• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

Should public school teachers be able to call creationism "superstitious nonsense"?

  • Yes; they have freedom of speech and academic freedom

    Votes: 27 54.0%

  • No; this amounts to the state picking sides on a religious matter

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 11 22.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Kandahar

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
A public high school teacher in California may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion in his classroom, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a student charging that the teacher’s hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion.

US judges rule for teacher who called creationism 'superstitious nonsense' - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

I thought this was an interesting ruling because it isn't specifically about evolution versus creationism. (On that issue, schools should obviously teach evolution and not creationism, because one is a matter of scientific fact and the other is a matter of religion.) But in this case, you have a teacher who specifically called creationism "superstitious nonsense." Some people had a problem with this and sued the school, on the grounds that the state should not establish a religion. The judge ruled that the teacher should be able to voice that opinion in the classroom if he wanted to.

I'm actually on the plaintiff's side on this. While I think there is plenty of good reason to be hostile toward creationism, that's no reason for the teacher to make a statement like this. For those who disagree, ask yourself if you would be OK with a teacher saying the same thing about some other doctrine of religious faith: "Judaism is superstitious nonsense," or "the virgin birth is superstitious nonsense," or "not believing in God is superstitious nonsense." I think that whether one agrees with those statements or not, it's a bad precedent to allow government employees to express their personal religious views to a captive audience.

What do you think?
 
Kandahar said:
Umm yes? Is that an argument for or against the ruling?
Click to expand...

Obviously, the US Constitution allows for free speech, so the argument was just, as the statement was protected by the teacher's freedom of speech.
Of course, a student could speak out against that or the media could, it's all the matter of free speech
 
Proud South Korean said:
Obviously, the US Constitution allows for free speech, so the argument was just, as the statement was protected by the teacher's freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment also states that the government shall establish no religion, so it isn't quite that simple. Government employees are entitled to freedom of speech like everyone else, but they aren't necessarily entitled to it when they're acting in an official capacity. It's why a teacher can't lead his class in prayer, for example. Or why a federal judge can't have a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. They have freedom of speech on their own time, but they cannot act in a way that suggests that the state favors one religion over another. Which is why I'm siding with the plaintiffs on this case.
 
Kandahar said:
I thought this was an interesting ruling because it isn't specifically about evolution versus creationism. (On that issue, schools should obviously teach evolution and not creationism, because one is a matter of scientific fact and the other is a matter of religion.) But in this case, you have a teacher who specifically called creationism "superstitious nonsense." Some people had a problem with this and sued the school, on the grounds that the state should not establish a religion. The judge ruled that the teacher should be able to voice that opinion in the classroom if he wanted to.

I'm actually on the plaintiff's side on this. While I think there is plenty of good reason to be hostile toward creationism, that's no reason for the teacher to make a statement like this. For those who disagree, ask yourself if you would be OK with a teacher saying the same thing about some other doctrine of religious faith: "Judaism is superstitious nonsense," or "the virgin birth is superstitious nonsense," or "not believing in God is superstitious nonsense." I think that whether one agrees with those statements or not, it's a bad precedent to allow government employees to express their personal religious views to a captive audience.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

1.) This ruling came from the 9th Circuit. Enough said.
2.) Try substituting Muslim references for religious creationist references and I can't see the court issuing the ruling.
3.) Try substituting liberal creationist for religious creationist and again, I can't see the same ruling.
4.) When you're an employee your freedom of speech is curtailed.
 
Well, it is. Saying so is not establishing a religion. You can be religious and not believe in creationism. It's establishing a standard for what counts as science. Establishing that standard is necessary in order to teach science. Introducing something like creationism to the discussion is giving it far more credit than it deserves. It doesn't belong in arena of science - it belongs in the arena of, well, superstition. And that should be made clear when someone falsely conflates the two as if they are equally valid scientific theories.

I really doubt there would be this sort of dust-up if he'd said the same about someone who believes in a flat earth.
 
Calling it nonsense is an estimation in poor taste IMO in the company of other people's children, calling it superstition is accurate. What does this have to do with "establishing a religion" Kandahar? Was the state "picking sides on a religious matter" in "Kitzmiller v. Dover School District"? Nope, just calling bull**** what it is.

To me this is about as bad as telling kinder-gardeners that Santa doesn't exist. You're not wrong but...
 
