.
.
.
Niceties like saying “Bless You” after someone sneezes are evidently verboten in Vacaville California classrooms after Vacaville California high school teacher Steve Cuckovich disciplined one of his students for that “aberrant” behavior. When asked about why he dished out the discipline, Cuckovich responded “[T]he blessing doesn’t really make sense anymore,” he said. “When you sneeze in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body. So they were saying, ‘God bless you,’ for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, what you’re doing doesn’t really make any sense anymore.” According to this logic shaking hands (a custom that started to show that you had no weapon), saying “thank God” and other conventional niceties are all punishable offenses. Of course this is all just another effort to espouse an anti-religious viewpoint and foist those beliefs on children, much like the recent Capo Valley High School case that is heading for the Supreme Court where a high school teacher continually belittled anyone that dared to discuss creationism. Mr. Cuckovich’s outlandish behavior is merely another example of the concentrated effort to “rid” schools and children of religious thought and beliefs.
“You know we’re Catholic. We’re supposed to say, you know, your religion,” a student from Cuckovich’s Will C. Wood High School said. “It’s respectful to say bless you.” “I think that’s ridiculous. First, the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, preventing a kid from saying, ‘Bless You?’ ” said Alan Johnson a parent of a student at the school. “Everybody has their right to their own beliefs,” Johnson said. “But they don’t have rights to impose those beliefs on other people, especially not school children.”
What is even funnier is that the fascist Mr. Cuckovich didn’t really have his facts straight. Several possible origins are commonly given for the use of the phrase “bless you.” The practice of blessing someone who sneezes, dating as far back as at least AD 77, however, is far older than most specific explanations can account for.
One explanation holds that the custom originally began as an actual blessing. Gregory I became Pope in AD 590 as an outbreak of the bubonic plague was reaching Rome. In hopes of fighting off the disease, he ordered unending prayer and parades of chanters through the streets. At the time, sneezing was thought to be an early symptom of the plague. The blessing (“God bless you!”) became a common effort to halt the disease.
A variant of the Pope Gregory I story places it with Pope Gregory VII, then tells the common story of “Ring Around the Rosey” being connected to the same plague. A legend holds that it was believed that the heart stops beating and the phrase “bless you” is meant to ensure the return of life or to encourage your heart to continue beating. Another version says that people used to believe that your soul can be thrown from your body when you sneeze, that sneezing otherwise opened your body to invasion by the Devil or evil spirits, or that sneezing was your body’s effort to force out an invading evil spirit. Thus, “bless you” or “God bless you” is used as a sort of shield against evil.
The Irish Folk story “Master and Man” by T. Crofton Croker, collected by William Butler Yeats, describes this variation. Alternatively, it may be possible that the phrase began simply as a response for an event that was not well understood at the time. Another belief is that people used to see sneezing as a sign that God would answer your prayers or an of good fortune or good luck. In this case, “Bless you” would be in recognition of that luck.
Whatever the real origin of the term, today it is both expression of faith for some and a mere courtesy for others. Whatever the origin, the nasty Mr. Cuckovich should be the one receiving the discipline, not the student merely expressing his faith and courtesy.
Ever notice how – wherever you get all these little anecdotes of political correctness run amok – they’re always in some faraway off-the-wall place, and perpetrated by some obscure pencil-neck we’ll never hear of again (assuming this Kookoovich even exists?) And then also so vague – the student was “disciplined” how?
I’m glad I have better things to do than keep track of all the irritating and obnoxious things done in little corners of the country that could be construed as right-wing or theocratic.
Really Vern – like reporting on things said by liberal crashers of tea party events saying intentionally offensive things to smear the party? The left would NEVER do something like that.
In terms of the incident, there are filmed interviews with this guy on the net – show me how you post video (I can only ever get a link to post) and I will post the video of this bozo. In terms of where these “anecdotes” take place, the Capo Valley censorship case happened right here in Mission Viejo.
For a YouTube – find the embed code. You might have to click on “share” and then “embed” will come up as an option. Make sure to use the “old” “long” version of the embed code, the newer, shorter code doesn’t always seem to work on our blog. I know you can figure it out, like I did a couple years ago.
