James Corbett Speaks

James Corbett

James Corbett


Last week, I published a piece on C.F. v. Capistrano School District. In that case, a federal judge ruled that when schoolteacher James Corbett referred to another teacher’s assignment asking students to provide scientific support for c reationism as “superstitious nonsense,” he violated student Chad Farnan’s First Amendment rights.

Mr. Corbett has graciously agreed to appear as a guest blogger, and provided us with his editorial on the case, published below.

By JAMES CORBETT

Over 2,000 years ago Socrates faced a court for refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state, importing strange divinities and corrupting the young. The judges sent Socrates to his death. He accepted the sentence of the court and committed suicide by drinking a cup of hemlock.

The only virtue for Socrates was “knowledge.” He reached it by questioning the most deeply held beliefs of his students by which I mean all of Athens and ultimately all of us. What troubled the Athenians about Socrates, however, was not listed in the charges. His crime was that he prompted people to think.

His provocations exposed the Athenians’ shallowness of belief and mindless deference to myth. Socrates was judged because he was successful in provoking his students “examine their lives.” [his words]Those who guard the myths must try and strike down any who teach young people to think and question, because myths often shrink in the light of reason, draining power from those in authority who benefit from belief.

There are thousands of teachers who agree with Socrates that, “[t]he unexamined life is not worth living.” Every teacher who makes a student think takes the risk that he will be attacked by parents and others who see themselves as guardians of cherished political and religious myth. The teachers willing to take that risk should be rewarded, not punished. After the verdict, the Athenian court asked Socrates what his punishment should be. He responded that he should get free meals at the Pyrataneum, a celebration hall for Olympian athletes. Socrates went on to explain that those who passed judgment were not harming him, but rather themselves. He said, by killing him they corrupted their own souls and revealed the weakness of their own belief. A true believer does not fear that a few questions can undo years of parental teaching. Those who would “protect” students from self-examination have little faith and great fear.

Chad Farnan, the boy who sued me, was an average student, who admitted under oath that he did not do the required reading for the class. If Chad’s lawyers, the “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” and his parents were actually concerned with protecting the boy, why didn’t they simply come to me and ask me to explain my comments? Neither they nor the Farmans ever expressed concerns to me nor to any administrators before they came to school with attorneys and reporters in tow to drop a lawsuit on the desk of Tom Ressler, our principal. Perhaps more importantly, the Farmans were aware long before Chad took my class that I go out of my way to be provocative. Every year in July, I send a letter home to students who have signed up for my class. Chad admitted under oath that he received that letter. The letter says, in part:

“Most days we will spend a few minutes (sometimes more) at the beginning of class discussing current events from either The Orange County Register or the L.A. Times. I may also use material from a variety of news Web sites. Discussion will be quite provocative, and focus on the ‘lessons’ of history. My goal is to have you go home with something that will provoke discussion with your parents. Students may offer any perspective without concern that anything they say will impact either my attitude toward them or their grades. I encourage a full range of views.”

I included my home phone number and e-mail address in that letter and encouraged parents to contact me if they had any concerns. Chad admitted under oath that my lectures prompted many discussions with his parents. I might add, that in 20 years in the CUSD, I have never had a complaint filed against me, save this one.

Every teacher in California (this was a federal case after all) now works with the knowledge that any student, at any time, and in violation of California law, can sneak a tape recorder into a classroom, record the teacher and use an out-of-context five second comment as a bludgeon to threaten, to intimidate and, ultimately, to destroy the teacher’s career and good name.

Challenging myths is dangerous, but it is the essence of getting students to think for themselves. The Athenian judges, like some parents today, would have students accept myth without question, because myth is the foundation of their parental, political and/or religious authority. Ms. Farnan objected to my challenging the myth of the Puritans as a pious people who fled religious intolerance to found America. As Ms. Farnan sees them, the Puritans are quaint, pious people with buckles on their hats and shoes as portrayed in the national mythology, but they may also be seen as intolerant, misogynistic and homophobic religious bigots who hanged Mary Dyer, a Quaker girl, for preaching something other than Puritan doctrine and several other women for the crime of “witchcraft.”

Questioning may make students and parents uncomfortable, but students have a right to think for themselves. It is not “bullying” to demand that students think.

Ms. Farnan also objected to my challenge of another national myth, that the United States was founded as a “Christian” nation. There is some truth to that notion, but embracing that myth and excluding other views can be used to unfairly gain political advantage. Another view of the founding fathers can be seen in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the man who authored the Declaration of Independence. He translated the Bible. The last words of the Jeffersonian Bible might shake Ms. Farnan’s faith: “There laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed.” There was no resurrection for Jefferson, he rejected all the Biblical miracles, as contrary to reason. I doubt with his view would be called “Christian” by Ms. Farnan or anyone else. James Madison, who penned the Constitution, warned, “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and units it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.” If Jefferson and Madison were alive today, I doubt they could be elected. The guardians of the national myth would rise up and smite them as unbelievers.

We respect the guardians and their myths at our peril because history (and science) changes and improves with knowledge, but the same force damages myth based on belief. That’s why the guardians fear the knowledge begat by questioning. For them, “knowledge” is gained in rote memory of approved truth. They chant in the school, temple, church or mosque and fool themselves into thinking they’ve acquired knowledge.

All those teachers, and there are many of us, who understand the value of questioning sacred myths serve this nation as faithfully as other patriots. What is true will be strengthened. What is false will be destroyed, as it should be. Such teachers should be honored. There is no greater gift teachers can give to students than to teach them to think. Don’t sue them for it. Try taking them to the Pyrataneum for dinner, conversation and a cup of coffee, no hemlock.

89 Responses to James Corbett Speaks

  1. James Corbett says:

    I’d be interested in responses

  2. Marty says:

    well done, Mr Corbett!

    does anyone know if he’s being bankrupted by legal fees?

  3. I believe the school system picks up his fees.

  4. Mark Alan Miller says:

    Three cheers!
    As the grandson of Zoologist Paul A. Moody, who wrote in one of his textbooks a chapter entitled “What Of It? An Open Letter To Students” – where he reconciles elegantly his religious faith (his being the son of a Methodist Minister) and his scientific reason – this strikes home for me. On several occasions, my grandfather’s words have been used out of context by members of the “Intelligent Design” community for their own benefit. Each and every time, they use a small portion of a particular paragraph to “show” that even noted scientists “support” the concept of “Intelligent Design”. However, and I’ve emailed a couple of these groups challenging them to do this (with zero response), if they printed the entire paragraph, or even better, the entire chapter, from which they quote, it clearly is not the scientific opinion of my grandfather that “Intelligent Design” is how all life came about, but that it simply spiritually is a satisfying notion. And that scientifically, he’s quite comfortable with the concept of Evolution. The book is Introduction To Evolution. 19532, 1962.

  5. God says:

    Corbett, you are going to burn in hell!

    I hope you lose your job and money!

    You are supposed to teach not express your lame opinions.

    • Well that oughta scare him. Nice work Almighty!

    • Treskan says:

      I am starting to suspect that you just don’t understand Socrates and the whole idea of basing beliefs on evidence. Perhaps you should take a class in critical thinking or science or something.

    • Angelica says:

      Funny I am not surprised at your comments ‘god’, after all most of the holy books are full of hateful teachings. I much rather ‘burn in hell’ than to end up with a god like the one that inspires you to be such an ass.

  6. JakiChan says:

    Take comfort in the fact that this kid is a complete loser and will likely not finish college (if he even can get in). Meanwhile follow up on the death threats and if they can be traced back to this little brat then not only go after him criminally (watch your cornhole in prison, kid!) but then take his parents house. And laugh while doing so.

  7. Marty says:

    jakichan-

    the kids parents look like complete losers, but this looks like brainwashing to me… lots of kids break away from douchebag parents (even some of the Westboro
    Baptist Church kids changed their views) and get past this nonsense. All the kids in that school are getting one kickass, up close and personal, education, though!

  8. Tatiana says:

    Bravo, Mr. Corbett for your writing and to Marc for asking you to contribute. If southern Georgia only had more teachers like you.

  9. Treskan says:

    Why wouldn’t consistency with fact count as justification for the statement that “creationism is superstitious nonsense”?
    But if this ruling is precedent setting, does it mean that a teacher cannot now say that Unicorns and talking donkeys are superstitious nonsense since they too are mentioned in the Bible?

  10. Dood says:

    A kid in the forced-attendance government school objects to having his religious myths challenged by government employee who intends to provoke discussion in the name of truth. Government employee justifies with assurance that dissent won’t be held against dissenters.

    Sounds kind of like the path to the gulag, comrade, notwithstanding the whining of the oppressed Christians about whatever their position is.

    Take government out of the equation and I’m first in line to bi#c&-slap the parents.

    • I’m really not trying to be a dick… but it seems like you very well might have a really good point in here, but I can’t rightly tell what it is.

      You lost me on the “gulag” comment.

      Can you re-articulate what you are trying to say?

      • Dood says:

        I have a problem with public school teachers taking positions on religion, for or against. Telling kids (and parents) that dissent on the teacher’s religious positions is welcome and won’t be held against the dissenter doesn’t fix anything.

        Put yourself in the kid’s shoes – he’s sincerely religious and a government actor who has lots of influence over his life ridicules his belief (not merely as a rhetorical approach – its clearly Mr. Corbett’s sincere belief/well reasoned position). If the subject matter was economic theory, literature or math, there’s no problem – there’s nothing in the Constitution about establishing those theories.

        The gulag comment was a lame attempt to say that a dissenter would be historically justified in being wary of powerful government figures who promise there won’t be consequences for dissenters.

  11. jim corbett says:

    I never belittled the kid or his religion. He never spoke in class and never complained or indicated in any way that he was bothered. I never directed a comment at him, ever.

    I wonder, if he believes in talking donkeys (in the Bible), could I also be sued for noting that animal is fanciful?

    • Dood says:

      It doesn’t matter that he didn’t appear bothered or that you didn’t intend anything but scholarly questioning.

      How about this – you’re detained on the street as you’re hurrying along by a policeman for questioning as you fit a suspect description. The policeman mistakenly believes that he recognizes you from his church and says so, and that he’ll let you go and will “see you on Sunday, or else”. Do you pipe up and explain that religion is silly superstition, that he is mistaken as to your identity and beliefs, or shut up and go on your way? Is it different if the guy who stops you to ask questions is just a private citizen?

      • Treskan says:

        Dood,
        You are mixing up your analogies to a ridiculous extent. The kid’s feelings are irrelevant. He is attending school to learn, supposedly. The function of school is not to reinforce primitive superstition so people do not feel bad, but to try to enlighten people with the views that have best evidence. History is full of examples of religion-induced atrocities. It is therefore completely appropriate to point out the absurdity of the faith. I would even go so far as to so it is the only ethical thing to do.

  12. Angelica says:

    Jim Corbett, creationism IS superstitious nonsense, don’t ever feel bad for saying so. Teachers like you are the ones who truly make a difference, keep up the good work!

  13. jesschristensen says:

    Mr. Corbett – thank you so much for guest blogging for us! I do have an observation though…and, this may be simply Monday morning quarterbacking with too little knowledge of the entire context of the case…but, it seems to me that saying that creationism is “superstitious nonsense” isn’t a statement opposing any particular religion (or even all religions), but rather regards a philosophical premise present in many (but not all) religions, as well as non-religious mythologies. Most cultures have or have had some kind of creation myth, many of which arguably do not amount to “religions” in the context of the Establishment Clause. (For example, some members of the former African Bakuba tribe believed that a giant named Mbombo – who was not a deity – vomited up the earth, including people, after a really bad stomach ache; the Bukuba, however, worship the deity called “Woot”).

