Farnan [C.F.] asserts that his rights under the Establishment Clause have been violated by a practice and policy hostile toward religion and favoring irreligion over religion. . . .But creationism is superstitious nonsense and there is little else except a legitimate secular purpose to saying so. Corbett is guilty of — if anything — being rude and insensitive, but that's about it.
Corbett stated, "I will not leave [fellow teacher] John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense." One could argue that Corbett meant that Peloza should not be presenting his religious ideas to students or that Peloza was presenting faulty science to the students. But there is more to the statement: Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is "superstitious nonsense." The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (.pdf; 37 pgs.).
Cite it quickly, while it's still good law.
1 comment:
Good grief.
What about the demonic possession theory of mental illness? Is there an legitimate secular purpose in calling that superstitious nonsense? (Viz., the purpose of correctly informing people that it's superstitious nonsense?)
Post a Comment