Wednesday, May 06, 2009



Anti-Christian teacher rapped in California

We read:
"A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism "superstitious nonsense" during a classroom lecture. U.S. District Judge James Selna issued the ruling Friday after a 16-month legal battle between student Chad Farnan and his former teacher, James Corbett.

Farnan sued in U.S. District Court in 2007, alleging that Corbett violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs. The lawsuit cited more than 20 statements made by Corbett during one day of class, all of which were recorded by Farnan, to support allegations of a broader teaching method that "favors irreligion over religion" and made Christian students feel uncomfortable.

During the course of the litigation, the judge found that most of the statements cited in the court papers did not violate the First Amendment because they did not refer directly to religion or were appropriate in the context of the classroom lecture. But Selna ruled Friday that one comment, where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights.

Farnan is not interested in monetary damages, said his attorney, Jennifer Monk of the Murrieta-based Christian legal group Advocates for Faith & Freedom. Instead, he plans to ask the court to prohibit Corbett from making similar comments in the future. Farnan's family would also like to see the school district offer teacher training and monitor Corbett's classroom for future violations, Monk said....

Corbett, a 20-year teaching veteran, remains at Capistrano Valley High School. Farnan is now a junior at the school, but quit Corbett's Advanced Placement European history class after his teacher made the comments.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.

Source

Sad that a kid has to tape-record his teachers to get fair treatment.

I was a very fundamentalist Christian during my High School years around 50 years ago and I objected vigorously to certain school practices that I considered un-Biblical. The only consequence for me was a mild chat with the headmaster and permission for me to go my own way. I cannot fault the way any of the teachers treated me at any time. I still think of all of them with respect. I think there was more genuine tolerance then than there is now. These days people just talk about it.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

But the teacher is right, it is superstitious nonsense.

A giant space fairy created the entire universe in 6 days and then took a day off to put his feet up in his garden and read "God" magazine.

oh yeah, that's completely believable.

Anonymous said...

So what's the alternative? That the universe just popped into existence out of nothing without any cause at all?

Anonymous said...

"So what's the alternative? That the universe just popped into existence out of nothing without any cause at all?"

Those who cannot think, believe.

Brian said...

Those who cannot tolerate, belittle

Anonymous said...

Those who can think look at science.

The Law of Causality—that every material effect must have a cause—is a fundamental law of science, if not The fundamental law of science. Without it, you cannot have science. Period.

Even atheist David Hume wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." (from The Letters of David Hume.)

Are you willing to throw away all of science so you can hold on to what you want to believe?

Doug said...

I believe God created everything in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. How someone interprets the evidence all boils down to what they believe. If you believe in a universe without God, you will believe in the big bang/evolution. Starting from the Bible, in Genesis 1:1, I can fit the same evidence into my belief without having to change the physical laws of the universe.

I will happily discuss how the evidence fits into a biblical frame, as long as we discuss the evidence and do not resort to petty attacking and name calling.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:50
I'm sure we'd all love to know what kind of nonsense you believe in, assuming you believe in anything other than president Obummer.

Stan B said...

That the Universe "spontaneously erupted" some 13-18 billion years ago out of complete nothingness certainly sounds like "superstitious nonsense" to me.

Yeah, I'm sure universes are "spontaneously erupting" all the time.

Sounds to me like Anynomus 12:50AM believes in "spontaneous generation."

Bobby said...

"But the teacher is right, it is superstitious nonsense."

---Teachers shouldn't be teaching their opinions and beliefs. I taught classes myself, I didn't force my students to watch The O'reilly Factor, I didn't belittle them when 99% of my class supported Obama. But progressive teachers are different, like the nazis and the communists, they don't tolerate dissent.

I'm not a religious person, but I would rather believe in God than in your progressive bullshit.

Anonymous said...

"Sounds to me like Anynomus 12:50AM believes in "spontaneous generation."NICE!

BTW, when did blogger start stripping the paragraph break after putting a paragraph in italics? Is there any way to fix it?

Anonymous said...

There is, of course, the small fact that the big bang theory does NOT suggest that everything came from nothing, but rather that everything came from everything that had been compressed into a singularity smaller than a pin head.

But way to have a death grip on inaccurate portrayals of scientific theories, which are NOT the same as hypotheses. A space fairy creating Earth in 6 days is a hypothesis as there is no corroborating evidence, nor can it be verified through experimentation, unlike the big bang, which is corroborated, by things like red shift, and by using hadron colliders.