    A fair reading of your statements (as presented in the court’s opinion) could be that you were asserting that the concept of a created universe is superstitious nonsense. If you had said that the concept of evolution was superstitious (or some other kind of) nonsense, this would be perfectly permissible, and not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. In it’s opinion, the court said “The Court finds that Corbett’s statement primarily sends a message of disapproval of religion or creationism” — but “religion” and “creationism” aren’t interchangeable concepts. They are distinct and complex concepts, that sometimes overlap, in a multitude of ways.

    I’d be interested to know if this was something you or your attorneys addressed in the case?

  14. Ferdinand says:

    Nobody expects the American inquisition!

    The pilot who recently ditched safely his plane on the Hudson river was acclaimed as a hero but his comment was: “I did my job”.
    This is was you did, Sir, your job! According to what happened to you, this pilot should have been condemned for goose slaughtering…
    You did not express a personal belief but just what Science has proven, therefore freeing minds of superstitions and creeds.
    Old Europe has known five centuries of mind binding religious terror.
    Is this coming back?
    I hope you will overcome this “daymare” and will not suffer any consequences from this abominable, unacceptable episode in your life.
    You are not alone…

  15. A.W. says:

    Let’s start by taking his defense at face value.

    The constitution says that what myths a person chooses to believe in is NONE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE STATE. That means if I want to believe that God created the earth in 7 days, that is my absolute right and you, as an agent of the state, have no business “challenging it” or anything. If you want to do that, go work for a private school (by the way, was Socrates working for a private institution when he said those things?).

    Now that gets dicey when the subject of the class turns to darwinism, big bang, etc.. The right answer is to say that science begins with the assumption that the divine has not intervened and if we make that assumption, darwinism, big bang and all that is the most logical answer. But of course once you stop making that assumption, then anything goes. it is up to the student to decide what to make of that information. but at the very least the student has to acknowledge that the scientific evidence points toward evolution and you can wholly explain existence from the big bang to the modern times without resort to a diety.

    But bluntly, what the hell is a history teacher doing getting into any of that? You are listed in the suit as a teacher of European History (and Art History). What the hell does that have to do with creationism anyway?

    And that is taking you at face value. But you left out some other things you decided for some reason was germane to European and Art History:

    The availability of birth control pills in AMERICAN middle schools.

    The impracticability of abstinence education.

    That the boy scouts are “a racist organization.”

    Discussing lying to make a religious point.

    Religious groups should not be exempt from paying taxes.

    Creationism is “superstitious nonsense.”

    “What was it that Mark Twain said? ‘Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.’”

    “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

    “I’m not implying causality. I’m just using correlation. People in Europe who are least likely to go to church are the Swedes. The people in the industrialized world most likely to go to church are the Americans. America has the highest crime rate of all industrialized nations, Sweden has the lowest. The next time somebody tells you religion is connected with morality, you might want to ask them about that.”

    “Conservatives don’t want women to avoid pregnancies. That’s interfering with God’s work. You got to stay pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen and have babies until your body collapses.”

    “So we know that rehabilitation works and that punishment doesn’t. [A.W.: bullshit on that.] and yet we go on punishing. It really has a lot to do with these same culture wars we’re talking about. This whole biblical notion: sinners need to be punished.” Goes on to say the south punishes more, but has higher murder rates, rape rates, and church attendance.

    Calling biblical literalism “sort of a mindless centric notion.”

    Aristotle “argued that, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense.”

    “there is as much evidence that God did it as there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it.” (which, by the way, is empirically not true.)

    And that is only the stuff the court chose to quote from you. Do you deny that these comments were actually made? Because unless you do, I think it is exceedingly clear from that record that you are taking the taxpayers dollars to teach children a political and religious viewpoint, to indoctrinate them into a certain point of view. You are not engaged in Socratic questioning, but straight up indoctrination. And that might be legal, but it is immoral and wrong.

    And maybe it should be illegal, too.

    You are hired to teach history. Stick to the fucking subject. And check your politics and your religious beliefs at the door.

    By the way, everyone else can read the opinion here: http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/2009/05/01/Student%20lawsuit%20-%20final%20ruling.pdf

    • That means if I want to believe that God created the earth in 7 days, that is my absolute right and you, as an agent of the state, have no business “challenging it” or anything. If you want to do that, go work for a private school

      Well, that’s not exactly correct. You have the absolute right to believe that monkeys fly out of your ass, if you like. But a teacher has every right to correct you — that such anal chimpanzee hijinks are simply impossible.

      You don’t have any right to have your superstitions unchallenged in an educational environment.

      You are hired to teach history. Stick to the fucking subject. And check your politics and your religious beliefs at the door.

      I don’t know what kind of a school you attended (I’m guessing it was in the confederacy), but in my high school, History Class contained a lot of “current events” discussions. Given the fact that the superstitionists are in full blown apoplectic political fits, both at home and abroad, I’d say that all of his comments could very well have been germane to discussions about current events.

    • Treskan says:

      The Constitution may protect your right to “believe” whatever you like. But it does not mean that teachers (“agents of the state,” as you call them) have a responsibility not to mention the subject. European history is one long blood-soaked tale of religion-based lunacy such as the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Christian slaughters of the Jews, Pope Innocent III’s slaughter of 20,000 Albigenses in 1209, the Thirty Years war, and the list goes on. It would be impossible to discuss European history without talking about the craziness of the Christians. What makes it even worse is that all this slaughter and death was based on the flimsiest, most absurd nonsense imaginable. It is ethically irresponsible not to point this out to our children.

  16. A.W. says:

    Btw, i will also add that i would love to see the back up for some of those comments, like that the boy scouts are “racist.”

    Or punishment doesn’t work. Or rehabilitation does. and so on.

  17. jesschristensen says:

    “there is as much evidence that God did it as there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it.” (which, by the way, is empirically not true.) — Um, empirically? Really?

    What rule (moral or legal) is there that teachers have to check their own views at the door? The most valuable things I learned from my best teachers didn’t come out of any text book or lesson guide, but came from the open (and sometimes quite heated and contentious) debate of ideas. Teaching is more than the simple recitation of approved “facts.” Teaching is an interactive process, and the goal is to imbue kids with critical thinking skills such that they may make choices, inquiries, and decisions on their own having the benefit of historical perspective.

    Also, FYI, there’s no law that says that state officials can’t challenge your mytho-religious views. That’s not what the constitution says at all. It says the state can’t promote or prohibit people in the expression or exercise of religious beliefs. Now, would Mr. Corbett have been wise to phrase his challenges more diplomatically or even-handedly? Yeah, I think so. But, (generally) so long as the purpose of the conversation is secular, the intellectual challenge of religious viewpoints by state actors is perfectly constitutional.

  18. A.W. says:

    Jess

    > Um, empirically? Really?

    Yes. The bible is backed up by at least four eyewitnesses. The spaghetti monster is not. Now this point always confuses the atheists, because they think that eyewitnesses they don’t believe don’t count. And you are free to disregard it, but there is therefore some evidence backing up the biblical account, and zero on the spaghetti monster that I know of.

    > What rule (moral or legal) is there that teachers have to check their own views at the door?

    Well, let’s start with contract rules. As in, he was hired to teach history not religion or politics. If that kid was smart he would subpoena the man’s contract, check to see if there is a third party beneficiary disclaimer (often forgotten) and then sue him as a third party beneficiary if no such disclaimer exists (and I believe in Cali there are certain situations where third party beneficiary disclaimers are not good anyway, so have a cali lawyer look it over with an eye toward that—I am just a Virginia lawyer myself). So now you got me thinking about it, he may have done something in violation of his contract.

    Second, indoctrination is generally immoral. Doubly so when it is done on the public’s dime. People of all religions and political backgrounds pay his salary, and they should not be forced to pay for something they violently object to and serves no valid pedagogical purpose.

    > The most valuable things I learned from my best teachers didn’t come out of any text book or lesson guide, but came from the open (and sometimes quite heated and contentious) debate of ideas.

    Debate? We aren’t talking about debate. Did any of that sound like debate? questioning? He cites socrates, but i have had socratic instruction and what Mr. Corbett did is not that.

    But again, if he wants to debate the causes of the 100 year war, that is fine, but the debate should have some plausible connection to the subject. Does any of the things he said have such a connection?

    > Teaching is more than the simple recitation of approved “facts.”

    The problem is that we are not even getting our students these days to learn the facts, at all. More and more colleges are having to go and teach kids the basics that they should have learned in high school. So maybe before our schools do “more than” teach facts, they should, you know, teach facts. Have the schools figure out how to do that successfully a while before they get fancy with it. Because right now our schools are dismal failures.

    And by the way, maybe the government should figure out how to run schools before it decides to run our health care system. Prove it can do ANYTHING right before it tries to do some other important function.

    > Also, FYI, there’s no law that says that state officials can’t challenge your mytho-religious views.

    Actually yes there is. Its called the Establishment Clause. It says that the government has no business worrying about your religious beliefs, even if they are really stupid, like scientology.

    > It says the state can’t promote or prohibit people in the expression or exercise of religious beliefs.

    And you don’t think that Mr. Corbett was promoting atheism in his class?

    > Now, would Mr. Corbett have been wise to phrase his challenges more diplomatically or even-handedly? Yeah, I think so.

    Well, then you agree with my more basic point: even if legal what he did was wrong. Or at least unwise.

    > But, (generally) so long as the purpose of the conversation is secular, the intellectual challenge of religious viewpoints by state actors is perfectly constitutional.

    Oh, so if I say only idiots are Christians, its okay if my purpose is to promote tolerance of homosexuality?

    Um, bullshit on that. And that isn’t what the constitution says, either.

    • The bible is backed up by at least four eyewitnesses.

      *giggle*

      Okay… please name them.

      indoctrination is generally immoral. Doubly so when it is done on the public’s dime.

      Okay, so you’re also against state displays like Ten Commandments in courthouses or jesus on license plates?

      Actually yes there is. Its called the Establishment Clause. It says that the government has no business worrying about your religious beliefs, even if they are really stupid, like scientology.

      Obviously your Establishment Clause knowledge is a little lacking. The government is a) allowed to challenge or offend your religious beliefs. b) The government can even ban your religious practices. You claim to be a Virginia lawyer, go look it up.

  19. jesschristensen says:

    Well, you do have me on the point that, empirically speaking, I think there is about as much “evidence” of a spaghetti-monster creator as there is of any other creator, Christian or otherwise. Then again, I’m an agnostic.

    On your other points…

    I didn’t see that Mr. Corbett was promoting atheism; no where in those comments did he say that there is no divine (though, he may well be an atheist, as I have no idea what his personal beliefs are). He implied lots of other things, like, people who “put on Jesus glasses” basically have blinders on with respect to other ideas. Which in no way implies that people who believe in Jesus, but don’t so let that belief color their views to the exclusion of all other views, are similarly blinded.

    The First Amendment, contrary to your statements, really truly does not give anyone the right to be free from questioning of religious beliefs. Even if that questioning is done by someone employed by the state. For example, if I’m teaching European history, and I posit that the Crusades were motivated primarily by economic interests, and not religious commitment, have I impermissibly challenged the beliefs of those who think that crusaders were righteous Christian soldiers? No. The Constitution makes two statements about religion: (1) there is no religious prerequisite for holding public office, and (2) the government cannot promote or prohibit the establishment of religion. No where in the Consitution does it say that short of promoting or prohibiting, a state employee can’t have or express their own views.

    On the contract thing…hooey. First, it’s very likely that Mr. Corbett didn’t have a written contract for employment (most employees, even public employees, don’t – other than perhaps a union contract) let alone one that gives third party beneficiary rights. Second, if a public employer DID have a contract that said that its employees must refrain from the expression of their views (so long as those views don’t frustrate the purposes of employment), that contract itself would violate the First Amendment.

    Which is really the issue — you, and others, may think that Mr. Corbett isn’t a good teacher. If his comments are consistently out of line, he could be subject to poor performance reviews, and as a result, he might be eventually fired. But, that’s a far, far cry from being held liable for violating a student’s Constitutional rights.

    Also, if you want to get creative about causes of action, one could argue that the statements made by Mr. Corbett regarding creationism might be protected under the whistle blower statute, since what he appeared primarily to be opposing was his colleague Mr. Peloza’s continued insistence on teaching Christian creationism to his students, in violation of school district policy.

  20. Angelica says:

    – The only reference to religion in the Constitution is found in the Article VI and says: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    – Furthermore, Mr. Corbett’s comment qualifies as freedom of speech, same that could have been challenged by the student as a constitutional right to exercise his own freedom of speech.

    – Please name the four bible witnesses which you mentioned.

    – History involved a lot of religion related events so it cannot be taught without speaking about all of the atrocities committed in ‘the name of the lord’.

    – The state cannot challenge expression or exercise of religious beliefs? Thanks for telling me, I’m going to file a lawsuit to all of those schools which have claimed that Zeus, unicorns and sirens are mythological creatures…

    – Not all christians are idiots, only the ones who think that their god should dictate the moral views of the rest of the population.

    – Your basic point: ‘even if legal what he did was wrong/unwise’; people are entitled to their own opinion and express it as such, this does not include wasting taxpayer’s money in senseless lawsuits.

  21. A.W. says:

    To the whole thread:

    And I will add that much of what he said was dead wrong (assuming he doesn’t deny saying it, and frankly I have heard some of the tapes). The boy scouts is not a racist organization, period. I won’t vouch for them in the past, of course, but when I was a member people of all races were welcome. Hell, we needed the dues. And my brother tells me that nothing has changed.

    Conservatives aren’t against all birth control. If we count abortion, yeah, probably most of them are against that, but the pill? Rubbers? No. Now, it is true that the catholic church is opposed to the pill and rubbers, but two points on that. First, really, how much do you really think the rank and file really follow that? I know. I am married to a catholic. I don’t know a single catholic who actually thinks they should follow all of its doctrine, especially on this subject.

    Second, they are not opposed to all birth control, either. They actively promote “natural family planning” which is sort of the rhythm method 2.0.

    There is no one I have ever heard of who is opposed to all forms of birth control whatsoever, or wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant. And certainly anyone you can point to are on the fringe.

    And even the “Jesus glasses” comment is not true, either. Who do you think saw the “truth” about slavery and ended it? People wearing “jesus glasses,” that’s who, singing “Amazing Grace” and “my eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord” as they did. And Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. saw a lot of “truth” and not only “wore Jesus glasses” but even claims to have been spoken to by Jesus himself in his hour of need. Not to mention the Christian monk who invented the concept of genetics, or the other Christian that created the modern theory of evolution. Sheesh. The entire notion that religion generally and Christianity in particular have been a pure force of evil or “untruth” in this world is nothing but bigoted horseshit. And I am sick of hearing it.

    But intolerance toward Christianity is just about the only intolerance the tolerant will tolerate these days.

    Marc

    > Okay… please name them.

    Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Martin Luther King, and all the eyewitnesses of all the miracles attributed to the saints. There is a minimum requirement of 2 per saint, and one estimate puts it at 10,000 saints, that is a minimum of 20,000 witnesses, backing up the existence of God and Jesus generally. Feel free to ignore all of it, but it is simply logically incorrect to say there are no witnesses and therefore no evidence.

    > Okay, so you’re also against state displays like Ten Commandments in courthouses or jesus
    on license plates?

    It depends on the circumstances. Like the licence plates. If a state wants to put up a motto of “Jesus is lord” yeah, I am against that. On the other hand, if a motorist asks for a personalized plate that says, “Luv Jesus” then it is freedom of expression. Likewise, if they want to say “hail Stn” it is their right, too.

    On the commandments, if it is in the context of a display demonstrating the history of law, its kosher. If it is put up in such a manner as to teach you to follow them, I would say all but the ones about worshipping God are okay, so either censor it, or don’t put it up in that situation.

    > The government is a) allowed to challenge or offend your religious beliefs.

    No. The government is no more free to institute atheism than Christianity. At most it can only “challenge beliefs” incidentally to another goal. For instance, saying something along the lines of what I said about creationism v. evolution would incidentally attack some forms of creationism, but it is not done just to gratuitously do so. Or a Lutheran might believe that Martin Luther was uniquely blessed by God, and a history teacher might rightfully point to some really bigoted stuff he said about jews, and thus unintentionally breach that lutheran’s faith. But doing it just to do it, as Corbett apparently was, is wrong.

    > The government can even ban your religious practices.

    Actually there is nothing I practice as a Presbyterrian that the government can ban. We speak, assemble, sing and drink grape juice now and then, and that is it.

    Now you may be talking about the issue of peyote. But that is not as clear a doctrine as you suggest and it only relates to a right to act based on faith, especially in the context of worship, which has just about nothing to do with Corbett’s speech indoctrinating his students into his beliefs. There is no question that you are allowed to believe without limits and the only limits on religious expression are those placed on speech generally; oh and the special rules that come when you apply the establishment clause to state actors. A teacher is more free to say “conservativism is a stupid belief” than to say the same thing about something a truly stupid religious belief, like Mormonism or Scientology.

    Jess

    > I didn’t see that Mr. Corbett was promoting atheism

    Wow, talk about missing the forest for the trees.

    > Which in no way implies that people who believe in Jesus, but don’t so let that belief color their views to the exclusion of all other views, are similarly blinded.

    No, that statement is pretty unequivocal: if you believe in jesus, you can’t see the truth.

    > The First Amendment, contrary to your statements, really truly does not give anyone the right to be free from questioning of religious beliefs.

    The first amendment says that my faith is none of the government’s business, period. That’s what it means when it says that the government is not allowed to establish religion.

    Or perhaps you are hung up on the idea that atheism is not a religion. But the founders clearly thought that disbelief was a religion for the purpose of the religion clauses. To say otherwise would be to say that freedom of religion didn’t apply to atheism, which is plainly absurd.

    > For example, if I’m teaching European history, and I posit that the Crusades were motivated primarily by economic interests, and not religious commitment, have I impermissibly challenged the beliefs of those who think that crusaders were righteous Christian soldiers? No.

    There is a world of difference between questioning the motives of certain historical figures, and questioning whether God exists at all. And unlike all of the examples I gave above, your proposed discussion would actually be ON POINT. The crusades was a part of European history and by most rational standards one of the most important events in that history.

    > No where in the Consitution does it say that short of promoting or prohibiting, a state employee can’t have or express their own views.

    How exactly do you think the government acts? Through its agents. And Mr. Corbett is an agent of the state of California. To say an agent of the government can say and do whatever he pleases while acting as an agent of the government is to turn the first amendment into confetti.

    By that logic, he can come in tomorrow and say, “Catholicism is the only true religion and the rest of you are going to hell. Now everyone, pray with me.” After all, he would only be expressing himself, right? He can’t promote a religion any more than discourage faith, under the rubric of “freedom of expression.” He can express himself freely on his own time.

    > First, it’s very likely that Mr. Corbett didn’t have a written contract for employment (most employees, even public employees, don’t – other than perhaps a union contract) let alone one that gives third party beneficiary rights.

    1) you don’t need a written contract. 2) in most states (possibly all) it is implied unless actively disclaimed. That second point is actually a little outrageous because it means people are exposing themselves to liabilities all the time and not knowing it. If you are in business at all, you should definitely make sure you are not falling into that trap. So you can rightfully say it stinks, but it is the law in most states.

    > If his comments are consistently out of line, he could be subject to poor performance reviews, and as a result, he might be eventually fired. But, that’s a far, far cry from being held liable for violating a student’s Constitutional rights.

    My point originally was more moral than legal. What he is doing with the taxpayer money is immoral even if not illegal. But bluntly in any other context, this would be seen for what it was: discrimination against his students. The same exact kind of behavior putting down a particular gender or race, would be called harassment, and he would be liable and the school would be liable for that. But instead of saying all women are blind to reality, he says all Christians are, and that is supposed to be okay.

    Maybe that is the easy way to understand it. Imagine if he said racist or sexist things instead of merely religiously bigoted things. How would that gel with you? What if he started calling his black students the n-word. that’s just his freedom of speech? I don’t think so and my attitude doesn’t change just because he is going after a person’s religion.

    > Also, if you want to get creative about causes of action, one could argue that the statements made by Mr. Corbett regarding creationism might be protected under the whistle blower statute…

    And the reason why he has to “blow the whistle” in History class is…? A whistle blower statute cannot be used to violate the first amendment. Now obviously if asked about that whole mess he has a right to explain his role, etc. but he can explain why you can’t teach creationism without calling creationism itself nonsense. At most you can single out those who believe that the earth was created in 7 days, and that there is evidence of that, and call that second part—that there is evidence of it—nonsense. But to call all creationism nonsense is over the line. And it is far from an isolated event, as evidenced above.

    Angelica

    Besides the points addressed to others above.

    You forgot the first amendment and what it says on religion. that’s part of the constitution, too. And by the way, you cannot cite one part of the first amendment to nullify the other part.

    It is not the job of a history teacher to speak out against “atrocities” generally, and it can be done without going after God Himself or religion generally. You can just say, “this person did X, Y, and Z, and claimed to do so in the name of God. Those acts were evil.” Whether the fact that a man who claimed to be a christian did those acts reflects on christianity or not can be left to the judgement of the student.

    Btw, i assume you feel that if a black man does something evil that this reflects on all black people. i mean you seem to think that one bad christian proves all christians are bad, so i assume you have the same attitude on race? And likewise, I assume that you think islam is an evil religion, seeing that alot of people have done alot of evil in the name of Allah. But then atheists have a body count, too, so maybe we need to figure out that guess what? evil is pretty much a constant in human nature and doesn’t necessarily reflect on the race or religion of the evildoer.

    And it is not idiotic to say that Christian morality is a rightful basis of law. Or perhaps you are saying that JFK was an idiot when he cited the golden rule in support of what would eventually become the civil rights act of 1964. Or Martin Luther King when he said that a law that conflicted with God’s law was no law at all. If we repealed every law that was passed “imposing Christian morals on the rest of us” we would have to repeal the 13th, 14th, 15th, 8th, and 1st amendments to the constitution, all of our civil rights laws, and the declaration of independence, just to name a few.

    Sheesh, I am so sick of that canard.

  22. jesschristensen says:

    Oy. Three points, and then I’m done with you.

    1. As an attorney who represents employees and employers (including public employees and unions), in California, I can assure you that your contractual analysis is incorrect. Not to mention, really off point. But, no employee owes a contractual duty to third parties regarding how well the employee does their job (aside from, perhaps, some tort liability, in certain circumstances).

    2. The whole, entire, point of this story here on this blog was about that one statement that the court found (wrongly, in my opinion) to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That you think Mr. Corbett was wrong about…the boy scouts, or conservative views of birth control, or whatever…well, ok. But, again, that’s not what this story was about. I’m not telling you to shut up about it; rather, just pointing out that your comments have gone very far afield of the subject matter that the author and editor of this story intended.

    3. Your inference that I am generally less sympathetic to the cries of victimization and persecution by Christians than, say, racial or ethnic minorities, is correct. Christians have long held a position of social and political majority in this country, and that makes it, practically, much less likely that they will suffer actual discrimination (as opposed to merely being offended, which is not the same as discrimination). It’s also worth noting that the racial/sex discrimination comparison you make isn’t really a good fit. If a teacher says that the idea that men and women are equal is “nonsense,” that’s maybe inappropriate or unprofessional, but it’s not discriminatory unless the the teacher actually treats male and female students differently. The same would apply to a comment made by a teacher that the contrasting ideas of creationism and evolution are not equally supported by reason. You might not agree, but, the mere statement doesn’t suggest that students are treated differently based on that teacher’s viewpoint. What makes Mr. Corbett’s case distinguishable from these examples, again, is the contention that saying creationism is superstitious nonsense violates the establishment clause because there was no secular purpose to the statement. For the reasons I stated in my earlier comments, I think the court was misguided in this ruling, in that it conflated “creationism” with “religion,” and I don’t agree that a state employee’s statement that creationism is nonsense amounts to prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

  23. A.W. says:

    Marc,

    Seriously, i respect your opinion, but wake up. This guy pedalled a self-serving, bullshit version of what he did. Unless he wants to deny that he said those things (and if he didn’t why hasn’t he sued O’Reilly for defamation?), then it sure as hell sounds like he turned his class into a hate christians and hate conservatives session. And on the state’s dime, no less.

    Some of that might be his legal right in the sense that he can’t be personally sued for it (unless those contract issues bite him in the ass), but i don’t know how anyone devoted to true free thought can support the bullshit he was throwing in that class. Questioning is one thing, but this was indoctrination.

    i mean he is pretending he is questioning the story of the puritans, and whether america was founded as a christian nation. Which is funny, because that seems to speak more to American history and not either european or art history, like he was supposed to be teaching according to the judge. But those statements from the opinion in the case–that he hasn’t deigned to deny making–go alot further than that. indeed, those ideas are not even discussed in that opinion–is it even mentioned in the suit? Or can he present any evidence that this is what the case is really about?

    Btw, the truth on both of those points is this. the puritans were fleeing religious persecution, but didn’t practice religious tolerance, or most forms of tolerance, either. Which is funny because according to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, they also believed that gay marriage was a fundamental right. i am sure Mr. Corbett will challenge that myth, too. and as for whether we were founded as a “christian” nation, the fact is most americans at the time of the founding were christians although there was a grossly disproportionate number of deists among the leadership–i.e. jefferson, madison, possibly washington and many others. But bluntly alot of those same people had to hide their religious beliefs, and thomas paine was notably run out of the country for being an atheist. But America was less faithful than other periods of time, such as the civil war era. So mostly christian populous, a much less christian leadership. Whether that makes us a christian nation or not really is a matter of interpretive gloss and thus doesn’t give itself to objective settlement. I mean how do we judge whether the nation is “christian” or not anyway? And what does it accomplish if we are or are not?

    Don’t make the mistake of digging in with this guy. His version of events are questionable at best. He still has to explain why he was talking about whether america is a christian nation in a european or art history class. Doesn’t that sound fishy and off topic to you?

    At the very least i have raised serious factual questions about what really happened in that classroom. Namely:

    1) did he really say those things attributed to him;

    2) why was he talking about the puritans and whether we are a Christian nation, in a class on European or Art history? Or did the judge get that wrong?

    I think if we are going to tear down myths, let’s start with Mr. Corbett’s story that he was just challenging accepted views of history. Right now, imho, its a load of crap.

  24. Angelica says:

    – Here is the 1st amendment, it still doesn’t prove your point: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

    – It is the job of a teacher to teach a subject based on his best knowledge of the same; because we weren’t there most of our knowledge of history is biased by the perspective of the person who wrote it. At the end of the day the real job of a teacher is to teach students to search and find the truth for themselves. If a student doesn’t like what a teacher has to say then he should investigate such claims and challenge them with facts.

    – Your perception of me is wrong, the good thing about those of us who think for ourselves is that we do not generalize. I have intelligent friends of many races, ages, and religious affiliations. I have nothing but respect for those who are sincere in their beliefs. Religion is a different baby and I do despise it, especially the kind that teaches people to give up their ability to think for themselves in lieu of hypocritical deceit; the kind that teaches people to waste their chance to be happy in this life by claiming that there is life after death as well as the kind that makes people feel guilty for the simple fact of being and acting like a human.

    – The golden rule is a good one, for the record, it is also known as the ‘Ethic of reciprocity’ and has been around way longer than christianity. But so what? I choose to live free of outdated moral codes based around ‘sins’ and taboos, my knowing and doing as I please might appear to be sinful from your traditional viewpoint, still it is not a less valid set of morals. If you wish to live in the state or perpetual guilt and shame dictated by christianity it is your problem, just don’t expect me to be adhere to that system. So if you have a problem with gay marriage then don’t marry a gay person. If you are against euthanasia then suffer of your incurable disease until you ‘naturally’ die. If you think that sex is dirty then don’t do it. If you are against abortion then don’t have one. If you are for abstinence the abstain yourself but please find a more efficient method of birth control for your horny teenagers because abstinence is not working for them.

    Who cares if you are right or if I am right? People waste too much time arguing one side or the other when there is no proof in either side. Both arguments are equally senseless so why not choose to be happy in this life while we have it? Chances are this is as good as it gets.

  25. A.W. says:

    Jess

    > As an attorney who…

    You seriously need to learn about third party beneficiary rights and how to avoid creating them. I did a quick check on the case law. You are wrong. Black letter law, wrong. This is now a matter of competently representing your clients.

    Look this is one of those things they don’t teach in law school and can really bite you in the ass if you are not careful. You need to learn about this to be careful.

    > The whole, entire, point of this story here on this blog was about that one statement that the court found

    Oh, no, its about how he is being persecuted for challenging historical orthodoxies, such as whether we are a Christian nation or not. Which, given that this was supposed to European or Art history class, seems a bit off topic, don’t you think?

    And its how one statement out of context can hang a wonderful, thoughtful, etc. teacher. Which unless he wants to deny making all of those statements seems like crap.

    And its now about me piercing the myth he has spun on this usually good blog. Mind you, I think its great you got him to post here so we can beat him up like a piñata. :-) He deserves it.

    > Christians have long held a position of social and political majority in this country, and that makes it, practically, much less likely that they will suffer actual discrimination (as opposed to merely being offended, which is not the same as discrimination).

    Reread Brown v. Board of Education and every case dealing with “hostile environment” harassment. Offending is discrimination. I am amazed you are an employment attorney and don’t know that. That’s black letter law. If you come into class every day calling black people the n-word, the courts will find that you discriminated against any black students you have. But all you have is OFFEND them. If you come in every day calling Christians names, you will have discriminated against Christians too.

    And last time I checked, the majority is just as protected as the minority. The only exception to that is if there is a valid affirmative action program, which seems to have no application here. Indeed, his comments also attacked Judaism and Islam, too. Creationism is not solely the property of Christians, so he didn’t just attack the majority, either.

    > I don’t agree that a state employee’s statement that creationism is nonsense amounts to prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

    We are not talking about the free exercise clause, but the establishment clause. Are you sure you went to law school? Because you have just spewed three massive legal fallacies in a row.

    • Treskan says:

      Stating facts is not a violation of the establishment clause. Creationism is superstitious nonsense. It is only in this country that the population is uninformed enough on matters scientific to take creationism seriously.

      If your reading of Brown v. Board of Education were to be applied uniformly it would also mean that female teachers should at a minimum dress modestly and wear head scarves to avoid creating a hostile environment for any Muslim students that might show up as well. The fact that people are raised in ignorance and superstition should not commit the state to protecting that state of dunderheadedness to avoid creating a “hostile environment.”

      Dr. Corbett’s views are well supported in the world of scholarship. Your interpretations of European history as being driven by secular interests is interesting but rather ridiculous, considering that the Church sanctioned all these horrors, and they are all consistent with Bible teachings, e.g. “Thou shallt not suffer a witch to live.”

      Face it, the religion you are trying to protect here is really superstitious nonsense of the highest order, and its only effect is to keep people ignorant and foolish. It is an on-going crime against the human race and everything it means to be truly human.

  26. A.W. says:

    Angelica

    Congratulations on discovering the first amendment.

    On your point that it is his job to teach the subject. Good. And how does creationism, the boy scouts, whether America is a Christian nation, whether Christians are capable of seeing the truth when they have their jesus glasses on, and so on bear on European history or art history?

    > Your perception of me is wrong.

    Actually, I wasn’t trying to say you were a bigot based on race, but to point out how you would have to apply the same principles to racial issues, etc. that you were to religions.

    But your absolute bigotry toward all faiths is noted.

    And the golden rule is a Christian principle. Twist and turn all you want, but the fact is that Americans follow it in huge part because jesus said it.

    And who cares whether you are right or wrong? Well, if you are going to write laws, you do need some kind of moral code, you know. Its kind of necessary. And a moral code that is not built of faith is a house of sand at low tide.

    • Treskan says:

      Moral codes do not come from religions, although some useful bits of moral advice might be supported by a religion, ideas such as do not steal, kill, etc. But these ideas are not unique to people receiving secret communications from invisible creators of the universe or their minions. There are good reasons for basing a social contract on these. And even people of modest intellect can understand why they are good. They don’t require Jesus’s word.

      If you read Jefferson’s biography you will see that all mention of Jesus and Christianity was intentionally left out of the Constitution. Invisible imaginary friends are nothing to base a moral code on, nor does the state have the responsibility of holding back information that might destabilize the precariously balanced belief systems of the superstition bound faith community.

      If you believe a religion is required as a basis for a legal system, notice that the most ridiculous laws still on the books are religion-generated; for example, archaic statutes that forbid the drying of male and female underwear on the same clothesline, closing businesses on Sundays, etc. And consider all the recent hubbub about who can marry whom. These are not the works of sober, rational human beings. You only find this kind of thinking in the fundy creationist sector.

      And, speaking of religion for moral guidance, what has it created in the Middle East?

  27. jesschristensen says:

    So, under your third party liability position, if a kid’s math teacher takes a day to muse about art, the kid’s parents can sue the teacher for breach of contract because they didn’t get that day’s tax payer math dollar’s worth? No. Appreciate your concern for my practice, but no.

    Harassing offensive speech may create a hostile work environment, which yes, can be a form of discrimination if unchecked by an employer. But, this case doesn’t concern workplace harassment. To my knowledge (and, it’s certainly possible that I’m wrong) there’s no similar “hostile educational environment” protection for students (except that Title IX prohibits the sexual harassment of students by school employees). As an aside, I suspect, you’d find more than one reader/blogger here who’d argue that even workplace harassment laws that prohibit pure speech run afoul of the First Amendment.

    I didn’t say the majority should be less protected. All I said is that I’m less sympathetic.

    Finally, I mis-typed. I revise by stating that I do not agree that a state employee’s statement that creationism is nonsense amounts to a disapproval of religion (as opposed to a disapproval of the concept of creationism) such that it violates the establishment clause. I stand corrected.

    • Wow, you were far too kind. When AW wrote: I did a quick check on the case law. You are wrong. Black letter law, wrong. This is now a matter of competently representing your clients. I was about to rip his head off, but I figured he had already messed with the best.

      Anyone who uses the term “Black Letter Law,” doesn’t really practice law. My guess is that AW is either a professor at Regent or Liberty university or a student there. I absolutely refuse to believe that anyone this stupid AND bat shit crazy is a member of any bar. Well, okay, Jack Thompson was… but you know what I’m saying.

      • And …

        Jessica wrote: even workplace harassment laws that prohibit pure speech run afoul of the First Amendment..

        *raises hand*

      • jesschristensen says:

        Yeah, I figured he was baiting me, and decided not to be bothered. On the other hand, I’m also now considering filing a third party suit against the City’s street cleaners for doing such a crappy job of cleaning up, since I have it on sound legal authority that I’m a TPB of their employment contracts. ;)

      • Tanner Andrews says:

        mr-) Anyone who uses the term “Black Letter Law,”
        mr-) doesn’t really practice law
        I’m not so sure. Seems like I heard the phrase in an informal discussion between lawyers not too long ago.

        It might be a challenge to work the phrase into an actual court filing, but it would sure be a labor-saver if we could just invoke the term instead of having to jam in a case cite.

  28. PensiveGadfly says:

    Mr. Corbett,

    I’m sorry to see these comments devolve into such antagonistic drivel.

    I comment simply to compliment you. Your apology (I use that term in the Socratic sense) was a pleasure to read, and convinces me that I’d be thrilled to have you teaching any of my children.

    My one question to you would be this. How was it that creationism was framed as religious in your lawsuit. It is not necessarily a Christian doctrine. Other religious have creation myths.

  29. PensiveGadfly says:

    P.S. and the “drivel” characterization was not directed at you jesschristiansen. You’re right on point IMO, and I’m an attorney as well (although utterly unversed in employment law).

  30. Angelica says:

    AW, it is apparent that your reading comprehension is poor, as poor as your knowledge of the law and of your own religion. Go study and come back to discuss this when you have done so; if you’re lucky you might run across someone who will teach you how to think for yourself.

  31. A.W. says:

    Treskan

    > Moral codes do not come from religions,

    No need to refute that. Its self-refuting.

    > If you read Jefferson’s biography you will see that all mention of Jesus and Christianity was intentionally left out of the Constitution.

    And want to take a wild guess at how much of the constitution Jefferson wrote? 0%.

    > If you believe a religion is required as a basis for a legal system

    Good reading comp there. No, I said that a moral code that is not religiously based is doomed. I also said that we were allowed to pass laws based on morality derived from religion. Which means you killed an innocent straw man.

    Jess

    > So, under your third party liability position, if a kid’s math teacher takes a day to muse about art, the kid’s parents can sue the teacher for breach of contract because they didn’t get that day’s tax payer math dollar’s worth?

    You’d have to prove damages and material breach. And there is no money in suing for that kind of breach, especially because juries would be very likely to grant only nominal damages. AND, in most states it is easy to avoid with a simple clause in the contract. But yes, unless you have a third party disclaimer that a court will recognize, you are liable to the intended third party beneficiaries to a contract and if you have a material breach and damages, then you are good to go. Missing a day is borderline material. Constantly berating people off the subject is not. Which means, if you are a competent lawyer (big if, right now), then you want that standard in just about all contracts.

    I forgive being ignorant of this. I didn’t know this when I first graduated law school. They only taught about third party beneficiaries in the context of when you want this to happen (like if you buy your son a suit, but the suit store refuses to perform), but not when you don’t want this.

    But to apparently refuse to even check on the issue and denounce me as not knowing what I was talking about? Fifteen minutes on google and fastcase found this:

    Kaiser Engineers, Inc. v. Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co., 219 Cal.Rptr. 626: “A third party beneficiary may enforce a contract made expressly for his or her benefit. (Civ.Code, § 1559; Murphy v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 937, 943, 132 Cal.Rptr. 424, 553 P.2d 584.) 3 The intent of the contracting parties to benefit expressly that third party must appear from the terms of the contract. (Kirst v. Silna (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 759, 763, 163 Cal.Rptr. 230.) By judicial construction, the term “expressly” in Civil Code section 1559 has come to mean merely the negative of “incidentally.” (Shurpin v. Elmhirst (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 94, 103, 195 Cal.Rptr. 737.) In other words, Civil Code section 1559 excludes enforcement of a contract by persons who are only incidentally or remotely benefited by it. (Martinez v. Socoma Companies, Inc., supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 400, 113 Cal.Rptr. 585, 521 P.2d 841; Dateline Builders, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 520, 526, 194 Cal.Rptr. 258.) Nevertheless, the third person need not be named or identified individually to be an express beneficiary. A third party may enforce a contract if it can be shown that he or she is a member of the class for whose express benefit the contract was made. (Kirst v. Silna, supra, 103 Cal.App.3d 759, 763, 163 Cal.Rptr. 230; Gilbert Financial Corp. v. Steelform Contracting Co. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 65, 69-70, 145 Cal.Rptr. 448; Guntert v. City of Stockton (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 131, 141-142, 126 Cal.Rptr. 690, 127 Cal.Rptr. 602; 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal.Law (8th ed. 1973) Contracts, §§ 499, 504, 507, pp. 428, 432, 435.)”

    Gilbert v. Steelform, cited there, is particularly on point. In that case a subcontractor provided shoddy construction. Even though the subcontractor did not make a contract with Gilbert Financial Corp, they were found to be an intended third party beneficiary because the work that Steelform did was intended to benefit Gilbert. Likewise, the contract between a teacher and a school is intended to benefit the students that the teacher will teach. Thus the students are ordinarily third party beneficiaries.

    > Harassing offensive speech may create a hostile work environment

    Another distinction without a difference from you.

    > even workplace harassment laws that prohibit pure speech run afoul of the First Amendment.

    That’s not quite the way the courts have come down, but I am sympathetic with the argument that in the private workplace that is exactly how it should come down. Just try going to work for a week calling black people the n-word every day and see what happens to you. Its speech, but its not really as protected as it should be.

    And when you are a state worker, my sympathy drops to zero.

    > To my knowledge (and, it’s certainly possible that I’m wrong) there’s no similar “hostile educational environment” protection for students (except that Title IX prohibits the sexual harassment of students by school employees).

    Well, that isn’t exactly a small exception, is that?

    > All I said is that I’m less sympathetic.

    Okay, that’s a fair cop.

    > Finally, I mis-typed.

    Okay, accepted.

    Marc

    No lawyer says black letter law? Um, bullshit on that. Would you say the three judges who wrote this “doesn’t really practice law”?

    “It is black letter law that the trial court, under these circumstances, had no authority to revisit, modify or vacate the June 15, 2005 order.”

    Russell v. Russell, Record No. 2025-06-4 (Va. App. 2/13/2007) (Va. App., 2007)

    Or the judge(s) who wrote this:

    Since no similar provision was ever later enacted, it is “black letter law that except for any cause of action on a contract between the lien claimant and the owner of the improved property which provides for fees, a lienholder has no entitlement to them from the owner…. [p] … [I]f indeed a contract exists, then that is the separate source of attorney’s fees; it is not the lien which creates the right.”

    Royster Construction Co. v. Urban West Communities, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 684, 40 Cal.App.4th 1158 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., 1995)

    And I guess the Supreme Court of Utah doesn’t practice law, either.

    “It is black letter law that this Court will not reverse for erroneous jury instructions unless there is a reasonable likelihood that absent the errors, there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant might have prevailed.”

    State v. Slowe, 728 P.2d 110 (Utah, 1985)

    And that is only what I turn up in a surface scan of the case law in three jurisdictions.

    That phrase is used, when appropriate, all the time. In fact in all my years freely using the term among attorneys, you are the first person to raise a peep about it.

    Now what can be said is that law is rarely clear cut enough to be “black letter” and usually lawyers have enough of a working knowledge of the law to understand what is black letter and therefore don’t normally debate issues that are touched on by black letter law. But third party beneficiary law is one of those areas where it is black letter, but there is a remarkable ignorance on what the black letter is.

    And, by the way, marc, you are dodging the most basic question. What about these factual inconsistencies? The things he was allegedly taped as saying, and the “myths” he claimed to challenge that seem a tad off the subject?

    Pensive

    > Your apology (I use that term in the Socratic sense) was a pleasure to read, and convinces me that I’d be thrilled to have you teaching any of my children.

    Yeah, and who cares if it doesn’t sound particularly true…?

    Angelica

    > AW, it is apparent that your reading comprehension is poor

    Considering it came from a person who when talking about religion in the constitution left out the first amendment, I’ll take that for all its worth.

    > you might run across someone who will teach you how to think for yourself.

    Ah, like you fine people who are mindlessly defending his behavior and accepting his account of things however little it lines up with other accounts, or even the inherent contradiction of him claiming that it was somehow his job to question whether America is a Christian nation in a European or art history class. You remind me of the crowd in the Life of Brian chanting, in unison, “We are all individuals.” You don’t even get the joke.

    • jesschristensen says:

      Well good morning, AW.

      You know, it’s fine if you want to question my lawyering skills – truly. As a number of people here have noted, including Mr. Corbett, inquiry feeds knowledge and understanding and is a healthy human endeavor. But, please take the time to make sure you understand what I’ve said before you go off to research the Restatements. I didn’t say there’s no third party beneficiary law, you silly, loooney, looney goose. What I said (and, this was a very general statement), is that there’s no law making third parties the beneficiaries of an employment contract with respect to the level of the employee’s performance. Yes, in the law-school-esque theoretical bubble, you could make the argument. And, there are some instances (of no relevance to the topic at hand) where a TPB theory has been applied to employment contracts: union members as TPBs of the contract between the union and the employer; a widow as TPB to the employment contract between her dead husband and the employer with respect to unpaid wages. But, neither of those examples go to a standard of job performance implied in an employment contract to which a third party could hold an employee contractually liable. (Obviously, under tort law, there are other standards of duty that might be invoked).

      Now, before you run off to the library in search of a case which might be interpreted as you suggest, or to prove me wrong, and reprint whole appellate decisions in the comments here, I’d offer that…no one here cares really. Just, something to keep in mind.

    • Tanner Andrews says:

      aw-) unless you have a third party disclaimer
      aw-) that a court will recognize, you are
      aw-) liable to the intended third party
      aw-) beneficiaries to a contract
      Great. Then the cops have a duty to make sure that no one breaks into my house, since I am intended as a third-party beneficiary of the employment agreement. And if I feel threatened, the cops have a duty to come and guard my not insubstantial carcass, since again I am an intended beneficiary of their contracts.

      Better, our county council critters owe me a duty to spend my money wisely since as a property owner and citizen I am an intended beneficiary of their contracts. That’ll be a great change here in Volusia, if only I can convince those pesky judges to agree with you.

  32. Tatiana says:

    Angelica, I don’t know who you are but every point you made was as though you read my mind.

    The best line here was this: “At the end of the day the read job of a teacher is to teach student to search and find the truth for themselves.” Why is this concept misunderstood? Easy. Everyone thinks their truth is the Truth. Reality is, those who fear their truth being debunked argue that its opposing truth ought not be taught. Bad. Bad. Bad.

    Based on the quote above, it would really serve in the best interest of Truth and a flight towards true intelligence that all children are introduced (and here children qualifies as high schoolers for what I believe are obvious reasons) to religions – a base course which discusses various world religions (history is drenched in religion), their basic history and philosophy and tie Greek morality into it as well. This way a student gains a comprehensive view of the God or no God concept and then can judge for themselves. (As far as factual learning – you know, I’m in Georgia after being in Germany for 7 years. I have to say that American schools are really just trying to pump out human encyclopedias. There’s very little critical thinking here.)

    Adults seem to think they’re so righteous and more often than not, merely attempt to guide (via indoctrination or force or “education”) kids into their own belief systems but that is human nature, I think. Even I’ve done it but when I’m conscious of it I realize I should offer the other view just to be fair. If the child’s belief systems are weak – which they usually are – the debate becomes a means of manipulation, or that’s how it is often seen. The fear is that the child will jump the fence and go in the direction the parent/community/etc. doesn’t want him to go.

    My dad and I are atheist: my husband is an agnostic; my step-father is Jewish; my mother is “new age”; my 11 y/o is still researching; my 10 y/o is a Christian and my 3 y/o we believe may be possessed by the devil as shown in her daily tantrums. I can’t afford to be one sided. The dynamics of my family’s religious views create potential for havoc and destruction. The best way out – the ONLY way out – is to provide comprehensive views and trust that the child will choose the one which *best serves him*, not me, not the schools, not the community or society but HIM. The best and right choice is ALWAYS the one which informs another *fully* so that an individual can then be given the opportunity for what true freedom means: opportunity of choice without indoctrination, as can be read here: http://vontauber.wordpress.com/2008/04/11/religion-as-child-abuse/

    I despise Christianity but my step-son is firm in his Jesus views. He is at this point of maturity is unable to comprehend the concept of no God and it would be immoral of me to convince him otherwise when he needs God to help him survive on a daily basis. My step-son may forever be a Christian. Then again, he might become a Jew, an atheist or a Satanist. It’s not my place as a mother or human being to tell him what to be, what to believe. That’s *his responsibility*, his personal path.

    The biggest mistake parents make is in their attempt to create better versions of themselves. Let the children go. Set them free. Let them get all the information and decide. Are we afraid they’ll pick the “wrong” choice? If so that means we ultimately do not trust our children or ourselves in the way we’ve guided them.

    • jesschristensen says:

      Bravo, and very good points Tatiana. I’m reminded of a quote I heard once which I think can be attributed to Rabbi Loew (and which I can’t remember exactly, so I have to paraphrase) that “if you don’t question the existence of god on a daily basis, how can you know if you really believe?”

      What’s so frustrating about those who avoid (fear) any challenge to their beliefs is that they miss out on experiencing a depth of understanding about their own beliefs.

      What Chad Farnan, or his parents, could have done in response to Mr. Corbett’s statements is to challenge them. Chad could have, rather than staying quiet in class, raised his hand and asked for a serious debate about whether or not creationism is “superstitious nonsense.” If he felt (as many kids do) ill equipped to tackle that debate alone, he could have asked for a debate that involved his parents. He could have written a paper about it. And so on. While public schools can’t “teach religion,” teachers are free to “teach about religion” and students are free to challenge those teachings. There were so many, many other options available to the Farnans that would have better served the educational interests of their son, and everyone else.

      But, this case wasn’t really about education or religion. It was about politics. About the Christian right’s frenzied attempts to position themselves as victims and claim the mantle of religious oppression in America.

    • Angelica says:

      Tatiana, I’m just a girl in the world, got here when I made a search on this lawsuit, I heard about it through The Reason Project Organization; a new site created by Sam Harris, among others.

      Thanks, after reading your message I’m convinced that we were meant for each other (wish I was into girls; he, he!) Seriously, a lot of this is just common sense, why can’t we just tolerate each others’ differences? Senseless lawsuits like this annoy me so much, what a way to put down a good teacher, and what a waste of time and resources :-(

  33. PensiveGadfly says:

    Dear AW:

    Over night I printed the court’s decision and read it. Nr, Corbett’s post above does sound true in the context of that opinion. Mr. Corbett challenges his students to think critically. Critical thinking, by its very nature, will run afoul of dogmas. Every one of Mr. Corbett’s statements that the court considered was offered during an academic discussion related to the subject matter of the course he was teaching except one (the art history statement was dismissed by the court as hearsay), and it was that one on which the court ruled against him.

    BYW, this is well off the subject of this post, but third party beneficiary law is far from what I’d consider “black letter.” It varies from state to state (I actually helped define part of the reach of that law in Iowa, yet I practice now in Texas where the rule is extremely different than Iowa’s rule) and it is generally a fact intensive matter rarely open to summary judgment–which it the judgment rendered in Mr. Corbett’s case.

    The denotation of black letter law is simply that a rule is well settled, i.e., “a third party beneficiary may enforce a contract made for his benefit.” What that means in any fact situation, however, is not always easy. A cooking show contracts with a famous chef to do a segment in his kitchen; the chef orders a new expensive stove for the program; when the show is to tape, the stove supplier is late, so the kitchen is not ready and the cooking show loses revenue. Can the cooking show sue the stove supplier as a third-party beneficiary of the contact between the stove supplier and the chef? In Texas, no. In Iowa, maybe.

    In my experience, the connotation of “black letter law,” as opposed to the denotation, is areas of the law that are so well understood that the facts of the particular case don’t make much difference.

  34. Dood says:

    Support for Mr. Corbett is results-oriented. Can any pro-Corbett commenters support an alternate Mr. Corbett who advances the Truth of views that are well founded in the New Testament text but rejected by the Catholic church, calling the sacraments (or whatever, I’m not Christian) superstituous nonsense to the discomfort of the papists in the room?

    It’s awfully similar to arguing against young-earth creationism (which is unsupported based on the body of scientific knowledge) since arguing against Catholic doctrine is unsupported based on the text.

  35. Treskan says:

    AW

    > Moral codes do not come from religions,

    No need to refute that. Its self-refuting.

    >> Hasty induction based on superficial considerations. There is a difference between rationally supportable moral codes and religious moral codes. No serious ethicist would say that the reason something is good is because Jesus said so. Rather, there would an appeal to a moral standard and evidence. The point is that although religions frequently hit on a few reasonable moral guidelines, the guidelines did not come from God. People knew they were good ideas, and that is why they were included with the god stuff such as having no gods before Yahweh and forbidding taking his name in vain, etc.

    > If you read Jefferson’s biography you will see that all mention of Jesus and Christianity was intentionally left out of the Constitution.

    And want to take a wild guess at how much of the constitution Jefferson wrote? 0%.

    >> Massive non sequitur. The point still stands no matter how much you are willing to admit Jefferson contributed to the project.

    > If you believe a religion is required as a basis for a legal system

    Good reading comp there. No, I said that a moral code that is not religiously based is doomed. I also said that we were allowed to pass laws based on morality derived from religion. Which means you killed an innocent straw man.

    >> Red herring. Still, the points about the effect of religion on legal codes stands and still applies to your position. The idea that a religiously based moral code is required introduces a huge problem, namely, which religion? As mentioned earlier, legal codes based on religion such as Sharia etc. have not been noted for their reasonableness. You may be “allowed” (by whom?) to pass moral laws based on religion, but it is only ethically justifiable if they are rationally supportable. You sound like an intelligent person, and so I am sure that you are aware of the logically null and void nature of appeals to Divine Command as a source of ethical justification. In sum, the idea that a a moral code not based in religion is doomed does not make any rational sense at any level.

  36. Ferdinand says:

    Marc John Randazza has opened his blog to James Corbett for him to express himself and for us, followers, bloggers, to participate and react to this medieval judgement and support him.
    This is the sole and only purpose.
    He has been stoned enough.
    How come it turns to a bedlam forum?
    Belief is a private matter and has nothing to do with education.
    Proselites are to religions what pushers are to drugs.

  37. […] The Legal Satyricon’s synopsis of the case, and then read Mr. Corbett’s outstanding editorial, which I think I will print out and have […]

    • A.W. says:

      Mr. Corbett (if that is you),

      Since you have deigned to respond here, let me ask you.

      1. Did you make those statements attributed to you in the case? I.e. Jesus glasses and so on. I will list them all in just one second.

      2. Did you solely teach art history and European history. And if so, what is the relevance of whether America is a Christian nation, or any of the other things you allegedly said, to those subjects.

      And for your convenience, here is a list of the things you allegedly said or commented on in the case, that I found off-subject or objectionable.

      1. You commented on the availability of birth control pills in AMERICAN middle schools.

      2. You commented on the impracticability of abstinence education.

      3. You said that the boy scouts are “a racist organization.”

      4. You discussed lying to make a religious point.

      5. You said religious groups should not be exempt from paying taxes.

      6. Creationism is “superstitious nonsense.”

      7. Quote: “What was it that Mark Twain said? ‘Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.’”

      8. Quote: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

      9. Quote: “I’m not implying causality. I’m just using correlation. People in Europe who are least likely to go to church are the Swedes. The people in the industrialized world most likely to go to church are the Americans. America has the highest crime rate of all industrialized nations, Sweden has the lowest. The next time somebody tells you religion is connected with morality, you might want to ask them about that.”

      10. Quote: “Conservatives don’t want women to avoid pregnancies. That’s interfering with God’s work. You got to stay pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen and have babies until your body collapses.”

      11. Quote: “So we know that rehabilitation works and that punishment doesn’t. and yet we go on punishing. It really has a lot to do with these same culture wars we’re talking about.

      12. You say: “This whole biblical notion: sinners need to be punished.” You go on to say the south punishes more, but has higher murder rates, rape rates, and church attendance.

      13. You call biblical literalism “sort of a mindless centric notion.”

      14. Aristotle “argued that, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense.”

      15. “there is as much evidence that God [created the earth] as there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it.”

      If you want to answer that by saying simply something like:

      1. Admitted.
      2. Denied.
      3. Admitted, but let me give you the context/explanation…

      And so on, that would be fine.

      And I will ask one more question. Do you regret making any of those comments, even if you feel it was your legal right? If so, why?

    • jesschristensen says:

      That’s a ping from someone else’s site (called “State of Protest”) that linked to this story …it doesn’t say that it’s a comment from Mr. Corbett, and it’s not from Mr. Corbett.

  38. jesschristensen says:

    For Mr. Corbett — I don’t know if your parents so intended, but I think it fitting that you share your name with James “Gentleman Jim” Corbett, the heavyweight champ famous for applying a scientific approach that completely reshaped the face of boxing. I regret that the discussion here has directed so many absurd punches your way, but, I do hope you’ll keep slugging it out in the classroom.

  39. no_bull says:

    Mr Corbett, that is a fine editorial, and you obviously seek to provide a good education to your students. Great work!

  40. A.W. says:

    Jess

    > But, neither of those examples go to a standard of job performance implied in an employment contract to which a third party could hold an employee contractually liable.

    I am sorry. I didn’t realize you were trying to pull another distinction out of your hindquarters.

    Let’s see here. I have established that in an ordinary contract for service that a third party would have a cause of action based on poor performance of said contract. But now you want me to prove that this applies to employment contracts. Um, why? Contracts are contracts. I am not saying that employment contracts are exactly identical, but I see no reason to think that an employment contract would be interpreted differently in this respect.

    I have proven my point and frankly shown you up. If you care enough, the ball is in your court now to show that your hind-quarters-extracted distinction means a damn.

    > What’s so frustrating about those who avoid (fear) any challenge to their beliefs is that they miss out on experiencing a depth of understanding about their own beliefs.

    Which is all well and good as a private citizen, but as a state actor, my beliefs and challenging them is none of your damn business. Its called the first amendment.

    > What Chad Farnan, or his parents, could have done in response to Mr. Corbett’s statements is to challenge them.

    Right, and hope that the professor’s close-minded, bigoted attitudes doesn’t translate into bad grades. Hey look, when Guido Calabresi or Bruce Ackerman would say something I disagreed with in law school, I would challenge them. And to their credit, they gave me good grades (to the extent you can call them grades). And I wouldn’t say they did so “despite” my challenges to them, but instead “because of my challenges to them.” But if you thank all teachers are like that, you are kidding yourself. And if you think we can or should morally require a kid to be that brave, you are off your rocker.

    I find it amazing so-called liberals who like to “fight the power” are now supporting the power. When Mr. Corbett walks into the classroom, he is the embodiment of the state and can wield that power against any student. He can flunk them and he can discipline them. As even the LA Times admits, its almost impossible to fire a bad teacher. That is why sex with a student is so troubling, even when they are of age, because we recognize that the power and influence a teacher is so great that it might overwhelm their right to consent. In some states sex between a teacher and a k-12 student is illegal even if they are both technically consenting adults.

    But here you are pretending that none of that power exists. So you are fine with him going around belittling a faith that these children have a god-given, and constitutionally protected, right to believe in. And you think that the solution is that the student should have bucked heads with the teacher. You remind me of the piggish men who used to say that if a woman didn’t fight her attacker, she wasn’t raped. And if the teacher went around calling the black students the n-word, and girls “stupid bitches” would you have dared to say that they should just have spoken to him to clarify his views, or debated him? Of course not. The hypocrisy here is staggering.

    But I think you give the whole game away in a minute.

    > While public schools can’t “teach religion,” teachers are free to “teach about religion” and students are free to challenge those teachings.

    I find the cognitive dissonance in this thread to be amazing. So when he said that people wearing jesus glasses can’t see the truth, he was teaching about Christianity? Maybe you are such a devoted atheist you think that is a “factual” statement about Christianity, but to the rest of us, its bigotry. Pure and simple.

    > But, this case wasn’t really about education or religion. It was about politics.