“Capo Valley censorship?” I’ve forgotten that one, refresh my memory? Local stuff is always good…
I will post a story on it if you like. Capo Valley High School teacher assigned papers about evolution. When students asked question about creation theory, he openly mocked the student. Student sues and teacher denies that he mocked the student. Student produces tape recording unequivocally demonstrating that the teacher belittled any student that deigned to discuss creation theory. When caught in the bald faced lie, the teacher cried foul relying on theories of “academic freedom” that allegedly prohibit the taping of classroom discussions. Case has flown through the trial courts (student winning so far) and is headed for Supreme Court. My understanding is that Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UCI Law School, has agreed to work on the briefs for the school district.
That sounds interesting. Would make a good OJ story.
See if you can get the Cuckoldvich YouTube up. I’m going shopping. If you haven’t figured it out when I get back I’ll help you.
Was able to copy the embedded code but then it would just copy the code and not stream the video.
Forgot to tell you, put that embed code onto the “HTML” page, not the “visual” page.
Still, tempest in teapot! 🙂
Well, if you’re talking about the Corbett fiasco, what happened was that the teacher mentioned that Creationism is “superstitious nonsense” (not sure about the context) and a whiny little fundamentalist named Chad farnan took offense for hearing the truth.
So his parents lawyered up claiming their little progeny’s First Amendment rights were violated and sued the teacher and the school; Fed Judge Selna, not the brightest bulb on the bench, held that Corbett was protected by qualified immunity but also held that there was a FA violation of sorts. The case went up on appeal and the appellate court held that immunity applied, and to have teachers be concerned about being sued when there was no obvious reason for it would have a chilling effect on teaching in general. If the fundies want to be taught mythology, there are schools where they can get their wish.
Nice liberal spin on the case. Denigrate the judge and ignore the fact that (1) a federal judge held that Corbett violated Chad’s First Amendment rights, no small issue (and not a violation “of sorts”), and (2) the Court of Appeal punted on the merits of the case and ruled on a procedural aspect. You also ignore Corbett’s (and his counsel’s) continued anti-Christian rants in the OC Register showing that he doesn’t really care about teaching students, only that he is right in his own mind.
Geoff Willis wrote:
> I will post a story on it if you like. Capo Valley High School
> teacher assigned papers about evolution. When students
> asked question about creation theory, he openly mocked the
> student. Student sues and teacher denies that he mocked the
> student. Student produces tape recording unequivocally
> demonstrating that the teacher belittled any student that
> deigned to discuss creation theory.
>
> [Extra text deleted]
I haven’t paid much attention to the case, but if the Capistrano Valley High School teacher you make reference too did behave flippantly toward the student, that was uncalled for.
However, evolution happens to be a well-established fact — not just some crazy “theory.” If you reject that idea, then I suggest that you stop going to the physician when you get sick.
Many revolutionary advances in modern medicine came about because evolutionary “theory” helped scientists develop antibiotics and other drugs to fight germs and disease.
If you or a loved on ever became seriously ill in the past, they are alive right now thanks to the fact Charles Darwin wrote a book entitled, “The Origin of Species” more than 100 years ago.
I know that I offend just as many on the right as on the left when I say this, but creationism and evolution do not have to be inconsistent at all. I believe that God put the universe in motion and had a hand in evolution and the development of man. I don’t think that I am alone in this belief and I would consider myself a creationist. You can reject my beliefs, but that doesn’t bother me at all. By the way, most of what was “given” as science two hundred years ago has largely been revised or entirely thrown out and I suspect the same will be true 200 years from now. That is not to say that science is not true or that it does not aid in our understanding in the universe, but it is certainly not finite and stable like many would proclaim.
The idea that there could be a divine intelligence that set evolution in motion makes sense to me. But it’s not science, it’s philosophy or religion, and can’t be proved.
Evolution on the other hand is settled science, and belongs in the science class.
“That is not to say that science is not true or that it does not aid in our understanding in the universe, but it is certainly not finite and stable like many would proclaim.”
I’d like to know WHO are the “many” that “proclaim” that science is “finite and stable”, because it certainly ISN’T scientists.
Someone needs a refresher course;
From Wikipedia;
“Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.”
I’m the teacher, and your post demonstrates just how far from reality defenders of “Christianity” are willing to go in response to a non-existent affront.
First, I’ve never “assigned a paper on evolution.”
Second, no student ever asked a question on “creation theory.”
Third, the student involved never spoke in class and I never spoke to him, much less “mocked” him or his beliefs.
