead to some people being upset as they work through controversial issues.

Third, neither Ed nor Tim explain the background of the case. The student in this case filed a complaint with the disstrict at or about the same time as the student and his parents filed suit. So the student never made any attempt to use the school's internal complaint mechanism (which explains why the student did not file this as a religious harassment claim under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act). In addition, the student taped the teacher's lectures (it does not say if they were taped with permission or not. In Ohio, taping a teacher's lectures without the teacher's knowledge or permission is illegal-it's illegal to tape anyone without their knowledge or permission in Ohio save of coure for law enforcement with a court order).

Fourth, the student alleges that Corbett did not teach the curriculum, but instead used his classroom as a platform to spread his religious and political views (the Court fortunately rejected this). It is interesting that the student did not use evidence about students' scores on the AP placement exams or official evaluations. If Corbett was really not teaching the curriculum, this would show up on Corbett's evaluations and/or on student test placement scores. There is no evidence Corbett was ever reprimanded by the District for poor teaching performance, but instead was given the sole responsibility for teaching AP. So clearly, the District had some degree of confidence in Corbett.

Finally, let's get to the money quote: we have now established that Corbett was in fact teaching the curriculum and using a valid instructional method. Corbett was asked-presumably by a student- why he would not give another teacher equal time to defend his views in the school paper. At that point, Corbett responded with a lengthy statement about what was wrong with Creationism. Corbett did not criticize belief in a creator per se-he criticized Creationism, specifically with reference to its being taught in a Science Class. So apparently, in this district, the teachers can teach Creationism and are free to propagate their religious views instead of teaching science, but teachers are not free to criticize that view. It is clear that this student and his family are motivated by a sense of entitlement-they want to impose their views on the curriculum and yet never hear a discouraging word.

The Court ruled that this one statement, and one statement only impermissably demonstrated hostility to religion while serving no secular purpose. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court applied a reasonable person test: would a third party observer the age of the student, believe the statement violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

I find the Court's ruling to be specious: Corbett is on the curriculum, he is using a valid teaching method, he is engaging his students in open discussion and is comparing religious and scientific viewpoints. He did not criticize belief in a creator per se. I think a reasonable 17-18 year old, in an AP class, who is college bound, is able to tell the difference between a criticism of teaching Creationism as Science vs. a criticism of religion per se. The Constitution does not require school Districts or teachers to adopt an air of epistemological relativism in their classes.

I do see one saving grace: The Court seems to be leaving the door open for the ability of college professors to have more freedom than high school professors and the Court is affirming that free and open discussion of current events in high schools-including the teacher's opinions-are protected speech.

So, to sum up: Tim, Ed and Volokh have given us a half truth about this case and neglected to even post the other side. Ed has absolutely no experience in higher ed, and seems to be hostile to the very concept of teachers doing anything other than channeling state approved speech. Ed and Tim are clearly too lazy (or just innately opposed) to look up and consider the arguments of the AFT in this case.

Ed and Tim also ignore the very frightening implications of this standard if it is applied in college classrooms and makes its way into hostile environment standards.

My prediction, those nasty stealth Creationist organizations like the AFT, the OEA and the AAUP will file amicus briefs against this ruling.

Now that I’ve answered Harold’s questions

(every single one of which in my mind was irrelevant to the question at hand)

You seem obsessed with documenting whether or not people have “mainstream” views and you seem to need a high degree of reassurance.

On the other hand, you don’t seem concerned with trying to determine whether or not mainstream views are held with strong warrant. You seem to simply “Trust” scientists per se, and then your own pop version, surface, view of “conventional” science.

Chip Poirot -

But maybe I am wrong.

Dealing with creationists and other types of science-denying, politically motivated types has made me very skeptical.

Maybe you're just an honest left-leaning guy.

I still DON'T agree with you on the subject of expression by high school teachers, and I'm about as liberal, "civil rights extremist", concerned about abuses of power, etc, as almost anyone.

I still think that your ego won't allow you to back down from a position you took before thinking carefully enough.

I'm still not 100% satisfied with those answers.

Most of the complaints about "freedom of expression" one hears come from crackpots with an axe to grind, usually crackpots on the right.

But still, maybe you are the rare exception.

I'm not 100% sure, but maybe it's possible.

You seem to simply “Trust” scientists per se...

I see there was a typical knee jerk reaction to my post. It reads

“Bullshit.
Once again, a creationist is painting science with the brush of religion because that’s the only strategy he has left.”

Is that right, am I a creationist? What did you do, use the Darwin crystal ball to arrive at “anyone against me is a creationist” - LMAO! What church do I go to? Am I a fundamentalist preacher? Come on, one like you surely knows these things! What a bunch of typical and predictable bigoted drivel.

If one turns to the science of sociology and looks at religions it is not long until we find that atheism is nothing more than another belief system, one which is colored by this belief: “I believe there is no God”. It is a belief of which science in no way shape of form can demonstrate. Science can not show there is no God, it simply is not that powerful – which is exactly why we are justified in calling it a belief system.

To not see, in this case, a man who is bashing belief systems other than his own belief system is to be blind – it is in fact the central piece of the case prior to the legal gymnastics.

There is also a connection to Darwin in this case, that being in fact why its on this web site to start with. Darwin put forward a doctrine for atheist, for his work points directly to the conception that science shows there is no God. Of course atheist love it because they then can feel justified standing on the podium spewing out their hate to any and all God believer by acting as though it is a scientifically demonstrated fact there is no God. There is only one rather glaring problem – science has no such power at all.

It is past time we get the religion of these hate spewing distortionist out of our elementary biology text books – we have the fundamental right to be free of such an intrusion in our public school system.

I claimed, correctly, that Darwinst fill our elementary biology text books, not the creationist. The response to this was that it would be easy to fix, just demonstrate creation exist!!!! The idea is to get the religion OUT of the science book, not the other way around!! The correct response is to boot the the atheist out, not leave it alone and disqualify the other guy on the grounds that science can not do for the other guy that which it can not do for the atheist!! So you don't miss the point – where is your objective scientific demonstration there is no God? You don't have it, period – so take your trashy belief system and get it out of our science text books and out of our classrooms!!! Of course I don't expect the atheist to do that for I don't think they are up to such honesty. However, their time is near - scientist are increasingly calling their bullshit, and the more they do the closer we come to a case where printing their drivel and distortion in textbooks will be the central focus on a case against them.

This is a very strange case. It would be an understandable case if the administration disciplined the teacher either because it thought: (1) he had acted like a jerk or (2) his comments might be construed as an establishment Clause violation. In that case, the teacher might bring a lawsuit and claim, unsuccessfully, that he had a First Amendment right to be a jerk or that the propriety of the discipline depended on whether the administration was right on the Establishment Clause issue. Here, a student is suing, having been offended by the words. It is difficult to imagine what possible relief might be available. I am quite sure that no reasonably sane judge would award damages. And given the twists and turns in the court's analysis (I actually found the statements the court OK'd more problematic than the one it held was illegal), no one could possibly draft a suitable injunction. This is a Seinfeldian case about nothing.

Troy wrote:

"I claimed, correctly, that Darwinst fill our elementary biology text books, not the creationist."

Yes you did. In fact , you claimed it repeatedly. What you have not done is provide any evidence whatsoever for the claim. Until you do, you will rightly be ignored, or perhaps unjustly labeled a creationist. That's what happens around here when you spout creationist nonsense, use loaded creationist terminology (and improper grammar) and don't back up your claims.

Exactly what do you mean by "Darwinist"? Exactly why do you think that it is not appropriate for a science text? Exactly how would you like science to be taught?

Here is simple question for you Troy. If I claim that I can make a tire without using any rubber, does that statement have any bearing whatsoever on the existence of rubber?

Mr Poirot - (is that really your name?)

you're wasting your time. These bigots are dyed in the wool. They cannot deal with anyone who's not a creationist. There's no room for any fair play in Darwin's Utopia, it's survival of the fittest.

Troy yammers on.... If one turns to the science of sociology and looks at religions it is not long until we find that atheism is nothing more than another belief system, one which is colored by this belief: “I believe there is no God”. It is a belief of which science in no way shape of form can demonstrate. Science can not show there is no God, it simply is not that powerful – which is exactly why we are justified in calling it a belief system.

I wonder if Troy objects to the profusion of atheist plumbing instruction, which promote atheism by not including the idea that plumbing depends on God to work. And all this, required to get certified as a plumber! Diabolical...

Right. Accepting the fact of evolution makes one an atheist. That's real new, Troy, we've never heard that one before.
Better tell the pope. Oh, and all those signatories to the clergy letter. Or are you another FL, and insist that evolution and Christianity are incompatible?

But you're not really here to answer questions, or even be coherent, you're just here to rant, aren't you.

Thought so.

Meteorology: no mention of God's work in controlling the weather. Atheist agenda!

Auto repair: no mention of flat tires or broken fan belts being God's punishment for misbehaviour. Atheist agenda!

The list goes on and on. It's a conspiracy, I tells ya!

Chip Poirot said: The Court ruled that this one statement, and one statement only impermissably demonstrated hostility to religion while serving no secular purpose...I find the Court's ruling to be specious..."

I do see one saving grace: The Court seems to be leaving the door open for the ability of college professors to have more freedom than high school professors ...Ed and Tim also ignore the very frightening implications of this standard if it is applied in college classrooms and makes its way into hostile environment standards.

Troy said: Come on, one like you surely knows these things!

Still waiting Troy.

By the way, I happen to have one of the most widely used biology textbooks in front of me. It does not contain the words "atheist" or "atheism" anywhere. It also does not say one word about the earth resting on the backs of turtles. Is this book biased against the turtle hypothesis as well?

I agree with stervaroni, crying isn't part of science. You can cry all you want to but you don't get any points for it.

Still waiting Troy.

Come on, one like you surely knows these things!

Still waiting.

Oh well, not anymore.

So, Troy, can you produce an atheism-promoting, God-hate inducing passage from one of these alleged atheism-promoting, God-hate inducing biology classrooms you're ranting incoherently about?

Also, if you don't want us to dismiss you as being another frothing creationist, I strongly advise you against repeating the Lies For Jesus creationist always use: Darwin never was an atheist, he became an Agnostic because his own faith was challenged not by his research or observations, his own faith was challenged partly by the idea that all people who were not card-carrying Christians would burn in Hell forever, including his father, and mostly from watching his youngest daughter die from illness.

It says a lot about yourself if you're the sort of person who has to lie about and demonize the contributions of a man who lost his faith due to horrifying personal tragedy.

eric said:

Chip Poirot said: If I'm teaching a class on Ancient Greece do I have to show the proper piety towards the Greek Gods?

By 'proper piety' do you mean 'never say anything that may be construed as negative of ancient Greek religion' or do you mean 'stick to the subject of ancient Greek history without personal editorials about what I, the teacher, think about people who believe in the Greek Gods?' Because frankly Chip I think you keep conflating the two and accusing me of supporting the former when I don't. I think if you are a H.S. teacher you need to do the latter. But not the former - that's ridiculous. I think if you are a university professor you don't have to do either.

And I think the reason the rules are different is because we compel H.S. attendence under an implicit promise to both the parents and the students that the state will require their attendence only for necessary subjects, and not compel their attendence at some teacher's personal diatribe on religion. Because no one is compelled to go to university, this restriction doesn't apply to university professors and they have a lot more freedom to give personal diatribes.

harold said:

Chip Poirot - Now that I’ve answered Harold’s questions

Actually you gave weasely non-answers to numbers 4 and 5.

You've expended a great deal of verbiage on what amounts to exaggerated demands for excessive freedom from supervision (for verbal behavior) for high school teachers.

One possibility is that you really are motivated by the unfair punishment of that poor young teacher who was fired for mentioning that she honked against the war.

But that's odd, because it's an awfully lot of energy expended on your part in this irrelevant forum. And I also disagree with what happened to her, without adopting some exaggerated standard of teachers' freedom to to rap about Jesus (one way or the other) during Chemistry class. So to me it doesn't fully explain what you're going on about.

Another possibility is that you have some sort of ideological bone to pick, one that you are loathe to outright concede, but which you intensely wish could be lectured to impressionable, captive audiences of high school students in class.

I'm not saying this to impugn you personally; it's just my observation of many years that people who go on and on about "freedom of expression" or "academic freedom" are sometimes motivated by a desire to express something that they don't come right out and say.

