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
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...
QT,
"I have not stated "you are wrong in your beliefs,""
Yes but you do believe my position is wrong.
Not all beliefs are equal, it is literally impossible to be so. 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. 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). This applies to virtually everything, in contradictory systems this is always the case. There is not an argument here, you need to complete get rid of logic to sustain a fantasy that all religions are equal. 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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
At last you did say something true, and that is that just because a majority believes something does not make it true. 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.
Finally another thing you need to keep in mind is that the second half of what I wrote was an "If, then" statement meaning I did not necessarily believe it to be so. It was not an assumption it was only a hypothetical. I took your words saying that you do not judge, proselytize, or belittle others faith as the sole premise of my argument. You have proven that you are judging me, proselytizing you faith, and belittling my ideas by the words you have written.
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.
Oh yea... but this guy is dead... he really is... he is as good as sued.
Evolution has more or less been proven. Who says God couldn't have caused evolution? Really.
To Blue1018:
Atheism, abortion and unhealthy sexual preferences have been taught in schools for years. Homosexuals now have forced a Day of Silence on school children in honor of their practice. What do you call that? I could rarely keep my young daughters quiet for 5 minutes, let alone a whole day of forced silence. School authorities have for years encouraged girls to get abortions and handed out condoms to boys instead of teaching the social, moral and health consequences of early sex. What is the result? 1 out of 4 girls in America have STD's, some cancer threatening, others causing sterility. (Thanks alot Planned Parenthood, you've really done your job well!) Before Abortion, very few girls in my school engaged in sex, we were taught the negative consequences. In addition, teens are not mentally mature enough to handle the pressure of sexual relationships, It's hard enough just to fit in. Classrooms have been teaching Atheism for years in the form of Evolution, philosophy and unproven scientific theories. Many forms of religious tolerance has been enforced. The only religion increasingly silenced and mocked is Christianity which this Country was founded on. Read your Constitution written in the "Year of our Lord". There is only ONE who goes by the title "Lord" and that's Jesus Christ. If those who hate Him had their way, this would probably be the first thing they would take out of our Constitution, pretending it was never there like so many other things that are being erased or twisted.
<<<My money is on his adopted daughter and Bedford...both of which knew him personally and both attest to his Christian heritage..not to mention the fact that Washington prays to Christ as do all evangelicals in our prayer life... >>>
Oh so where did I state Washington was not a Christian? I stated he attended Church of England(Episcopal.) Do you think that Christians can not be socially conscious and tolerant of the religions of others? Historic evidence agrees with me that Washington was also religiously tolerant and expressed his opinion in favor of freedom to express one's personal religion unfettered by the state- it would mean the right to also practice no religion if it so served one to do so.
<<<Like I said debating with an atheist is like spitting in the wind.... not going there... I'll take the word of Washington's family and friends... they knew him. >>>
I'm not an atheist. And you might want to FACT CHECK the "family and friends" word you willing to accept- they might be bogus.
<<<you would feel your view is superior to theirs, you would be judging them as narrow minded, and most likely you would try to convince them that this is so (even by not supporting them and voicing your opinion you are proselytizing). What you have described above is not even a myth, it is simply a lie. >>>
More assumption on your part. I at least stick to the facts.
<<<Even if you said that all religions are equal (worst position on earth to take).>>>
Explain "worst position on Earth to take." According to whom? Are you saying my beliefs are worse than yours because I will allow another faith to be on equal par with mine?
<<<Then you would be saying that anyone who thought that their religion was the only way was wrong,>>>
No I wouldn't be saying that, and I didn't say that. You can think or feel anything you want- it is an entitlement of the freedom to speak your mind. I can and will disagree with you, but that doesn'tI just don't agree that because you or others who are likeminded, or consider yourselves the majority have a monopoly on what is to be considered TRUTH. It makes you likeminded, a consensus, a majority, and capable of monopolizing something. It doesn't make you more truthful or correct. It makes you opinionated about what you believe; but please do not assume that I consider your opinions less, I just disagree with them for very specific reasons. One reason being you lack facts to back up your statements- but that has nothing to do with you as a person, your character or your faith. You just don't impress me when you make assumptions that ignore the facts.
<<<There is no such thing as the faith or position you have described, it does not exist.>>>
Can you prove that? Can you prove that your faith is superior to mine without even knowing to what tradition I belong? And because my faith instructs me differently on the teachings of Christ doesn't make me an atheist or an agnostic as you have insinuated. BTW, Where does it say in the Bible that as Christians we are to quote scripture at people, proselytize, tell others their faith, religion, and beliefs are irrelevant or invalid?