    And wow, that gives away the whole game for you, doesn’t it. That is how you see it; and you see this student and his teacher as nothing more than pawns on a chessboard. And you have decided the teacher is on “your side” and so you will support him to the end however much his actual behavior doesn’t conform to your descriptions of it and no matter how much his behavior offends your stated principles. And that you would allow for this discrimination and indoctrination because you are scared the other side might “win points” is bluntly childish. All you do when you do that is confess to everyone that you are just an unprincipled hack.

    And I will give you another reason to be principled: because it is good politics. If “freedom of religion” and the establishment clause is popularly seen as something used against Christians exclusively and never to protect them even from outrageous behavior like this, then Christians will stop supporting it. If you can’t have school prayers but this idiot teacher can insult Christians freely, then why should Christians buy into this concept at all? Of course most Christians recognize that one should treat others how you want to be treated, but its kind of hard to do it when the other side doesn’t reciprocate. So maybe you should concern yourself for the equality of Christians if only because if they ever decide to give up on those first amendment principles, we frankly still outnumber you, even in California. You may end up winning this “battle” and losing the war. You know, sort of like the left did on proposition 8.

    Tatiana

    > Everyone thinks their truth is the Truth. Reality is, those who fear their truth being debunked argue that its opposing truth ought not be taught. Bad. Bad. Bad.

    That’s all well and good, except you have described Mr. Corbett’s attitude, at least in the statements in recordings that he has not bothered to dispute now for over a day.

    To him atheism is the Truth, and anyone who believes otherwise is bad, bad, bad. Socratic style questioning is one thing, but that isn’t what he did.

    I also say that it is none of the business of the state to question a person’s religious convictions just for the sake of questioning. Whether a person believes in God, the spaghetti monster, or is an atheist or whatever, is none of the state’s business. If he wants to question religious beliefs in a school setting, he is welcome to go to work for a private school.

    Pensive

    > Over night I printed the court’s decision and read it. [M]r[.] Corbett’s post above does sound true in the context of that opinion. Mr. Corbett challenges his students to think critically.

    Telling a person that if they wear Jesus glasses they can’t think see the truth, is not challenging a person to think criticially. It is insulting faith. There is a difference. You can either see that or not.

    > Every one of Mr. Corbett’s statements that the court considered was offered during an academic discussion related to the subject matter of the course he was teaching

    So how exactly does whether America is a Christian nation relate to European or Art history? How does creationism relate to either? Care to explain?

    As I said to in my first post on this thread, he should have stuck to the subject. And that doesn’t mean he has no room to challenge orthodoxies.

    The reality is the courts are loath to put to strong a microscope on his conduct because they just don’t want to second-guess him. Fine, but I don’t have to be so lax. And I don’t think the proper interpretation of the constitution should be that lax, either.

    By the way, I also suspect this “challenging orthodoxies” view is a little hollow anyway. If he came into school and taught that the holocaust didn’t happen, or that slavery was morally right, I wonder how many of you would support him challenging those orthodoxies? Indeed this teacher himself acted to enforce the orthodoxy of the big bang, evolution, etc. I think most people would support firing a teacher who teaches holocaust denial, or the support of slavery, or someone who teaches that the scientific evidence supports creationism, and I would whole heartedly agree with those who would fire them. But hey, belittling a child for believing in God, that is a-okay? Unless you are willing to let a teacher challenge all orthodoxies, then this “let them challenge orthodoxies” pose strikes me as hollow.

    I for one think that teachers should respect certain boundaries. One of them is not to support or denounce any faith or faith generally. Another is, yes, the holocaust happened, and yes, slavery was evil. And of those three limitations, one of them is actually demanded by our constitution—to avoid supporting or denouncing faith. So, if you want to teach/do those things, well you can’t do it as an agent of the government. Either don’t do it, do it on your own time, or quit. Tough on you.

    > but third party beneficiary law is far from what I’d consider “black letter.” It varies from state to state

    I never understood the term “black letter” to indicate that it was also universal for all of America. I didn’t pull out the phrase black letter until I checked cali law, and I think I was clear that I was only talking about cali law and Virginia law. And while some fact patterns are ambiguous, I don’t see anything ambiguous in a service contract where the service is to be performed on third parties. That is actually pretty much a classic third party beneficiary situation in my mind.

    Dood

    I won’t besmirch everyone here for being result oriented in their reasoning. I think some know better but have fallen for his “I’m just questioning the orthodoxy” schtick and when presented with evidence that it is bull, they are digging in. And yes, I suspect result-oriented reasoning in other cases at least in a hidden way (and I think Jess let the cat out of the bag on what is really driving her).

    I will say that not only do I oppose having atheism or at least anti-christianism shoved down a student’s throat, but I have also actually, personally told my brother-in-law, who is a teacher, not to try to convert a student to his faith (he is Methodist and very born again, and thought his mormon student was going to burn in hell). When a moral appeal didn’t seem to be working, I fell back on, “you are begging to be sued.” I hope it worked. I mean sure Mormonism has to be one of the top 10 dumbest religions ever, but freedom is the freedom to be wrong. I say the same thing about scientology.

    If any of you want to know what puts a burr in my butt about this teacher, this is why. I have faced discrimination as a student (for disabilities). I was deprived of my right to an education (I recovered my rights, but that is a long story). Among the forms of discrimination I faced was constant belittlement by my teachers. I am angry that this teacher thinks it is his job to belittle his students for their faith, to belittle their faith, when 1) it is off topic, and 2) he could have so easily avoided that. Its wholly gratuitous and a kid growing up and just trying to get good grades and get into a good college shouldn’t have to deal with that shit.

    The fact that this jerk shows no contrition even now only makes me angrier. Look if he said the “jesus glasses” thing, for instance, and then later said, “gee, I am sorry. I realize that even if it wasn’t illegal it was shmucky of me to say it” that would be one thing. I could probably said, “okay, you are forgiven.” But, no, this asshole wants to pretend he did nothing wrong, that HE is being persecuted for no reason when if you look at the facts, you can see that this student and his parents had every right to be outraged by his behavior, *even if they had no legal case.* The fact that this student was angry enough to sue him has apparently given him not a single moment of self-reflection. He strikes me as an unapologetic ass who is blatantly using his position not to “question orthodoxy” but to create an orthodoxy of his own.

    (mind you, Dood, I am not accusing you of holding the contrary position. I am just venting.)

    Treskan

    > There is a difference between rationally supportable moral codes and religious moral codes.

    Well, now you at least admit that a moral code can come from faith. Progress! And in fact there is no such thing as a 100% rational moral code. All moral codes have a leap in them, an axiom that isn’t proven but just believed. The axiom can come from faith or you can pull it out of thin air, but either way, you are not talking complete rationality.

    For instance, try this challenge. Try to come up with a 100% logical, rational, explanation for why murder is wrong. I’ll give you a hint: you can’t do it. There is a leap of logic or a leap of faith somewhere in every such explanation. And the sooner you make peace with that fact, the better.

    Indeed, if you actually want to try, the results are very tiresomely predictable where the conversation will go next, so let me lay it out to you. Assuming you accept my challenge, you will say “sure it is rational to say murder is wrong.”

    “Why? Based on what?” I will reply.

    And you will site another principle. Here is a common one: “Because we all have an equal right to life.”

    “Why? Based on what?”

    And here is the common response to that: “Because if the state doesn’t recognize that, then we will fall into anarchy.”

    “And why should we care about that?”

    And on and on it goes. Each proposition will come from another, which is not actually absolutely logical. And there is no end point. So at some point you have to say, to my incessantly asking “why”, “because it just is” or “because [insert diety] said so.” Either way it is, at the bottom of it all, irrational.

    The founders understood this, and that is why they said in the Declaration of Independence that this sort of thing was self-evidently true. It really was their way of saying, “look, if we can’t agree on this, there is no talking to you.” It’s a leap, undeniably, because in the end it is impossible to avoid making a leap somewhere. And, by the way, according to the authors, those rights were endowed to us by our Creator. And worse yet, Jefferson DID write that, unlike the constitution. So much for your thesis below. Indeed, there is very little difference between that statement which Jefferson did make and Martin Luther King’s statement that a law at odds with God’s law is no law at all. The only arguable difference was Jefferson et al was not so big on non-violent resistance to such laws.

    > The point still stands no matter how much you are willing to admit Jefferson contributed to the project.

    Jefferson wasn’t even in the country at the time. His greatest contribution to the constitution was convincing Madison to put in a bill of rights. He is not properly thought of as a framer. Sorry. He was too busy in France at the time, doing patriotic work. That is frankly an old myth that deserves to die, much like Washington and the cherry tree. (see? I support knocking down myths.)

    > The idea that a religiously based moral code is required [to make law]

    Is not a position I have taken, ever. Do you not understand the difference between “allowed” and “required?”

    > You may be “allowed” (by whom?)

    By whom? By the constitution. In other words, it is legal under the constitution.

    As I have said before, we have indeed done it from the very beginning and to undo it we would have to do no less than repudiate the Declaration of Independence, reinstitute slavery, racial discrimination and so on.

    > You may be “allowed” (by whom?) to pass moral laws based on religion, but it is only ethically justifiable if they are rationally supportable.

    But as I pointed out there is no such thing as a 100% rationally supportable moral code. Ditto on a 100% rational legal code. So down goes that canard.

    • jesschristensen says:

      I have proven my point and frankly shown you up. — M-kay. Excellent. Finished.

      • Angelica says:

        AW: It seems that your only desire is to be right, don’t take our word for it, go and find the truth for yourself!

        You mentioned that some of your former teachers made your life miserable and that they picked on your disabilities. I understand your pain and advise that you place that anger where it belongs, not on the people who don’t deserve it and in whom you are merely reflecting your frustrations. Don’t even think for a minute that I don’t understand you, for the record, I’ve been put down by a lot of stupid teachers as well, if I had believed all of the things that they told me I would’ve grown up to think that I was stupid when in fact the real problem was their ineptitude, same that kept me bored and unchallenged in their classrooms.

        My parents also made me believe that I had to do everything they told me and serve men just because I was born a woman. My catholic upbringing also taught me that I would burn in hell if I challenged anything that had been told to me, I grew up thinking that the ‘devil’ was behind me all of the time and I was so scared that I would wake up in tears from having bad dreams about it. I was also taught to believe that anything bad that happened to me was probably deserved, even being sexually abused by my uncle was my fault in my mind because I had been taught to obey adults.

        After reading this you must think that my parents were monsters and such a statement is far removed from the truth; they are in fact both very loving people who raised me to the best of their knowledge and never meant to harm me.

        Once I grew up and started looking for my truth, thanks to the fact that I was lucky enough to be enlightened by a teacher similar to Mr. Corbett, my life changed significantly. I am now free to accept my humanity as normal, not as sinful; able to be tolerant of those who are different than I am, and strong enough to challenge anyone who tries to put me down or take advantage of me.

        Not being able to see is a disability, refusing to see what’s in front of you is mere stupidity. Like I said, please don’t believe any of us, analyze everything that you believe and then challenge the things that don’t make sense. I am not interested in being right, I just dream of a world in which common sense makes more sense than religious control over humanity.

        I wish you the best of luck!

  41. jim corbett says:

    1. You commented on the availability of birth control pills in AMERICAN middle schools.

    This was a reference to the 15th and 16th centuries during which many churchmen argued that educating women, especially about sex, would lead to promiscuity, the same argument being made in the LA Times article referenced. I do try and help students understand that issues important in history are often still with us today.

    2. You commented on the impracticability of abstinence education.

    The scholarly evidence is strong that it does not work. It is relevant for the same reasons as Q. #1

    3. You said that the boy scouts are “a racist organization.” Denied

    4. You discussed lying to make a religious point.

    Yes, I was referring to a so called “creation scientist,” who I was scheduled to debate . I cancelled because his website was full of misquotes and outright lies and debating a liar is absurd (I called the sources or emailed them to verify). One source was listed on the website as an Oxford University Physics professor. He was, in the 17th century; something purposefully omitted I believe. When I asked what students thought about lying in the name of religion, one student responded, “The message of Jesus Christ doesn’t need any help from liars.” I agreed with him. He just graduated from Wheaton, with my recommendation. He’s now at Fuller Theological Seminary.