Yes, isn't it funny how angry these "free-thinkers" get? You're doing well to show only slight exasperation.

It must be terrible being one of their students if one said "But, your Darwin-lordship, the brain is awful complex..."
Blood-curdling bellows....

novparl Nonpareil trolled: Yes, isn't it funny how angry these "free-thinkers" get? You're doing well to show only slight exasperation. It must be terrible being one of their students if one said "But, your Darwin-lordship, the brain is awful complex..." Blood-curdling bellows....

Thanks for the abuse! The fact that a few brains may - may - have fossilized does not prove that the brain is as simple as you and Darwin believe. You have to cite evidence that the brain does not have 100 trillion connections. Or that there are only a few neurons. And that the blood doesn't make 2 million red cells every minute.

Wow – lots more hate! I see your bashing the crap out of other posters too thereby making yourself look all the more like a bigot of blind convictions – not that there is even any shortage of such people on biology boards. What I like to ask is why is that? Is it that biologist are egotistical self centered pricks that vomit hate to Christian upon anyone and everyone who does not agree with them? I don't think so. In fact, there are a number of biologist who think these self centered egotistical blind jerks bastards are nothing but a religious sect that has infected biology, and continue to do so via their radical, and incorrect, elevation of Darwin. Interestingly, sociological studies point to the same thing.

Aside from the obvious infestation of jerks here, the comments pertaining to the case at hand from Chip are very interesting and seem to me to be well thought out – a refreshing change from what I have seen here thus far in my visit. I personal suspect that atheism is going to be on the bench before long, with the eyeball of justice focused directly and sharply upon that religious conviction.

We have seen fights against Darwinist biology in the form of efforts to include creationism or intelligent design to be included inside general biology text books. Far more fequent we have seen the cases of atheist against anything and everything Christian. However, we now are seeing a rise within biology, from top biologist, claiming that neo-Darwinism (which very much is represented in general biology text books) is nothing more than a religious sect. At the same time we see the rise in the sociology Christianity uncovering what amounts a phenomenal amount of distortion in education via the religion of the atheist, all to often promoted by ivy league universities - take as an example Andrew Dickson White's book which is the most influential book ever written about the war between theology and science – many of the claims in the book are still taught in schools even though we know them to be fabricated lies. Along side of this scientist in the proper fields also define atheism as a religious belief, and doing so for very good reason and in very exacting ways. As this trend goes on, increasing amounts of information point to direct active distortion in education via the atheist.

As such information mounts, the weapons against the atheist influence in our public schools also mount, and these weapons can be used against them by people who have nothing to do with promoting creationism or anything of the like – but instead by people who side with the spirit of the First Amendment – people who want the government to be free from promoting one religion over others, free from suppressing others for the sake of one.

Troy said: Aside from the obvious infestation of jerks here, the comments pertaining to the case at hand from Chip are very interesting and seem to me to be well thought out – a refreshing change from what I have seen here thus far in my visit.

Troy sez.... Wow – lots more hate! I see your bashing the crap out of other posters too...

Troy said: Wow – lots more hate! I see your bashing the crap out of other posters too thereby making yourself look all the more like a bigot of blind convictions – not that there is even any shortage of such people on biology boards. What I like to ask is why is that? Is it that biologist are egotistical self centered pricks that vomit hate to Christian upon anyone and everyone who does not agree with them? I don't think so. In fact, there are a number of biologist who think these self centered egotistical blind jerks bastards are nothing but a religious sect that has infected biology, and continue to do so via their radical, and incorrect, elevation of Darwin. Interestingly, sociological studies point to the same thing. Aside from the obvious infestation of jerks here, the comments pertaining to the case at hand from Chip are very interesting and seem to me to be well thought out – a refreshing change from what I have seen here thus far in my visit. I personal suspect that atheism is going to be on the bench before long, with the eyeball of justice focused directly and sharply upon that religious conviction. We have seen fights against Darwinist biology in the form of efforts to include creationism or intelligent design to be included inside general biology text books. Far more fequent we have seen the cases of atheist against anything and everything Christian. However, we now are seeing a rise within biology, from top biologist, claiming that neo-Darwinism (which very much is represented in general biology text books) is nothing more than a religious sect. At the same time we see the rise in the sociology Christianity uncovering what amounts a phenomenal amount of distortion in education via the religion of the atheist, all to often promoted by ivy league universities - take as an example Andrew Dickson White's book which is the most influential book ever written about the war between theology and science – many of the claims in the book are still taught in schools even though we know them to be fabricated lies. Along side of this scientist in the proper fields also define atheism as a religious belief, and doing so for very good reason and in very exacting ways. As this trend goes on, increasing amounts of information point to direct active distortion in education via the atheist. As such information mounts, the weapons against the atheist influence in our public schools also mount, and these weapons can be used against them by people who have nothing to do with promoting creationism or anything of the like – but instead by people who side with the spirit of the First Amendment – people who want the government to be free from promoting one religion over others, free from suppressing others for the sake of one.

Chip Poirot said: So what the Court actually said was that the teacher could not express an opinion on "Creationism" when it is being taught as science.

This was not a religious diatribe-which would be inappropriate even in a college classroom. This was a response to a question: why don't you allow X to publish views on Creationism in the school paper? Answer: it is superstititious religious nonsense.

Corbett was asked-presumably by a student- why he would not give another teacher equal time to defend his views in the school paper. At that point, Corbett responded with a lengthy statement about what was wrong with Creationism.

"Personally, I’m troubled by the ruling for reasons that First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh explains here."

"To begin with, the court concludes that it "cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in [the] statement," applying the Lemon test's "secular purpose" prong. But I would think the legitimate secular purpose is clear: The speaker is trying to get students to accept the theory of evolution, which he believes to be much more conducive to scientific thinking, and much more likely to produce useful results, than creationism. That's a perfectly secular purpose. To be sure, it's a purpose that is accomplished using the means of deriding religion. But that doesn't stop the purpose (promoting belief in a scientific theory that the speaker thinks is sound, useful, and conducive to scientific thinking) from being secular."

"And of course it's probably practically wiser to avoid calling a very common religious belief system nonsense, in order to maintaining a good working relationship with the students. On the other hand, tip-toeing around labeling as nonsense that which nearly all educated people agree is nonsense might actually interfere with a good working relationship with the students, for the reasons I mentioned above. But it's hard for me to see how these distinctions can be translated from pragmatic guidelines into constitutional rules. I say it again: The court may have been quite right as a matter of existing doctrine, and if we are going to say that public institutions can't advocate in favor of creationism, it makes sense for the doctrine -- which has been defended by claims of symmetry, such as that the government may neither endorse nor disapprove of religion, may neither advance nor inhibit religion, and may neither show favoritism nor hostility -- to also bar statements that creationism is superstitious nonsense. But the result is either that (1) teachers can't condemn voodoo, astrology, young-Earthism, and so on as the bunk that they are, (2) courts have to draw lines between which religious beliefs may be disapproved of and which may not be, or (3) teachers are even more at see about what they are constitutionally barred from saying than we've seen from past endorsement cases."

Chip Poirot said:

Dan said: Teachers shouldn't be spending a lot of time on opinion at all: not their opinions, not their spouses' opinions, not "the state's opinions" -- whatever that means.

Where did I say they should "spend a lot of time" on opinion? Firstly, the word "opinion" like a lot of words in the English language (or any other natural language) has multiple and shifting meanings. But you could easily infer the meaning from the context. I'm using opinion as in the sense of "conclusion" or "judgement". Let's say for example, a teacher is teaching about the Vietnam War and the teacher says "In my opinion, the Vietnam War was brutal and stupid." By your standard, unless that is in the curriculum, the teacher should be sanctioned for expressing that view.

Dan said: I never used the word "standard". I never used the word "sanction". I never used the phrase "expressing a view".

Chip Poirot said: Does that student reach the conclusion that the State has just endorsed atheism? I don't think that's reasonable.

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.

eric said: Neither do I, however, that is not necessary for a 1st amendment violation as I understand it (again, IANAL...). What is necessary is if a reasonable observer would reach the conclusion that the State is hostile to creationism. Saying that creationism is susperstitious nonsense pretty much fits that bill.

eric said: P.S. I have read the opinion. I agree with the court on his specific point:

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.

Chip stated: “You seem to have missed my point: Creationism is superstitious religious nonsense and I think one has a right to say so in public schools.”

No, I get your point. I also continue to think “the comments pertaining to the case at hand from Chip are very interesting and seem to me to be well thought out”. Its simply my view. Please keep in mind, when I read how Spencer blamed the genocides of the Irish on natural selection I am amazed at the brilliants of the connection – very impressed by it.

“What you say about biology and “Darwinism” is simply untrue.”

No it is not. Social Darwinsm is called that for a reason, and it is hinged to Darwin's theory for a reason. Herbert Spencer, so far as I know, first equated natural selection with the causation of genocide, years prior to Darwin's theory being published. Darwin himself sides with the same thing in the Descent of Man. Like Gould points out, an explosion in justifying intolerance and hate as though it is an act of nature, and thereby scientifically justified, took place after Darwin's publication. Nazi's used it for such ends as did certain American industrialist to name but two examples.

Today there is no shortage of elementary text books which elevate the hell out of Darwin's work with no mention of this completely genitive side and far less of why and how that negative side is so completely married to the theory. Then they go on to equate it with the term “evolution”, only later to make all sorts of hints as to how “evolution” is such an overwhelming fact of nature.

If one where to find such a connection in a biology text book such as that, only which pushed ID or other forms of creationism, this site would have a nice splash all about it, cutting it down, exposing it for what it is. One might even find old Chip out claiming that it is perfectly OK to call it a bunch of bullshit right in school – and you know what, I would agree. Where we differ is not there, but in the fact that I apply the matter rather wide, covering as it is, the right for biology teachers to teach exactly what a crock of bullshit Darwin's theory really is and EXACTLY the works relation to hate by its elevation – all of which can be done simply by covering 'the facts”, no “belief system” needed!

Troy said: Chip stated: “You seem to have missed my point: Creationism is superstitious religious nonsense and I think one has a right to say so in public schools.” No, I get your point. I also continue to think “the comments pertaining to the case at hand from Chip are very interesting and seem to me to be well thought out”. Its simply my view. Please keep in mind, when I read how Spencer blamed the genocides of the Irish on natural selection I am amazed at the brilliants of the connection – very impressed by it. “What you say about biology and “Darwinism” is simply untrue.” No it is not. Social Darwinsm is called that for a reason, and it is hinged to Darwin's theory for a reason. Herbert Spencer, so far as I know, first equated natural selection with the causation of genocide, years prior to Darwin's theory being published. Darwin himself sides with the same thing in the Descent of Man. Like Gould points out, an explosion in justifying intolerance and hate as though it is an act of nature, and thereby scientifically justified, took place after Darwin's publication. Nazi's used it for such ends as did certain American industrialist to name but two examples. Today there is no shortage of elementary text books which elevate the hell out of Darwin's work with no mention of this completely genitive side and far less of why and how that negative side is so completely married to the theory. Then they go on to equate it with the term “evolution”, only later to make all sorts of hints as to how “evolution” is such an overwhelming fact of nature. If one where to find such a connection in a biology text book such as that, only which pushed ID or other forms of creationism, this site would have a nice splash all about it, cutting it down, exposing it for what it is. One might even find old Chip out claiming that it is perfectly OK to call it a bunch of bullshit right in school – and you know what, I would agree. Where we differ is not there, but in the fact that I apply the matter rather wide, covering as it is, the right for biology teachers to teach exactly what a crock of bullshit Darwin's theory really is and EXACTLY the works relation to hate by its elevation – all of which can be done simply by covering 'the facts”, no “belief system” needed!

Chip Poirot said: I think your understanding is wrong for at least three reasons. 1. The "hostile environment" standard applies to complaints of harassment based on protected characteristics

2. Any reasonable observer would already conclude that the State is hostile to Creationism (see the discussion by Barbara Forrest in today's post on the legal meaning of Creationism). The Courts have ruled over and over again that Creationism is not Science, that it is religion, that it may not be taught in public schools, and that it does not deserve equal time.

A statement by a government official does not violate the Establishment Clause merely because a particular religious group may find the official’s position incorrect or offensive. [C.F. vs. Capistrano, p7]

3. I disagree that every single word a teacher says in a classroom should be seen as something the State endorses per se. This is especially true in a history class where often multiple scholarly interpretations of events will be discussed. If a teacher presents these multiple viewpoints and expresses the opinion that one is better than the other, I don't think a reasonable person is going to conclude that the State is endorsing that particular point.

The secular purpose is to criticize Creationism and to support scientific thinking.

Troy said: Where we differ is not there, but in the fact that I apply the matter rather wide, covering as it is, the right for biology teachers to teach exactly what a crock of bullshit Darwin's theory really is and EXACTLY the works relation to hate by its elevation – all of which can be done simply by covering 'the facts”, no “belief system” needed!

Chip Poirot said: It was **THE REVEREND** Thomas Robert Malthus who suggested it was more humane to allow the poor to die of starvation than to actually alleviate poverty.

Oh, man, I can just see it now:

"See? Darwin wanted to destroy civilization!"

eric said: I didn't say hostile environment. I said hostile to creationism. As in, "improper disapproval." You're imputing a completely different and irrelevant legal argument to what I said.

You are arguing the creationist stance now, that any statement to the effect of 'x is not science' is hostility. This is not what I have argued and it is certainly not what the courts have said. In fact the court in THIS CASE rejected your argument outright. See pages 7 & 8, there's a big discussion of it there. The point is:

A statement by a government official does not violate the Establishment Clause merely because a particular religious group may find the official’s position incorrect or offensive. [C.F. vs. Capistrano, p7]

Here, I'll illustrate the difference. Statement 1: Buddhism is not science, its religion. Statement 2: Buddhism is a load of idiotic crapola. I think there's a difference between those two, and "hostility" is as good a word as any to describe the difference. I think the courts would say there's a difference. Are you saying there isn't one?

3. I disagree that every single word a teacher says in a classroom should be seen as something the State endorses per se. This is especially true in a history class where often multiple scholarly interpretations of events will be discussed. If a teacher presents these multiple viewpoints and expresses the opinion that one is better than the other, I don't think a reasonable person is going to conclude that the State is endorsing that particular point.

You are disagreeing with Kitzmiller vs. Dover then, which found that even a 30-second preamble counted as teaching.

Keep in mind that if Corbett is allowed to call creationism "superstitious nonsense," that allows Christian fundamentalist teachers to comment that Judaism or Islam or atheism is "superstitious nonsense." Maybe you see that as a preferrable outcome. I don't.

The secular purpose is to criticize Creationism and to support scientific thinking.

As long as creationism is considered religion, a H.S. teacher must be careful in how he criticizes it. He must find ways to be critical without being hostile. You can claim that this leads to tortured legal rulings, you can claim that "parsing" is horrible and we should toss great chunks of legal precedent because we can't expect teachers to parse what they say, but I think you are going a very long long way off the rails to defend the statement "religious superstitious nonsense" as a form of legitimate scholarly criticism.

We may have to disagree here. I think it was just a bad thing to say in a school setting, I think he goofed, and I think the judge obviously did take context into account when weight the value of the statement...and still found it lacking.

Stanton said: The people who always take the time to dehumanize Darwin cleverly forget the fact that Darwin wrote about how, if people were to (mis/ab)use "natural selection" in society, i.e., letting the poor starve to death, rather than spend money to build poorhouses, or letting the ill and infirm die, rather than provide medical care, in other words, to supress human compassion for whatever excuse, would utterly destroy human civilization.

Creationist theory is not acceptable as science because because it has not withstood rigorous testing and is contradicted by an enormous amount of evidence...there are still people who believe the earth is flat. p. 42

But Prayers are not always rendered in a mood of supplication and magic is still prominent in a wide range of modern day pursuits. Thus the line between prayers and magical spells is actually hard to to draw.p. 266

Cultural Relativism stipulates that behavior in a particular culture should not be judged by the standards of another. Yet it is evident that not all human customs or institutions contribute to the society's overall health and well being, nor should they be regarded as morally or ethically worthy of respect. p.13

Chip Poirot said: Corbett was asked why he didn't allow another teacher (Peloza) equal time to publish his Creationist views in the school paper. Corbett responded that "Peloza is not telling you the truth about the science..." and went on to explain why he (Corbett) viewed Peloza's views as non-scientific and then referred to Creationism as "superstitious religious nonsense." So in other words, Corbett stated a conclusion about a world view during the course of discussion about world views and why he wouldn't give someone equal time in a school newspaper.

I think it’s safe to say that the court has no issue with a teacher explaining all the things wrong with creationism. What it has a problem with is a teacher ending the lesson with an editorial comment such as: ‘…and, for all of the above reasons, I think creationism is garbage.’ You can’t do that if (a) the subject is a religious belief and (b) you’re a H.S. teacher. College teachers are off the hook. I think the lesson here is simple and easy to understand. Stick to credible argumentation and don’t editorialize, and you’re fine. Look, these are smart kids. You don’t need to sum up with a “…for all these reasons, I think…” comment. They’ll get it. IMO the only thing such statements do is allow the teacher to vent his own opinion - they have no particular instructional value.

It is unconstitutional to tell people what they can say, unless it's clearly foul or abusive, but I could say a lot about How Fascist California is but I won't.

Chip Poirot said: Eric said

I think it’s safe to say that the court has no issue with a teacher explaining all the things wrong with creationism. What it has a problem with is a teacher ending the lesson with an editorial comment such as: ‘…and, for all of the above reasons, I think creationism is garbage.’ You can’t do that if (a) the subject is a religious belief and (b) you’re a H.S. teacher. College teachers are off the hook. I think the lesson here is simple and easy to understand. Stick to credible argumentation and don’t editorialize, and you’re fine. Look, these are smart kids. You don’t need to sum up with a “…for all these reasons, I think…” comment. They’ll get it. IMO the only thing such statements do is allow the teacher to vent his own opinion - they have no particular instructional value.

Well, I think that's a ridiculous and ultimately counterproductive view to take of teaching-or at any rate-to require of teaching. And as a matter of fact, it did not used to be the standard, and in some ways, is still not the standard. Even the Court did not say in this case that Corbett could not express an opinion. In fact, the Court said the opposite. The Court said Corbett could express an opinion when teaching history. What the Court said is that he could not say Creationism is "superstitious religious nonsense." So what part is offensive. Creationism is religion. Superstition is part of religion. Religion by definition entails performance of rituals to ward off evil, just as a baseball player might touch his hat. The view that the earth is 10,000 yo, etc. certainly is nonsense. And unfortunately, the precedents in high schools *are* being applied to colleges. Nor for that matter, can I really see a difference. As a public University professor I am as much a state employee as Corbett. So if Corbett's speech would be deemed by reasonable person to be establishing a view on religion, then my speech would be as well. And then my use of Marvin Harris would be establishing a view on religion. But I think that any reasonable person can make a distinction between a teacher's expression of opinion about a relevant curricular issue and the school Board's official stamp of approval. Now whether or not expressing an opinion is a good pedagogical technique depends on a lot of things: but I revert back to Dewey: Pedagogical style is a matter of personal preference. And it certainly is not a Constitutional issue.

Chip Poirot said: Eric said

I think it’s safe to say that the court has no issue with a teacher explaining all the things wrong with creationism. What it has a problem with is a teacher ending the lesson with an editorial comment such as: ‘…and, for all of the above reasons, I think creationism is garbage.’ You can’t do that if (a) the subject is a religious belief and (b) you’re a H.S. teacher. College teachers are off the hook. I think the lesson here is simple and easy to understand. Stick to credible argumentation and don’t editorialize, and you’re fine. Look, these are smart kids. You don’t need to sum up with a “…for all these reasons, I think…” comment. They’ll get it. IMO the only thing such statements do is allow the teacher to vent his own opinion - they have no particular instructional value.

Well, I think that's a ridiculous and ultimately counterproductive view to take of teaching-or at any rate-to require of teaching. And as a matter of fact, it did not used to be the standard, and in some ways, is still not the standard. Even the Court did not say in this case that Corbett could not express an opinion. In fact, the Court said the opposite. The Court said Corbett could express an opinion when teaching history. What the Court said is that he could not say Creationism is "superstitious religious nonsense." So what part is offensive. Creationism is religion. Superstition is part of religion. Religion by definition entails performance of rituals to ward off evil, just as a baseball player might touch his hat. The view that the earth is 10,000 yo, etc. certainly is nonsense. And unfortunately, the precedents in high schools *are* being applied to colleges. Nor for that matter, can I really see a difference. As a public University professor I am as much a state employee as Corbett. So if Corbett's speech would be deemed by reasonable person to be establishing a view on religion, then my speech would be as well. And then my use of Marvin Harris would be establishing a view on religion. But I think that any reasonable person can make a distinction between a teacher's expression of opinion about a relevant curricular issue and the school Board's official stamp of approval. Now whether or not expressing an opinion is a good pedagogical technique depends on a lot of things: but I revert back to Dewey: Pedagogical style is a matter of personal preference. And it certainly is not a Constitutional issue.

Speech is free, lissa. You can say whatever you like, as a private citizen.

But when you are a public-school teacher, you are not only a citizen. You are an agent of the State, and you are not free to say whatever you like. And if you are a teacher, you are not entitled to state your own opinion as fact and teach it as such. If you have been hired to teach science, you teach science. Creationism, as the courts have ruled, is not science, and, as the courts have also ruled, neither is "intelligent design". Both are religious teachings, and the State must not teach religion. That is the Constitutional position.

The Theory of Evolution is evidence-based, and has no religious component at all. It is science, and there is no competing scientific explanation for the diversity of life. That is why it must be taught as science, and the others must not be.

Dave Luckett said: Speech is free, lissa. You can say whatever you like, as a private citizen. But when you are a public-school teacher, you are not only a citizen. You are an agent of the State, and you are not free to say whatever you like. And if you are a teacher, you are not entitled to state your own opinion as fact and teach it as such. If you have been hired to teach science, you teach science. Creationism, as the courts have ruled, is not science, and, as the courts have also ruled, neither is "intelligent design". Both are religious teachings, and the State must not teach religion. That is the Constitutional position. The Theory of Evolution is evidence-based, and has no religious component at all. It is science, and there is no competing scientific explanation for the diversity of life. That is why it must be taught as science, and the others must not be.

I'm sorry I didn't read your post right Dave. I think personal opionions should be left to private citizens. And Science should be taught as science.

I don't agree with someone saying something like "Christians who believe in evolution are fools" or something of that nature though because it's not correct.

or they could prove that satan exists by yelling at an organism until it produces stress and call it a religion. lol

I wear one of these, I don't know if it's working or not.

Hematite is an antiferromagnetic material below the Morin transition at 250 K, and a canted antiferromagnet or weakly ferromagnetic [1] above the Morin transition and below its Néel temperature at 948K, above which it is paramagnetic.

The magnetic structure of a-hematite was the subject of considerable discussion and debate in the 1950s because it appeared to be ferromagnetic with a Curie temperature of around 1000 K, but with an extremely tiny moment (0.002mB). Adding to the surprise was a transition with a decrease in temperature at around 260 K to a phase with no net magnetic moment.[citation needed]

Dzyaloshinskii and later Moriya showed that the system is essentially antiferromagnetic but that the low symmetry of the cation sites allows spin–orbit coupling to cause canting of the moments when they are in the plane perpendicular to the c axis. The disappearance of the moment with a decrease in temperature at 260 K is caused by a change in the anisotropy which causes the moments to align along the c axis. In this configuration, spin canting does not reduce the energy.[citation needed]

Hematite is part of a complex solid solution oxyhydroxide system having various degrees of water, hydroxyl group, and vacancy substitutions that affect the mineral's magnetic and crystal chemical properties.[7] Two other end-members are referred to as protohematite and hydrohematite.

I used to debate with my psychology professor over whether or not my dog reasoned. I believed she did, he doesn't think so, but to say my opinion was nonsense would be rude.

ID/Creationism and Evolutionary biology have so little in common there isn't even a debate to have about it. That doesn't make either one of them nonsense.

So Dave are you saying he should be telling Students their faith is nonsense? that's ridiculous. I know one is faith based and the other is evidence based, that would be the appropriate thing for a person to say, not "your faith is nonsense"

Oh, it was another teacher. I thought it was a student.
my bad

pesonal opinions shoudn't be taught as science. well so here we go.