<<<Impossible, you are now assuming your faith is superior to ours by claiming that we are wrong, you are judging us as being "too quick to judge", and you must do all of these things in one form or another.>>>
It is not impossible to be a Christian and not quote scriptures at people, proselytize and not claim that one faith is superior to another. I find your claim directed at me absolutely ridiculous- I have not stated "you are wrong in your beliefs," I have however stated your opinions about me and my character are wrong,(i.e. you claimed I am angry, jar1961 claimed I said Washington wasn't a Christian, you both have claimed I am atheist or agnostic.) And I have not stated anything about your faith, I did not judge your faith, I do not think your faith or any other Christian on this boards faith is any less or greater than mine. I'd like to know where I stated my faith is superior, my qualifying my belief was my attempt to deny your assumption that I am an atheist or an agnostic.
Back in the days of Washington and Jefferson, the Western world only knew Christianity. There were no other world religions on equal status. In those days of extreme racism and slavery, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism were all Asian religions not factored into Western thought. And one had to be Jewish to practice Judaism. Deism and Enlightenment were most likey offshoots of disenchantment with the current Christian practices, and for those who could not conceive a personal relationship with the Living God.
Many of America's laws were handed down from practices in England and reinforced with the freedom found in the Christian Bible, based on Judaic/Christian principles. When Thomas Jefferson made the famous "Seperation of Church and State" statement, he was writing a letter to the Danbury Baptist Clergy, assuring them that the new government would not establish a Federal Church such as the Church of England, squelching the free expressions of the Baptists and other forms of Christianity. There were no other religions at the time that would have even been considered, except in respect of Judaism, from which the Western world's founding guidelines came. Therefore, I agree that teachers should be repremended when they make a mockery of our history with their own biased opinions, teaching their own forms of religion in public schools instead of teaching fact.
QT,
You wrote,
"I am not athiest or agnostic. I just don't choose to use my beliefs in order to belittle others, claim my faith is superior to anothers, proselytize, witness or judge others in any way."
Impossible, you are now assuming your faith is superior to ours by claiming that we are wrong, you are judging us as being "too quick to judge", and you must do all of these things in one form or another. There is no such thing as the faith or position you have described, it does not exist.
Even if you said that all religions are equal (worst position on earth to take). Then you would be saying that anyone who thought that their religion was the only way was wrong, you would feel your view is superior to theirs, you would be judging them as narrow minded, and most likely you would try to convince them that this is so (even by not supporting them and voicing your opinion you are proselytizing). What you have described above is not even a myth, it is simply a lie.
My money is on his adopted daughter and Bedford...both of which knew him personally and both attest to his Christian heritage..not to mention the fact that Washington prays to Christ as do all evangelicals in our prayer life...
Like I said debating with an atheist is like spitting in the wind.... not going there... I'll take the word of Washington's family and friends... they knew him.
<<<FOR QT: I am not going to engage in this typical debate about Washington and Jefferson that atheists constantly try to assert. However, what I am going to do is quote Washington and post a letter from his granddaughter. Washington was a devout church goer and emphatically believed in the Bible>>>
Believing in the Bible and going to church regularly do not make less of my points than you are attempting jar1961-
It is a FACT that Jefferson was a deist, and it is a FACT that Washington supported religious tolerance and freedom. That was the point I made.
The letter from Washingtons daughter is interesting, especially the part about schools teaching the religion of Jesus Christ-- Jesus Christ was a devout JEW, who practiced Judaism, and was as genuine a Pharisee to the letter of the LAW. Are you through his daughter suggesting Washington wanted American schools to teach Judaism?
Though you use only CHRISTIANIZED quotes to prove your point, it does not accurately rebut mine- that Washington was very supportive of religious tolerance and freedom, does it?
A distinctively Christian view of the law is also reflected in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890):
“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho . . . It was never intended or supposed that the (First) amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may [133 U.S. 333, 343] be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.” (emphasis mine.)
CHRSITIANITY'S ROLE IN THE FOUNDING OF OUR COUNTRY:
The Historical Understanding of Christianity and the Constitution
“Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment to it . . . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private religious rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation . . . .The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”
[Justice Joseph Story (who served on the Supreme Court from 1811-1845) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2 Vol. 2:593-95, 2nd Ed. Boston: Little Brown (1905)]
Justice Story’s understanding reflects the thinking of the framers of the Constitution, who expressed unbridled faith in God in the Declaration of Independence:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them . . .
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .
FOR QT: MORE QUOTES FROM WASHINGTON:
A Portion of George Washington's personal prayers:
“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”
FOR QT: I am not going to engage in this typical debate about Washington and Jefferson that atheists constantly try to assert. However, what I am going to do is quote Washington and post a letter from his granddaughter. Washington was a devout church goer and emphatically believed in the Bible:
“He was a sincere believer in the Christian faith and a truly devout man.”
{Quote by John Marshall [Revolutionary General, Secretary of State, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice]}
"To the character of hero and patriot, this good man added that of Christian. Although the greatest man upon earth, he disdained not to humble himself before his God and to trust in the mercies of Christ.”
{Quote by Gunning Bedford, signer of the Constitution}
“The name of American, belongs to you…[and] with slight shades of difference, you have the same religion.”
