teachers take note; Religious neutrality cuts both ways

By Charles C. Haynes
Published 12:05 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 2011

By now, it should be axiomatic that public school teachers can't take sides in religion.

After all, the Supreme Court has been hammering this point home for more than 60 years: Under the First Amendment's establishment clause, public schools must be neutral toward religion — meaning neutral among religions and neutral between religion and non-religion.

But two new court decisions — both from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — suggest that “neutrality” is viewed by some schools and judges as a one-way street. Teacher promotion of religion was struck down as unconstitutional, but teacher denigration of religion got a pass.

In the “promotion” case, math teacher Bradley Johnson was told by the school district to remove from his classroom walls several huge banners with patriotic one-liners emphasizing references to “God” and “Creator.” School officials were concerned that the displays sent a school-endorsed sectarian message in violation of the establishment clause (Johnson v. Poway Unified School District).

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/bulverde/article/Teachers-take-note-Religious-neutrality-cuts-2193107.php#ixzz1ZLgF1NUq

The teacher who put up religious posters lost his case, the teacher who criticized creationism won his.

This of course is perfectly clear. The two acts are not at all analogous. 1A says religion cannot be established and must be allowed free exercise. An authority figure endorsing one faith is preference therefore establishment. An authority figure criticizing one tenet (and, according to DU believers, a fringe tenet abandoned by all mainstream and sophisticated believers at that) of a faith is not doing the slightest thing to prevent its free exercise. Teachers certainly should not do that, but in this case did not.

"In my view, the 9th Circuit was right to bar promotion of religion in the classroom. But fair is fair. If religious people are to accept that their faith cannot be privileged in schools, then they need to be assured that hostility to their faith will not be tolerated, either."

As I clearly stated, criticism is fair game. Prevention of free exercise is the bar.

Easy distinction.

"Sir, is it OK if I pray quietly during this free period?"

OK response legally (albeit a tad testy given no context): "Sure if you want to engage in superstitious nonsense asking that the omniscient creator of the universe change his plans to suit you, go ahead".

NOT OK response legally: "Absolutely not. I will not allow prayer in my classroom even in free time".

Telling somebody "you are an idiot for doing X" and preventing them from doing X are very very different things.

And it's not ok for a teacher to mock a student. You may disagree.

This journalist - not the courts - wants to tell teachers not to be hostile because they (not the courts) think criticism is the opposite of establishment.

I (and the courts) think this is not so and that free exercise is protected, not freedom from criticism. Furthermore I would suggest that criticism is the opposite of ptraise, and that prohibition is the opposite of establishment.


Stupid ideas should be given no respect. How should a teacher deal with a student who insists upon claiming that the earth is flat even when it caneasilt be demonstrated he is wrong? What's the difference between that and thinking it was wished into existence 6000 years ago. Both asinine. Both easily corrected. If a student persists, what else but terse dismissal (mocking to you) is appropriate?

discrimination is, both of those comments could be construed as discrimination, as they should be, if they are directed at the person, which they are.

Which is true. Your synrax is garbled though. What your words say and the implicit intent don't match.

Ot IS perfectly ok legally to make statements that are discriminatory. No court would ever convict anyone for saying women are inferior or Irish folk are all drunks, or religious people (or atheists) are idiots.

You just can't BE discriminatory in providing services or access to public accommodations. In this case the teacher could not refuse to teach creationists. He could not ban them from class or fail them for beliefs unrelated to academic performance. But he most certainly can call their beliefs silly superstitious nonsense, as the cited opinion proves.

than than he or she can push religious POV's. Critiquing religion out right is free speech, but directing an anti-religious comment at a student with the intention of degrading that student's religious practices is outright discrimination.

And calling idiocy idiocy is not discrimination. How would you suggest handling a student who turns in a paper claiming the sky-cow Audhumbla created the earth?

As a christian myself, I do not accept creationism, when it is defined as the young earth theory.

Are you an Old Earth Creationist?

Call that what you will.

There's no logical path from that to Christianity.