Last edited:
If a teacher can state that creationism is bunk then a teacher can state that creationism is fact. This should have never got to the lawsuit stage. A school system should realize where this would lead and handled it before the lawsuit happened.

Somehow I doubt that the court would have ruled for the latter. It's why the 9th is a running joke.
 
If you are teaching science, creationism is superstitious nonsense. No scientific method has been used to come up with creationism. In this case I don’t know if the student complained in class that creationism was not being considered as a valid position in science, which it is not. If the student was challenging the teacher and would not cease when it was explained that creationism is not science then having the words superstitious nonsense used is understandable. If the teacher starts with creationism is superstitious nonsense as part of a science curriculum then there is a problem with the teacher’s methodology, and that should be addressed by the teacher’s supervisors. Creationist teaching is being done in a way now to suggest challenging science. In doing that it intends to cause this trouble and allows them to complain, and intended result.
 
I think she should not be allowed to say this. It endorses religious ideals that creationism is utterly false. It's an arrogant and moronic statement to make as well. I think it amounts to the state endorsing a side on a religious/scientific issue.
 
Kandahar said:
I thought this was an interesting ruling because it isn't specifically about evolution versus creationism. (On that issue, schools should obviously teach evolution and not creationism, because one is a matter of scientific fact and the other is a matter of religion.) But in this case, you have a teacher who specifically called creationism "superstitious nonsense." Some people had a problem with this and sued the school, on the grounds that the state should not establish a religion. The judge ruled that the teacher should be able to voice that opinion in the classroom if he wanted to.

I'm actually on the plaintiff's side on this. While I think there is plenty of good reason to be hostile toward creationism, that's no reason for the teacher to make a statement like this. For those who disagree, ask yourself if you would be OK with a teacher saying the same thing about some other doctrine of religious faith: "Judaism is superstitious nonsense," or "the virgin birth is superstitious nonsense," or "not believing in God is superstitious nonsense." I think that whether one agrees with those statements or not, it's a bad precedent to allow government employees to express their personal religious views to a captive audience.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

My religion teacher at a Lutheran school called Methodism a cult. Granted it is a private school. But still....I was raised Methodist.
 
digsbe said:
I think she should not be allowed to say this. It endorses religious ideals that creationism is utterly false. It's an arrogant and moronic statement to make as well. I think it amounts to the state endorsing a side on a religious/scientific issue.
Click to expand...
If the topic of discussion is science, regardless of the class, and a student brings up creationism as a challenge to science, are both views valid are both views valid in the discussion of science? Or is one view not science at all, but rather something else? If so what?
 
I prefer the way it was handled when I was in school.

In Freshman Biology in HS, my biology teacher said, "There are two main ideas about the origin of life; Creationism and Evolution. I am going to teach you the theory of evolution. It is a required part of biology, since it is the current working theory in science on the development of life. You don't have to believe it, but you do have to learn it because it is part of this course. Don't ask me which one I believe in, because I am not allowed to say: as an authority figure my opinion might have undue influence on you." When a couple of students pressed him to reveal his own belief, he flatly refused and proceeded to teach evolution without any expressions of bias.

That sounds about right to me.



This was a bad ruling; it will likely be overturned. Teachers should stick to teaching the curriculum and not comment on religious beliefs.
 
Last edited:
RiverDad said:
1.) This ruling came from the 9th Circuit. Enough said.
2.) Try substituting Muslim references for religious creationist references and I can't see the court issuing the ruling.
3.) Try substituting liberal creationist for religious creationist and again, I can't see the same ruling.
4.) When you're an employee your freedom of speech is curtailed.
Click to expand...

Just say what you really mean -- you don't like the ruling because of your political beliefs. If the teacher had said, "Evolution is crap" you would have applauded the decision louder than anyone. If she had said that and the court slapped her down, you'd be crying about "Freedom of Speech!!! Academic Freedom!!!"

But I guess the First Amendment only applies to Christians and Conservatives. I guess I got too caught up in what it "says" rather than what they "really meant."

Individually,

Point 1: ATTACK THE SOURCE!!!
Point 2: To me your sentence means that if she said the same things about the Muslim creation myth, the decision would have been diffferent. Actually, with the difference of some small details, it's pretty much the same as the Jewish account.
Point 3: You've already been smacked down on the idea of "liberal creationists" on another thread. You can't defend it.
Point 4: Ah, but the School District is an arm of government. Therefore, the First Amendment most definitely applies.
 
