Posted on 05/05/2009 10:26:46 AM PDT by davidosborne
SANTA ANA, Calif. — 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I concur 100% -— which is one big reason why I homeschool my kids.. I am all for SEPARATION OF SCHOOL AND STATE !!
Right-on! Great for that Student; Great for California. The Teachers Union here is the biggest bastion of whacked-out Liberal ignoramouses than I’ve ever seen or heard of.
(And yes, I’m a part-time Teacher). The Liberals need to be washed-OUT of society and clear minded Conservatives brought in. It’s happening slowly but surely with cases like this and with good people speaking out against the actions of the Liberals in office. Thank God.
“To attempt to rigorously scrub organized religion out of the fabric of society (as some people do) is tantamount to establishing a religion.”
Not really. The original intent of the “establishment clause” was obviously to prevent the establishment of a church, of organized religion. Besides, I think it’s an insult to organized religion to call unorganized religion “religion”.
Apparently, the school administration wouldn’t help this kid out. The kid wasn’t going to stand for it. What’s the next logical step? The courts. And this ruling will send a message to other big-mouthed teachers and unresponsive school administrators. Kids are a captive audience in the public school system. They are required to be there by law. Their parents pay taxes to pay for these “schools.”
They don’t have to put up with this garbage.
I don't want to mis-interpret your words, but my first impression is that they are very wrong.
The First Amendment is intended to prevent the US Congress from establishing a national church, such that Baptists are recognized and supported by taxpayer funds, while Episcopalians, Quakers, Methodists, Jews, Muslims, etc. are restricted in some ways within our national boundaries.
After the ratification of the US Constitution, some states still had state churches -- I believe RI was one such state. It was perfectly fine, because it was a state church and not a national church established by Congrees.
The First Amendment protects religious believers from oppression by the national legislative body. It is not intended to protect society from the evil influences of church-goers.
“Why should some kid have to sit in a classroom (presence is mandated by law. Kid can’t just get up and walk out) and put up with some pontificating bozo with a chip on his shoulder?”
I’m all for eliminating compulsory education. But so long as we hold it to be of value for kids to be lectured six hours a day about science, history, democracy, religion, or whatever, why can’t the kid sit there and take it? I did.
However, in an environment CONTROLLED by the state that is hostile to a particular religious expression is the very antithesis of the 1st Amendment’s “...freedom of religion...” clause.
Further, the pushing of the humanism that is the root of the Darwin theory of evolution as being better than alternative views is establishing the religion (as is belief system) of humanism as the state approved religion.
Humanism is the root of Darwin and is what is being pushed by the theory of evolution
Wow - a court offering equal protection to the Christian majority?
I thought that was unconstitutional...
“I don’t want to mis-interpret your words, but my first impression is that they are very wrong.”
Don’t be so hasty to judge. What I said isn’t any different from your elaboration. Not wanting Congress to establish a national church is exactly what the establishment clause was about. They didn’t want the central government to subsume what should be private authority, like Henry VIII did. Also, they didn’t want to repeat England’s periodic Catholic/Protestant bloodshed.
“After the ratification of the US Constitution, some states still had state churches — I believe RI was one such state. It was perfectly fine, because it was a state church and not a national church established by Congrees.”
Obviously, the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government. After the 14th amendment, I think, there rose this weird legal principle known as “incorporation,” which extended Constitutional protections to state governments.
“The First Amendment protects religious believers from oppression by the national legislative body. It is not intended to protect society from the evil influences of church-goers.”
Of course the First Amendment was intended to protect religious believers; it says as much right after the establishment part. The establishment clause itself was meant to protect us from the evil influence of a national church, and later state churches.
I agree with your post. My lament is that the First Amendment has been misinterpreted, and the false concept of a "wall of separation" has been bally-hooed about so that now one of the few demographic groups who can be oppressed and marginalized seems to be religious folk. My own brother believes that Christians are barred from serving as president, but that this part of the Constitution is not enforced. While George W. Bush was in the White House, my brother referred to us as a theocracy "no better than Iran".
“Humanism is the root of Darwin and is what is being pushed by the theory of evolution”
“Humanism” is an exceedingly broad set of views; so broad in fact that I hardly think you can call it a movement, much less a religion. But insofar as it presents a consistent set of ideas, it is the basis for the entire modern Western intellectual tradition (individualism, scientism, rationalism, etc.), and as such could never be purged from public schools. Without them becoming seminaries, I guess.
Well, apparently the judge didn’t agree with you and cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution in his ruling.
No serious philospophical support now exists for Naturalism, it is total bunk and quackery, and while I do not object to someone having a right to beleive in it, I must object to them promoting such stupiditiy on children as a paid teacher.
Even a grade school child realizes you don't get something from nothing.
In the words of C.S. Lewis:
If a man says that 'Humpty Dumpty is falling' you see at once this is not a complete story.
“However, in an environment CONTROLLED by the state that is hostile to a particular religious expression is the very antithesis of the 1st Amendment’s ‘...freedom of religion...’ clause.”
The First Amendment does protect the free exercise of religion. I didn’t read anything about the teacher not allowing the kid to exercise his beliefs. Besides, this case was not about freedom of religion. It was about the establishment of religion.
“Well, apparently the judge didn’t agree with you and cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution in his ruling.”
And judges are never wrong. Gay marriage in Iowa? Don’t see a problem there. Griswald v Conneticut? Way to go. Roe v Wade? Spot-on. Dred Scott? Here-here. Calder v Bull? Solomonic in its wisdom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.