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

Robert Camp wrote:

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


Without trial transcript I'm not sure that we can assess whether
Corbett was wrong with any clarity. From what I've read in this thread
and embedded references, I would argue there's a "clear" secular
purpose in using such phrases as "Jesus glasses" in reference to the
specific historic event Corbett's lesson was about. Now: might this
phrase be offensive to some? Yes. Did Corbett explain the intended
meaning of or purpose for using this phrase to his class? Don't know.
Could he use a different phrase to achieve the same pedagogical
purpose? Almost certainly. Maybe with less effect, but almost
certainly. Would I find similar "secular purpose" in every phrase
Corbett used? Don't have any way to know, being unaware of exact
statements and contexts.

There is a clearly secular purpose in being able to criticize
institutions on supportable, factual basis, even if those institutions
are religious. That's the way I would argue the school district's POV.

Regards,
Stephen

--

.

Relevant Pages
Loading