Muslims and Christians and Jewish belivers believe in a creator too. I don't classify them as deists.

Secular=Not religious.

I know this is hard for you to understand, but we live in a secular democracy and public education must remain secular.

and I agree that the headline is contradictory of the content of the article. The 9th Circuit found that the teacher critical of a certain dogma was not being hostile to faith. The author concludes that it is a 'two way street' but the Court did not see this as an equal and opposite example, that is the court did not say what the author and the title are claiming the court said. This piece should say 'I do not agree with the Court, and I say it cuts both ways'.
The facts in the article do not support the conclusion, and they fully contradict the title of the piece. To me, this is of paramount importance, because one of the tenants of the faith being discussed is this: an unerring exactness and specificity in language, yes is to mean yes, no is to mean no. So when a person engages in spin and word games as part of their statement of the faith, that in itself tells me that their faith is an affectation, a thing employed for selected agendas, not a practice they hold themselves to in any way. So, anyone can leap up and announce they are of some faith. No reason to accept that is true unless they practice the tenants of that faith directed at them, rather than picking up a few bits of a faith that can be directed at others. Those who oppose marriage equality do this all the time. 'OH, my faith says gays are bad' even as they ignore vast passages that tell them they are not allowed to do what they do all day everyday. I'll respect a practiced faith, but not some affectation taken up as a way to pick at other people. The Bible books that say 'gays are bad' also tell women to remain silent, never ask questions, forbids them from dressing in 'costly array' or drawing attention to their looks in any way. Yet, 'Christian women' will stand on a stage and lecture wearing expensive clothing, they will question men, then announce that the Bible says 'gays are bad'. Affectation, not adherence.
If I met a man who says he is a rabbi, and I should eat kosher, that man must not promote kosher eating for me while he dines on pulled pork and lobster. It just does not fly. So show me the 'Christian' who actually agrees with Paul's teachings in full, and I'll let that person shout at me for being gay, ok?
Hypocrites announcing their own righteousness. Which is, of course, forbidden by Christ. And so it goes. A Christian who followed the Christ would make no problems for anyone, what they do is follow themselves, call that Christ, and demand others bow to worship.
But sure, people of faith face so many laws against their equal rights! They are put upon, not allowed to marry, treated as dirt in politics, they are called names on signs, gay folks march with placards saying 'God Hates Christians'. Yeah, that's it. They are the victims. They suffer from a lack of tolerance. Prop 8 removed from them civil rights, as demanded by gays and secularists. Those poor, poor things. Why, it is like the Romans tossing them to the lions, it is, oppressed, powerless victims they are....

Islam teaches fresh water and salt water do not mix.

Saying God or religion is “superstitious nonsense” would be inappropriate for a grade-school teacher, but saying creationism or non-salt-water mixing is “superstitious nonsense” is true.

A science teacher who denigrates it is not only telling his or her students the factual truth, but is repelling an effort to impose an unconstitutional establishment.

In my American and British literature classes, I frequently refer to "Christian mythology." Many on DU would bust a nut at that one and tell me I am being a big meanie. Have I overstepped my bounds?

But I would hope you don't end the lesson there.

I use the phrase when we are talking about some biblical symbolism. I use it to distinguish it from the other mythologies that we talk about (Hindu, Muslim, etc)

Here's a better example, The Windhover.

White it certainly uses Christian symbolism, it is incomplete and inaccurate to say it's simply Christian mythology. To Hopkins, it is a firm belief.

So, the students are left with two choices. Either Hopkins was a fool to write this poem expressing his awe at creation because it is, after all, simply a myth, or Hopkins was one of the most cynical poets to ever pick up a pen.

In fact, The Windhover is a sublime expression of this poet's beliefs, not his thoughts on myths. Without that knowledge, much of the appreciation of the poem is lost. Without the additional knowledge, that what some consider myths, others consider religious belief, much of religious literature is lost.

Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–89). Poems. 1918.