--George Washington in his Farewell Address to the American people, Paragraph 10; September 17, 1796 | photo of farewell address
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."
"Is it necessary that any one should [ask], “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country." {Quote by Nelly Custis-Lewis, Washington's adopted daughter}
_________________________________________________________________________
I can understand Chad's point about feeling like a second citizen. To feel so passionate about a certain religion and feeling like a second citizen. But my goodness, why didn't he ever stick up for himself? Or complain? This shouldn't even be an issue. It should have been taken up with the parents, then principal, school board, and THEN a lawsuit. I saw the lawsuit document. A couple bad quotes, one day, with Chad saying nothing back to the teacher leads to a lawsuit? And they always want 'damages'. Good grief, great way to waste tax dollars.
<<<Atheist's use the founding fathers as a false offensive in saying they were not Christians.>>>
I think you are mistaken. It is often the charge of Christians who do not understand DEISTS or DEISM to claim they are ATHIESTS.
Though baptised into the Church of England, Washington was an early supporter of religious tolerance and freedom. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian. FACT CHECK is available if you do not agree with me. It is a factt that our founding fathers and the drafters/signers of the US Constitution sought to insure the US with independance and freedom from any ONE organized religious expression. Meaning that Christianity would not be the religion guaranteed favor or superiority over others. That also means the US Constitution is not Judeo/Christian in "values." It is neutral.
<<<FOR: THELORD IS MY LIGHT: Well European history has little to do with our American heritage.>>>
It has EVERYTHING to do with it! Why did our ancestors leave their homelands of origin to face uncertainty, danger, hunger, etc. to colonize in America? I'm sure you realize that when you think about it- it has something to do with their personal MOTIVATION, the desire for specific freedoms, as well as the fact that the early settlers colonized America to escape what many considered torture, inequality and slave like conditions/treatment in Europe. European History affects we Americans even today.
<<<Jerry Falwell etc etc are not teaching AP History. Suppose I went to a Richard Dawkins event, I would fully expect to hear him bash Christianity throughout the entire thing, and I would not protest because he would be speaking in the proper context. >>>
Jerry Falwell claimed to be a Christian, he frequently in public made ridiculous comments, from the pulpit he bashed people he was bigoted against. He regularly used his influence and platform to preach hatred in the name of the Most High God as if he was a spokesmodel for Jesus. Many Christians do this and claim it is testifying, and the same behavior occurs on these very boards every day. Do you actually know what Mr. Corbett said to his students that was belittling to Christians Chris333, the only quotes offered in the story might have been taken out of context by the plaintiff, but some here post as though they know ALL sides of the argument. My pointing that out doesn't put me on one side or the other, it makes me want to know both sides.
BTW, Richard Dawkins has never bashed Christians in the lectures which I have seen on DVD, he discusses why for him he finds Christianity unbelievable, and why he finds it harmful. Please don't mistake that for my having met him, for as I have stated, I have never met an agnostic, nor have I met him in person.
A person may present facts without having to be considered anti-Christian. I follow Jesus, but I do not follow the traditions, doctrines and creeds of HUMAN RELIGION. IMHO, human religions are what angered Jesus most of the time. So please stop assuming that I hate Christians just because on this board I don't proselytize, deposit my faith, misuse G-d's word, fling scripture to condemn people and allow unfactual statements go unchallenged.
<<<May I also add that your posts seem to be a bit angry, I have yet to find a substantive reason other than that you hate Christians (or at least those you perceive to be Christians). >>>
My posts are often mistaken for anger because I do not mince words, try to get to the point and usually rely on facts over anecdotes. My posts are frequently misunderstood by people because they assume things which I never said- you assume you know somethings about my life and whom I have met and have not met. You disagree with some of my opinions, therefore, you're assuming I am angry. I do not hate Christians- I am appalled that some claim to possess religious superiority over others, claim absolute truth, tell others "you need to get saved," act like fools and post with little to no facts. If some would have read the story, they would see it is one-sided because the teacher has told his side. One can ignore that fact all day, but Mr. Corbett hasn't had his day in court, so why judge him?
<<<Also, you have most certainly met an agnostic at some point in your life. Only the uneducated call themselves "atheist" anyways, as it asserts a negative. Richard Dawkins is an agnostic.>>>
I don't know how you can ascertain that I have met an agnostic at some point in my life, when you do not know me, have never met me and furthermore, when I said that I have not met any, I should know that because I know whom I talk or have have talked to- BTW, meeting an agnostic would be defined as having had a conversation with one wherein they professed their agnosticism. BTW, I've never met Richard Dawkins.
<<<My University History professor was able to talk all about European History without making fun of any religions, but I can understand if you atheists/agnostics cannot do that, it seems your faith is a bit possesive...>>>
We don't know that Corbett was making fun of religion, he hasn't told his side of the story, and that has been my argument the entire time I have posted. Some people on the boards here think they have all the facts and are ready to "try" and condemn the teacher.
I am not athiest or agnostic. I just don't choose to use my beliefs in order to belittle others, claim my faith is superior to anothers, proselytize, witness or judge others in any way.
agentorange,
You are partly right, we don't have all the facts and we haven't heard a clear representation of Corbett's side. That being said, History class is not the place to challenge/ridicule religious beliefs. If I started an AP History class and said, "When you put on your Muhammad glasses" I would be fired instantly and probably receive death threats, if I said, "When you put on your Buddha glasses" I would be fired instantly and deemed as saying hate speech, if I said, "When you put on your Richard Dawkins glasses" I may or may not be fired, but at least many angry books would be written about me. I don't know that Corbett should be fired, but I can see no way of trusting a teacher who has such obvious bias. I don't believe we can trust the highschoolers because as we have seen hundreds have flocked to his defense in the name of free speech... this is garbage, these kids need to be taught how to think.
QT,
You are right about one thing, God doesn't need us for "PR", and I believe some Christians have misplaced their stand, others (the kids challenging Corbett for instance) are perfectly justified in their stands (supposing that the facts are true). I have commented below on how ridiculous the "OH it is free speech" claim is, and I believe the kids with I love Jesus shirts are opposing the others, they often have rallies close to each other and it makes for a good picture. Also, there is a huge difference between teaching kids about the inquisition (as it actually was, and not the horrible slaughter of thousands of "infidels" that atheists wrongly make it out to be, as it was not that) and other such events, and saying, "Well when you put on your Jesus glasses..." My University History professor was able to talk all about European History without making fun of any religions, but I can understand if you atheists/agnostics cannot do that, it seems your faith is a bit possesive...
Also, you have most certainly met an agnostic at some point in your life. Only the uneducated call themselves "atheist" anyways, as it asserts a negative. Richard Dawkins is an agnostic.
May I also add that your posts seem to be a bit angry, I have yet to find a substantive reason other than that you hate Christians (or at least those you perceive to be Christians). Jerry Falwell etc etc are not teaching AP History. Suppose I went to a Richard Dawkins event, I would fully expect to hear him bash Christianity throughout the entire thing, and I would not protest because he would be speaking in the proper context.
FOR: THELORD IS MY LIGHT: Well European history has little to do with our American heritage. There is nothing "dry" about the events which supported our Judaic Christian hisotry in the formation of this country. Atheist's use the founding fathers as a false offensive in saying they were not Christians... i.e. Jefferson and Washington.. so unless the Christian community knows about OUR country's past your son will be defenseless.... It's one thing to defend the faith.. another to defend the role of faith in our political system...
Advanced Placement European history teachers are teaching about what happened during European history. Therefore the subjects like The Inquisition, the corrupt things that went on in the Church, how that affected history and how it affected people and public opinions; seems all pretty relevant to history in my opinion. Then again I took AP History and had a teacher who explained the influence Christianity has and had on history. Some people just don't like it when the truth is told good or bad.
<<<It is seems that for some people, attacking God and Christian faith is a trivial joke. If the
teacher does't believe in any religion or God, let him do so, but while paid by the State for his
teaching job, he has misused his time deliberately to attack the fundamental right and faith
of his students. He has to pay a price for his arrogance and irresponsible actions, and he has
to reap from where he has sown. >>>
Amazing that you can GLEAN all that from a one sided argument containing a few quotes about what he is reported to have said. The full facts are not even out and Mr. Corbett is condemned as attacking God, attacking Christianity, arrogant and irresponsible.
It is seems that for some people, attacking God and Christian faith is a trivial joke. If the
teacher does't believe in any religion or God, let him do so, but while paid by the State for his
teaching job, he has misused his time deliberately to attack the fundamental right and faith
of his students. He has to pay a price for his arrogance and irresponsible actions, and he has
to reap from where he has sown.
Jar-
Tell me how that "training her to fight the good fight" thing comes out. My boy is totally ready to fight the good fight. However... he is educated on more... prevalent subjects and without such a dry dry dry read. I am teaching him how to respond when asked about the inquisition, I am telling him about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and how it is NOT rootless. I am telling him about how Jesus actually literally completely utterly said that the Eucharist WAS his body and that it WAS his blood and that we SHALL eat of it and if we DON'T we have NO life.
I am sorry, I got your moniker incorrect. I should have stated anniefourjesus, not anniefourgod. Forgive me.
<<<I was an agnostic and it wasn't people who changed me; it was JESUS CHRIST Himself! HE got a hold of my old rebellious heart and showed me HE is real and alive...>>>
anniefourgod, please explain what you mean by "I was an agnostic." I have never met an agonostic, and only know of agnosticism via education or textbook.
<<<This teacher is supposed to be teaching HISTORY, it is not even a Comparative Religion class. How about sticking to teaching the HISTORY class and leave the "faith and religion" out of this class.>>>
Because as you can see in the photo, there are students who refuse to accept the rights of others FREE SPEECH, and feel the need to "TESTIFY" with an I HEART JESUS tee shirt, because they feel God will bless their sacreligious display of HUMAN sentiment. If GOD is as almighty as some claim, why do humans need to get SOOOOOOOO involved, can't God do his own PR? Apparently he can't because some Christians seem so codependently attached to doing it for him.
<<<I was the worst liar and had so much hatred and evil in my heart and the dear Lord cleansed me from all of that and I am so very thankful! >>>
<<<This teacher is in need of prayers and perhaps this kind of discussion will prompt others to really take a look at what it is they really believe and why they believe it!!>>>
How can you speak for someone who hasn' TOLD their side of the story? ALL the facts aren't in yet. This is why Corbett will likely win this case. People disregard the facts and try to sue based on personal feelings. ALL people don't lie like anniefourgod says. All people are unique in their own way, that is why the law protects and defends people like Corbett. Freedom doesn't errode every time someone tries to take one away, freedoms become stronger, and "Christians" are thinking they are about to loose their freedoms- but it couldn't be further from the FACT.
Amen jar1961! If a person doesn't want to believe in God, that is their choice and no amount of persuading is going to change their mind, because the heart is the problem.
I was an agnostic and it wasn't people who changed me; it was JESUS CHRIST Himself! HE got a hold of my old rebellious heart and showed me HE is real and alive and I thank Him for that!
So today, I not only know what I believe, I know WHY I believe!
God is truth and every man a liar!!! (and I'm "speaking the truth in love") I was the worst liar and had so much hatred and evil in my heart and the dear Lord cleansed me from all of that and I am so very thankful! So, if HE could do that for me, HE can do that for anyone, who wants it, you have to want HIM. He is there for anyone who really is seeking Him with their whole heart!!
He never disappoints and never abandons! This teacher is in need of prayers and perhaps this kind of discussion will prompt others to really take a look at what it is they really believe and why they believe it!!
God bless!
Christians everywhere are ready to sue Corbett and take away his means of supporting his family. But Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Fred Phelps and Ted Haggard can all publicly blame "evil" nonChristians for terrorism, end times and the like yet Christians don't flinch and accept that it is a dispicable act.
Article says,
<<<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.>>>
Can we have an honest dialogue about this without ALL the facts, no. Things are missing, no facts have come out that says Corbett has done anything wrong. It's funny how much gets stated on these boards without proper facts being used.
This teacher is supposed to be teaching HISTORY, it is not even a Comparative Religion class. How about sticking to teaching the HISTORY class and leave the "faith and religion" out of this class.
To me this teacher who is supposed to be the leader was allowing a discussion that appears to be "prejudiced" about a subject that is not his to teach.
As a Christian let me say this: What others believe about my faith whether good or bad I do not take personal. God's Word tells me: "Nothing shall offend thee" Whether they insult me or God, or His Word, God will deal with them, my prayer is that HE will open their knowledge and understanding to know Him and His Word.
I try and take each opportunity to pray and lift those folks up to the Lord God; including this teacher.
The children of God are taught in the Word to let those things go, they fall on Jesus and HE is more than able to handle these things, HE is the LORD!
God bless you and all and have a wonderful day! In Jesus Name and for HIS glory!
It's hard to know the true context of the disccussions in this teachers class without seeing them all in there entirety. Small bits are hardly usefull and taken out of context can mislead his overall intentions which is what the trial will attempt to distinguish.
It appears some of those quoted are quite divisive and something he should be on trial for. Were his questions bent on intent to engage in dialog and debate and ctitical thinking, or were they merely attempts to throw mud at believers and their religion. I need more than single quotes to establish that, and so should everyone else. I wouldn’t doubt the kids that were part of the class can speak on behalf on what occurred and what is valid.
my mistake they claimed he spurred "intelligent discussions" my argument still holds though, because any discussion would have had to have taken the form of a debate. Statements like, "when you wear your Jesus glasses" are most certainly not spurring intelligent discussion, but rather bolstering young atheists with stupidity and mudslinging techniques. What garbage, it is hard to take people seriously some times.
...So hundreds of students flocked to the teachers side, promoting free speech and his ability to "spur intelligent debates"? What a bunch of garbage, are highschoolers really so stupid? There is no spuring intelligent debates whenever you are a teacher in a position of authority and able to alter the life of the students. A debate must be between people of equal position and relatively equal intelligence, and it must be conducted in the proper setting. A highschool history class is not the proper place for a debate. Kids come to learn, not to engage in a debate with their teacher. And freedom of speech? Give me a break, I suppose it is perfectly fine for teachers to say absolutely anything they want under the pretenses of freedom of speech. Just like in California communist school teachers may soon be able to propagandize students with communist ideas with the intent of brainwashing them. Is this a joke, are these highschool students serious?