Fourth, the illegally recorded lecture, according to federal court, did not violate the student’s rights and were, according to the court, related to the curriculum and therefore, protected speech.
Really, is there no lie “Christians” won’t post to attack anyone they think disagrees with them?
“(student winning so far)”
Not as of August 19th, the Ninth Circuit Court vindicated Mr. Corbett;
From Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost LLP;
Teacher Entitled to Qualified Immunity from Student Lawsuit for Making Allegedly Anti-Religious Comments During Class
August 2011
On August 19, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a high school teacher was entitled to qualified immunity from a student’s lawsuit against him. The lawsuit alleged that the teacher violated the student’s rights under the U. S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause by making comments during class that were hostile to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular.
http://www.fagenfriedman.com/newsflash.php?nf=293
Yet another post that makes up an imagined affront to prove a non-existent affront to “Christianity.”
First, no student ever “asked a question about ‘creation theory.'”
Second, I never spoke to the student, nor did he ever speak to me. Thus, I never “mocked” him. Further, I never “mocked” is beliefs or those of anyone else.
Third, the recordings demonstrate “unequivocally” that I never belittled the student, never mentioned his name, never mentioned “creation science.” My reference was to a fellow teacher’s lessons. He was a “young earth creationist.” Of course, “young earth creationism” is SUPERSTITIOUS, RELIGIOUS NONSENSE. Would you prevent teachers from relaying facts.
Fourth, the recordings did not prove a “bold (the word should be “bald’) faced lie,” rather they proved I did none of the things the student charged.
Fifth, I made no claim of “academic freedom” in defense
Sixth, the student is not and has not “won” the case at any level. He has cost the District thousands when all he had to do was talk to me. Neither he nor his parents, nor their lawyers ever bothered to ask me about my teaching before filing the suit.
Sixth, how about making some effort to find out the facts before you attack someone, or would that go against your “Christian” principles?
You have once again made it quite clear that you, the devine arbiter of all that is good and righteous, has deemed that the beliefs of a billion people are “SUPERSTITIOUS RELIGIOUS NONSENSE.” Thanks for your brilliant academic thought.
It’s funny how even the most ardent atheists and evolutionary scientists cannot explain how the Big Bang happened, how life began from nothing. If you watch the movie “Expelled,” and I’m guessing you have Mr. Corbett, I believe it was Peter Atkins, a supposedly renowned scientist (and avowed atheist) who admitted as much. Mr. Atkins then posited that life began on earth either through crystals or because aliens came and masturbated all over the earth. But creationism is such nonsense, isn’t it?
And the fact is, a federal judge held that you violated Chad’s constitutional rights with one of your statements. That would be a win for Chad (hence YOUR appeal to the Ninth Circuit), so you should probably look at your own false statements before you go attacking others in the same vein.
Geoff is defending the right for students to remain ignorant, TEACHERS shouldn’t say that YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM is superstitious nonsense, even though that belief is preposterous and NOT backed up by ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, TEACHERS shouldn’t tell kids that sneezing isn’t a sign of the plague or evil spirits. In fact why bother TEACHING at all, just let each student say what they “believe in” and leave it at that.
Christians do have the right to remain ignorant and believe in nonsense, they just don’t have the right to drag the rest of us down with them.
Newbie,
Please do us all a favor and explain where your god came from, how did god “happen” and did god come from “nothing”?
Do you not take the time to actually read the comments before posting your own? Mr. Corbett has already been vindicated by the Ninth Circuit Court, try and keep up.
Yes Anonster, as the son of two teachers and the husband of another that is exactly what I am saying.
The fact that your parents and wife were/are teachers doesn’t some how magically inoculate you from being absurd, you’re the one defending teaching “beliefs”.
Gosh leave it to Geoff to leave out some pertinent facts (anyone surprised?).
First off, Mr. Cuckovich is a health teacher, not too surprising that he would try to expose kids to the difference between fact and superstition when it comes to health. It might even make kids THINK (horrors!) about things they say and do with out knowing what it means (your handshake example, for instance).
Secondly, Mr. Cuckovich says his position has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION;
From Fox news;
“But health teacher Steve Cuckovich believes it’s more disrespectful to say “Bless You,” in his class, even disruptive, to the point that he’s knocked off 25 points from a student’s grade for saying it.
