|
|
|
May 05, 2009
Your free speech ends with my religion!
One of my concerns over the years has been with the way freedom of religion and the Establishment Clause are being used to whittle away free speech. It started with the court's banning the expression of religious views in schools (lest the government be seen as endorsing religion). But almost as if there's a giant (if unintended) pincer movement, this has been accompanied by the growth of a rather paranoid (IMO) "religious discrimination" industry -- which tends to see religious speech as entitled to special protection beyond that of "regular" free speech. I think this is very mistaken, not only because free speech is free speech regardless of the thinking behind it, but because almost any view on any subject can be said to be grounded in religion. A recent example of this is the "no kissing before marriage" trend Glenn Reynolds linked the other day. Never mind that this finds no basis in the Bible; if you disagree, you might be disrespecting someone's "religion": In a culture where casual sex is the norm, some Tennesseans have taken the purity pledge to a whole new level, through a practice that some teens refer to as the "Virgin Lips Movement."So, does that mean that a teacher who expresses his view (pro or con) about the virtues of the "no kissing before marriage" movement might be held to have violated the Establishment Clause? Don't laugh. In California it was held that a public high school teacher's calling creationism "superstitious nonsense" was a violation of the establishment cause: So holds C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist., decided Friday. I understand the logic of the case -- the Court has repeatedly said that the government's disapproving of religion is as unconstitutional as the government's endorsing religion, and the district court decision tries to implement that. But it seems to me that this just helps illustrate the difficulties posed by the endorsement test.Noting the court's test was whether "Corbett's statement primarily sends a message of disapproval of religion or creationism," Eugene Volokh speculated that the same might be said a statement he'd made (discussing a hypothetical) that "voodoo is bunk": A couple of students after class actually told me that they thought this might be offensive to people who believe in voodoo, but my view was that I can't teach my classes with an eye towards not offending people who believe in voodoo, just as I don't have to worry about people who believe in ghosts or werewolves or unicorns. But under the court's reasoning, would I have been violating the Establishment Clause? (Recall that the endorsement test isn't limited to high schools, but generally applies to public universities as well.) What if a student says that the Earth is 6000 years old because that's what the Bible says; is a public university or high school teacher constitutionally barred from dismissing that theory as "nonsense"? What if a student calls belief in astrology "nonsense," fully aware that some people (not many, but some) have a religious belief system that treats astrology as sensible and in fact as something like a sacrament?Can you say it's nonsensical to haul people to the tops of pyramids and cut out their hearts without disrespecting the Aztec religion? This is turning the country into a never-never land where virtually nothing will be able to be discussed because no opinions can be voiced lest they offend some opponent or proponent of one view or another said to be grounded in religion. If this keeps up, the First Amendment will have cannibalized itself. posted by Eric on 05.05.09 at 10:03 AM
Comments
If you wear a costume to school on holloween are you offending wiccans? If you call global warmingism bulldinky will you be offending gaians? I can see all kinds of pernicious nonsense coming from this in the hands of our countries best, i.e. lawyers. Anonymous · May 5, 2009 07:12 PM this has been accompanied by the growth of a rather paranoid (IMO) "religious discrimination" industry This is being pushed by Muslims engaged in lawfare against the West. It is facially about outlawing "defamation of religions", but it's really about preventing you from telling the truth about Islam and making Islamic law supreme. Under Islamic law, defamation occurs when the target feels defamed; the truth of the statement is irrelevant. Thus it would be illegal to discuss the theological basis for Islamic terror and warfare, because some Muslim would be offended that a kaffir would dare talk about that. Bob Smith · May 5, 2009 11:32 PM If giving verbal offense is actionable, the entire left should be doing hard time. Brett · May 6, 2009 07:38 AM I heard of this case when it occurred and the student had experienced the disparagement of his religion from this teacher and had complained but was not believed so he recorded the teacher. This should have been taken care of at the local level. I regret that teachers to demean a religion, especially the Christianity religion that so many in this country still adhere to, was considered allowable by the teacher and his immediate superiors. . However this teacher pushed his own belief by calling religious beliefs superstitious and even if some agree with that it is not proper for a teacher to disparage and promote his own opinion. There is a good reason why discussion about religion is considered impolite. The first amendment is restricted in the workplace and certainly in the schoolroom by a teacher. The teacher is not free to indoctrinate his own beliefs upon his students. That would be true of any religious doctrine is usually off limits to a teacher to talk about. Using the First amendment to correct this error on the teacher’s part is like using a chainsaw to cut a weed. It is too broad to properly address the problem.
RAH · May 6, 2009 04:40 PM |
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• It's An Absolute Disgrace
• The Seeds Of Stupidity • Remember D-Day • Newton's Cradle • Taxes Send Jobs Offshore • The law is the law! • A teaching moment? • You Can't Do It At Random • In debt to Islam? For Western thought? • David Carradine Is Dead
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I would personally look askance at a public school teacher who said one of my religious views was "nonsense," not because they take issue with my view, but because they do so using a value judgement (and a pejorative one) such as "superstitious nonsense." If the teacher had said, "Creationism does not fit the evidence" or something similar, I might disagree, but it would be less disturbing to me than a government employee (the public school teacher) expressing such a value judgement on my belief. I believe there is a qualitative difference in the two.