Judge delays decision on teacher who insulted Christians Man, how weak must your faith in your god be to need lawyers to fight on His behalf?
I read the article and I still don't understand. What did this man to either make a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?
False alarm, royal. I really don't get this...the lawsuit alleges "repeated" attacks on Christians, but the only incident refers to the teacher disparaging Creationism. This isn't as bad as the UNs recent anti-blasphemy law/ruling/whatever pandering to Islam, but it's in the same ballpark.
This earlier article has more info and links to the court's prior order, plus legal analysis http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-religion-court-2387684-farnan-selna
The purpose is to say that invisible people in the sky are a hoax and that schools are in the business of teaching things that can be verified and proven. ******** that. This is judicial activism at it's finest.
My religion teaches that 1+1=7, that the it was the Spanish Armada which actually won the battle against the Brits in 1588 and that the Moon is actually a cube, it's simply lit by god's spotlight to make it appear round. So if I was in the US, a teacher wouldn't be allowed to correct this? Because otherwise a government institution would directly express disapproval of my religion? What a bunch of crap.
I don't get the title of this thread. It sounds like the emphasys should be in the problems we have with our legal system, not with Jesus. Maybe this lawsuit is a frivolous lawsuit. I don't know enough of the details to be sure, but based on the little information we get in the article it sounds like it could be. I personally do not think it's moral nor it should be legal to go to court to ask for money just because a teacher said something in a lecture that offended my child. I might complain through the school system, and if the offense was serious I might lobby for the teacher's removal. But try to profit from it? Still, the issue of frivolous lawsuits is a problem we have. A problem that apparently haunts teachers as well as doctors and small business owners. We need to solve this problem by reforming our legal system, it is not a problem that has to do with Christianity or Jesus. And, whether or not the claim is valid, it is obviously a stretch to equate citizens who happen to be Christians availing themselves of the legal system as it is today to "Jesus needing lawyers". So, if a Christian goes to the hospital, are we going to say that "Jesus needed doctors?"
Its obvious Jesus needed lawyers - if he had some, he might still be alive today. But, of course, then as now, the best ones were Jewish and refused to help.
Yeah, I think you may have a point. His decision to act as his own defense in front of Pontius Pilate didn't exactly help his case.
They aren't asking for more than nominal damages- the money at issue is the attorney fee award. The judge is leaning towards granting immunity to the defendants which would mean they wouldn't have to pay anything.
Here is Professor Volokh's take on this case from back in May. http://volokh.com/posts/1241482252.shtml He does a good job of pointing out some of the potential problems with the judge's decision.
I consider it along the same lines as a Kindergarten teacher telling her kids Santa Claus doesn't exist. Of course he doesn't, but you don't stomp all over people's beliefs unless you want to lose students. Although that doesn't make it right that this man is being persecuted.
And?? He was stupid for his choice of words. Teachers are supposed to be diplomatic, especially when it comes to religion. He could have said "There is no scientific basis for Creationism" and left it at that. When you phrase it like he did, you are essentially insulting anyone who believes in it, which obviously included some of the students. Teachers who call their kids stupid don't (or shouldn't) last long. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution, but he's an idiot for saying what he did.
Another aspect that is interesting to me is the teacher's comment was in the context of a discussion about a different lawsuit brought by a fellow teacher in which he was a defendant. It seems to me that if there was a proper academic reason for the class to be talking about this other lawsuit, then there is a legitimate instructional reason for the history teacher to talk about his personal reasons for his actions related to that case. In that context he isn't unnecessarily interjecting his opinions as a teacher, but could be giving factual background as a direct, first hand participant in the subject matter. It would be like talking about the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case and having the student or principal involved in the case be a guest speaker.
He most certainly is not. He is a person that seems to believe in reason and logic, exactly what schools should teach. It is his duty to show derision towards anti-intellectual bullshit. He is a hero for our society that does not need more idiots roaming the streets thinking Moses rode a T-Rex to the bowling alley. Let me ask you something, should he be in the same amount of trouble if he replaced the word 'creationism' with 'alchemy'?
He "shouldn't" be in any trouble. He should have expected to come into some trouble, because he didn't use any tact on a sensitive topic. And if the majority of the American population believed in alchemy, the situation would be the exact same. I take back what I said about not calling students stupid. You can use harsh language if the situation calls for it. But it shouldn't surprise anyone that someone got butt-hurt and took it to court. Look, if the guy sees himself as the first pioneer in dismantling the stranglehold Christianity, particularly the anti-intellectual sort, has over America then more power to him. But it hurts his record, the school's record, and therefore their potential for attracting students. I just am inclined to think that that wasn't his intention, and it was a poor choice of words.
The point is that we have a system in which people can sue for money just because they felt somebody has offended them (or their kids) during a lecture. I don't like it, and it has nothing to do with the religious angle.
Are you saying that a plaintiff should never get attorney fees if they win? So, if the school violates my first amendment right to free speech and I win, I have to pay all my attorney fees myself? How is that a fair and just remedy? A right without a fair remedy is not an actual right. You can't have a bona fide Bill of Rights unless a court has the equitable power to protect the people from governmental wrongdoers.
How can they get attorney fees if there is no lawsuit? I am saying people shouldn't be allowed to sue for money just because somebody is giving a lecture and says something that offends them or their children. But maybe I'm missing something. I don't understand how you arrive at a school violating your first amendment rights to free speech. Does free speech include the right not to be offended by a lecturer? I think it's the other way around. By suing you are the one trying to restrict the lecturer's right to free speech.
A public school is a government agent in some way and therefore bound to the first ammendment. Also, maybe it's more useful not to think of "free speech" which, while it's shorthand for part of the first ammendment often makes people think they have the right to say anything they want, but to think of the not only the language of the ammendment but how courts understand it. Also, saying "by suing you are the one restricting the lecturer's right to free speech" strikes me as a variation on that tired, playground-level argument of belittling someone for getting help. If the lecturer did indeed violate a right then it's not unreasonable to sue (although their may be mediation as an option as well) but it would be unreasonable to prevent the person from suing.
Are you guys saying that by giving an opinion during a lecture saying that the concept of Creation is a superstition, the teacher somehow may have violated the first amendment?