Why do they want to waste tax money on nonsense taght as science that's the question of all questions. What can we do about it though? can we control the courts? I don't think so, obviously we don't have control over the courts or the school boards. We can address them on all the issues, and my opinion is it will lead to more waste.

It's not as cut and dried as that, lissa. Here I am, teaching the Theory of Evolution as part of a high-school biology course, and a student pipes up with something like "I don't believe in any of that stuff. The Bible says that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days, that's what they taught me in Sunday school, and the pastor told me not to listen to them evul darwinists. It's just wrong, what you're saying."

So now, what do you say?

Do you say, "Your faith is nonsense"?

Or do you say, "I am paid to present the known facts to you. You will be tested on those facts, even if they go against your faith"?

These two statements are actually saying the same thing - if your faith requires taking Genesis literally, then it's false to fact and hence, nonsense. The first way says it explicitly. The second way says it implicitly. The first way of saying it is apparently not acceptable. The second way apparently is acceptable.

My problem is that I can't for the life of me see what the real difference is between the two. The necessary conclusion is the same. But if the State instructs that I say the second, and not say the first, very well. That's what I'll do.

Do you have kids piping up like that though really? I always kept my religion to myself even when in school. Of course I never heard my preacher telling kids not to listen to their teachers though.

My son reports that it happened in a class at his high school. I asked him what the teacher replied, and he just shrugged. The kid saying stuff like that was thought to be immensely entertaining, and he hadn't caught the response. Or, like, cared.

They may be essencially the same thing, but a high school kid is old enough to know it and if he says that he's just monkeying around anyway.

Dave Luckett said: It's not as cut and dried as that, lissa. Here I am, teaching the Theory of Evolution as part of a high-school biology course, and a student pipes up with something like "I don't believe in any of that stuff. The Bible says that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six days, that's what they taught me in Sunday school, and the pastor told me not to listen to them evul darwinists. It's just wrong, what you're saying." So now, what do you say? Do you say, "Your faith is nonsense"? Or do you say, "I am paid to present the known facts to you. You will be tested on those facts, even if they go against your faith"?

I would be bothered by the suspersticion part too. I think teachers should be able to express opinions of course, and the public should also be able to express opinions, but I find the system so messed up nobody can even agree on what the law is or knows what the law is anymore...

Chip, this is what I said: "And if you are a teacher, you are not entitled to state your own opinion as fact and teach it as such."

And this is what you took it to mean: "What you seem to be saying is that a teacher should never express a point of view or a conclusion in class, unless he or she has been specifically authorized to express a conclusion."

See the difference?

I know the difference. I think teachers should be able to express a point of view, but I don't think they should teach their opinion as fact.

But I think it would be wise to tread carefully with it if it's a matter of someone's faith.

Because a lot of people take their faith seriously.

lissa said: But I think it would be wise to tread carefully with it if it's a matter of someone's faith. Because a lot of people take their faith seriously.

Yeah, I suppose so.

“Don’t pride yourself on being such an “expert” on Spencer ....... Your “astute” remarks are the mere rants and raves of a delusional, quite intellectually-challenged, mind”
I have no such pride – he spent something like fifty years of his life dedicated to writing daily – by no means do do I claim to have mastered even close to all his works. However, I sort of get the picture when he Spencer states this:
“And here it must be remarked, that the effect of pressure of population, in increasing the ability to maintain life, and decreasing the ability to multiply, is not a uniform effect, but an average one. In this case, as in many others, Nature secures each step in advance by a succession of trials, which are perpetually repeated, and cannot fail to be repeated, until success is achieved. All mankind in turn subject themselves more or less to the discipline described; they either may or may not advance under it; but, in the nature of things, only those who do advance under it eventually survive. For, necessarily, families and races whom this increasing difficulty of getting a living which excess of fertility entails, does not stimulate to improvements in production—that is, to greater mental activity—are on the high road to extinction; and must ultimately be supplanted by those whom the pressure does so stimulate. This truth we have recently seen exemplified in Ireland. And here, indeed, without further illustration, it will be seen that premature death, under all its forms, and from all its causes, cannot fail to work in the same direction. For as those prematurely carried off must, in the average of cases, be those in whom the power of self-preservation is the least, it unavoidably follows, that those left behind to continue the race are those in whom the power of self-preservation is the greatest—are the select of their generation. So that, whether the dangers to existence be of the kind produced by excess of fertility, or of any other kind, it is clear, that by the ceaseless exercise of the faculties needed to contend with them, and by the death of all men who fail to contend with them successfully, there is ensured a constant progress towards a higher degree of skill, intelligence, and self-regulation—a better co-ordination of actions—a more complete life.”
(A Theory of Population, deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility, Westminster Review 57 (1852): 468-501)
I feel pretty certain that what he means is that the Irish genocide was natural selection hard at work purifying the race leaving behind only the select of their generation - and that why he says “This truth we have recently seen exemplified in Ireland”.
When one looks into the history of the Westminster Review one is supported all the more in drawing the correct conclusion on the matter. As they put it over at wikipedia when talking about those who founded the Westminster Review;
“The group was divided over the work of Thomas Malthus, with Holyoake opposing it as the principle of the workhouse which blamed the poor for their poverty, while to Greg and Martineau this was a law of nature encouraging responsibility and self-improvement. Chapman asked Herbert Spencer to write about this divisive matter for the first issue, and Spencer's Theory of Population deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility actually appeared in the second issue, supporting the painful Malthusian principle as both true and self-correcting.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Review
Quite frankly all high school text books and high school biology teachers should spend time on exactly this subject – the unfounded anti-Irish racism in Malthus, Spencers elevation of it, and Darwin's big run with it – and the explosion of its use after Darwin in efforts that so-called “scientifically justified” all sorts of human suffering inclusive of genocide. Beat the piss out of the Darwinist and get their cheesy belief system crap out of our school – and here we can do it, not with a belief system, but merely by sticking to the facts. To stand up, in class, and call their stuff a worthless infiltration of philosophical crap into the realm of science, all in support of an ugly belief system, is of course more justified than any claims that all who seek god in nature are pieces of sh*t – after all, the facts clearly demonstrate that is simply not the case.

Yeah. Actually educating people is the only form of population control acceptable. however we insist on decaying morality to a point of making that impossible.

So I don't think you should be so proud of that really. By the way I will my family tends toward long lives. So I don't think my genes are weak at all, and you certainly aren't in any place to be the judge of it, considering you don't know about them.

My life expectancy is around 75 if I remember right. But I don't remember I know it's over 70. lol

I don't look for god in nature either, I study nature God is not in nature, god is a SPIRIT, not Corporeal.

Dave Luckett said: Chip, this is what I said: "And if you are a teacher, you are not entitled to state your own opinion as fact and teach it as such." And this is what you took it to mean: "What you seem to be saying is that a teacher should never express a point of view or a conclusion in class, unless he or she has been specifically authorized to express a conclusion." See the difference?

Troy said: Quite frankly all high school text books and high school biology teachers should spend time on exactly this subject – the unfounded anti-Irish racism in Malthus, Spencers elevation of it, and Darwin's big run with it...

No, Chip: Troy wants his opinion that Darwin is directly responsible for all genocides, including the Holocaust, the Irish Genocide, and Manifest Destiny, in recent history taught in biology classes, right after the students are taught a religion-friendly alternative to science and biology.

But seriously, you're trying to reason with a ranting troll who insists on conflating modern biology (along with the rest of science) with atheism, and insists that he isn't, allegedly, a creationist, but screams about how pointing out how Creationism is a pernicious pseudoscience is hatred and racism. You would have a much more productive conversation with a brick of tofu.

Chip Poirot said:

Troy said: Quite frankly all high school text books and high school biology teachers should spend time on exactly this subject – the unfounded anti-Irish racism in Malthus, Spencers elevation of it, and Darwin's big run with it...

Sure they should-in history class or political science or some similar venue. They should also discuss the Lord Protector of England's Irish racism. I offer you the following links for your edification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObI4eaK_GIA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-y2ox2HPnc

Chip Poirot said:

Troy said: Quite frankly all high school text books and high school biology teachers should spend time on exactly this subject – the unfounded anti-Irish racism in Malthus, Spencers elevation of it, and Darwin's big run with it...

Sure they should-in history class or political science or some similar venue. They should also discuss the Lord Protector of England's Irish racism. I offer you the following links for your edification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObI4eaK_GIA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-y2ox2HPnc

“Well, I think that if you actually studied what is in most high school and college biology texts on evolution, you will find that it is quite common to point out the ways in which Darwin’s ideas have been significantly modified.”
I have gone over a number of them, and done so with an eye upon this very subject. I agree, many are very careful to turn update Darwin to neo-Darwinism while avoiding any mention of the explosion of negative effects to which a philosophy inseparability married to a so-called theory have produced. Furthermore, I don't see much in the way of mentioning that some top scientist find neo-Darwinism to be complete crap promoted by religious fanatics. Now I have a problem with that given the rather rich history of exactly such work being used to promote and justify the promotion of hate and religious intolerance.
“A few of these ideas might be appropriate to discuss in a history of science class or in a philosophy class-but they certainly don’t belong in a high school biology class.”
Perhaps that is so with ideas that life had to diversify from the ark and so-forth. But it is not so with respect to Darwinsm and its relation to the elevation and justification of hate. That should be very pointedly taught exactly so that kids understand what science most certainly is not, along side of giving them a clean and sharp understanding of when someone is so distorting science via Darwin's work – a subject completely relevant to general biology!
“But you can’t blame Darwin (or Spencer) for inventing laissez faire or the maltreatment of the Irish.”
I did no such thing, understanding perfectly well that such roots go back at very least into the 1500's. What I do instead is hinge the thinking that “science justifies human maltreatment” to works produced by Malthus, Spencer, and Darwin, with the explosion of that connection taking off after Darwin's publication, and it was done via their treatment of “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest”. Prior to Darwin, as Keneally put it in his book “the Great Shame”, “An Irish catastrophe was considered scientifically inevitable and, though few could bring themselves to say it until the disaster was well advanced, even desirable.” (they did so based largely upon the work of Malthus). After the mass genocide the idea went up that the so-called “science” was little more than an excuse to blame the matter upon the victims. Spencer argued against that by hinging it to natural selection, and after Spencer Darwin elevated natural selection to a supreme law which lead directly to the result of all sorts of people using the so-called “theory” to justify just about every act of inhuman treatment as though it was scientifically justified. The philosophical tenant is completely and totally married to the theory, even in its neo-Darwin form – a matter which should should not be ignored in any general biology class! It is for exactly these reasons (I am guessing) that people like Lynn Margulis “opposes such competition-oriented views of evolution” viewing them as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology”, and that “Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk” - all of which our high school biology text books tend to ignore completly, never mind the millions and millions of human beings who have died via the tune of that Darwin drum.

Can you please produce the titles of these alleged hate-promoting textbooks, as well as the offending quotes in question?

Troy said: Quite frankly all high school text books and high school biology teachers should spend time on exactly this subject – the unfounded anti-Irish racism in Malthus, Spencers elevation of it, and Darwin’s big run with it…
Chip: “Sure they should-in history class or political science or some similar venue.”

My reply to Chip: That too – but the subject is important in a science class, especially in biology. It teaches directly just how wrong we can go by not grasping the foundations of science correctly and can do so while teaching the correct foundations of science at the same time.

Stanton: “No, Chip: Troy wants his opinion that Darwin is directly responsible for all genocides, including the Holocaust, the Irish Genocide, and Manifest Destiny, in recent history taught in biology classes, right after the students are taught a religion-friendly alternative to science and biology.”

My Reply to Stanton: grow up – its not at all what I argue and you damn well know it.

Troy said: Troy said: Quite frankly all high school text books and high school biology teachers should spend time on exactly this subject – the unfounded anti-Irish racism in Malthus, Spencers elevation of it, and Darwin’s big run with it… Chip: “Sure they should-in history class or political science or some similar venue.” My reply to Chip: That too – but the subject is important in a science class, especially in biology. It teaches directly just how wrong we can go by not grasping the foundations of science correctly and can do so while teaching the correct foundations of science at the same time. Stanton: “No, Chip: Troy wants his opinion that Darwin is directly responsible for all genocides, including the Holocaust, the Irish Genocide, and Manifest Destiny, in recent history taught in biology classes, right after the students are taught a religion-friendly alternative to science and biology.” My Reply to Stanton: grow up – its not at all what I argue and you damn well know it.

