Comments on: Atheist Teacher vs. Christian Student

By: james corbett

james corbett — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:04:51 +0000

Peloza’s case was thrown out by the judge who called it a “frivolous lawsuit filed in bad faith.” BTW, the “Advocates” (Chad’s lawyers) have sued on behalf of a pharmacist who refused to sell birth control to single women, on behalf of a doctor who refused reproductive services to a lesbian, on behalf of a “Christian” school that claim the University of California discriminates against Christians because they won’t accept A Bible BAsed History of the U.S. as equivalent to AP U.S. History, and on behalf of a “Christian” student who wanted the right to wear an anti-homosexual t-shirt to school.

By: james corbett

james corbett — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 04:01:30 +0000

Also for the record, the “superstitious religious nonsense” quote (referring not to creationism, which is nonsense in any event, but to the teaching of JOhn Peloza, a teacher who sued the school district claiming the right to teach “young earth creation science” because he had the “academic freedom” to teach science as he, a “qualified” science teacher, sees it.

jim

By: james corbett

james corbett — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 03:57:35 +0000

I’m the teacher. It would be a kindness of the writer would, at least, make an effort to find out what I said before condemning me. The “Jesus Glasses” quote, which the judge ruled was NOT a violation of Chad’s rights, came during a lecture on Joseph II the 18th century Austrian ruler. Joseph tried to free the serfs by outlawing the practice and closing the monasteries which had enslaved hundreds of thousands. The church (and the aristocracy which controlled the church)didn’t want to give up their slaves, so they took advantage of their control over religion and convinced the peasants that Joseph was going against God. In effect, I said, the church put “Jesus Glasses” on the peasants, and they couldn’t see their own interests. The judge is a “W” appointee who’s rulings have been wildly at variance with legal precedent and logic, found me “liable” for one comment. I’m confident that decision will be overturned.

By: Steven

Steven — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:56:37 +0000

Teaching kids the truth is a tricky job – it seems to change every few years. Once we leave the math and science classrooms aren’t we at the mercy of opinion and interpretation? The history taught in today’s classrooms has changed over time – the facts may be the same but the interpretation changes depdending on current perceptions. Rather than trying to deliver a context-free summary of dry facts, I hope that my child’s teachers will engage her critical thinking skills to explore how the past has shaped the present. I especially hope that she’ll hear some things she may not agree with – how else will she prepare for life outside the classroom? More and more it seems that we’re asking teachers to impart knowledge while wearing blinders, a muzzle, and with both hands tied behind their back.

By: Brooks

Brooks — Wed, 13 May 2009 15:28:06 +0000

In the UK, there is a subject “Religious Education”. I remember my RE teacher, who was a devout Christian, being very keen to foster debate into religion and to teach us about other beliefs (or lack thereof).

I’m reminded of how in this one Dawkins documentary, The Genius Of Charles Darwin, Dawkins was speaking to kids in a public high school biology class about evolution and explaining to the kids why simply believing in creationism because you were raised that way is not a good reason to believe it and he later was talking about how biology teachers are scared to be more vocal about creationism being bogus. You’d never see something like that ever happen in the U.S. Do British high school teachers have more flexibility to speak their mind about religion than American teachers?

By: Vincent

Vincent — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:14:37 +0000

I have a problem with his warning.
He says the discussion may be provocative and that students may voice any opinion.
He does not say he will be voicing provocative opinions. I don’t think his warning letter is sufficient to cover anything he says, just anything students say.

By: James H

James H — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:28:33 +0000

Professor Eugene Volokh's analysis reminds us that law and good pedagogical standards are entirely different matters. I read through the decision twice. My own takeaway is that the Lemon test is extremely subjective.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:53:10 +0000

This is amazing. I don’t know how the US legal system works but if a teacher states (in writing prior to the class) that he is going to be provocative and he is then provocative, I really fail to see how there is any issue at all.

In the UK, there is a subject “Religious Education”. I remember my RE teacher, who was a devout Christian, being very keen to foster debate into religion and to teach us about other beliefs (or lack thereof).

With specific reference to the matter at hand, there is no scientific basis for creationism and as such, there can be no defense for prosecuting someone who says so. The judge in this matter clearly has no grasp on reality.

I know if a teacher said something against atheism (e.g. atheism is responsible for the worst genocides in the 20th century), I wouldn’t feel comfortable in the class.

If the teacher was deliberately being provocative to foster debate, then why? I ask, because this is exactly the kind of statement that some of my religious friends use when we discuss atheism and religion. Surely, a controlled debate is exactly the place for extreme comments to be debunked?

If it goes to appeal, I’ll be more than happy to make a contribution towards the teacher’s legal costs.

By: cl

cl — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:15:41 +0000

What makes you think I wouldn’t believe in Apollo? Or Zeus? Or others?

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 13 May 2009 03:24:43 +0000

And don’t kid yourself – atheism entails positive truth claims.

CL,
Please provide evidence to support your positive truth claims that Zeus, Thor, Apollo and Poseidon don’t exist? Unless you believe they exist of course.