The Ninth Circuit Court is the most-overturned court in history. This is not a good thing. It means they're "out there".
 
I'm just going to note something about the lecture.

Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”

So science is trying to disprove something as opposed to trying to determine scientific facts? Science is not the idea of trying to "disprove" something. IMO the guy has no business not only in not teaching religion, but also science.
 
As a teacher is wasn't a smart thing to say, especially if it was said during teaching to the entire class. If it was said as a way to challenge students, as in debate or discussion, that would be different. Should he be sued? No, of course not.

What I find interesting is that I'm betting the people that want to sue would have been fine with his saying evolution is nonsense.
 
Goshin said:
I prefer the way it was handled when I was in school.

In Freshman Biology in HS, my biology teacher said, "There are two main ideas about the origin of life; Creationism and Evolution. I am going to teach you the theory of evolution. It is a required part of biology, since it is the current working theory in science on the development of life. You don't have to believe it, but you do have to learn it because it is part of this course. Don't ask me which one I believe in, because I am not allowed to say: as an authority figure my opinion might have undue influence on you." When a couple of students pressed him to reveal his own belief, he flatly refused and proceeded to teach evolution without any expressions of bias.

That sounds about right to me.



This was a bad ruling; it will likely be overturned. Teachers should stick to teaching the curriculum and not comment on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I agree with 99.9% of the post. I think the ruling was fine based on the First Amendment, though I think that the comment on religious beliefs reflected a lapse in judgement. He could have just taught Evolution and made no comment on Creationism.
 
Last edited:
Layla_Z said:
What I find interesting is that I'm betting the people that want to sue would have been fine with his saying evolution is nonsense.
Click to expand...


Mostly, people get mad when their ox is gored, not when someone's else's is. :mrgreen:
 
Layla_Z said:
As a teacher is wasn't a smart thing to say, especially if it was said during teaching to the entire class. If it was said as a way to challenge students, as in debate or discussion, that would be different. Should he be sued? No, of course not.

What I find interesting is that I'm betting the people that want to sue would have been fine with his saying evolution is nonsense.
Click to expand...

So if a teacher was teaching that creationism is how we were created, you would think it was wrong to sue to stop him if the school did nothing?
 
Goshin said:
In Freshman Biology in HS, my biology teacher said, "There are two main ideas about the origin of life; Creationism and Evolution. I am going to teach you the theory of evolution. It is a required part of biology, since it is the current working theory in science on the development of life. You don't have to believe it, but you do have to learn it because it is part of this course. Don't ask me which one I believe in, because I am not allowed to say: as an authority figure my opinion might have undue influence on you."
Click to expand...

That approach is completely inappropriate for a science class room.

Regardless of what a person wishes to believe, Creationism has no place in a science classroom. None. Not even honorable mention. It has nothing at all to do with science. Mentioning it the way that your teacher did actually comes across as an attempt to elevate creationism into the realm of science and protest the fact that evolution is a required part if science.

The correct approach, IMO, is top say "Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory, therefore it is taught in science classes. If you wish to discuss creationism, then please feel free to do so in a more appropriate setting such as a philosophy or theology class. This course covers scientific information."

And with regard to the court case, I believe it was the wrong ruling and it should be overturned.

Not simply because the teacher shared his opinion on creationism, though. It is actually due mostly to his comments complete irrelevance to the subject of history (which is what he was supposed to be teaching).

Had the same comment come in a logic, philosophy or theology class, though, it wouldn't have been the wrong ruling. In those classes I would also support a teacher saying the reverse (that creationism was logi8cal and evolution was superstitious nonsense) because in those courses such opinions can be relevant to the subject matter at hand.
 
Layla_Z said:
As a teacher is wasn't a smart thing to say, especially if it was said during teaching to the entire class. If it was said as a way to challenge students, as in debate or discussion, that would be different. Should he be sued? No, of course not.

What I find interesting is that I'm betting the people that want to sue would have been fine with his saying evolution is nonsense.
Click to expand...

I also think it's interesting that many support banning anything remotely religious or faith based (teachers praying, Bibles, crosses, etc) from classrooms and from clothing for reasons of "protecting religious freedom and not respecting/supporting a religion." Why should the reverse also be allowed? If a teacher can't support religion or even wear something remotely faith based without causing an issue then why should they be allowed to attack someone's religious/scientific beliefs with rudeness and arrogance? If the argument is that this speech is protected under the first amendment, then why isn't speech supporting religion/faith also protected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom