A federal judge denied on Monday a motion to dismiss a lawsuit against a history teacher for making repeated disparaging remarks about Christians during class.
-
(Photo: The Orange County Register / Christina House)Former student of Dr. James Corbett Gianna DeCaro, 20, participates in a rally outside of Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo in December.
"I believe there's a plausible case," U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a Santa Ana, Calif., courtroom, according to The Orange County Register. "What we face at trial and summary judgment is a different matter."
Dan Spradlin, attorney for Advanced Placement European history teacher James Corbett, had asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the teacher's former student. After Monday's ruling, however, the lawsuit will go to trial.
Chad Farnan, sophomore at Capistrano Valley High School and a Christian, and his parents sued the history teacher in December, alleging that the educator had fostered hostility toward Christians and promoted "irreligion over religion," violating the Establishment Clause.
According to the lawsuit, Corbett spent "a large portion of class time propagating his personal views to a captive audience."
Court documents cite statements tape recorded by Farnan during Corbett's lectures, such as “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth."
Corbett attended Monday's hearing but declined to comment, saying, "I am frustrated that my side of this story has yet to be heard, but there is so much at stake for me and my family that my best course is to follow my lawyer’s advice and wait until this is over before I comment," according to the local newspaper.
The high school teacher has drawn support from hundreds of students who have rallied with "support free speech" signs and argued that he spurred discussions in an intelligent way.
Many have also flocked to Farnan, calling for and end to hate and intolerance and urging support for the student and the Constitution.
Lawyers for the Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a Christian legal group representing the Farnan family, released additional comments into the litigation this week that were made by Corbett during instruction:
"Aristotle argued there has to be a God. Of course that's nonsense" and "We do not invoke the supernatural every time we get stymied. It's okay for religious people to do that, or magicians. There might not be a distinction. What was it that Mark Twain said? He said that religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool."
Corbett's attorney argues that the comments were all taken out of context.
"This is a very committed educator who is trying to stimulate his students into an active discussion and to recognize that they should be prepared to challenge authority, including AP European history professors,” said Spradlin, as reported by the local Register. "This has a really chilling impact on teachers through the nation.
"In his heart of hearts, he hopes he’s still giving the benefit of teaching his students to think critically.”
Farnan's attorney, however, argued that Corbett was including his own point during instruction and "clearly displaying hostility toward Christianity."
Since the December lawsuit, Farnan has dropped out of Corbett's class and is currently enrolled in a non-AP history class.
RSS
Comments
Finally, the “year of our Lord” reference in the Constitution is only to be found at the end, where the date is given. That is not part of the legal provisions of the document, it establishes nothing about the role of government. (If it did, then it would be proof that this was supposed to be a Catholic nation, since the date is given according to the Gregorian calendar!)
More significant is the fact that there is no reference to any deity in any of the Articles of the Constitution (the part with legal force). Oh, there have been attempts to put a reference in. There were proposals to have the Preamble expressly state that Jesus was the sovereign of the nation, the Bible binding law, and that all our rights came from Christianity. This was the first of what is now known as “Christian Amendments” that have been proposed from time to time. You will notice they all failed! The Constitution is, as it has always been, literally god-less. That’s because the Founders believed religion was a matter for each person’s conscience, and should be left to the “private sector”.
P.S. - all that aside, I agree the teacher went too far. There are ways of making the historical point he wanted without ridiculing or insulting another’s religion. Whether it should rise to the level of a “Federal case” is another matter.
I have neither the time or the interest in replying to all of jar1961’s tirades, but there are a few points I will make.
First, the Constitution does not say either "freedom of....” nor “..freedom from...". None of those words appear in the text. What it does say (in the First Amendment) is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . .” Note that the word religion only appears in the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause merely refers back to it (“thereof”). Thus the meaning and scope of that word must be the same for both clauses - whatever you don’t want the government to prohibit, it also can’t establish. Furthermore, “free exercise” means exactly that, free from fear of or favor from the government. So, freedom of religion includes freedom from government mandated religion - which is why prayer cannot be required in school.
Second, don’t be too quick to invoke the beliefs of the Founders. You might not like what you get. At the end of his life Franklin declared that he doubted Jesus was divine, and also declared God didn’t care if people believed this, or not. Jefferson, famously, rejected the divinity of Jesus, along with such doctrines as immaculate conception, the resurrection, transubstantiation, the Trinity, and original sin. As for Washington, he declared that "In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States." A pretty strong statement that people of all faiths are to be treated equally, and that no faith holds a “privileged” position over the others.
I suggest you study the debates on the “no religious test” clause of the Constitution (Art. 6, section 3). You’ll find that its supporters recognized and fully intended that adherents of all religions (including Islam) would have equal standing in the law.
Third, don’t give me a laundry list of the crimes of (some members of) Islam, unless you’re also willing to discuss the almost 2,000 year history of (some) Christians who preached peace, love, and brotherhood while practicing the exact opposite, and committed every sin and crime in the book against the Jews! Every religion has things to be ashamed of, the trick is knowing how to separate “the wheat from the chaff” - and the first step is to realize this has to be done.
Sorry: "social"! (It's past my bedtime.)
I don't like this teacher. He doesn't sound, in the statements the plaintiff quotes, like a fair-minded person at all. As a 53-year old man who meets the public every day of my working life, my opinion is that the teacher looks like he has at least one problem. Take it for what it's worth, but I trust my hunches.
Oddly, in my opinion, if this were an isolated incident, it would redound in favor of the defendant. On the contrary, every fair-minded person has encountered this sort of privileged belittling of non-elite ideas, whether they be in the area of religion, politics, or science. Al Gore declaring the impossibility of reasonable opposition to his global warming scam comes to mind. (Three words, Mr. Vice President: "continental ice sheet".) The would-be elites have taken their positions in hopes of achieving social status, and they dare the rest of us to hold to what we know is true in the face of socila and political belittlement.
Thus far, the balance of power has prevented them from rounding us up for the re-education camps.
Pray!
<<<QT - Thanks for posting on CP. You make some very good points. I feel much the same way you do on these subjects. >>>
You're welcome ifeelfine72, thank you for the compliment.
<<Many "Christians" on this site make it clear that unless you believe exactly the way they believe, you're not a Christian. >>
It's a lot like the Early days of Christianity before it was accepted- people fight over it, box it in a compartment, lable it and define it according to their personal feelings. It's a shame that most Christians don't even know why they believe what they believe and disregard the history behind it. I belong to a tradition that insturcts- we are required to know the history of our church, the traditions and why we are what we are in order to be accepted as a candidate for membership. It illeviates the ignorance, social injustice and discrimination many Christian Organizations pass off in the name of "RELIGION."
"Many of them martyr themselves by taking offense at anything they percieve as negative all the while throwing out vicious insults. It's very hypocritical. "
I agree, but that is what happens in a dictatorship, and when people parrot what they accept as TRUTH- funny thing is, it's exactly what happened to Jesus and subsequently his followers- he was treated as a threat to his society, culture and religion. It angers people when they hear, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father." If you look at it from the perspective of the Genesis scripture, "let us make humans in our image," it makes perfect sense. I see others, others whom G-d created, who are made in G-d's image; therefore I have seen G-d. Perfect sense to me how about you?
<<<Nonetheless, just because we are entitled to say anything we want doesn't make our ideas equal in any way. If Jim says, "I like eating living babies" and I say "That is horrible" our ideas are not equal, sure Jim can say that if he wants, but him saying it means what? Absolutely nothing. >>>
Yes both ideas are equal, ridiculous, but equal. Any statement is opinion until there is fact behind it. People in common society are repulsed by acts of canablism- but in populations that regard it not taboo, they believe they are right. You can not judge that statement, as ridiculous as that, as superior or inferior because it pleads to an extreme, it is not an accurate analogy based on the argument. Again... FAITH and BELIEF can not be qualified as superior or inferior since they are nonsubjective theoretical assumptions dependent on an individual, society or culture.
<< It is true that your position (if you actually believe this) is literally impossible. Again you are not arguing with me, but with all of logic.>>
You aren't arguing logic. You used false comparisons and illogical theories. You do realize that it can be proven with fact that the Earth rotates around the sun, but how can you qualify theories or assumptions as superior or inferior? You can't and therefore I wasn't submitting myself to an impossiblity- you did not present a logical theory, you presented theoretical, faith filled beliefs that claim nothing but assumption.
<<<When I said that there was no such thing as the faith or position you held, I was not talking about your personal faith, rather your position that all religions can be equal in any meaningful way.>>>
But you are disregarding the logic that states you are using somethign which can't be qualified. You can qualify "Sun revolves around the Earth" some believed for centuries it was truth- Galileo disproved it; therefore until somebody returns from Heaven, Hell or Purgatory with a signed writ from a diety noone's FAITH or BELIEF is absolute truth. And if it occurred, some could still claim it was a forgery and cause speculation. Thus rendering any "one" point of view moot because there is no absolute truth when someone else presents a logical argument agaisnt something as unqualifiable and subjective as FAITH or BELIEFS(since they are both concepts without concreteness.
<<<Here is a smart idea, if you want to live and be logically coherent in this life, then you must judge, you must call other ideas inferior, and most of all you must judge yourself and if you prove to be wrong you ought to change.>>>
But there is no logic involved in FAITH or BELIEFS, since they are paths to remove doubt without absolute proof.
Believing or judging have nothing to do coherent logic- esp. since there is no qualitative reasoning to suggest the inferiority or superiority of someone elses' faith or beliefs, since beliefs are subjective to the group or individual who holds said beliefs or faith.
<<<Let me ask, do you believe that killing babies for fun is wrong? Why would you believe it is wrong, I mean if all belief systems are equal then you have no right to say it is wrong?
Again, your comparison is not supported within the context of this argument. You are deferring the argument to an unnecessary extreme. It's wrong to murder babies for fun(oh, unless one believes they happen to be doing it to "free others," takes out a despot or tyrant, or is protecting someone's oil investment) and yet currently the war in Iraq has caused innocent murders, but theoretically most everyone believes it is wrong. If one believes it's okay to kill babies for fun, it would likely be a ridiculous extreme, but not a superior or inferior belief. There's no qualifier or subjector applicable from such a comparison.
<<<But even if you take such a position (not logically sustainable) then you would still be saying that a person who believes his religion is the only way is inferior to you, because you believe you are true and he is not.>>>
There is no logic regarding faith, faith is a path to combat doubt and disbelief, it however is not a provable assumption-- therfore one faith or religious belief is not superior or inferior to another because FAITH and religious beliefs are both subjective to an individual or group who expresses it. I am not qualifying my religious beliefs because I am frequently accused of being something I am not. Some Christians insist on consensus over Jesus' authority- to which I do not subscribe.
<<<This is literally true for all beliefs that contradict each other (saving the alternative possibility that they could all be wrong). Islam and Christianity are not equal (unless both are wrong), liberal Christianity and conservative Christianity are not equal (unless both are wrong).
Islam does not contradict Christianity, they are synonymous- they are both monotheistic religions born out of an Abrahamic tradition. Religions are as subjective as the individuals or
groupswhich practice them. Liberal or Conservative Christianity are both STILL categories of Christianity and the possiblity may exist that one version is right or wrong, but that doesn't make one superior and one inferior. It was an attempt during times of intense religious persecution to stamp out the opponent, thus qualifying one TRUE religion. As you can see diversity has prevailed, there are factions of different beliefs, because there will always be a remnant that doesn't follow the established status quo.
