Tweet
My own head-scratching started with digby’s post about a Santa Ana, CA, judge’s ruling. A Christian student in a Mission Viejo public school history class felt insulted by the teacher’s comments, felt they disparaged his beliefs. The student recorded the comments and filed a suit alleging that they violated the first amendment.
How is that possible? Because of the amendment’s Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion":
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
So this means neither in support nor against the establishment of any religion, as far as I can tell (legal experts, feel free to jump in and tweak this assessment if it’s required). This would also include someone, a government official, from even saying ‘Your religion makes no sense.’ Or, ‘You Voodoo guys are out of your minds.’ As a government employee, it toys with what the government could presume to establish (to favor: ‘I dunno–but not yours, that’s for sure.’)
Okay, now the ruling:
California: Ruling Against Anti-Creationism Teacher
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.
Okay–it’s not the craziest interpretation of the first amendment, at least on its face. This is the crazy part: Creationists passionately swear that Creationism is pure Science. Otherwise they could never ask it be considered for public school, right? We’d be right back to breaking the same establishment clause. The Christian kids are taught it as a ‘science’, but then they walk into public school and–presto–it’s a ‘belief’. How’s that for nuts? Mind you–of all the comments the teacher made, only the one about Creationism was found to violate the first amendment, and it was the only reason the suit was won by the plaintiff.
So public school teachers, when a student wants to discuss Creationism–can you, constitutionally? If you attack it as Bad Science, are you violating the establishment clause? Do you have to ask if a student believes in it as Religion or considers it to be Science? What if they say they ‘believe it’ either way? What if two students want to talk about it, but each has a different ‘belief’? You could end up engaging only one of them ‘legally’ for the identical discussion.
This is double-brain-melt crazy.
[Cross: thump and whip]
14 Comments
Actually, there were 19 citations submitted by the plaintiff -student who JUST happened to have a tape recorder on him over several days- and the judge threw out all but one of the citations.
And if the teacher hadn’t used the word ‘religious’ in stating that creationism was ‘religious,superstitious nonsense’ then the judge would have thrown all the citations out.
But ,yeah, it’s the judge’s ruling that is really weird.
Actually, I think in a Biology class that you would have to be able to say that Creationism in any of its guises is Bad Science. And you can back it up with Popper, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and half a dozen other approaches to epistemology.
Whether you can say those things in a History class — apparently not, at least not in California.
That’s exactly what I first thought, Bargain. But then this hit me: it argues that a History teacher’s comments must be about religion, whereas a Science teacher’s must not. It’s still a totally arbitrary dichotomy. What about the engineer who teaches Shop–into which hopper must his comments fall?
The more you chase this squirrel around, the more you realize that the court seems to be saying that wayward ‘Establishment’ depends upon what the student believes; it’s in the eye of the beholder.
‘I believe Creationism to be the scientific explanation for life: If you attack this, you’re playing favorites, and you’ve violated the first amendment.’ This is exactly what they will soon argue now, just as they’ve been arguing that public education without prayer is religious persecution, and that gay marriage erodes their civil rights.
The proper thing for the Court to have done, imho, is to ask if the teacher was slagging Creationism as a religious concept, idea or tenet. That’s where the argument belongs–was the government saying anything about its religious worthiness? That’s where the Establishment Clause clearly applies.
I dug up the pdf of the ruling. The first relevant bit I came across was this, page 15:
Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, “was not telling the kids [Peloza’s students] the scientific truth about evolution.” (Id.) Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, “I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense.” (Id.) One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
The court quoted Corbett about Peloza’s not ‘telling the scientific truth about evolution’, but then said calling it ‘religious, superstitious nonsense’ had no ‘legitimate secular purpose’? Corbett’s clearly talking about Creationism as Science here, so it therefore absolutely has a legitimate secular purpose. Because, STRICTLY AS SCIENCE, it’s perfectly true: it is absolutely nonsense, and considering it superstitious as well is a valid opinion.
Virtually any opinion as to the silly reason why a religion would bother to claim to explain scientifically something it never, ever could is hardly an Establishment Clause problem. He could have said it was ‘foolish’, but the judge would have ruled the same way, even though it’s a perfectly accurate and valid statement. Corbett wasn’t even necessarily saying the religion was ’superstitious’, but that it’s attempt at ‘Science’ was. As it could have been ‘foolish.’
I think the Court is playing both sides of the argument here: Creationism is both religion and science. Even though Corbett was denigrating it strictly scientifically, he therefore still ran afoul. I say this is a bad ruling.
Thanks for the link to the ruling. Agreed, this is a bad ruling. But note too that the only count that was upheld was the count in which Corbett specifically referred to creationism as, “religious, superstitious nonsense.” (emphasis added)
Given the structure of the ruling, I expect that had Corbett omitted the adjective “religious”, that count would have been dismissed too. So, remember that when you’re planing religious nutjobs, don’t refer to religion. Creationism is not itself a religion (yet). The establishment clause refers to the establishment and free exercise of religion, not particular religious doctrines.