FOR THELORDISMYLIGHT: That is the problem. People don't want to take the time to be edified through study. That is why America is on a collision course with disaster. If people want to live in a sound bite world they will get the government they deserve. Education is the key to overcoming ignorance. How can you make a sound defense until you are versed in the great historical truths of this nation's past when dealing with an ignorant class of atheists and secularist?. I had my 10 year old read what i posted here and will continue to educate her. Over time everything I share with her will lay the foundation for her fighting the good fight.
Jar-
Nobody is going to read that... really.
Christians are always pressed to keep this strict "secular" attitude. Atheists should be required to do the same. It is NOT a one-way street, people.
FYI... you might now be surprised to learn that 64 public school districts in the United States now have literature courses which use the Bible as its text book. And the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the use of the Bible as a form of literary study in public schools...
FOR OLDGUY
I've learned that debating with an atheist is futile. It doesn't matter what the historical record is. Here is the simple and direct perspective.....
The Supreme Court up until 1962 supported the use of the Bible in the classroom. It is not about the Supreme Court, it is about the activism that takes place on the court. The Warren Court destroyed this country. That you can make statements in spite of the intent of our founding fathers and the historical and traditional role of Christianity in the public schools is pretty much the definition of ignorance.
FYI... you might now be surprised to learn that 64 public school districts in the United States now have literature courses which use the Bible as its text book. And the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the use of the Bible as a form of literary study in public schools...
jar1961: In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."
That's why we have a Supreme Court, to keep the Congress under control and to remind them that America is not a theocracy.
TWPeck: "This teacher should be ashamed of himself for his ethical lapse."
I have to agree with you even though I wish I had a history teacher like James Corbett when I used to be a student many decades ago. In a public school teachers can't be praising God and they can't be criticizing the God belief when they have a captive audience in a classroom. Even if this wasn't against the Constitution, it's not appropriate and it's asking for trouble. A student like Chad Farnan should not have to drop out of an Advanced Placement History class because the teacher doesn't respect his students.
ProfessorX: "Now this Socialist teacher"
Atheist does not equal socialist. It means "not a theist".
The fun part of reading these comments is how quickly they get off track.
Actually, Oldguy is right on in terms of the appropriateness. ANYONE who teaches school needs to be totally cognizant of their responsibility towards helping young minds learn and what they are learning.
I had a number of liberal (and a few conservative) teachers in High School but almost all of them used this as a "bully pulpit" to espouse their views and some to suppress the views of others.
Teachers at that level should be held to a standard in public schools should be held to the standard of objectivitity and allowing students to sort these ideas out themselves.
This teacher should be ashamed of himself for his ethical lapse.
In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."
William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the "Schoolmaster of the Nation."
Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: "The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our notions on the character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible I make no apology."
Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures: "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments".
Christopher Columbus 1492 The name says it all, "Christ bearer." "Blessed be the light of day, and the holy cross we say; And the Lord of verity, and the Holy Trinity."
Think about the places he named; San Salvador means "Holy Savior" Vera Cruz means "True Cross." La Navidad means " Nativity" or "Christmas." Then he named Trinidad, which means "The Trinity."
Today you can read his log. A quote from it, "It was the Lord who put it into my mind to sail to the Indies. The fact that the Gospel must be preached in so many lands -- that is what convinced me. Charting the seas is but a necessary requsite for the fulfillment of the great commission of our Lord and Savior."
William Bradford 1590-1657 Mayflower passenger Sept. 1620. A Governor of the Plymouth colony.
"They (the Pilgrims) had a great hope and inward zeal of laying some good foundation or at least to make some way there unto for the propagating and advancing of the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world, yea though they should be but even a stepping stone unto others for the performing of so great a work." In his later years he wrote with "grief and sorrow" of the growing secularism and the loss of "constant faithfulness".
The Pilgrims -- First called separatists or wanderers. Around 1600 this group was called puritans. They started in England in the counties of Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, to purify the church and break away from the Church of England. In 1608 the group went to Holland and for twelve years John Robinson developed these people into what would be the founding fathers of America. The minority of the people sailed on the Mayflower and landed at Cape Cod after many delays and 63 days. The first year half of the pilgrims died but the rest survived and were joined by the others the next year.
Fisher Aimes -- Author of the first ammendment, wrote an article called "School books" in the Pladium magazine in January 1801, "We have trouble in the classrooms, we are putting in new text books. Nothing wrong with new books but we are spending more time on them than the Bible; it is drifting to the back of the classroom. We cannot tolerate this in American education. The Bible's morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble.
George Washington -- From Farewell Address17 September 1796 -- "The Bible...is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God and spiritual nature and need of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation. America was born a Christian nation."
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." "It is impossable to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
Calvin Coolidge -- "The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody but the state."