<<<Not all beliefs are equal, it is literally impossible to be so. >>>
ALL beliefs are equal. They are. On the level we are discussing, FAITH and RELIGIOUS doctrine, yes they are. How can it be impossible when you can't prove that your beliefs are better to G-d than mine. A MAJORITY CONSENSUS can support Christianity over say, Islam, but a person who practices Islam will argue that your faith or beliefs are no better.
<<<Let's use an example, say Jim says that the earth revolves around the Sun and Joe says that the Sun revolves around the earth. Now one is right the other wrong, one is superior the other inferior, just because it might hurt Joe's feelings does not make him truer or make him equal to Jim in belief. Jim's belief is superior, always will be, unless the Sun starts revolving around the earth. >>>
Your analogy or comparison won't work, it can be proven that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is not a belief it is a fact that the Earth rotates around the sun- eventhough in the Bible, it is documented differently- the Bbile was not written with any scientific accuracy- religion for the most part suspends beliefs and scientific understanding.
Regardless, no one can prove FAITH or BELIEF. What is faith? Faith or belief is an implication, a system of which no concrete proof exists that's why it's called FAITH. It is also subjective to the whim or whims of the person or persons who holds it. So how do you feel qualified to assert that one faith is superior to another. You can say English is superior to French and that comparison would work to better defend your argument, but it is still a subjective quality- French people would disagree that their native language is inferior to English. Therfore one FAITH or BELIEF can not possibly be superior to another-
We know through astrological observation of our solar system that the Earth revolves around the sun. We don't know who has better FAITH because that really needs proof required and
G-d obviously hasn't solved THAT final mystery.
Letsgetreal-
completely missed my point. i think lawsuits like these are a waste of tax money and absolutely not necessary. ONE student (who was claimed to have slept in class and also was failing.. then again can't believe everything you read, but could be true) feels like a second-class citizen, from ONE recording, and doesn't consult any school authority.. files a lawsuit? from a history class? (and even has to ask his mother on a news interview what church they attended) i am a history and russian major at a catholic school and from the legal documents that i've read, those quotes should not have provoked a lawsuit. many people would disagree on the millions that stalin killed from famine and terror.. many soviet citizens loved him, he provided numerous city jobs and low priced foods, but as a russian i would never file a lawsuit from my class.. maybe a meeting with a principal or pto, but no.. not a lawsuit.
AETHISM?? Schools teach knowledge. And it goes for EVERYTHING you said. Evolution taught in science class - ok. it is a science course and even if one does not believe in evolution, there are still vital aspects of the theory that students SHOULD learn. Philosophy - some believed in God, some didnt. but isnt the important thing the fact that some great minds in history expanded beyond the boundaries of theological ethics and provoke thought and intellect that are beautifully studied and considered in law, culture, society, etc... And sex ed - hey, better to teach safe sex than no sex. It is going to be the position that schools take until forever because schools realize what goes on in teen society.. Parents always think that they know their kids, but when high schoolers are out, drinking or dating, 'what mom said' or 'what is in the bible' isn't always the first thing that comes to mind.
but you don't see a christian student in a science, philosophy, or sex ed class filing a lawsuit...that was my basic point.
ifeelfine,
"QT - Thanks for posting on CP. You make some very good points. I feel much the same way you do on these subjects. Many "Christians" on this site make it clear that unless you believe exactly the way they believe, you're not a Christian. Many of them martyr themselves by taking offense at anything they percieve as negative all the while throwing out vicious insults. It's very hypocritical."
I never said that unless you believe exactly as I do that you are not a Christian, rather I have always claimed that if you are going to call yourself a Christian then you have to do so by Christianity's rules not your own. I couldn't call myself a Muslim and then preach Christ Resurrected, rather I have to give up certain beliefs I held before in order to become a Muslim.
I need some logical arguments here...