    5. You said religious groups should not be exempt from paying taxes. Admitted

    6. Creationism is “superstitious nonsense.”
    Denied. I said John Peloza’s teaching was superstitious nonsense. He gave an assignment asking students to provide scientific support for the notion that the earth could be very young and created by God complete with fossils.

    7. Quote: “What was it that Mark Twain said? ‘Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.’”

    Admitted. That people from the beginning have been fooled by so called religious leaders to do things against their own interests is evident. That doesn’t mean all of thema are such More importantly, the reference is to the FIRST. I imagine the first clergyman was a wimpy caveman who didn’t have the strength or skill to go out and kill a gazelle on his own. He sat back in the cave and when the hunter returned he likely explained that while the hunter was out, God had come and explained that the hunter should hand over some of the gazelle.

    8. Quote: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

    A reference to the 18th century church in Austria when Joseph II tried to free the slaves from servitude to the Monasteries. The Church put “glasses” on the serfs and got them to believe the Emperor was working with Satan.

    9. Quote: “I’m not implying causality. I’m just using correlation. People in Europe who are least likely to go to church are the Swedes. The people in the industrialized world most likely to go to church are the Americans. America has the highest crime rate of all industrialized nations, Sweden has the lowest. The next time somebody tells you religion is connected with morality, you might want to ask them about that.”

    Merely noting that there is NO connection between church going and crime (Correlation is not causality).

    10. Quote: “Conservatives don’t want women to avoid pregnancies. That’s interfering with God’s work. You got to stay pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen and have babies until your body collapses.”

    Reference was to conservatives in the 18th and 19th centuries.

    11. Quote: “So we know that rehabilitation works and that punishment doesn’t. and yet we go on punishing. It really has a lot to do with these same culture wars we’re talking about.

    The evidence is strong that rehab works and punishment doesn’t, yet we punish and fail to rehab, why? Perhaps, I said, because we have a religious based notion of sin and punishment.

    12. You say: “This whole biblical notion: sinners need to be punished.” You go on to say the south punishes more, but has higher murder rates, rape rates, and church attendance.

    That’s true, Texas, for example, the state that executes the most has nearly the highest per capita murder rate.

    13. You call biblical literalism “sort of a mindless centric notion.” Denied

    14. Aristotle “argued that, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense.”

    My reference was to his absolute statement (has to), that is untrue, there are other explanations, science offers several.

    15. “there is as much evidence that God [created the earth] as there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it.”

    My reference was to scientific evidence.

    • A.W. says:

      Jim

      Its great to hear from you, but bluntly, what does all of this have to do with the subject you teach. Taking each of your answers at face value, you felt a need to talk about:

      1. An upcoming debate with a “creation scientist.” (I’ll say it, it is a contradiction in terms to claim to be a “creation scientist.”)

      2. Creationism generally.

      3. Whether there is a correlation between church going and low crime.

      4. Whether rehabilitation works and why people prefer punishment.

      5. Whether or not Aristotle was right to say, more or less, there has to be some divinity up there.

      6. Whether religious groups should be exempt from paying taxes.

      7. Whether America is a Christian nation.

      Seriously, don’t you think that is a little off the subject, when the subject is, according to the courts European history and Art history?

      And a lot of that stuff seemed needlessly confrontational.

      1. The mark twain quote. Why even bother? I mean that almost belongs up above, because its hard to understand what the first caveman who believed has to do with anything in European/art history.

      2. The jesus glasses thing. Couldn’t you have said it in a way that didn’t sound like you were denouncing all Christianity?

      3. Conservatives want women barefoot and pregnant. Again, it didn’t occur to you that it would sound like you were talking about modern conservatives?

      Bluntly, what you have admitted to saying sounds pretty bad to me. So don’t you at least recognize that maybe you weren’t being persecuted so much as misunderstood, because you said things that gosh, sure as hell sounds like you are talking about the present tense and all Christians/conservatives, etc.?

      • Listen, you half witted asshole. Enough is enough.

        Every teacher I ever had taught us something that was outside his job description. My high school algebra teacher happened to also serve in Vietnam. I learned a lot about the battle of Dien Bien Phu from him — and nobody thought to cook up some half-assed theory of him violating his contract.

        Your only real issue here seems to be a blanket hatred of anything left of Bill O’Reilly, and that Mr. Corbett refused to pay homage to your superstitions.

        I’m all for diversity of opinion and wide open and robust debate. That is why I have brought in co-bloggers who disagree with me on so many issues.

        But, this is not diversity of opinion. This is simply some bat shit nutty asshole, lying and claiming to be an attorney, who is obsessed with simply flinging shit out the bars of his baboon cage.

        I don’t do this often, but when I do, I mean it. You, sir, are banned. When you learn how to debate coherently, you may petition to be un-banned.

  42. jim corbett says:

    My last note: Every student save Chad, most Christians, understood the references and how they related to the curriculum. Being asked to “justify” everything said would be difficult for most teachers. How would you like someone to surrupticiously and illegally tape you for a month and pull out out-of-context quotes?

  43. blackstar says:

    Mr Corbett, you’ve already declared last note, but I did want to ask a few questions in follow up to the essay and comments you’ve posted here. Even if you don’t respond, I hope you’ll take them in the spirit in which they’re intended, namely one of curiosity.

    1) You’ve stated a number of times that the statements made in class and rendered as evidence in the case against you were taken out of context and that, seen in context, it would be clear that they didn’t go beyond the appropriate boundaries. How were they presented in court, and do you think the court itself failed to demand an appropriate amount of context?

    2) As I understand it, the only comment that Judge Selna declared to have no “legitimate secular purpose […] even when considered in context” was that to the effect that Peloza’s assignment was “religious, superstitious nonsense”. Do you agree that the language of your statement lapses out of the realm of pure critique on Peloza’s assignment (which assignment, incidentally, I would say was likely a breach of Establishment) and into the realm of judgment about religion itself?

    And lastly, 3) in all of this, I haven’t really seen you talk about the Constitutional issues purported to be at stake in your case. I’d sincerely like to hear your opinion on those issues — in particular regarding the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. State of Ark., and Lemon v. Kurtzman — and whether or not those issues were really applicable to your case, and how.

  44. HHC says:

    Do you think the U.S. District judge would have ruled different if Dr. Corbett had taught Advanced Placement American History instead of Advanced Placement European History? Would there be a reasonable secular reason for Dr. Corbett’s statements to his class if he had taught an American history class, given that Creationism began in the early Twentieth Century in the U.S?

  45. PensiveGadfly says:

    blackstar:

    Mr. Corbett probably has to get back to teaching. I, too, was curious about the presentation of the facts because I don’t see how creationism is necessarily a question of religion, so I found the case and read it. That will help you answer several of your questions. Frankly, I think if Corbett had called creationism “nonsense” without adding the “religious” he’d have been fine–not to mention correct.

  46. Treskan says:

    AW
    > There is a difference between rationally supportable moral codes and religious moral codes.

    Well, now you at least admit that a moral code can come from faith.

    > Careful of equivocation, A.W.

    Progress! And in fact there is no such thing as a 100% rational moral code. All moral codes have a leap in them, an axiom that isn’t proven but just believed. The axiom can come from faith or you can pull it out of thin air, but either way, you are not talking complete rationality.

    For instance, try this challenge. Try to come up with a 100% logical, rational, explanation for why murder is wrong. I’ll give you a hint: you can’t do it. There is a leap of logic or a leap of faith somewhere in every such explanation. And the sooner you make peace with that fact, the better.

    >> Interesting interpretation, but you are missing the point that I am not saying that the ostensible moral codes of religion are in any sense ethically justifiable if they lack evidence. (The testimony of someone who claims to have been communicating with angels somewhere off in some secluded place with no witnesses is not really evidence, or do think so?)

    >> All ethical axioms follow logically if you agree that maximizing human flourishing and minimizing suffering are considerations that make a choice morally correct. Obvious 100% logically supportable rules that would follow from this would be imperatives such as “Do not kill people without good reason,” and “Do not steal.” Of course, the ethical novice will say, “But what is a good reason?” and then quibble about different people have different views, but will then, after several weeks of bumbling around in circles, achieve the understanding that it is objectivily demonstratable that some acts are better for human flourishing than others.

    >>You also are falling into a version of the false dilemma fallacy known as “Appeal to Perfection,” A.W. You are saying that since there is no perfect way to determine morality, pseudo-moral imperatives based on the testimony of people who claim to have talked with god or angels are somehow justified. Once you have defined what you mean by morality, however, you only need to show that reason works much better than faith (in invisible beings) as a basis for moral decision. And history shows us precisely that. You sound like an intelligent person, A.W.,and I think you enjoy debating just for the fun of it because I don’t believe that you seriously believe some of the things you have said here. So, at the risk of sounding offensive, I think you could improve your arguments immeasurably if you took an Ethics or Critical Thinking class. No offense intended, but it would help you avoid some of the more obvious fallacies and elevate your arguments to a more challenging level.

  47. Treskan says:

    Final Note: As a teacher I believe that this case sets a very dangerous precedent. In the last 60 years, religous extremists have managed to insert “under God” into the pledge of allegience, plastered “In God We Trust” all over the paper money, and replaced the de facto motto of the United States “e pluribus unum” with “In God We Trust,” and created “release time” in public schools to add religion to the public school curriculum, etc. etc. What next?

  48. HHC says:

    Just a quick note on religious history as A.W. wanted to present it. The witnesses of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would not be allowed to act as witnesses in an American courtroom. The Jesus story was written by the author of the first book in the New Testament over a generation, more than 30 years after death. Each succeeding book repeated the story in a new way. My source of this content was my University of Illinois World Religions class, where we paid attention to sources of information. There were no eyewitnesses to death. All was hearsay.

  49. Angelica says:

    HHC, I am sure that we are well aware of this; AW’s claim on witnesses to the bible was so lame that at least I didn’t feel like I had to rebuff it…

  50. Patrick says:

    A great post. Thanks for giving the platform to Mr. Corbett, Marc.

  51. Rick says:

    I know I’ll probably be raked over the coals for my position on this, but I think the high school teacher is obligated to teach a contrarian point of view. While I think he is dead wrong in his assessment of Creationism as “superstitious nonsense”, I think he should be allowed to teach his point of view. The student, rather than taking him to court should have researched creation and presented an argument that supports it. I would like to think that any high school student with enough guts to take a stand for what he believes would be intelligent enough to debate it.

    Education is about acquiring knowledge. If your beliefs are questioned by an educator, then you need to understand why you believe what you believe and be able to defend those beliefs. This may be a bit much to expect from a lone high school student, but if that student is willing to take the teacher to court, he should be willing to acquire the knowledge necessary to defend his belief.

    I think the childs parents should have spoken to the teacher and helped their child with his argument. Had they taken this path, their son probably would have received an A in the course. Instead they chose the easy way and had their son drop out and fight the battle in court.

  52. Sara says:

    James Corbett you were finally exposed for spreading your propaganda in a public class room. The district should have fired you.
    You refer to Chad as an average student. By stating Chad Farnum was an average student “C” as you know will inevitably come to mind. I hope Chad realizes that you stepped all over his right for privacy as outlined in the Education Code, All student information is deemed confidential and may not be shared without parent permission.

    • Jim Corbett says:

      Sorry, your wish won’t be granted. The court just ordered Chad’s lawyers to pay District costs.

      BTW, my comments about Chad’s abilities as a scholar come from a fair interpretation of comments he and his mother made during his deposition.

      I might add, the Ed. Code also says that secretly recording a teacher is a violation, the teacher and principal give written permission. Chad asked about recording and was told that he needed to learn to take notes, and that recording would not be allowed. He was not punished for the violation.