Cuckovich reiterated his discipline had nothing to do with religion. This is his explanation:
“The blessing doesn’t really make sense anymore,” he said. “When you sneeze in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body. So they were saying, ‘God bless you,’ for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, what you’re doing doesn’t really make any sense anymore.”
Cuckovich says he won’t hesitate to discipline his students – just not that way anymore. Principal Cliff DeGraw agrees.
“He realizes there’s better ways to do that. We don’t condone that type of punishment,” DeGraw said.”
The upshot; this is AGAIN, petty, right-wing nut cakes taking a small insignificant event and extrapolating it out to an attack on religion, values, society, conservatives, white people, apple pie, mom, etc. … ad nauseam.
Anonster, your constant and imperious twisting of the facts from your own perceived place on high gets tiring to those of us who actually think. NOTHING in the statements that I have seen from Mr. Cuckovich (see Vern, he does exist) provide the slightest scintilla of evidence that Mr. Cuckovich’s discipline had ANYTHING to do with “exposing kids to the difference between fact and superstition.” That is a pure Anonster contrivance (meaning she made it up). The only reason given by Mr. Cuckovich is that saying “God bless you” “disrupted the class.” Yeah, the 1/2 second it takes to say bless you must just completely derail classroom activities. Second, there is NO evidence that the crotchety old Mr. Cuckovich was trying to get the kids to think at all, instead just trying to enforce his anti-religious beliefs. Another Anonster contrivance (read LIE). While it is true that Mr. Cuckovich does emphatically state that his doling out of punishment for saying “God bless you” had “nothing to do with religion” that is a Cuckovich contrivance (read lie) because his explanation for punishing “God bless you” calls religious belief “superstition that no longer applies” thus rejecting religious doctrine as superstition in violation of TWO of the students’ First Amendment rights (speach and religion). Finally, Mr. Cuckovich’s understanding of the origin of “God bless you” is far from factual and largely innaccurate – great teaching.
Geoff,
“… your constant and imperious twisting of the facts”
LOL, you are clearly projecting (as evidenced by ANY of our recent back and forths).
“NOTHING in the statements that I have seen from Mr. Cuckovich (see Vern, he does exist) provide the slightest scintilla of evidence that Mr. Cuckovich’s discipline had ANYTHING to do with “exposing kids to the difference between fact and superstition.”
What do you think (if you can keep your hysteria in-check for a moment and actually, think) he meant by;
“The blessing doesn’t really make sense anymore,” he said. “When you sneeze in the old days, they thought you were dispelling evil spirits out of your body. So they were saying, ‘God bless you,’ for getting rid of evil spirits. But today, what you’re doing doesn’t really make any sense anymore.”
Clearly, he is talking about SUPERSTITION.
Well if the teacher says it’s true, it must be – nice defense. I’m sure you also will take all conservatives at their word, and I look forward to your consistent comments following the inevitable future attacks against conservatives on here.
Clearly, the sky is falling.
I think we know by now that Geoff cannot be trusted as to the recitation of “facts.”
Steve Cuckovich is my father-in-law, so I know him well. This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with avoiding distractions in class, a decision made by a man who has spent 40 years of his life dedicated to encouraging kids to succeed academically and in life. He sent all three of his kids to Catholic school and has the deepest respect for religion. Unfortunately, one news station reported a very slanted portrayal of the events, which seems to me to be an attempt merely to boost their ratings through a false religious scandal. He is an excellent father, grandfather, husband, and teacher. Rather than making false assumptions by someone you don’t know, I encourage everyone to not buy into this false scandal.
Whoops – sorry about the “Cuckoldvich” and casting doubts on his existence – I was just remembering one of Geoff’s earlier hooplahs about some “Easter spheres.” Thanks for stopping by, and let your father-in-law know we’re not all credulous chip-on-the-shoulder fundamentalists down here behind the Orange Curtain.
If what you say is true about Mr. Cuckovich’s deep respect for religion, then this was just a horribly misguided power play by the teacher that should have retired that backfired. I still find it hard to believe that it was not aimed at squelching religion.
That’s just because you’re pre-disposed to think all of America is picking on Christians.