Anonymous019 said...

But if, like you said, every material effect must have a cause and everything that has a beginning has a cause, than saying that everything was compressed into a single point only delays the question.

Where did it come from?

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight. This super-compressed thing containing the entire universe in an object the size of the point of a pin existed for all eternity, then suddenly exploded precisely enough (an expansion rate of within 1 in 1 trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion) to permit life. Is that right?

And your evidence for this is…?

Anonymous said...

Well, the theory doesn't say that it existed as a singularity for eternity before that, does it?

The theory explains how things are now, and how they got this way. It doesn't explain how they got to be how they were before they got to be how they are.

Secondly. Have you never had something just fall? I've had posters that were just sitting on my wall just give up and fall off with zero influence. obviously, what happened was that the material holding them to the wall met it's fatigue limit and failed. It's not hard to see a similar event happening to the singularity.

The stresses and forces involved in having the entire universe compressed into a pin head are so vast that the matter at the core simply could not be compressed anymore, and so, what with action=reaction, they pushed back and created a chain reaction that caused the big bang.

Cause and effect.

Quite simple really.

Anonymous019 said...

Yes, but where did it come from? What was it's cause?

Anonymous said...

Oh little human minds thinking they KNOW about ultimate reality - isn't humility a Christian virtue? Just be honest and admit you can't know. Science at least is honest in proposing reasonable hypotheses based on observation which can be modified as more information is gathered.
Religions just dream up their own stories to account for the world around us, and after thousands of years of handed-down oral and written traditions, dumb people today take it as fact rather than myth or allegory (and their ignorance shows by their obvious lack of understanding re "evolution" and "the Big Bang" (which btw. doesn't mean everything came from nothing!!). Get an education for X-sake!

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is reasonable to say that the singularity deteriorated to the point where it exploded, just like the adhesive on your poster deteriorated to the point where it fell.

When did your poster begin to fall? The answer is simple: When you put it up on the wall.

Likewise, the deterioration of the singularity had to begin in order to reach a point where it exploded. Even if the period of time needed to reach that point was unimaginably long, it could not be infinite. Therefore, the singularity still had to have a beginning, either some uncaused event (violating the fundamentals of how things work) or there had to be an outside cause.

I also noticed that you didn't address the point that the rate of expansion triggered by this "random" explosion could not vary more than 1 part in 10^20th without making life impossible.

BTW… Ridicule is not an argument.

Anonymous019 said...

You're discounting the argument before argument is given. Please take our arguments for their own sake, and not because of where they came from.

We haven't yet made a claim as to what caused the beginning of the universe, we've merely asked you how you think the universe came into being.

You said yourself that everything that has a beginning has a cause. What is the cause of the universe?

Anonymous said...

well, there are multiple hypotheses about what was around before the singularity.

One is that eventually the universe will expand too far, stop, and begin contracting again into a singularity that will explode once more. a never ending cycle of big bangs and big crunches.

Another hypothesis suggests that there are multiple universes in close proximity to each other wafting around. When these universes touch it releases a massive amount of energy in the form of a big bang.

I believe those are the two more possible/current hypotheses.

As for the rate of expansion, well, it is what it is. Try telling a lottery winner that the odds of him picking all 6 numbers were 1:49 billion. Clearly, these things happen.

To me, the Genesis account is particularly offensive. Not only did God create us to be essentially slaves ("and there was no one to till the soil" so he creates man.), not only were we then expected to abide by this guy's every whim AND worship him, but people still think we owe this slaver asshole thousands of years later!!

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like you think that there is no God, and you hate him.

Much like Christopher Hitchens, actually.

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like you don't understand logic. If I think there is no God how could I hate "him"????

Brian said...

If the universe is still expanding, then don't you think we have enough room to allow all beliefs?

There are those who are Bible literalists, and as far as I'm concerned, they can believe what they want as long as they don't force me to conform to their belief system.

There are those who believe the Bible is part allegory, part history. Again, let them believe what they want, because America was founded on religious freedom.

Personally, I was raised a Catholic, but I never fully believed that God created the world in 6 24-hour rotations of the Earth's axis.

One could theorize that time did not exist as we know it back then and a 'Day' may have merely been determined by when God was finished with each part of creation. When this word was passed down to Mankind, we had to put it in terms we could relate to, thus the term 'Day' was used.

