Re: In the News: High school teacher found guilty of insulting

On May 2, 1:29 pm, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2 Mag, 22:17, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On May 2, 3:39 pm, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2 Mag, 21:13, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Teachers have every right, indeed DUTY, under the law to teach that
creationism/ID is SCIENTIFIC nonsense.  But they have no right under
US law do teach that RELIGION ITSELF is "nonsense", any more than a
teacher would have the right to teach that atheism is "nonsense".

Existing law is crushingly clear on this: Government cannot support
any religion, and it cannot support anti-religion.

The teacher in this case was wrong.  The judge was right.

If a student claims that diseases are caused by evil spirits and his
biology teacher says that this belief is "superstitious nonsense" is
the teacher right or wrong?

A good question.  And US law provides the test for answering that
question:

Can the teacher demonstrate a secular purpose? Then the teacher is
right.

What is a "secular purpose"?

An intent that involves behaviors, activities or ends lacking in a
religious bias.

Either a belief is superstitious nonsense or it isn't.

This is one of those statements that seem so innocuously simple at
first, but are labyrinthian when considered in depth. Think about it,
half of our time here is spent insisting that while something of the
sort may be true in the ideal, there is no mechanism on earth for
practical demonstration of the notion. Science doesn't do it, science
only establishes the empirical reliability, or not, of some particular
observation. Science says something is, or is not, science. Whether
that something is true, or even superstitious, is a level of
interpretation that we add to the evaluation.

In any case, the fact that we can't always know if something is
superstitious nonsense or not occasions laws that restrain comment on
such matters by the government, or those acting in its stead.

Can the teacher NOT demonstrate a secular purpose?  Then no, the
teacher is wrong.

I'm pretty sure the teacher can provide a secular purpose for
declaring that diseases are not caused by evil spirits.

I'm also pretty sure the teacher could NOT provide any secular purpose
for referring to a particular religious opinion as "supertitious
nonsense".  And indeed the judge says specifically and clearly that no
such secular purpose was provided.

What is the difference?

One has a secular purpose, the other does not (beyond attempting to
disparage religion).

And that answers the question.

If, instead of declaring that fundie religion is "supertitious
nonsense", the teacher had declared that atheism is "anti-god
nonsense", I wonder how many of us here would change our opinions 180
degrees on the ruling . . . . . . .

Creationism can be shown to be superstitious nonsense, atheism can't.

But that doesn't consider the whole of the quote. Corbett apparently
said that creationism is "religious, superstitious nonsense." Equating
creationism with superstitious nonsense can be touchy outside of
science class, but including "religious" in the comment leaves little
room for defense. It is a direct attack on an individual's belief
system, not just his opinions on biological origins. Corbett's words
went beyond science, they created an equivalence between religion and
superstitious nonsense.

I'm pretty ambivalent about how much (or even whether) Corbett should
suffer for this indiscretion, but it's clear to me he was wrong.

RLC

.

Relevant Pages
Loading