And that is well-established laws. We don’t (theoretically, anyway) allow Mormons to practice their once-upon-a-time religious doctrine of polygamy. The rights of the Native American Church to use peyote is very tightly controlled. Ritual animal sacrifice would likely be prosecuted under animal cruelty laws. The law is pretty clear, reasonable accommodation has to be made, but no more than that.
So I think that provided you avoid the “R” word, you are okay.
“So this means neither in support nor against the establishment of any religion, as far as I can tell (legal experts, feel free to jump in and tweak this assessment if it’s required).”
Constitutional lawyer here, jumping in.
That’s essentially right. In fact, the government (a public school teacher in this case) can’t support or denigrate religion in general either. Because doing so would violate the First Amendment prohibition “respecting” (i.e., relating to) the establishment of religion.
That said, this case was rightly decided.
We all agree that:
(1) the teacher was speaking in his public capacity as a teacher — hence, this was “government” action;
(2) creationism is not science; and
(3) creationism is derived from a religious tenet.
The sticky issue then is whether what the teacher was expressing something secular and factual, or whether he was speaking approvingly or disaprovingly about a matter of religion.
To my mind, this isn’t even close.
Had he said, “creationism is not science; it doesn’t qualify definitionally as a scientific theory“, he would be stating something as a matter of fact. Even if others might disagree with that fact, it’s still a factual statement (just a disputed factual statement).
But when he called creationism “religious, superstitious nonsense”, that’s a statement of opinion — HIS personal opinion. Especially the “nonsense” part. That’s disparagement. (It also happens to be untrue; creationism, like Star Wars, makes sense, i.e. I can follow along and understand what it’s about. Lots of fictional things make sense).
What is and isn’t “nonsense” is a matter of opinion, not scientific inquiry. Science is cold, neutral and impartial, and if you reject something as “not science”, it needs to be done in the cold, neutral and impartial words of science. Calling something “nonsense” is hyperbole and doesn’t cut it. (Clearly, the teacher’s passion got the best of him, and I certainly can relate, but from a legal standpoint, he crossed the line).
The good news is that the court found against the teacher. Yes, it’s good news. Because if the court had said that disparagement of creationism was okay, then it sets a precedent where ANY teacher who thinks creationism does makes sense could talk about it openly and favorably (and not even make it related to science). The court shut the door on this — hard.
I beg to differ. What is and isn’t nonsense is sometimes a matter of opinion. But sometimes it’s just a matter of fact. That’s true in science as well is in real life.
For example, if I were to say “3 + 3 = 2″ you might think that was nonsense. But if we change the symbol “+” to mean “Addition modulo 4″ then it’s a trivially true statement. In fact, with the changed definition, “3 + 3 = 6″ is nonsense, because the number “6″ doesn’t exist in this realm of discussion.
The phlogiston theory of combustion is nonsense, because keeping it consistent with the observed facts requires that we postulate a substance with properties (negative mass) that are not observed anywhere else. Similarly, the dark sucker theory of light is nonsense, again because it requires the dark suckers to have properties that have never been observed anywhere else (like making effects precede causes.)
The idea that God created the Universe and everything in it (including us) in six days of 24 hours is nonsense. It is objectively false, and the only way around its falsity is via special pleading. That’s a fallacious argument form. Any reasonable theory of reality (as opposed to fantasy) has to match the facts of the world around us. No creationist theory matches the objective facts of the world, ergo, they are nonsense.
As you point out, “nonsense” doesn’t necessarily mean “worthless.” Star Wars is patently nonsense, in the sense that it fails to map reality-as-we-know-it in a lot of ways. And Faster-than-light travel is just one of the ways. It is very entertaining, and if you care to take it as allegory it’s a very nice retelling of The Hero’s Journey. But don’t be looking for Millenium Falcon to land on Michelle’s kitchen garden.
Recommended.
Kashford, thanks for that explanation.
So since all superstitions are likely to be based on someones’ religion can one even give an example of a “superstition”? If one is teaching a philosophy class can one call something that is a religious tenet “illogical” (i.e. it doesn’t make sense). Usually the opposite of “faith” is “reason” or “logical inference”…beliefs based on reason, logic and evidence do not require faith for acceptance. Faith is the acceptance of the non-reasonable, the miraculous, the events which fall outside of naturalistic explanation. Thus faith doesn’t in fact, “make sense”. It is NON-sensical. And most religions ask people to accept things that are not available to the senses…non-sense.
