US judges rule for teacher who called creationism 'superstitious nonsense'

Aug 20, 2011 Full story: www.csmonitor.com 28

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 teacherís hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#21 Aug 21, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Should we also be teaching about all the Who's down in Whoville as well? Maybe a science class on just were green eggs come from? How a biology lesson on just what Thing1 & Thing2 are?
If you want to teach religion (i.e. creationism), that's what churches are for.
The way some athiests treat evolution, it probably should be taught in a church as well.
nOgOd

Rockford, IL

#22 Aug 21, 2011
"If you believe in a judgement day, I have to seriously question your judgement."

Bill Maher

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#23 Aug 22, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually a 1987 Supreme Court ruling also prevents creationism from being taught in public schools, since it's a violation of the separation of church and state.
If you are referring to Edwards v. Aguillard, I do not believe that ruling prevents the teaching of creationaism or intelligent design in public schools. It only prevents state governments from "requiring" it be taught in public schools.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#24 Aug 22, 2011
nOgOd wrote:
"If you believe in a judgement day, I have to seriously question your judgement."
Bill Maher
LOL. I do not believe in a "judgement" day. However, I would be even less likely to belive anything an idiot like Bill Maher would say.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#25 Aug 22, 2011
dragoon70056 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are referring to Edwards v. Aguillard, I do not believe that ruling prevents the teaching of creationaism or intelligent design in public schools. It only prevents state governments from "requiring" it be taught in public schools.
It prevents creationism or intelligent design from being part of any official curriculim in public schools. Of course any teacher can talk about anything in class they want, but if they go too far there will certainly be lawsuits.

Since: May 08

Montebello, CA

#26 Aug 22, 2011
the teacher was wrong but the law suite I think was overkill. The student and his parent should of instead filed a complaint under the equal opportunity code that all school are required to have, stating the teacher was creating a hostile environment for learning based on religious belief.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#27 Aug 22, 2011
Grumpy Guy wrote:
the teacher was wrong but the law suite I think was overkill. The student and his parent should of instead filed a complaint under the equal opportunity code that all school are required to have, stating the teacher was creating a hostile environment for learning based on religious belief.
Obviously the teacher wasn't wrong since he/she won the lawsuit, but calling it "superstitious nonsense" was probably unnecessary. I would just have said it's a religious belief which has no basis in fact.

Since: May 08

Montebello, CA

#28 Aug 22, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously the teacher wasn't wrong since he/she won the lawsuit, but calling it "superstitious nonsense" was probably unnecessary. I would just have said it's a relschoolboard did igious belief which has no basis in fact.
If I remember right the School board did take action and call his comments inappropriate. The Court said this was not a Federal case, which I agree. Its a case that should be settled on the local level.
And I would file a complaint under the equal opportunity act , not sue under the first amendment.But the lawyers where trying to make laws using the court, not resolve the problem. You need to sue under the right law.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mission Viejo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CA California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 13 hr RiccardoFire 16,008
CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 17 hr El SupremoS 201,038
CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10) Sun No Time for Tea 5,084
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) Sep 27 Bucketeers 7,965
China Moon Did Not Impress My Appetite Sep 26 Got Diarrhea 1
Who do you support for Magnolia School District... (Oct '10) Sep 25 Pj morelo 18
Review: South County Psychotherapy - Paul M Fic... (Sep '09) Sep 22 Emily W 11

Mission Viejo News Video

Mission Viejo Jobs

Mission Viejo People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Mission Viejo News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Mission Viejo

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]