Teacher Cannot Be Sued For Denying Creationism

gzipped_tar writes "A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that a public high school teacher in Mission Viejo, California may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion in his classroom. The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a student charging that the teacher's hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion. A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the lawsuit must be thrown out of court because the teacher was entitled to immunity."

Comments

So

[Stargoat]

So if a teacher came out in favor of creationism, a radical form, let's say one that proclaimed blacks, asians, and all other non-whites as descendants of evil evil Cain, would it be possible to sue that teacher?

Clearly and obviously Adam and Eve never existed and this should be taught to any young person as truth is always preferable to falsehoods, but what about someone promoting a falsehood?

Re:So

[im_thatoneguy]

This ruling is actually a little more subtle than that. They ruled that the *teacher* can't be sued since the courts haven't decided if criticizing creationism is illegal or not. We've well established a legal precedent that teachers can't pray or teach religion. So the court threw the lawsuit out on the grounds that you can't sue someone for doing something the courts haven't established is illegal. Hence immunity. If the students had brought the case against the school and made it about policy (e.g. to change the curriculum) instead of against an individual then they could establish a precedent legally that criticizing religion is or is not a violation of the establishment clause.

This case establishes no legal precedent. Quite the opposite this case only establishes that there is no accepted legal precedent upon which to judge this case therefore the default ruling is to rule in favor of the defendant.

Now that the pedantics are out of the way... Even if they had ruled this is the correct ruling. Advancing *a* religion which is what was going on in 1994 is one thing. Criticizing the logic (using logic) of a religious believer is not to say that Christianity is false or that Atheism is true--it's criticizing a single logical argument. Similarly a creationist could criticize scientific theories if they are logically unsound without advancing creationism. When you dismantle bad arguments for any position you're strengthening it not denigrating it. Which is EXACTLY the argument that the teacher was making. When you criticize evolution you strengthen it by finding its weaknesses and eliminating them or solving them. When you criticize creationism you're "attacking someone's beliefs" and they double down to defend the position regardless if it's sound or not. That's not an attack on religion, that's an attack on narrow minded ideologues who reject learning. And those ideologues are an insult to religious thought.

If a student said "I know God exists because the bible tells me so." It's not promoting atheism to point out the believer's logical fallacy. In fact that's a huge part of philosophy and theology *WITHIN* a faith.

Atheism does get an unfair leg up on religion since it's by definition a non-establishment. In spite of the efforts to reclassify it as an equivalent belief system by the religious it depends on no beliefs of its own. Atheism ultimately is the argument that "I haven't heard a sound argument for a God from anyone so I maintain the default position of nothing on the subject." In fact Atheists are the least atheistic of all belief systems. As an atheist I will say "None of the 8 billion theories on God seem to hold any water or have sufficient proof." As a Christian I will say "There is one true God and *all other possible views* of God are therefore untrue"

The atheist rejects a finite number of belief systems as having insufficient evidence. Most theists reject an infinite number of belief systems other than the one.

The fact that every less argument for God gets you one step closer to Atheism does not logically follow that discrediting bad arguments for God is advancing Atheism. My dad is a Christian PhD Theologian and I am an atheist. We more often agree in debates than with most lay people. Why? Because most of the arguments that the religious advance have been rejected by theologians and philosophers for centuries as "nonsense".

Most people's faith and religion today is largely based on horribly outdated and overly simplistic arguments that are logical and philosophical sink holes of nonsense. Whether it's an atheist or a theologian who is dismissing such nonsense it's good for religion and Atheism that the old (in this court case's instance more than 1500 year old) logical fallacies are removed from public discourse.

It's not denigrating to religion to force its adherents to use sound arguments and logic for their positions. It *IS* denigrating to religion for idiots and assholes to use the cloak of religion to try and conceal their own stupidity and aversion to education. It makes the religious look stupid and lazy.