As to God creating us as slaves, I don't exactly see that in what is written about, but I do have a problem with some aspects of the Old Testament. Example: One of God's people asks his oppressor to cut him a break, but God harden's the oppressor's heart so that he doesn't comply with the request. The oppressor and family are then punished.

I don't see that as a loving or caring God, but I also acknowledge that these tales/scriptures were written for a people that perhaps needed a harsh and vengeful God to keep them in line.

The New Testament, however, is a totally different approach. Christ preached tolerance for those who do not follow in your footsteps. He is the opposite of the Old Testament God, and frankly, a lot easier to follow because he is/was one of us and has tempered the Almighty wrath with Humanity.

I am by no means a truly religious person. I make it to church maybe once a year, I own a Bible, but haven't opened for almost a year now. But I recognize the need for everyone to be able to exercise his or her own belief system.

When I'm in stressful situations, I turn to prayer. In good times, I sometimes remain silent. But it gives me hope to think that there is someone up there helping me out and giving me the strength to move on.

You can call it self-delusion if you want, but it works, and it gets me through the day. Isn't that the bottom line? Don't we just want to find what works for us to get us through the slings and arrows?

If my way works for you, fine. If it doesn't, also fine. I gave you my opinion and now I move on. I don't cut you down because you don't subscribe to my beliefs, so don't cut me down because I don't follow yours.

Dean said...

It is great fun watching religious folk saying, "We know who created everything, so science is wrong," and science folk responding, "We know how it all started so God doesn't exist."

There is nothing in the Bible that says how everything was created. I believe it does say something along the line of, "With God all things are possible." Religious folk need to stop worrying about how things were created and be happy with their knowledge as to who created it.

Neither is there anything in science that disproves the existence of God or His role in creation. Science needs to relax on the issue, continue searching for the 'how' and stop worrying about the existence or non-existence of God.

As to the original subject of all this hoopla, no teacher has the right to impress his/her beliefs on students. A teacher's task is that of guiding students in the quest for knowledge, and allow them to make their own decisions as to what they believe.

Anonymous said...

Whether or not you believe in a particular way of how the universe was made or created does not give anyone the right to be rude about another persons beliefs. Your rights end were someone else's begin. I believe in Intelligent design, but I do not try and foce my beliefs on people who agree with Darwin, and I do not want them forcing their beliefs on me.

Anonymous said...

"It is great fun watching religious folk saying, "We know who created everything, so science is wrong," and science folk responding, "We know how it all started so God doesn't exist.""

yeah, that argument never made sense to me. Clearly that we know how it started would not indicate that God doesn't exist, but more that religion is a complete load of crap.

Anonymous said...

'God' exists as a 3-letter word. What it represents is as various as there are people contemplating it.

Anonymous said...

I look at all of this in a slightly different light.

I believe in God. If I am wrong about God, then nothing happens when I die, I am just gone. Science was right.

However, those of you who don't believe in God ... You die and find out He really does exist.

What would be your backup plan then? Science?

Ferndale Fanny

Anonymous said...

We'll cross that bridge if we come to it.

What you need to ask yourself though, is what if you're worshipping the wrong God?

You'd be just as screwed as we are. And so your "might as well believe" attitude hasn't actually helped.

Anonymous said...

Yes Fanny - it's not an 'either one or the other" situation. It's either you die and are aware of nothing else,or there are a myriad of other possibilties, with your conception of God and the "hereafter" as just one of countless possible scenarios, and if yours just happens to be right it would be like winning the jackpot with as few odds.
Btw. Science doesn't concern itself with 'God', only with observable and measurable phenomena and then proposes hypotheses to explain them, but subject to modification in the light of further data. Please don't misrepresent 'Science'.

Anonymous019 said...

Science (hopefully) concerns itself with the truth. It's true you can't prove God through science, but if you can infer from the evidence, then it's just as well.

Anonymous said...

Scientific theory = a good guess.

Anonymous said...

You have to define "God" first and then prove or disprove that definition, but there is no one clear definition of "God", so it's a waste of time (unless you act on specific definitions one at a time).
PS. Scientific theories are more than a "good guess" - do you think the theory of gravity is a guess, or the atomic theory, or germ theory, etc., etc. I guess your computer you're using now is the lucky result of another good guess or two or the medical treatments that might save your life. Perleez!

Anonymous said...

God is everything that we do not understand. Man created God to deal with concepts such as infinity. God is getting smaller every day.