Sigh. This is what you get when you discard a perfectly reasonable commonsense idea (opinion is free, but facts are sacred) and let the lawyers loose on the provisions of a written statute.

For what it's worth, after some consideration, I have come to think that the teacher should have been counselled that the use of an expression such as "superstitious religious nonsense" was, under the circumstances, prejudicial to the learning of the student it was said to, and thus should not have been uttered by a professional educator. But that is a professional matter with no general implication for free speech or secular education.

But I agree, if we are to have a legalistic argument between the somewhat conflicted Constitutional provisions of "free speech" and "separation of Church and State", there certainly will be trouble, and people of goodwill, like Chip and I, will differ, sometimes painfully, on where the line is to be drawn. In this case I would draw it about where, as I understand it, the Court has done.

Dave Luckett said: Sigh. This is what you get when you discard a perfectly reasonable commonsense idea (opinion is free, but facts are sacred) and let the lawyers loose on the provisions of a written statute.

But I agree, if we are to have a legalistic argument between the somewhat conflicted Constitutional provisions of "free speech" and "separation of Church and State", there certainly will be trouble, and people of goodwill, like Chip and I, will differ, sometimes painfully, on where the line is to be drawn. In this case I would draw it about where, as I understand it, the Court has done.

Troy said: My Reply to Stanton: grow up – its not at all what I argue and you damn well know it.

John Kwok said: Looks like I'm ignoring my own advice, since I must deal with a delusional nut such as yourself now. What you are advocating, my dear delusional Troy, is the teaching of facts and issues that have no bearing whatsoever in a science classroom. Apparently you are incapable of distinguishing between historical and scientific data, and understanding why the former belongs only in history classes and the latter, in science classes

I partly agree with Troy, the government does lean towards manipulating genes. I don't know if they teach that in a high school but they are doing it.

lissa said: I partly agree with Troy, the government does lean towards manipulating genes. I don't know if they teach that in a high school but they are doing it.

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Looks like I'm ignoring my own advice, since I must deal with a delusional nut such as yourself now. What you are advocating, my dear delusional Troy, is the teaching of facts and issues that have no bearing whatsoever in a science classroom. Apparently you are incapable of distinguishing between historical and scientific data, and understanding why the former belongs only in history classes and the latter, in science classes

Especially since Troy doesn't want actual science taught in science classes because children will be exposed to the "religion" of atheism, or worse yet, soul-destroying criticism of Creationism, and that what he does want taught in science classes is that Darwin's ideas and followers were directly responsible for millions of deaths, as well as "top biologists" apparently also think that "Darwinism" is a religious cult, nevermind that there are no "top biologists" who conflate "Darwinism" with modern evolutionary biology, nor conflace modern evolutionary biology with a religion, cult or otherwise.

Are you kidding? They are cloning, they are trying to build the "best beef" the "best cow" why not the "best human"?

lissa said: Are you kidding? They are cloning, they are trying to build the "best beef" the "best cow" why not the "best human"?

Chip Poirot said: Even the Court did not say in this case that Corbett could not express an opinion. In fact, the Court said the opposite. The Court said Corbett could express an opinion when teaching history.

What the Court said is that he could not say Creationism is "superstitious religious nonsense." So what part is offensive.

And unfortunately, the precedents in high schools *are* being applied to colleges.

Nor for that matter, can I really see a difference. As a public University professor I am as much a state employee as Corbett.

Now whether or not expressing an opinion is a good pedagogical technique depends on a lot of things: but I revert back to Dewey: Pedagogical style is a matter of personal preference. And it certainly is not a Constitutional issue.

The Department of Agriculture is Researching it a lot, yes it's done with Private enterpise, Why is it a stretch? That's Exactly what was going on during WW2

And no I don't watch the X-files etc.

lissa said: Are you kidding? They are cloning, they are trying to build the "best beef" the "best cow" why not the "best human"?

lissa said: The Department of Agriculture is Researching it a lot, yes it's done with Private enterpise, Why is it a stretch? That's Exactly what was going on during WW2 And no I don't watch the X-files etc.

John Kwok said: As I noted beforehand, there are built-in safeguards with IRBS (Institutional Research Boards) that have to report back to such Federal government funding agencies like NIH (National Institutes of Health) and NSF (National Science Foundation):

lissa said: The Department of Agriculture is Researching it a lot, yes it's done with Private enterpise, Why is it a stretch? That's Exactly what was going on during WW2 And no I don't watch the X-files etc.

Your nightmarish claims are simply that; nightmarish, utterly inane, and completely unwarranted.

Chip Poirot said: Religion by definition entails performance of rituals to ward off evil, just as a baseball player might touch his hat.

The Oxford English Dictionary said: Religion: Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.

lissa said: Are you kidding? They are cloning, they are trying to build the "best beef" the "best cow" why not the "best human"?

lissa said: The Department of Agriculture is Researching it a lot, yes it's done with Private enterpise, Why is it a stretch? That's Exactly what was going on during WW2

Basically the Department of Health and Human Services is about Money in someone's pocket. that's about all there is to it. Maybe they wouldn't do Euginenics, But I know they don't care much about anything but money.

lissa said: O.K. I know that eugenics isn't condoned, but I also know other things, let's just put it that way.

I have legal documents that proving they have an underground baby-selling business going on. That's all I need to have, maybe they are doing it a different way.

Stanton said:

lissa said: O.K. I know that eugenics isn't condoned, but I also know other things, let's just put it that way.

Please produce these "other things" that told you that the US Agriculture Department is trying to breed/build/clone the "best humans"

lissa said: Basically the Department of Health and Human Services is about Money in someone's pocket. that's about all there is to it. Maybe they wouldn't do Euginenics, But I know they don't care much about anything but money.

phantomreader42 said:

Stanton said:

lissa said: O.K. I know that eugenics isn't condoned, but I also know other things, let's just put it that way.

Please produce these "other things" that told you that the US Agriculture Department is trying to breed/build/clone the "best humans"

IT involves a vast conspiracy among teh Illuminati, teh Elders of Zion, and teh Underpants Gnomes, all run from a base built from teh ruins of an alien spacecraft (which looks exactly like a DC-10) stored at area 51 (which happens to be on an ancient indian burial ground). FNORD!

Chip Poirot said: But what I'm bothered by is your continued insistence that teachers have no responsibility to express opinions. I am using the term "opinion" in the sense of "point of view" or "conclusion" or "judgement." What you seem to be saying is that a teacher should never express a point of view or a conclusion in class, unless he or she has been specifically authorized to express a conclusion.

phantomreader42 said:

Stanton said:

lissa said: O.K. I know that eugenics isn't condoned, but I also know other things, let's just put it that way.

Please produce these "other things" that told you that the US Agriculture Department is trying to breed/build/clone the "best humans"

IT involves a vast conspiracy among teh Illuminati, teh Elders of Zion, and teh Underpants Gnomes, all run from a base built from teh ruins of an alien spacecraft (which looks exactly like a DC-10) stored at area 51 (which happens to be on an ancient indian burial ground). FNORD!

Chip Poirot said:

[From Dave Luckett:] But I agree, if we are to have a legalistic argument between the somewhat conflicted Constitutional provisions of "free speech" and "separation of Church and State", there certainly will be trouble, and people of goodwill, like Chip and I, will differ, sometimes painfully, on where the line is to be drawn. In this case I would draw it about where, as I understand it, the Court has done.

Excellent-why don't you explain it to me so I don't get sued.

lissa said: I have legal documents that proving they have an underground baby-selling business going on. That's all I need to have, maybe they are doing it a different way.

John Kwok said: Surely sounds like something from "The X - Files" or "Lost". Are you sure you're not a runner currently working on the set of "Lost":

lissa said: I have legal documents that proving they have an underground baby-selling business going on. That's all I need to have, maybe they are doing it a different way.

Dan said:

Chip Poirot said: Religion by definition entails performance of rituals to ward off evil, just as a baseball player might touch his hat.

I just looked this up

The Oxford English Dictionary said: Religion: Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.

Well, yesterday I quoted a standard anthropological definition which does.

This definition does not entail rituals at all, much less rituals to ward off evil.

Well, obviously you are ignorant of the extant sociological and anthropological literature on religion. Most of this work expressly addresses the importance of ritual to religion. In fact, I don't see how you could practice religion without ritual. I guess at the churches you attended they didn't sing hymns, recite the Apostle's creed, engage in communion, practice the ritual of baptism or confirmation, have weddings...OK-maybe you want to say that Quakers don't practice ritual, but, speaking as someone who was active in Quaker meetings for years, that's not so. Waiting in silence is a ritual. Speaking when the spirit moves you is a ritual. I've been involved in hundreds of religious services at dozens of religions (Baptist, Jewish, Roman Catholic, Quaker, Unitarian, Church of Christ, Congregational, etc.). Some have involved rituals, but none have involved rituals to ward off evil. Oh really? People didn't get baptized to free themselves from sin? Pray to have their sins forgiven? Pray for personal or individual safety or salvation? Pray before going on a trip for safety? Splash holy water on themselves? Make the sign of the cross? Answer an alter call? Engage in faith healing? Renounce the Devil and all his works? And I guess you left the Pentecostals off your list. Are you seriously going to tell me that exorcism isn't a ritual to ward off evil? Or do you think that ritual and warding off evil is something only other religions do? I think your understanding of religion is severely limited, lacking in awareness of the sociological and antrhopological literature, and also incredibly ethnocentric (of course only those silly non-Christian religions have rituals and superstitions...).

lissa said: No I'm sure the Department is selling other children when they don't approve of their parents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8h4SOwWXdc&feature=related And yes I have documents to prove it.

"Our Father who Art in Heaven,
Hallowed be they name:"

The opening stanza is a ritual (it is routinely repeated and becomes a regularized means of praying-it also opens up sacred space and establishes the sacrednss of God's name-thus separating one from evil and the mundane world):

"Thy Kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on Earth, as it is Heaven."

Furthers the fight against good and evil.

"Give us this day our daily bread

Magic: one manipulates or bends reality by use of the sacred words.

"And lead us not into temptation
"and forgive us our trespasses
even as we forgive those who trespass against us."

Nope-no warding off evil there...

"For thine is the power and the kingdom and the glory for ever and ever"

Sets forth the view that good will triumph over evil:

"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: Amen"

By uttering the incantation "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" the final injunction "let it be so" is rendered effective. Otherwise, YHWY, the holy being, will be contaminated by your mana and will not hear your prayer.

"

I have a scanner dude. and I can scan them. Do you really want me to?

lissa said: I have a scanner dude. and I can scan them. Do you really want me to?

lissa said: Are you kidding? They are cloning, they are trying to build the “best beef” the “best cow” why not the “best human”?

Oh, and Lissa, you do realize that when you clone something, you get a baby, right.

Essentially an infant identical twin of what you started with, except often with a lot more birth defects.

And that baby has to grow up using the usual methods, right. And it still takes that twin 15 years to reach sexual maturity. They don't pop out of a moodily lit pod as a full grown adult covered with goo.

And if you want that twin to know something the donor know, you have to teach it, the twin doesn't have knowledge by osmosis.

Just wanted to make sure, 'K?

Yes, I've done cow breeding. AI, not clones though.

I don't know what documents you want. and it really doesn't matter to me who they think other children ought to belong to because they can profit, I doubt they care about that, but there's no reason to believe they might not have a breeding thing going on with humans either. Doesn't matter to me.

eric said:

Chip Poirot said: Even the Court did not say in this case that Corbett could not express an opinion. In fact, the Court said the opposite. The Court said Corbett could express an opinion when teaching history.

Yes, that is part of the point. As a first amendment issue the court in this case is only concerned with religion. Not history, not politics, not science, not art or music or Angelina Jolie's wardrobe. Constitutionally speaking, a teacher can opine on those things all he/she wants. But he cannot opine on people's religious beliefs. Because the State requires students to be in his classroom, and has made a promise to the students and parents that this involuntary classroom time will not be used to promote religion, one religion over others, or nonreligion over any of them.

What the Court said is that he could not say Creationism is "superstitious religious nonsense." So what part is offensive.

You're kidding right? You're seriously going to argue that you don't see how anyone would find that wording offensive? I'm not even going to answer this one.

And unfortunately, the precedents in high schools *are* being applied to colleges.

"Significantly, the court has never recognized that professors possess a First Amendment right of academic freedom to determine for themselves the content of their courses and scholarship, despite opportunities to do so".

Now, if you're talking the politicization of school policy, that's too bad but it is irrelevant to the issue here. The issue here is what is legal.

Nor for that matter, can I really see a difference. As a public University professor I am as much a state employee as Corbett.

Now whether or not expressing an opinion is a good pedagogical technique depends on a lot of things: but I revert back to Dewey: Pedagogical style is a matter of personal preference. And it certainly is not a Constitutional issue.

If we're talking about H.S., and we're talking about a 'pedagogical style' that includes 'hostility to religion,' its a constitutional issue.

lissa said: Yes, I've done cow breeding. AI, not clones though. I don't know what documents you want. and it really doesn't matter to me who they think other children ought to belong to because they can profit, I doubt they care about that, but there's no reason to believe they might not have a breeding thing going on with humans either. Doesn't matter to me.

John Kwok said: What's the provenance of these documents? Assuming that they're not in the original Klingon, we should be able to find a link for them elsewhere on the Internet:

Chip Poirot said:

John Kwok said: What's the provenance of these documents? Assuming that they're not in the original Klingon, we should be able to find a link for them elsewhere on the Internet:

You can post documents in Klingon on the internet.

Chip Poirot said: Religion by definition entails performance of rituals to ward off evil, just as a baseball player might touch his hat.

Dan said: I've been involved in hundreds of religious services at dozens of religions (Baptist, Jewish, Roman Catholic, Quaker, Unitarian, Church of Christ, Congregational, etc.). Some have involved rituals, but none have involved rituals to ward off evil.

Chip Poirot said: Well, obviously you are ignorant of the extant sociological and anthropological literature on religion.

Chip Poirot said: Most of this work expressly addresses the importance of ritual to religion. In fact, I don't see how you could practice religion without ritual. I guess at the churches you attended they didn't sing hymns, recite the Apostle's creed, engage in communion, practice the ritual of baptism or confirmation, have weddings...OK-maybe you want to say that Quakers don't practice ritual, but, speaking as someone who was active in Quaker meetings for years, that's not so. Waiting in silence is a ritual. Speaking when the spirit moves you is a ritual.

Chip Poirot said: Oh really? People didn't get baptized to free themselves from sin? Pray to have their sins forgiven? Pray for personal or individual safety or salvation? Pray before going on a trip for safety? Splash holy water on themselves? Make the sign of the cross?

Chip Poirot said: Answer an alter call? Engage in faith healing? Renounce the Devil and all his works? And I guess you left the Pentecostals off your list. Are you seriously going to tell me that exorcism isn't a ritual to ward off evil?

Chip Poirot said: I think your understanding of religion is severely limited

Dan said: I quoted the dictionary so I don't have to bother with social science definitions...blah, blah

lissa said: I don't know what documents you want. and it really doesn't matter to me who they think other children ought to belong to because they can profit, I doubt they care about that, but there's no reason to believe they might not have a breeding thing going on with humans either. Doesn't matter to me.

John Kwok said: What's the provenance of these documents? Assuming that they're not in the original Klingon, we should be able to find a link for them elsewhere on the Internet:

lissa said: Yes, I've done cow breeding. AI, not clones though. I don't know what documents you want. and it really doesn't matter to me who they think other children ought to belong to because they can profit, I doubt they care about that, but there's no reason to believe they might not have a breeding thing going on with humans either. Doesn't matter to me.

On a more serious note, I'm not taking much credence in your conspiracy theory that's really something akin to an episode from "The X - Files" or "Lost". And I hope no other serious poster here at PT thinks that your documents are believable.

Chip Poirot said: From Cultural Anthropology by Marvin Harris and Orna Johnson (I don't know if it is a leading textbook but it is well known):

Rituals are formalized, stylized, and repetitive acts that are performed in special sacred places at set times.

e.g. baptism, confession, communion, the Kaiko festival among the Tsemabaga Maring, sacrificing cows among the Nuer, Australian performance of dreamtime myths. Sitting and standing can certainly be part of a ritual-such as standing to recite the Apostle's creed or sitting in a posture of quiet reflection to receive the holy spirit. Kneeling to pray is obviuously a ritual. Uprooting a rumbim tree and having a dance and slaughtering pigs before going to war is a ritual.

Religion refers to beliefs and actions that are based on the assumption that the world is under control of supernatural forces whom humans must please.

i.e. recite a confession of faith to receive redemption from sin (evil), and thus be protected from the devil (evil).

Magic refers to a practice intended to manipulate supernatural forces to achieve a specific result. Magic is less spiritual and less ethical than religion.

But Prayers are not always rendered in a mood of supplication and magic is still prominent in a wide range of modern day pursuits. Thus the line between prayers and magical spells is actually hard to to draw.p. 266

So as I illustrated with my analysis of the Lord's prayer-part of it is supplicational, part of it is magical spell. When a priest celebrates the Eucharist, the priest must perform the ritual in a precise way to effect the miracle. So what? Some liberal Protestants like Unitarians manage to convince themselves they are not warding off evil because they don't believe in evil. But if you are praying for protection, what are you being protected from? Bad luck? How is that not "evil." Harris goes on to discuss religion, magic and superstitions (specific rituals such as the rituals of baseball players or the refusal of a hunter to sleep out on the ice) as being connected to magic and religion. Harris discusses these practices as having functional attributes (relieving anxiety and thus improving performance) and also enhancing social solidarity but in essence, having no direct impact on the environment. Harris specifically rejects magical and religious views.p.268 On Creationism:

Creationist theory is not acceptable as science because because it has not withstood rigorous testing and is contradicted by an enormous amount of evidence...there are still people who believe the earth is flat. p. 42

On Cultural Relativism Harris says:

Cultural Relativism stipulates that behavior in a particular culture should not be judged by the standards of another. Yet it is evident that not all human customs or institutions contribute to the society's overall health and well being, nor should they be regarded as morally or ethically worthy of respect. p.13

Chip Poirot said: Firstly, if you start from the premise set forth in Keyishian and other cases, teachers do have First Amenmdent rights in the classroom when they are discussing the curriculum.

Since part of teaching AP history is presenting and discussing world views, you can't logically wall off one kind of world view and say you can't comment on it.

OK-bad phrasing of the question. What I should have said is "what part is Unconstitutional"?

So, we have come full circle: If a teacher has First Amendment rights in the classroom, that includes First Amendment rights to express an opinion, even a strong one, on religion and science (including Creationism) when that is relevant to the curriculum or to other duties (such as editing a school paper and explaining editorial policy).

Corbett is teaching college prep/AP. A student who is college bound can make the distinction between teacher's direct response to a question and coerced participation in religious activity.

Some pedagogical styles are flamboyant,others are not. Basically, what you are saying is that all other world views and philosophies can be called nonsense, but not Creationism.

lissa said:

John Kwok said: What's the provenance of these documents? Assuming that they're not in the original Klingon, we should be able to find a link for them elsewhere on the Internet:

lissa said: Yes, I've done cow breeding. AI, not clones though. I don't know what documents you want. and it really doesn't matter to me who they think other children ought to belong to because they can profit, I doubt they care about that, but there's no reason to believe they might not have a breeding thing going on with humans either. Doesn't matter to me.

On a more serious note, I'm not taking much credence in your conspiracy theory that's really something akin to an episode from "The X - Files" or "Lost". And I hope no other serious poster here at PT thinks that your documents are believable.

I don't think it is entirely a consiracy, but Gil Garcetti, and Lori Cruz are guilty. YOU look into it.

lissa said: I SAID I know EUGENICS ISN'T APPROVED, BUT I KNOW OTHER THINGS. I didn't claim they

lissa said: ... were breeding a superior race it was sort of an analogy for What's the difference they

lissa said: ...are violating fundamental human rights when they

lissa said: ... make up lies in a court just to adopt children?

They in the first sentence doesn't matter it's irrelevant. The Los Angeles County Board is They in the second case.

And it's things pursuant Title IVD and Title IVE that they basically had no foundation for.

Chip Poirot said:

Dan said: I quoted the dictionary so I don't have to bother with social science definitions...blah, blah

I cited the relevant literature yesterday. Go back and search the thread, but frankly, if all you can do is quote Webster's when I cited the standard anthropological definitions, I don't see why I should waste my time citing more academic sources. After all, how sociologists and anthropologists define ritual and religion and magic are irrelevant.

Chip Poirot said: From Cultural Anthropology by Marvin Harris and Orna Johnson (I don't know if it is a leading textbook but it is well known):

Rituals are formalized, stylized, and repetitive acts that are performed in special sacred places at set times.

But of course I'm not a fool and I know the US DEPARTMENT is aware of the problems already.

eric said:

Chip Poirot said: Firstly, if you start from the premise set forth in Keyishian and other cases, teachers do have First Amenmdent rights in the classroom when they are discussing the curriculum.

Keyishian was about communism. That is not a religious belief.

You missed the point entirely. It's a First Amendment case. It's about not imposing a "pall of orhodoxy" of any sort-religious or political. You can't say well you have free speech on politics but not on religion (well you can say it but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense). There are two parts to the First Amendment: the establishment clause and the free speech clause. Sometimes these two rights come into conflict. If you start from the premise that the free speech part of the First Amendment is applicable to a public school teacher while discussing the curriculum (current events in a high school AP class) then you **balance** the teacher's free speech rights with the right of the student to have an environment that is religiously neutral. You also balance the student's religious freedom of religion and expression rights against the teacher's freedom of religion and expression rights. Again and again I have ponted out to you that the Courts allow teachers to act as advisors for religious clubs that engage in active proselytizing, the courts allow teachers some limited right to display religious symbols. The Courts allow a teacher to pray over his own food in the cafeteria or to take off for recognized religious holidays. You have never acknowledged these points. Again, I'd bet money that that is what the AFT argued. Why do you think the AFT joined this case as a defendant? They didn't have to. Look, you may disagree with me. You may think that Garcetti was a wise decision, and that farthermore it is proper to apply Garcetti to classroom discussion in K-12 and even Universities. But even if you do think that (and I don't think you do-though other people on PT do), you should at least acknowledge that Garcetti is a change in the standard for judging free speech by K-12 teachers, University professors and in fact all public employees while on the job.

If you want to cite relevant cases, go to Kitzmiller, or Selman vs Cobb County, or ACSI vs Stearns, or Edwards vs Arkansas, or Epperson vs Arkansas, or McLean vs Arkansas, or Peloza vs Capistrano, or Freiler vs Tangihapoa. All of those cases involve religion and H.S. teaching - not some political philosophy.

