jcd11235 0 #26 May 5, 2009 QuoteIn my opinion (for whatever that is worth) the First Amendment has been so badly misinterpretted over the years...including by the Supreme Court and the so-called "separation of church and state" which exists no where in the First Amendment. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.-Thomas Jefferson (as quoted in REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U. S. 145 (1878)) Also from the SCOTUS decision: Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #27 May 6, 2009 QuoteI think we've got professional misconduct there on a scale to easily justify removing him from the profession of teaching permanently. Seriously? Maybe I missed something (quite possible), but I didn't see anything that justified removing him from the profession of teaching permanently. I would imagine this lawsuit was enough to change his behavior, but if not, then yeah, maybe he should go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #28 May 6, 2009 QuoteThe First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." While I think the teacher was out of line and I enjoy seeing him taken to task for it, I don't see how the First Amendment even applies; Congress did nothing in this instance. It was a teacher. The courts have ruled that any act of government is covered by the first amendment. Otherwise, the executive branch (for example) could blatantly ignore Constitutional rights by simply saying "hey, we're not Congress." The public schools are government entities--hence the rules apply to them, too.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #29 May 6, 2009 Quote Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.-Thomas Jefferson (as quoted in REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 98 U. S. 145 (1878)) This is what I was trying to say earlier. Freedom of speech has got nothing to do with this case. Religion has been removed from the schools as a part of the Separation of church from state. Just because he is talking about religion in a negative way does not mean he is allowed to talk religion in the class. Separation is separation. It's not just separation on Liberal terms."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #30 May 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteI think we've got professional misconduct there on a scale to easily justify removing him from the profession of teaching permanently. Seriously? Maybe I missed something (quite possible), but I didn't see anything that justified removing him from the profession of teaching permanently. I would imagine this lawsuit was enough to change his behavior, but if not, then yeah, maybe he should go. Given that he was discussing his own lawsuit against the school from more than 10 years previously, I'd bet money that he's been going on about it constantly, and has done this to every student who's flowed through his classroom since that time.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #31 May 6, 2009 QuoteGiven that he was discussing his own lawsuit against the school from more than 10 years previously, I'd bet money that he's been going on about it constantly, and has done this to every student who's flowed through his classroom since that time. This lawsuit? QuoteSpradlin has said, however, that Corbett made the remark about creationism during a classroom discussion about a 1993 case in which a former Capistrano Valley High science teacher sued the school district because it required instruction in evolution. Spradlin has said Corbett was simply expressing his own opinion that the former teacher shouldn't have presented his religious views to students. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #32 May 6, 2009 Maybe I'm confused about the facts. Was it someone else's lawsuit?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #33 May 6, 2009 QuoteMaybe I'm confused about the facts. Was it someone else's lawsuit? That's what it looked like to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,564 #34 May 6, 2009 QuoteMaybe I'm confused about the facts. Was it someone else's lawsuit? Quite obviously, yes. Why would a person being sued for calling creationism bullshit, have previously sued the school because it required the teaching of evolution? Would that make any sense?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #35 May 6, 2009 QuoteI still think this is a professional conduct issue, not a First Amendment one. Agreed, for the reasons you've noted in detail. It's not even "borderline", as some have suggested. It simply isn't a 1st Amend violation. The judge is mashing an oval peg into a round hole with legal reasoning that is on shaky ground, and which I think many other judges would consider to be reversible error. If the teacher appeals (big "if"), it should be interesting to see how a 3-judge Circuit Court of Appeals panel handles this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