Re:So

[reasterling]

IAALAOBM (I Am A Licensed And Ordained Baptist Minister) and I have to say that I agree with you. I find it amazing that so many people of faith don't seem to understand what faith really is.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb. 11:1)

"things not seen" Faith is not science nor can it be. If we proved everything in the bible through science there would be no faith. The miraculous should be miraculous. For instance, if the crossing of the red sea can be explained by naturalistic processes then all you have done is removed the need for God. Many people who claim to be of faith want science to explain the miracles of the bible so that it would strengthen their faith. Many people who post on this forum want the same thing but only because they think it would disprove, or at least make it less likely, that God exist. The simple truth is that people of faith need to come to realize that science is not bad, but science can not and never will prove God's existence. To prove "God" scientist would have to test and experiment on God. You would have to, in a manner of speaking, put God in a test tube.

Of all the miracles of the bible the second greatest is with out a doubt the creation of everything. Science will do what it does, and try to explain our existence through what is seen. This means that science will and must conclude that the most likely naturalistic process is the best explanation for our existence.

As a person of faith I find it truly remarkable that God created this universe in an orderly fashion and gave us such great intellects that we can study, test, experience, and learn about the world around us.

Nice to know that it is lawful to have an opinion

[mykos]

That pesky Constitution really mucks up frivolous litigation sometimes

Was he really criticizing religion per se?

[Dachannien]

TFA includes a shortened transcript of the teacher's comments, and it doesn't sound to me like he was criticizing religion per se. Rather, he was criticizing attempts by people to pose religion as science (such as intelligent design), by saying that the "logic" used to argue in favor of creationism is fundamentally flawed and nonscientific. And especially if intelligent design advocates continue to insist that their ideas be taught as science in a science classroom, then such criticisms should certainly be fair game in science classrooms.

At least from the transcript, it didn't seem like he was directly criticizing those who nevertheless believe in a creator as a matter of faith and not of science.

Re:Double Standard

[erroneus]

If you have to ask the question then you don't understand the real issue.

Religious belief is 100% completely unprovable and relies on "faith" and good feelings as confirmation instead of tests and observation. (I would be wrong but is there a "god test" that can be performed to prove the existence?)

Religious people see this as "two sides opposing" because "everyone believes in something." That is also ridiculous. People who want to know and understand seek to learn by evidence, testing and experimentation. Religion offers none of this. In the end, religion fosters an end of knowledge in favor of belief. If there are two opposing sides of the issue, it is "persuit of knowledge" vs "belief." But no one on the religious side wants to admit that is the truth.

Re:Nice to know that it is lawful to have an opini

[NatasRevol]

As long as it's factually based....

Which might make the lecture a little shorter.

Re:Double Standard

[Gadget_Guy]

You can teach science without attacking religion.

That only works if religion doesn't actively attack science. Religious organisations have attempted to prevent evolution being taught because it conflicts with a story written 2000 years ago. When they couldn't stop it, they tried to start teaching their stories as facts in schools. When Creationism was rejected, they cynically made up a "science" so that they could force that into schools.

Intelligent Design is a very anti-science topic. By definition it cannot prove any of its claims, so it uses negative arguments attacking evolution. It claims that some things cannot be explained by science, so therefore ID is right. It claims that missing links prove evolution is wrong (and if a missing link is found, then they just move the goalposts and find another missing link).

It claims that some organisms (or parts of them - eg eyes) are so complicated that they couldn't possibly evolve, despite scientists being able to show fossil evidence of precursors to those organisms.

And finally, I didn't see anything attacking religion in the transcript so this whole argument is moot.

He should focus less on "being right" and more on serving his students.

The best way to serve his students would be to teach them. Why should stop doing that just because they come to class with pre-conceived ideas.

Re:Relevance vs Revelation

[Tony]

So basically what we have here is the schools mandating teachers only teach the official State religion.

You have a sad, strange definition of religion, my friend.

Faith is belief without evidence. Religion is based on faith. Religion can't answer the great questions about life, the universe, and everything, because religion is indistinguishable from making shit up.

Evolution is an area of scientific study, with much experimental support. Next to gravity, it is the best-supported theory in science. And, it is understood to a greater degree than gravity.

The teaching of evolution is not the teaching of religion, but the teaching of science. Attempting to conflate the two is just plain silly. Any argument based on the conflation of the two (such as your weird rant about "Political correctness," which is just code for, "I want to be racist/sexist/homophobic without feeling guilty") is therefore unsupported, and quite likely just plain wrong.