First Amendment
by digby
Excuse me?
A federal judge has ruled that a history teacher at a Southern California public high school violated the First Amendment when he called creationism “superstitious nonsense” in a classroom lecture. The judge, James Selna, issued the ruling after a 16-month legal battle between a student, Chad Farnan, and his former teacher, James Corbett. Mr. Farnan’s lawsuit said Mr. Corbett had made more than 20 statements that were disparaging to Christians and their beliefs. The judge found that Mr. Corbett’s reference to creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Courts have interpreted the clause as prohibiting government employees from displaying religious hostility. Mr. Corbett teaches at Capistrano Valley High School.
So a public school teacher is in violation of the first amendment by speaking disparagingly against a religious belief? Really?
Here's the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I guess someone can interpret that to mean that a teacher speaking in a classroom is establishing a religion or prohibiting its exercise by disparaging one, (or maybe because that comes first in the clause such an interpretation supercedes the very clear provision against abridging the freedom of speech) but it sure looks like a stretch to me. In fact, it seems like a ruling that could only be made in bizarroworld.
If this holds up, it would mean that no science teacher of any public institution could challenge creationism. Indeed, virtually all teaching regarding religion that someone could perceive as "hostile" would be in violation of the First Amendment.
It's one thing to say that it can be abridged in the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" sense. That speaks to public safety in a very direct,obvious way. And you can certainly argue that the first amendment cannot be used as a protection for child pornography, where real children are exploited and damaged. But to say that a teacher cannot insult a religious teaching because it violates the establishment clause is truly nuts. It turns the First Amendment completely upside down.