In Kitzmiller the case was not about a teacher making negative remarks about religion in the course of teaching civics. The case was about the school district **requiring** teachers to read a statement informing students about the book Of Pandas and People . Jones applied the Lemon test. One of the prongs is how does the action look to a reasonable person (again I addressed this point before but you did not acknowledge it). And again, I have said that a reasonable person can distinguish between a school district and a teacher . And one of the tests to apply here is the fact that students make this distinction when teachers wear crosses, when they serve as advisors to clubs that proselytize, and so on. In Kitzmiller one of the issues involved was the right of teachers to not be forced to make a specific statement and in Epperson the main issue was that teachers were being prohibited from teaching about evolution. Epperson if my memory is correct struck down a law forbidding the teaching of evolution. I believe that Edwards was the case where the Courts struck down a law requiring equal time between Creation Science and Evolution-again, applying the Lemon test. Cobb County was about putting silly disclaimer stickers on textbooks. I'm not familiar with the others. None of these cases had anything to do with teachers making specific remarks, in response to specific questions during relevant classroom discussion. It is these features that IMO make it as much of a free speech case as a freedom of religion case. But let's look at what was said: Corbett made numerous comments, which are in fact on balance, negative about specific aspects of religion. They are also to some degree questionable. For example, he quote Mark Twain. The judge lets Mark Twain's comment go because Corbett didn't quote Twin favorably. But then obviously, you can't quote Mark Twain favorably in history class. So that means we are putting a religious test on who we can and cannot quote about religion. That's unacceptable. The student asked why don't you give Peloza equal time in the school newspaper to talk about Creationism. Corbett said that he (Peloza) is not telling you the truth about science (so we may infer that somehow Peloza is being allowed to teach or advocate Creationism). And then Corbett says Creationism (in reference to Creation Science) is not science but superstitious religious nonsense. OK, what part is Unconstitutional. Clearly, the courts have already said that Creationism is religion, so that can't be unconstitutional. The word nonsense means either something that makes no logical sense (ideas green sleep color furiously) or makes no empirical sense (colorless green ideas sleep furiously) or is just regarded as plain and factually wrong and everyone can see it (the earth is flat, the earth is 10,000 yo, you can fit two of every kind on Noah's Ark). So saying it is nonsense is saying it is plain, flat out, empirically wrong, since Creationism is semantically clear and has empirical meaning. What about "superstition": that seems to be what the judge objects to, becuase earlier he says referring to religion as magic could be construed as offensive. But as I have explained, religion, supersitition and magic all get rolled up into one. So it is an accurate statement and it is actually precisely accurate. What's worse is that I get the impression (and so did PZ Myers, Volokh and Tim Sandefur) that if he had said Voodoo is nonsense or belief in Thor is nonsense, or Satanists are wackos, that would have been OK. The objection is to saying something negative about Christianity. So there we have it: a religious correctness test for classroom speech.

Since part of teaching AP history is presenting and discussing world views, you can't logically wall off one kind of world view and say you can't comment on it.

Again and again and again, you are making a straw man argument. No one has said a teacher can't comment on religion. What the courts have said is that a teacher can't show hostility or improper disapproval of religion.

Well again, he didn't show disapproval of religion per se. He showed disapproval of Creationism being paraded falsely as science. But that's like saying that you can't show disapproval of witchcraft trials, or religious fraud, or inquisitions and that you can't make judgements in class about epistemology and ontology. So no-no special pleading for religion. It can take its place in the marketplace of ideas just like every other world view. Now on the other hand if the teacher had said "Lutherans are idiots" or "Wow, you are really stupid for going to church and praying" that might be a case of hostile environment-like I said-it might. It would be the same standard as saying in general you think that men develop morally when women don't ( I think it's a wrong statement but permissable) vs. telling a female student directly-"you lack moral sense because you are a woman" or "you can't be an economist because you are a woman and women can't do math."

OK-bad phrasing of the question. What I should have said is "what part is Unconstitutional"?

Some characteristics are emergent. There is no single molecule of water that is wet, wetness is a property of a collection of them. Hostility can, in some cases, be a property of the sentence rather than an atomic property of any one word.

Well, there needs to be a clear definition then about when you reach that emergent threshold (I agree with you btw about the general point but I think even a single molecule is wet-hydrogen and oxygen separately are not). In this case, I don't think he did.

But look, I'm not really invested in the argument over 'what part' the judge had a problem with. Think what you like. The real bottom line is, if you want to be the guy that decides what counts as "improper disapproval of religion," become a lawyer or a judge. No adacemic paper or thesis is going to matter, because this isn't an academic question, its a legal one.

Well, I have to be invested in these kinds of issues for several reasons. I might have to advise a colleague on a grievance, I might be asked to advise my local on contract negotiations. I've sat on discrimination investigations and I have to deal with this in the classroom day in and day out. This one is ripe for an overzealous (or grossly incomopetent) affirmative action officer to get ahold of and twist and do a lot of damage to someone's career. But the fact is that these issues get settled in a lot of different ways. This discussion in and of itself isn't going to change the judge's mind. but it does take place in the Court of public opinion, it does get us thinking about what kinds of judges we want and so on. And ideas in academia, believe it or not, do filter up to the Courts and then back down. Anyway, Tim Sandefur thought it was relevant enough to post and to have discussion on. But if you are tired of the discussion, I understand.

So, we have come full circle: If a teacher has First Amendment rights in the classroom, that includes First Amendment rights to express an opinion, even a strong one, on religion and science (including Creationism) when that is relevant to the curriculum or to other duties (such as editing a school paper and explaining editorial policy).

Religion is not just another subject, like politics or sports or art. We've recognized this as a society for 200 years because we carved out a specific place for it in our 1st amendment, and that place remains today. It is treated differently, whether you like it or not.

In the free and open contestation of ideas, religion cannot be allowed to impose a blockage on the path of inquiry. Just because I get a bunch of people together, chant backwards in Latin and commit mass murders does not mean my child cannot be told I'm a wacko.

You can argue this is a bad thing, that religious opinions should be open to the same personal criticism as political party or choice of music, but I think you have a hard sell ahead of you as long as the 1st amendment carves out a unique place for it.

I think there needs to be a balancing act and a recognition that in the free and open exchange of ideas, people's sacred cows do come under criticism. What this student learned is that he doesn't have to defend his views with rational argumentation. This student learned he can spy on his teacher, bait him, be obnoxious, proselytize, take up class time with religious based questions, demand free and open discussion, and then play the victim when someone gives him a frank-and true-answer. But I don't blame the student-I blame the parents.

Corbett is teaching college prep/AP. A student who is college bound can make the distinction between teacher's direct response to a question and coerced participation in religious activity.

One would hope. However, one can't assume all AP students have that level of sophistication. And just a quibble, coerced participation in a religious activity is not necessary. The bar for illegal activity is set much lower, at state endorsement of one (or more, or the lack of) religious beliefs.

If they don't hvae it-they need to develop it. And there needs to be a distinction between a teacher engaging in discussion and a school district requiring speech. If students can see the difference when religious based clubs are allowed to proselytize then they can see the difference in AP history class.

What I'm saying is that nonreligious opinions can be called nonsense, but religion opinions can't be. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the 1st amendment. That is source of the court-derived special treatment of religion.

Again-two parts to the First Amendment and both parts apply to the teacher as well-not just to the student. And to say that ridiculous ideas like a flat earth, or sticking pins in dolls, or saying that you can fit two of every kind on an Ark get a by just because they are religion is nonsense.

Dan said: 1. As a matter of fact, I did not say what you claim I said. 2. I quoted the OED, not Webster’s. 3. I did more than quote the OED. 4. If these sociological definitions are irrelevant, why did you bring them up?

Chip Poirot said: From Cultural Anthropology by Marvin Harris and Orna Johnson (I don't know if it is a leading textbook but it is well known):

Rituals are formalized, stylized, and repetitive acts that are performed in special sacred places at set times.

And you people debating over this stuff is pretty typical of how it all works.

The State just isn't qualified to Debate this becasue they think People's Religious beliefs can be called nonsense. As far as that goes I think ritual and magic are associated with religions. And That's a basic fundamental principle of the matter to call something Sacred to a person supersticious nonsense is a violation of the fundamental beliefs they hold.

lissa said:

John Kwok said: What's the provenance of these documents? Assuming that they're not in the original Klingon, we should be able to find a link for them elsewhere on the Internet:

lissa said: Yes, I've done cow breeding. AI, not clones though. I don't know what documents you want. and it really doesn't matter to me who they think other children ought to belong to because they can profit, I doubt they care about that, but there's no reason to believe they might not have a breeding thing going on with humans either. Doesn't matter to me.

On a more serious note, I'm not taking much credence in your conspiracy theory that's really something akin to an episode from "The X - Files" or "Lost". And I hope no other serious poster here at PT thinks that your documents are believable.

I don't think it is entirely a consiracy, but Gil Garcetti, and Lori Cruz are guilty. YOU look into it.

lissa said:

lissa said:

John Kwok said: What's the provenance of these documents? Assuming that they're not in the original Klingon, we should be able to find a link for them elsewhere on the Internet:

lissa said: Yes, I've done cow breeding. AI, not clones though. I don't know what documents you want. and it really doesn't matter to me who they think other children ought to belong to because they can profit, I doubt they care about that, but there's no reason to believe they might not have a breeding thing going on with humans either. Doesn't matter to me.

On a more serious note, I'm not taking much credence in your conspiracy theory that's really something akin to an episode from "The X - Files" or "Lost". And I hope no other serious poster here at PT thinks that your documents are believable.

I don't think it is entirely a consiracy, but Gil Garcetti, and Lori Cruz are guilty. YOU look into it.

I SAID I know EUGENICS ISN'T APPROVED, BUT I KNOW OTHER THINGS. I didn't claim they were breeding a superior race it was sort of an analogy for What's the difference they are violating fundamental human rights when they make up lies in a court just to adopt children?

I already stated what it was. Can you read? I said it was things pursuant to Title IV E they had no foundation for.

But hey just cut some funding some more or put Gil in charge of Ethics after he was already sued.

LOL

lissa said: But of course I'm not a fool and I know the US DEPARTMENT is aware of the problems already.

It's self explanatory based on the information I gave you and you know it is.

Chip Poirot said: You [Dan] started out by saying you had not seen Baptists, Quakers, Congregationalists, etc. practicing ritual and that ritual is not part of religion.

Chip Poirot said: From Cultural Anthropology by Marvin Harris and Orna Johnson (I don't know if it is a leading textbook but it is well known):

Rituals are formalized, stylized, and repetitive acts that are performed in special sacred places at set times.

Communion, confession, religious festivals, saying Mass, praying, pouring out libations to the loah, being ridden by the loah, speaking in tongues, saying the Apostle's creed-those are rituals. And if they are not-what do you call them?

Chip Poirot said: Religion by definition entails performance of rituals to ward off evil, just as a baseball player might touch his hat.

lissa said: It's self explanatory based on the information I gave you and you know it is.

lissa said: It's self explanatory based on the information I gave you and you know it is.

John Kwok said: Where is all the "proof" you've promised supporting the veracity of your "conspiracy". Please post the links. Am looking forward to seeing them, I think.

Uh, yeah, a US government agency wasting tax payers’ money on a sort of top secret project to clone/breed and sell superior humans for profit...

That’s a broad statement: Chip’s claim is that all religion – organized, disorganized, and unorganized, past, present, and future, Eastern and Western, civilized and uncivilized, conservative and liberal – must necessarily entail the “performance of rituals to ward off evil”. In contrast, I have only to find one organized religion, or even a single religious person, who does not perform rituals to ward off evil. I have done so.

Chip Poirot said:

Dave Luckett said: Sigh. This is what you get when you discard a perfectly reasonable commonsense idea (opinion is free, but facts are sacred) and let the lawyers loose on the provisions of a written statute.

Which of the following sentences is a sacred fact and which is a free opinion? "It is warm and sunny today" "It is a beautiful day" "Six million Jews died in Nazi Germany" "Six million Jews were systematically and deliberately murdered by the Nazi regime."

But I agree, if we are to have a legalistic argument between the somewhat conflicted Constitutional provisions of "free speech" and "separation of Church and State", there certainly will be trouble, and people of goodwill, like Chip and I, will differ, sometimes painfully, on where the line is to be drawn. In this case I would draw it about where, as I understand it, the Court has done.

Excellent-why don't you explain it to me so I don't get sued.

Chip Poirot said: But all this said, I guess I don't see your point. Even if you caught me in a sloppy use of logic and making an overgeneralization,

Chip Poirot said: ...the fact remains that much of religious practice does entail ritual and a significant part of that ritual does entail warding off evil as part of the emic interpretation of the practitioner. I disagree with you btw about the free form issue. But again, anyway: What is your point? The point I was trying to make is that practices we call superstition (such as touching a hat for luck) are similar to religious rituals and many religious rituals contain magical elements. What is your objection to this larger point?

Dan said:

Chip Poirot said: But all this said, I guess I don't see your point. Even if you caught me in a sloppy use of logic and making an overgeneralization,

That is my point.

Chip Poirot said: ...the fact remains that much of religious practice does entail ritual and a significant part of that ritual does entail warding off evil as part of the emic interpretation of the practitioner. I disagree with you btw about the free form issue. But again, anyway: What is your point? The point I was trying to make is that practices we call superstition (such as touching a hat for luck) are similar to religious rituals and many religious rituals contain magical elements. What is your objection to this larger point?

I absolutely agree with you when you say that much religious practice, particularly Christian, involves ritual. My point was that you overgeneralized in your initial statement. I admire your honesty in admitting this.