I think the decision also confuses the distinction between an aspect of a belief system and the religion itself. Creationism could be a Scientific Theory if there were evidence, say, of spontaneously generating organisms all around us blooming into new complex organisms. That was, in fact, one possibility held as worthy of consideration up until the time of Pasteur, Redi and Darwin. Lamarck held a version of this view (although he also held that those multiple spontaneous origins subsequently evolved, as well).
There is no intrinsic religious link to this view of Creationism. It would use natural law. And if spontaneous generations were actually observed, be logical and extrapolative. Since we’ve never observed such events it would be based on “superstitious nonsense”…but not necessarily religious “superstitious nonsense”. It doesn’t require derivation from Genesis. There’s no correlation of the time scale to that estimated from the lifespans of the patriarchs.
I teach at the University level and I see all sorts of landmines in this decision. All textbooks discuss the historical origins of the Scientific Method and how the method was faced with many barriers to its acceptance. Some of the major barriers to the acceptance of the method, and its conclusions derive from the scriptural interpretations of the Bible. At some point those who accept the tenets of the Scientific method had to accept that their perspective “made sense” of the world better than the “non-sense” of the religious approach. nd since the nonsense view was passed on through tradition, rather than being evaluated by critical examination and testing of evidence, it was superstitious. So now were are forbidden to say that the idea that the earth is flat was based upon nonsense and superstition?
Oh dear! Save us from the lawyers!
The concept of “superstitio” is complex…but it doesn’t necessarily mean religion. In fact, the usage once meant “anything other than what was accepted by the Christian religion”. Today it simply means a traditional idea or belief that is not supported by reason, logic and evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition
So saying that something is a superstition is not necessarily attacking someones religion. It could be an attack, or not. And all that depends on whether one holds that their own religion is a superstition.
Now is “creationism” A RELIGION? Clearly it isn’t A RELIGION. It is found in many religious faiths. But it could also be a folkloric belief disengaged from them. As I pointed out above, and is constatly called upon by “Intelligent Design” proponents – one could be a Creationist wihout believing in a Creator God. One could believe in Creator Aliens (although that merely pushes back the goalposts to “who created the aliens”). But if one accepts that spontaneous generation might be the product of natural processes, then Creationism would be a testable theory. And it was, for a brief period, held as such. But that version of Creationism has been falsified, repeatedly.
It is not, necessarily religion. Or even a religious belief in all cases. It only becomes so when it’s tied to a “necessary Creator diety”.
And in all cases presented in the courtrooms related to US versions of Creationism to be taught in Science classrooms it has a very particular religious nature…because it is derived from a literalist view of the Bible.
I don’t know the whole context of the interaction of the student or how “Creationism” was raised in class. Was he baited into a “debate”? But if it was in the proper context, for example the development of the Age of Reason, the impact of the Scientific Method, or perhaps the transformation from a Creationist to an Evolutionary world view by intellectuals (and that they viewed Creationism as “superstitious nonsense”) then it might be appropriate.
Hard to know if the student, who was taping the instructor, was doing so throughout the Semester (or year). He accumulated many statements that appear to be inflammatory. But were these said in the context of class? Framed as personal opinion? It’s strange, I found many of the comments far more outrageous and problematic (at least out of context) than the one about Creationism. And even that was in discussion about whether another teachershould be granted space in a student newspaper to profess Creationist views (i.e. whether that teacher should be allowed to use his “government position” to portray “religious views”). The context was that the Creationist views were unscientific…then followed the statement about THAT other teachers views on Creationism and why they would be unacceptable. So it wasn’t attacking the complaining students views. It was said in opposing the use of State funded resources for providing a forum for a particularist religious viewpoint.
Hmm! I wonder if there will be an appeal?
Thanks for the adds Kashford, Bargain and cinnamonape–plenty there to chew on. Cheers.
Since Kashford is the guy with relevant expertise, let’s start there.
‘Secular’ would then not necessarily be anything freely non-religious, but a shared non-religious purpose. A “shared, non-religious classroom purpose.”
The teacher’s personal (and accurate, to my ears) comments about the scientific non-validity of Creationism then do not fit the ’secular’ purposes allowed by the Establishment Clause because they have no universal purpose for classroom teaching, or learning.
If that’s so, then teachers’ first amendment rights are seriously curtailed from the minute they begin teaching in the morning until they quit in the afternoon. Their personal opinions, unless they have immediate and obvious uses in the classroom, are pretty much out.
That understanding of ’secular’ purpose would also give even the craziest tentacles of religion a wide berth in the classroom. Very respectful of religions, to say the least. If so, fine by me, as long as everybody knows and plays by the same rules.
Also if true, I wonder how many public school teachers are aware of this constitutional mandate upon them? Probably not many. I know my seventh grade math teacher that adorned her lessons with annoying Bible parables every day didn’t know or care, but none of us bothered to sue her.