Theodore Roosavelt -- "Progress has brought us both unbounded oppourtunities and unbridled difficulties. I believe that the next half century will determine if we will advance the cause of Christian civilization or revert to the horrors of brutal paganism. The thought of modern industry in the hands of Christian chariity is a dream worth dreaming. The thought of industry in the hands of paganism is a nightmare beyond imagining. The choice between the two is upon us."
"There is only one morality. All else is immorality. There is only true Christian ethics over against which stands the whole of paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a people, then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality."
Harry S Truman -- The fundamental basis of this nations law was given to Moses on the mount. The fundamental basis of our bill of rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I dont think we emphasise that enough these days.."
John Adams -- "In 1798 he made proclamation that the 9th day of May that year would be a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer that the people of the US would offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies." Just let the President TRY to do that today!!
Earl Warren -- Chief justice of the supreme court, 1954
"I believe that no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the good book and the spirit of the savior, have from the beginning have been our guiding geniuses."
The Bill of Rights was proposed to the First U.S. Congress, and there was debate on the matter. After some discussion, the Amendments were submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and ten of the original twelve[43] Amendments proposed by Congress to the States were ratified.[44] Unfortunately, most of the records of these debates are incomplete, especially those which dealt with religion. The record of the House of Representatives was narrowed down to short summary paragraphs, and the Senate debate was conducted in secret.[45] I will give a synopsis of what happened at these debates from the scarce information provided:
 August 15, 1789: The Committee of the Whole (headed by Madison, and established to propose the Bill of Rights to the House) debated the freedom of religion clause. Some members thought the clause would have a negative effect, and could even abolish religion. Madison defended the provision, and stated it was only meant to "prevent Congress from making 'laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion.'" and even "suggested that the word 'national' be inserted before 'religion.'[46] A Representative of New Hampshire proposed, and the committee approved the language that read; "Congress shall make no laws touching religion or infringing the rights of conscience."[47] [For the actual report see Appendix A].
 August 20, 1789: The House approved the following wording for the freedom of religion amendment; "Congress shall name no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."[48] This wording was then debated on the facts that this would be contradictory to the seventh amendment,[49] which gives special privileges to those of religious scruples in the provision for the right to bear arms.[50]
 September 3, 1789: The Senate agreed to the House recommendation that "nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed" be stricken from the religion amendment.[51]
 September 4, 1789: The Senate struck the words "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" from the right to bear arms amendment.[52]
 September 9, 1789: The Senate fused the rights of religious freedom, speech, press, assembly, and petition into a single amendment. However, the amendment on religious freedom was weakened. Except for the freedom of speech and a provision on right to jury trials, 12 Amendments were approved and communicated to the House. The two other provisions, then went to the Conference Committee to be re-worked.[53] [For the actual report of the Senate Journal, see Appendix B].
We do know that there were several versions of the freedom of religion which were discussed. The one version, which was titled as Article the Third, stated; "Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed."[54] Other versions included "Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others." and "Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society."[55] Finally, on December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified[56] and the version which was agreed upon is as follows; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."[57]
The effect of these Amendments was to be placed upon the federal government, and were not to be applicable to the individual state governments. At the time of ratification, six states still had a type of church establishment system set up, three protestant, and three christian.[58] Many of the states, soon after, ratified their own state constitutions to provide for a separation of church and state. However, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts (until 1833) retained the principle of an established state church for many years afterwards.[59] The First U.S. Congress, which had passed the Bill of Rights a year before, had also enacted a bill which allowed for congressional chaplains in 1790.[60]
FOR OLDGUY:
The Supreme Court also ruled, "seperate but Equal".. The Supreme Court also ruled that abortion is a consitutional right... various courts also have made laws restricting gun ownership when the constitution is clear that the Congress shall make NO LAW.... The problem with many rulings in the supreme court is that they have forgotten the writings and intent of our founding fathers.
The Supreme Court also ruled that in tax court an American Citizen has no presumption of innocence and the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence nor also they have a right to counsel...
Dan Webster had much to do with the establishment of the public school system in the U.S.Did you know the pre-eminent mission of the public school system was originally to promote the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that the Bible was the main text used to teach?
That's the problem.... most people are ignorant of what our historical legal foundations were that made this country great. And just because the Supreme Court, (activist judges like Warren) rule something constitutional doesn't make it so. Our founding fathers NEVER intended paganism to be held in equal esteem with Judaic Christian belief. Their intent was that a man could believe or not....
Now this Socialist teacher is having a taste of his own medicine. The same laws they used to muzzle christian teachers from preaching in class are the same laws used to silence teachers who preach the ATHEIST RELIGION. I assure you that if this atheist wins this case christians will have free reign to evangelize all their students. The effects of this case will reach all the way into the universities and colleges of America.
http://atheistsareimaginary.blogspot.com
now oldguy corbett sounds better
jar1961 said: Next, there is no Constitutional wall of separation. That happens only in the minds of atheistic ideologues. The Constitution reads, "freedom of.... not..freedom from..."
jar1961 also said: Additionally, in the writings of our founding fathers they never intended all forms of religion to be given equal footing.
jar1961, the Supreme Court disagrees with your "not freedom from" idea, and they disagree with your "never intended all forms of religion to be given equal footing" idea.