Yes, just like the phony “war on Christmas.” Here we are in a country in which a politician who dares be an agnostic or atheist is tarred and feathered for being rational. We get all sorts of legislation centered on peoples’ personal lives, and if there is a complaint from a techer who finds his classroom disrupted by annoying exclamations (even a “gesundheit” is unnecessary) then, oh my, it’s another attack on the poor christians.
Sort of like Newbie who rants about Corbett: “he doesn’t really care about teaching students, only that he is right in his own mind” meaning that teaching science and eschewing superstition is, apparently, problematic.
Thank you Rapscallion for declaring yourself the sole arbiter charged with delineating between science and superstition. How very “tolerant” of you.
I would join you GW if you wouldn’t be so dictatorial about the religion and left it where it belongs and that is in your home.
There is no difference between fascist you and fascist Nelson or fascist Gilbert.
The ideology is irrelevant.
Fascism is fascism!
Try to be an individualist and you can make a progress.
I’m the teacher who uttered the now famous words “superstitious religious nonsense” with regard to the lessons of a biology teacher at my school (John Peloza) who was teaching something like “creation science” or “ID” or Biblical creation or …
It appears to me the case cited here is likely similar to mine. A Christian fundamentalist student is “offended” by a comment by a teacher and decides to make a federal case out of it by misquoting the teacher, claiming that he was “disciplined” for embracing “Christian” values, and reporting the whole matter as evidence that “politically correct” liberal teachers have gone too far and now demonstrate “hostility” toward religion. What is most likely here is that the teacher sought to impart a little wisdom by explaining the origins of the use of “bless you” after a sneeze. The teacher’s specific explanation may have been wrong, although he was correct in one respect, the use of the term is archaic. Further, the “bless you” is often unwanted by those who do not profess any religion. It may sound petty, but having to respond with a “thank you” because someone has invoked his religion to “protect” you from some imagined danger, can be a bit irritating to unbelievers. How about keeping your religion to yourself?
Mr. Corbett, as an alleged educator I am more than a bit disappointed by your offensive behavior. Your remark “how about keeping your religion to yourself” is fine a personal opinion, but flies in the face of the 1st Amendment when enforced as “law.’ While I find your belief that some of my core beliefs are “superstitious religious nonsense” horribly offensive to me, I do recognize your right to express those thoughts regardless of my feelings about those words.
You are also a hypocrite. You want everyone to “keep their religion to themself” and yet you continually and repeatedly express your feelings on religion to what ever sad lost soul will listen. As far as I can tell from the record and your response here, you have no business in a classroom and never have.
Your remark “how about keeping your religion to yourself” is fine a personal opinion, but flies in the face of the 1st Amendment when enforced as “law.’
I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point, Geoff. Mr. Corbett is not and was not trying to use the “law” against anyone’s free speech or religion. All he did was give his opinion of another teacher’s teaching.
On the other hand, Chad’s handlers would sure like to shut Mr Corbett up, using the full force of the law. So who’s really abusing the first amendment?
Atheism, liberalism and socialism is a religion and belongs at home too as any religion should.
Individualism on the other hand belongs in public because the individualists mine their own business, help only if ask otherwise get lost.
The individualism is not synonymous with isolationism, anarchism or chaos.
The individualism is simply respect for self and others sovereignty as provided by the constitution.
Again, the individualism should be taught at home and exhibited in public because it neutralize the society.
The problem is that the court, with the Lemon Test decision, created a false equivalency between government actors who use their power to “establish” a preferred place for a favored religion and “hostility” toward religion. Martin Luther said it best, “Reason is the greatest enemy faith has.” Fundamentalists of all faiths view reason as an assault on faith, but to give them a veto over rational discourse in the name of “balance” is absurd.
Chad’s lawyers argued that questioning “Creation Science” violated the First Amendment, but American law gives no special place to any religion. One person’s religion is another person’s superstition. To Jews, Muslims, Hindus and dozens of other religions, the New Testament is “Christian Superstition,” just as their views are superstition to Christians. When a government actor refers to a religious belief as “superstition,” he shows respect for all by favoring none. American classrooms have Jews, Hindus, Bahai, Muslims, Buddhists, and others. Chad would demand a special place for his views, but in America, all beliefs should be treated equally by government. I never did anything else.
The one thing that bothers me most about this case is that neither Chad nor his parents nor the so-called Advocates for Faith and Freedom, ever made an effort to talk with me before filing the suit. In my view, they were all more interested in gaining publicity for themselves, and donations for the Advocates, than in protecting Chad’s rights. They cost our schools hundreds of thousands of dollars when the whole thing could have been settled with a phone call that they never made.