The Windhover

To Christ our Lord

I caught this morning morning’s minion, king-
dom of daylight’s dauphin, dapple-dawn-drawn Falcon, in his riding
Of the rolling level underneath him steady air, and striding
High there, how he rung upon the rein of a wimpling wing
In his ecstasy! then off, off forth on swing, 5
As a skate’s heel sweeps smooth on a bow-bend: the hurl and gliding
Rebuffed the big wind. My heart in hiding
Stirred for a bird,—the achieve of; the mastery of the thing!

Brute beauty and valour and act, oh, air, pride, plume, here
Buckle! AND the fire that breaks from thee then, a billion 10
Times told lovelier, more dangerous, O my chevalier!

No wonder of it: shéer plód makes plough down sillion
Shine, and blue-bleak embers, ah my dear,
Fall, gall themselves, and gash gold-vermillion.

There is a world of difference in parsing this if the student thinks this is based on myth as opposed to a heartfelt expression of awe and praise to a creator.

Love, love, love him. I usually tells kids that Paradise Lost is a must read if you want to understand modern literature.

I know Milton believed in it but it is still based on myth.

And many who rely on it like Hemingway most likely did see it as a myth worth using.

Neither scientists nor religious practitioners would say that universal concepts accepted by either could be properly legislated by any manner of authoritarian or democratic secular legislative body or subsequently properly adjudicated in any court under any state or national law.

Yet these persistent American quarrels often find one side or the other in court examining the application of laws to referee/constrain the behavior of the other side in the ever on-going quarrel.

And to make this even more curious....What is usually judged to be the proper resolution of a legal skirmish hinges upon imposing TOLERANCE on one or both of the litigants. Yet, at the center of the conflict each side sees their very existence as dependent upon 'truths' that must defended through intolerant assertions toward the other side. And after much adieu, neither side actually accepts the dualism/coexistence necessary to have tolerance as an acceptable resolution.

that scientists need to have tolerance for mumbo-jumbo and woo? I don't think that's tolerance. Creationism is a crock of shit. Science classes shouldn't have to respect those things.

What I am saying is we live in a society where we attempt to resolve conflicts about peoples' behaviors under the law in courts. Both freedom of religion and freedom from religion sides seek relief from the courts from time to time.

The manner in which the law is applied doesn't/cannot resolve the truth in what either side claims to know, it merely rules on and makes explicit limits on behavior within the system of law that the court functions.

In general, a court resolution requires one side to act in a manner that requires suffering some recognition and tolerance of the existance and rights of the other side. Which is to say the court imposes tolerance (which is a two-way street) between the conflicted parties.

The perceived existential consequences of the conflict between 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom from religion' make the societal tolerance to the dualism that the court solutions rely upon unacceptable to many advocates on both sides.

to be a religion. Any attempt to push that POV in the schools needs to be challenged. Nor is it free from criticism.

But they can say that creationism is superstitious nonsense. That is teaching science, not atheism.

class as it relates to teaching evolutionary theory in science, but they cannot say that there was/is no creator. Science is not objectively capable of determining that - purely subjective opinion.

Because that isn't what that case says (nor what any SCOTUS case says, either). It doesn't say that atheism IS a religion, but that under the first amendment, atheism needs to be afforded the same protections as religion (Kaufman wanted to form an atheist group in a Wisconsin prison and was barred).

The school analogy would be that you can't stop an atheist group of students from forming if you allow religious groups. It has nothing to do with saying creationism is nonsense. If anything, the teacher has protections if he is an atheist.

But we all know about your hard on for atheists. Perhaps you want to take this opportunity to tell us that this teacher is just like Mao.

that atheism was a religion. Just that it needed to be afforded the same protection as one. BIG difference.

From the concluiosn of C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District:



The 9th circuit overruled the district court on the ability of the defendants to plead for qualified immunity which the 9th circuit granted. It granted this based on the fact that the district court ruled that only 1 statement was a violation and that this allows for qualified immunity:



So, my reading is that a teacher is not allowed to say the creationism is "superstitious nonsense"; but one isolated incident is not sufficient to find an Establishment Clause violation.