From wikipedia: "in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
I agree Islam is a crazy idea, and I'm tired of reading about Muslim suicide bombers every day. However, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means what it says, and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment has been used by the Supreme Court to make the Establishment Clause apply to state governments and state schools. Governments just can't be in the business of favoring any religion, and they can't favor religion instead of no religion. If you don't like that, you need to complain to the Founding Fathers who gave us the Bill of Rights. Also, you need to complain to the Supreme Court whose job it is to defend the Bill of Rights.
Amazing what one student can make happen.
With the support of a U.S. District Court Judge and a Christian legal group, the kid seems to have a case.
I'll be following this one.
Let's talk about Islam:
1. Islam encourages the beating of a wife for speaking out in front of her husband
2. Rape can only occur if there are 6 witnesses to it
3. Islam considers the Jews swine who must be killed off the earth before Christ comes back
4. Muhammed was a pedophile. He took Ayisha, who was 6 years old and had sex with her at 8 years old
5. Muhammed's own mother considered him insane
6. These are people who put out a Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie for speaking the truth
7. IN Egypt a classroom of school girls were allowed to burn to death in a school fire because they were dressed in civilian clothes instead of traditional muslim dress about 3 years ago and were not allowed to escape
The problem with most people who want to put Islam on an equal footing with Christianity is they know almost nothing about the truths of islam.
The only thing evil need do to succeed is for good men to do nothing. This lawsuit is what is needed. Next, there is no Constitutional wall of separation. That happens only in the minds of atheistic ideologues. The Constitution reads, "freedom of.... not..freedom from..." Our country was founded upon Judaic Christian principles... I believe it was Franklin or Jefferson who said..."ours (government) was founded for a moral people and when we loose our morality we will loose our form of government.
Additionally, in the writings of our founding fathers they never intended all forms of religion to be given equal footing. This was made clear, esp. in the forming precepts of the Virginia COnstitution which banned witch craft and devil worship. If the founding Fathers were alive today I am sure that Islam would have been cast along with Satan worship and witch craft....
Now you may not like what I said, but it is an historical truth bore out through the writings of our fore fathers.
TheHuron137,
There have also been a few christian teachers around the country that have overtly criticisized islam and brought speakers in to criticize muhammad. I would be willing to bet that they would be screaming free speech if a lawsuit was brought. If you didn't know some universities have brought in Islamic speakers to their campuses to speak on Islam and paid them for it.
Question: why is the atheist teacher name James? Why not Little red book Corbett, or Trostky Corbett? I read the sacramento atheist student club article a while back and their leaders name is Stephen and Matthew. Why not Marxist whats his face or Lenin somebody.
Topekan asked a good question: "How does anything a Public School Teacher does violate the establishment clause?"
The answer is the 14th Amendment has been used by the Supreme Court to make state governments respect the Bill of Rights including the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion).
From wikipedia: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the legal doctrine by which portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."
This is why a Christian teacher who preaches her religion in a public school is inviting legal problems. It works both ways. The non-Christian teacher, James Corbett, was asking for trouble when he made anti-Christian comments in his classroom.
LOL 1man....and if your statement wasn't being sarcastic, AP stands for Advanced Placement. Just FYI. :P
I agree with oldguy also that it would not be appropriate for a christian teacher to go and preach in school. But I do not agree with the teachers views.
Oldguy, the Establishment clause merely prevents Congress from either requiring or forbidding religion. How does anything a Public School Teacher does violate the establishment clause? That's a pretty stupid statement.
I was teaching public high school about 2 years ago now near where Tenessee, Georgia, Alablama come together. I had a teacher come in on occasion with a big cross on and make comments about the lessons Moses had to teach us. I started to object but being in the bilbe belt i think i would hve found myself out on the sidewalk quickly. One objection is that there is no historical record outside the mythical bible to support an historical Moses and the second was that she was just trying to inject her religion even when it wan't appropriate. There have also been a few christian teachers around the country that have overtly criticisized islam and brought speakers in to criticize muhammad. I would be willing to bet that they would be screaming free speech if a lawsuit was brought.
Even though I agree with Corbett's ideas, public school teachers need to respect the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Even though I wish I had a teacher like Corbett when I was a student, he needs to be penalized for his inappropriate remarks. Christian teachers are not allowed to preach their religion in public schools, so it would not be fair to let a non-Christian teacher include anti-Christian ideas in his lectures. In a university his comments would be OK, but he was asking for trouble to say these things in a public high school.
AP: does this stand for the "atheistic postion"? "atheistic proselytization"? "against protestants"?