No, that was not the “problem with the court.” Anti-religious freaks or zealots like yourself arrogantly think that you are the final arbiter of all knowledge. The first amendment has both an establishment clause as well as a prohibition against any official state action (like a teacher in the classroom) against someone’s free exercise of religion. You claim that dismissing a billion people’s core beliefs as “superstition” is showing respect to none, not respect to all – vast portions of the Koran and Judiasm are based or include Christian beliefs. As soon as you try to start dismissing ALL religion, you show your true colors – you want your views to be seen as “rational” while anyone seeing the world differently is ignorant and uneducated.
You are also a hypocrite. I notice that nowhere in your diatribe above you mention the crux of your defense – not that you did not try and intimidate your students into espousing your beliefs instead of their own, but that the tape recording of your class room which clearly established that Chad’s version of the FACTS not your own were the true facts. Your only court “victory” to date is one court finding that tapes of class room discussions can’t be used as evidence (that you have limited immunity from the use of the tapes).
Go ahead and continue to try and lie, bully and intimidate – you just further erode your virtually non-existent credibility.
Whose diatribe, Geoff? Who’s the bully here? Is there something going on behind the comment scene that the casual reader is missing? You are the master projectionist if you don’t recognize that that you are the one who’s bullying and you’re the one who’s trying to be intimidating. Your extreme hostility is quite unbecoming because your anger and hostility are not supported in this discourse. What’s really going on?
Whose diatribe?……………….. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Nelson.
Who’s the bully here?……….. the liberal dude.
Is there something going on behind the comment scene that the casual reader is missing?…………….. the dreams check my blog.
What’s really going on?……… get next hit from that roach, you will learn.
I think he REALLY, REALLY feels Christians are victimized in this society by all-powerful people like Mr. Corbett. It’s not rational or supported by facts.
I know, that darn federal judge and his review of the actual facts in the case to make his decision, as opposed to filtered newspaper accounts, or the gospel according to Mr. Corbett.
Vern, I normally tolerate your inane banter that generally filters through as background noice, but you really don’t see Mr. Corbett’s characterization of Christian belief as SUPERSTITIOUS RELIGIOUS NONSENSE as a direct attack on Christianity? We are paranoid non-victims facing challenges like that? Really?
Any Christian who feels threatened or attacked by the rantings of a non-Christian really needs to take a serious look at the strength of their faith.
anon, that is the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. Christians were fed to lions during Roman times. They, like we in the present, hold our faith regardless of attack. The point is that we supposedly live in a country where expressing and practicing your faith was critical to the formation of the country and that concept is now actively under attack by non-believers. I don’t attack non-believers, I just don’t want their lack of belief to be MANDATED by the state whether it is through the classroom or the courtroom. I may believe that those of no faith have empty and hollow lives, but I do not support the government mandating behavior that forces anyone to adopt my belief set.
Again, carefully: Mr Corbett MOCKING ANOTHER TEACHER’S advocacy of creationism is in NO WAY a state-mandated lack of belief.
On the other hand, it’s Chad’s handlers who want to use the state to muzzle Corbett, and stop his mocking. So who’s un-American, unconstitutional? I think it’s obvious.
The practice and expression of faith is NOT under assault in this country. The DOMINATION of Christianity as the majority religion that is practiced and expressed is, however, changing. THAT is the part that frightens you. You don’t REALLY respect the practice and expression of ALL points of view. Your longing for a time in this country that no longer exists tells us all we need to know.
Christians try to sneak their views into the schools. So do atheists. So do Muslims. Whenever it happens and whoever does it, it’s unconstitutional. Protecting the Founder’s desire that the state not establish or endorse ANY particular religion does not mean that it is mandating the lack of belief. You are still free to believe whatever you want to believe.
Anon – if you are saying that Mr. Corbett had no business stating his lack of belief in the classroom, then we agree.
Yes, Geoff…I’m saying that there is absolutely no place in a public classroom for the practice and expression of religion. Any religion.
Do you agree with THAT?
Much harder to execute in practice than in theory. If you have a discussion of the pilgrims or the founding fathers or . . . does discussion of their belief violate that rule?