FWIW, it appears to me that a court has decided that implicit criticism of YEC, consisting of some statement of the unimpeachable evidence that the Earth is very old and that life evolved, is acceptable, but that an explicit statement that YEC is nonsense may be actionable, even though it is plain to any reasonable mind that the second necessarily follows from the first. This appears to me to follow what I would regard as a divide between facts and opinion. As you quite rightly point out, that line is blurred, and edge cases abound. The conclusion I would draw is Joe Friday's: "Just the facts, ma'am." I see no better solution, in the situation you and your colleagues find yourselves.

I am grateful that in this country we have neither a formal prohibition on State agents uttering words for or against a religious teaching, nor a formal bill of rights in Constitutional or statute law. And yet I don't believe that there is any danger of either dogmatic atheism nor of fundamentalist religion being taught in our State schools, nor do I see any dilution of our long and robust tradition of free speech. I believe a teacher who told a student his or her religion was "nonsense" would, on the complaint of the parents, be administratively counselled to amend his or her language with a view to producing both a professional affect and a legitimate educational outcome. This appears to me to produce much the same outcome as the case here, but without lawyering up and arguing about the meaning of the Constitution.

Chip Poirot said: You did say that you had **never** seen a ritual to ward off evil and you went on to list all the Protestant churches in which you had never seen it. Now, like I said, I'll grant you that liberal Congregationalists, Unitarians and liberal Quakers may not be warding off evil (or at least don't think of their practices that way).

Dan said: Now, Chip, how about you? Are you convinced that other people might think of religion in different ways, or do you think that, for example, your interpretation of the Lord's Prayer is the only possible interpretation?

Chip Poirot said: On the other hand, when people have and preach a belief that can only be justified by appeals to the most absolutely bizarre miracles (two of every kind surviving in an Ark) and then claim that that belief is justified by an etic description that meets the standards of natural scientists, then sorry, they are just spouting superstitious religious nonsense and they should be called on it.

Dan said: ...you miss what I think of as the most absurd facet of Genesis: In Genesis 2:19-20 one man, Adam, names all the animals. In fact we know that an army of taxonomists has been working for centuries to name and describe animals, and estimates are that the taxonomists are one-tenth done!

Okay Chip, that was a huge post. I have nowhere near the time (or interest) to respond point-by-point, so I'll try and sum up:

1. I agree with you that 1st amendment protections don't stop at the H.S. school door.

2. I disagree with the idea that the are exactly the same on both sides of the door. Maybe this is a strawman argument and you agree too. If not, then I would simply ask you how you prevent a teacher from teaching creationism or endorsing their own religion, because clearly those things are allowed in the marketplace.

3. If we do agree that they are not exactly the same, then (tautologically) there must be a difference. In other words, there must be some speech allowable in the marketplace that is not allowable in the school. In this case, I would ask you how you would have the courts distinguish between allowed and not allowed classroom speech. Under whatever criteria you propose, I'm going to ask how it prevents a teacher from either teaching creationism or endorsing their own religion, and whether Corbett's speech is allowed or not allowed under your criteria.

As far as I can tell, your argument is that calling creationism 'religious superstitous nonsense' is allowable because it really is factually and observationally true that creationism is religious, and superstitious, and nonsense. Where we seem to still disagee is that, while I personally agree with you that all three terms are fairly accurate, I also think the entire phrase as used by Corbett is more accurately described as "a hostile personal opinion" rather than "a well-argued conclusion that incidentally happens to be upsetting to some people." For me it falls within the current legal category of "improperly hostile to or disapproving of" a religious belief.

As an aside I think you are downplaing the absolutely pro-science subtlety of the judge's opinion. By ruling the creationism taught by Peloza and referred to by Corbett is protected by the religion part of the 1st amendment, he is pretty much setting up Peloza's teaching to be ruled unconstitutional in a future case. Saying that the creationism taught by Peloza is protected as religious speech is a very backhanded compliment at best.

eric said: 3. If we do agree that they are not exactly the same, then (tautologically) there must be a difference. In other words, there must be some speech allowable in the marketplace that is not allowable in the school. In this case, I would ask you how you would have the courts distinguish between allowed and not allowed classroom speech. Under whatever criteria you propose, I'm going to ask how it prevents a teacher from either teaching creationism or endorsing their own religion, and whether Corbett's speech is allowed or not allowed under your criteria.

Dan said:

Chip Poirot said: On the other hand, when people have and preach a belief that can only be justified by appeals to the most absolutely bizarre miracles (two of every kind surviving in an Ark) and then claim that that belief is justified by an etic description that meets the standards of natural scientists, then sorry, they are just spouting superstitious religious nonsense and they should be called on it.

I absolutely agree here, but you miss what I think of as the most absurd facet of Genesis: In Genesis 2:19-20 one man, Adam, names all the animals. In fact we know that an army of taxonomists has been working for centuries to name and describe animals, and estimates are that the taxonomists are one-tenth done!

Chip Poirot said: The short answer is as I have said-by applying a balancing act and starting from the presumption that 1) the goal is to have a marketplace of ideas and 2) by distinguishing the teacher acting as teacher vs. the school district taking official action.

Eric,

I've addressed some of the specifics of your argument multiple times already. In addition, since I accidentally lost a lengthier, more detailed response, I'll keep this one short (which is probably better anyway).

Until recently, the standard that judges applied in judging K-12 speech was premised on the view that speech in the classroom should be a marketplace of ideas. Thus the ideal to strive for was the environment of higher ed, subject to age appropriate constraints. This is the standard that the AFT and the NEA advocate.

Why do you think that is?

Your standard in contrast seems to be that teachers should exercise strict neutrality on controversial issues. Or is it only religious issues where they should be neutral?

How can you be neutral when you teach about topics such as inquisitions, peasant revolts, World Wars, the holocaust or more generally about world views.

History today is neither written nor taught as just a collection of Joe Friday facts.

But anyway, it's worth pointing out yet one more time that Corbett was explaining his editorial policy when he was directly asked by a student to explain his editorial policy. Corbett's answer is factually and literally correct. It is a reasoned judgement. This wasn't about church attendance or taking communion or believing in being born again.

Chip Poirot said: Your standard in contrast seems to be that teachers should exercise strict neutrality on controversial issues. Or is it only religious issues where they should be neutral?

But anyway, it's worth pointing out yet one more time that Corbett was explaining his editorial policy when he was directly asked by a student to explain his editorial policy. Corbett's answer is factually and literally correct. It is a reasoned judgement. This wasn't about church attendance or taking communion or believing in being born again.

eric said:

Chip Poirot said: Your standard in contrast seems to be that teachers should exercise strict neutrality on controversial issues. Or is it only religious issues where they should be neutral?

No strict neutrality needed on any subject; be hostile, just don't be "improperly hostile." And while there's no way to draw a pin-bright line as to what counts as improper, there are two things we can say about it. (1) hostility is more 'proper' when your conclusions and summary comments are supported directly by your academic argument rather than being an op-ed. (2) The standard is going to be higher for religion than for other subjects.

I am against any special pleading for religion, just as I am against special pleading for "sensitivity" on race and gender or on political speech. The issue is very simple: is the discussion and presentation on the issue warranted by normal academic standards? Let's say for example that in a class I am particularly critical of feminist viewpoint theory. Does that mean that undergraduates who have acquired a committment to feminism should rationally fear being downgraded? If I am harshly critical of the role of Republican ideology in leading to the financial crisis, should Republican students reasonably fear being downgraded? Or vice versa: suppose a conservative professor says that he thinks that Murray Weinstein makes valid points. Now I happen to think that Weinstein is pure tripe. And yes, I can see why that statement would offend minority students (hell, I'm offended by Weinstein). I even think that Weinstein simply uses very poor methods. But in the interest of the marketplace of ideas, discussion and even defense of him should be protected in the classroom. But then somehow when I arrive at religious views I'm suddenly supposed to go on eggshells? I think that's a perversion of the establishment clause of the First Amendment which was never intended to exempt religion from the marketplace of ideas. In fact, speech about religion and politics is core speech-other kinds of relatively low value speech such as for example Hustler magazine-are protected secondarily. I mean we protect Hustler's right to publish because we can't devise a standard to ban Hustler and allow the core speech. Now granted, we can reasonably and rightly ban Hustler in the workplace and even in the college classroom. Though even then, there are some very particular circumstances in which it would be appropriate to discuss it and employ it as an example in a college classroom (that would clearly be an example of age inappropriate speech in K-12). But the point is that the First Amendment protects all kinds of religious speech in public schools (as I keep pointing out). It protects the right to wear crosses, to engage in individual prayer, to form student religious groups, to allow proselytizing groups to use school facilities, to allow teachers to act as advisors to proselytizing groups, and even to a very limited degree, to display a Bible). What it doesn't (and shouldn't) protect is coerced participation in religious rituals, engaging in religious indoctrination, using the classroom to proselytize, or having the school district officially sanction religious exercises. If students can make a distinction between a teacher acting as advisor for Campus Ambassadors for Christ and feel confident that they will not be marked down for having a secular viewpoint, then students can make the similar distinction between a history professor expressing the view that Creationists are not telling the truth about science and that Creationism is "superstitios religious nonsense." But at least you seem now to have modified your position.

But anyway, it's worth pointing out yet one more time that Corbett was explaining his editorial policy when he was directly asked by a student to explain his editorial policy. Corbett's answer is factually and literally correct. It is a reasoned judgement. This wasn't about church attendance or taking communion or believing in being born again.

Yes, and I think its worth pointing out yet one more time that - unlike you or I - the judge actually heard both Corbett's lecture verbatim and his direct testimony. Why you think the you are in a better position to judge the reasonableness of Corbett's defense than the judge when you have less information than he did is a head scratcher to me.

You can't be serious. Tim Sandefur posted this case for discussion. He provided links to two different views of the case. So what you are saying is that I cannot have an opinion contrary to the judge's opinion? I can read his ruling, I can read the relevant precedents, and I can come to a decision about whether or not I think the judge's ruling is a good and desirable one. Other people may disagree. But if I took your rhetorical question seriously, the only people who could ever comment on a judge's opinion would be appellant's attorneys and appeals courts judges, and then none of us could comment on the Supreme Court. Judges aren't some kind of sacred power. They are engaged in their own form of argumentation-it is just that their arguments have binding legal power in many instances. But that doesn't put an end to argumentation. Judges don't get a by in our society either in the process of argumentation (we just have to follow their dictates or pay the penalty). They aren't philosopher kings and queens. In order for argumentation to help us arrive at valid policies it is important for the general public to critically engage the bench; The basis of my critique of the judge's ruling is two fold: 1. The judge did not apply any kind of balancing test. He ruled only on one aspect of the First Amendment (the student's right to be free of religious -or irreligious-indoctrination in the classroom) and ignored the other 3/4 of the First Amendment-Corbett's right to set an editorial policy for the school paper that precludes having religious based psuedo-science presented as science, his right to express a criticism of religion (Peloza's Creationist speech is protected for some reason by the First Amendment according to the judge) and his right to engage in discussion and express an opinion on matters of public concern when relevant in the classroom: But there is no need to take my word on this issue-the AFT believe it or not has real lawyers and that kind of stuff, so if you need quote from authority, I'll defer to the AFT (again, it's worth pointing out that the AFT voluntarily joined the suit as a codefendant): 2. I can also fairly criticize the judge for his tortured logic and the implications of his argumentation. For example, the judge ruled that Corbett could quote Mark Twain, but could not do so favorably. The judge noted that the use of the word "magic" to describe religion would in another context have been construed by him as over the line. So his objection is as far as I can tell to the use of the word "superstition". My sense of the judge is that he would be perfectly fine if someone described shamanistic religions as magic or superstitious, but somehow, the judge wants to give Creationism a by. OK-again, if you have to have an authority I'll point to Volokh. My point number 2 here is essentially the same as Volokh's (I came to it independently before I had read what Volokh wrote, but I think he puts it well). Anyway, if it matters (and I don't really see that it does) I've been teaching full time now for about 18 years at the higher ed level. I've been through the PC wars. I've served on campus discrimination advisory panels. I've provided advice to my local on similar issues in preparation for bargaining. I have a pretty good sense of how these issues get practically applied and what their practical impact is in the classroom.

Judge Bean lives!

Did anyone say compromise?

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/

(gotta love Wiley)