One should just uniformly teach science from the "natural philosophy" POV: we are examining natural phenomena, and we are seeking natural explanations of those phenomena

If, for example, one wants to guess the age of a fossil found in a layer of limestone overlaid by a layer of sandstone overlaid by a layer of clay, there are a number of very interesting questions one can ask in pursuit of an answer, such as:

how far below the limestone/sandstone interface is the fossil?
what can we reasonably guess about limestone deposition rates?
can we reasonably guess anything from other outcrops, about the history of the limestone layer between the end of limestone deposition and the start of sandstone deposition?
how thick is the sandstone layer?
was the sand deposited by wind or by water?
what can we reasonably guess about the sand deposition rates?
what can we reasonably guess about the time required to cement a sand into sandstone?
how thick is the clay layer?
is the clay a later deposit atop the sandstone, or does it represent weathered sandstone?
and so on

There's simply no reason to bring creationist ideas into the discussion. If one should have a student who wants to insist that the fossil is in the limestone under the sandstone under the clay because the world was created that way, or because Satan put it there to mislead us, there is not much to say, other than "In this class, we are trying to see what picture of the world we obtain by reasoning about natural processes; in the end, you are of course personally free to form whatever impression you like about our reasoning methods, but the tests will test how well you understand the reasoning." In the case of a student who proposes that the limestone and sandstone and clay were deposited in a great worldwide flood, one might say something like "Perhaps deposits from known floods have certain characteristics enabling us to recognize ancient flood events in sandstone records" and move on

I used geology as an example but the situation in biology is similar

IMO a teacher, who decides to be a jackass about such matters, is simply wasting limited classroom time and may be squandering a "teachable moment"

The complaint lists the statements he is supposed to have made.

Appeals court rules teacher can’t be sued for bashing Christianity
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=297799#297851

Court won't stop teacher from challenging religion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x297642#297767

Court Rules in Favor of Teacher Who Ridiculed Creationism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=297747

rug posted a link to the court opinion in one of those threads and I quoted from it in another:

... Farnan ... was offended by comments Corbett made during class that Farnan characterizes as “derogatory, disparaging, and belittling regarding religion and Christianity in particular.” Neither Farnan nor his parents ever discussed this concern with Corbett or any other school official. Rather, before completing the first semester of AP Euro, Farnan withdrew from the class and filed this lawsuit ... The only cases that Farnan argued in his briefs clearly establish the law in the relevant educational context involve claims that school officials were promoting religion rather than expressing hostility toward it, and challenge systemic actions such as state laws and school district policies rather than parsing individual teachers’ classroom discussions ... The Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of protecting the “robust exchange of ideas” in education, “which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues.’ ” ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=297747&mesg_id=297766

I think this was my final take:
The court's decision makes the pedagogical method sound somewhat more defensible,
since the teacher made clear from the get-go that he would generally start each class with some controversial bomb-throwing to spark discussion. And some features of the case reasonably clear that the suit was largely driven by a rightwing litigation group

I think the court reached the correct decision

But I'll stand by what I said: adolescents often have enough trouble constructing careful arguments from facts, without being ridiculed, so I'm not sure I consider the pedagogical method entirely sound here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=297642&mesg_id=297768

That's one small step for state atheism, one giant leap backward for believers.

Having said that, believers should be ready to hear criticism, because anything else is special pleading.

for daring to believe in God, however, is not "criticism". it's hate.

How would you like it if I said since atheist movements have helped murder over a hundred million people(The Black Book of Communism) you must be a psychopathic brain-dead hack?

I don't' say that. Criticise mainstream idiot not-Christian beliefs all you want. I'm always up for friendly debate.

You're not your faith, just like "you're not your fuckin' khakis". I believe that I have linked you to an OP I wrote about that very issue. I don't recall you commenting on it.

ETA: If you're whipping out the "bashing on us" straw man, then you're not "ready for debate" on this topic.

Thanks for that.

A little too serious for fun, anytime viewing, but a little too good to just sit on the shelf.

That reminds me...I haven't watch The Long Kiss Goodnight in ages.