Look, saying in a classroom that one of the reasons the pilgrims came to America was so that they could practice their religion freely is a simple, objective fact. It doesn’t PROMOTE their religion and it doesn’t ENDORSE it. And it in no way allows the PRACTICE of religion in a classroom.
But you and I both know that there are those who would like to go well beyond an example like that.
I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point, Geoff. Mr. Corbett is not and was not trying to use the “law” against anyone’s free speech or religion. All he did was give his opinion of another teacher’s teaching.
On the other hand, Chad’s handlers would sure like to shut Mr Corbett up, using the full force of the law. So who’s really abusing the first amendment?
= an example of my “inane banter” that you “tolerate” and choose not to respond to? (Or can’t?)
you really don’t see Mr. Corbett’s characterization of Christian belief as SUPERSTITIOUS RELIGIOUS NONSENSE as a direct attack on Christianity?
I understand he used those three words in reference to another teacher’s pushing of “young earth creationism” – something you and most Christians don’t even believe in. If he goes farther, calling all religion superstitious nonsense, that may be obnoxious, but it’s his first amendment right and he is not the one trampling on anybody else’s first amendment rights. THAT would be the people trying to use the courts to shut him up… and their apologists.
First, Mr. Corbett is absolutely using the “law” to suppress religious belief and thought. If a teacher were to come and and teach that the only way to heaven is to believe that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior the argument to stop that is that the classroom carries with it the power of the State and to tell kids that they can only pass the class if they accept this point of view would violate the First Amendment. Mr. Corbett is not “simply” expressing his opinion – that would look like this “I think . . . ” NOT “YOUR BELIEF IS SUPERSTITIOUS RELIGIOUS NONSENSE THAT WILL RESULT IN YOUR FAILURE OF THE CLASS IF YOU PERSIST IN DISCUSSING.”
The tolerated inane banter is why I write here – I may find you annoying but it is a fun annoying.
Well, I give up.
Well, Geoff, what about Creationism (or call it what you will) is not superstitious nonsense? In the teaching of science, facts are what count, not primitive mythology masquerading as science. Again, if little fellows like Chad wish to be taught that the Flinstones was a documentary, there are schools that will indulge him.
I read an interesting article today – several American physicists were given the Nobel Prize because they discovered that the universe is actually expanding, rather than contracting as previously believed. What is the force that is causing the universe to expand – they don’t know. Yet their research is awarded the Nobel Prize. So, we have scientists forming opinions based on forces they can’t identify that are now accepted over previous ideas that were accepted as fact and taught as much. And you lefties are attacking Christians for their religious superstitions. Ironic to say the least.
1. I’m pretty sure we’d known for a long time that the universe is expanding; these guys just noticed what an amazing rate it’s expanding at.
2. How does this discovery make the notion of a 6000-year-old dinosaurs-walked-with-men Earth not superstitious nonsense?
Yes, Newbie, how mean to challenge those silly superstitions — you know, where people are raised from the dead, water is turned into wine, a woman is created from a man’s rib, all of the creatures in the world fit into one big boat, a massive invisible being speaks from a burning bush, a loaf or two of bread feeds a massive gathering — shall I go on?
Here’s the breakdown, parents. Take notes and act accordingly:
Major infractions:
Expression Points
God Bless you -25
Gesundheit -25 (same infraction as ‘God Bless You’, except auf Deutsche’)
Bless you -20 (implied deity)
Holy Cow! -20 (implied deity)
Holy Moly! -20 (implied deity, slang)
Holy Crap -10 (implied deity negated by profanity)
Crap -5 (slang profanity only)
Jeez Louise -20 (implied deity; slang, archaic)
Gee Wiz -20 (implied something-or-other; slang, archaic)
G_d D_ammit -10 (implied deity, however cursing condemnation OK)
Minor infractions
Expression Points
Good moring -5 (tolerable, but not necessary)
Good afternoon -5 (tolerable, but not necessary)
Good Day -4 (tolerable, non-commital)
Thank you -2 (tolerable, but questionable)
Goodbye -5 (tolerable, but not necessary)
Encouraged:
Praise Allah! +15 (indicates commitment)
Allahu Akbar!!! +35 (indicates commitment for ‘eminent domain’)
WARNING: Opening doors for the elderly and infirm will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Cameras are operational 24/7.
FIRE THESE PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111