Referencing the NY Times here.

I've been reading various accounts about the case in which a federal judge says the history teacher violated the First Amendment when he said that creationism was *superstitious nonsense* in a classroom lecture, specifically violating the establishment clause. I'm not only struggling to figure out why this is, wondering if the teacher will appeal to the SCOTU, and how tough it is to be a teacher navigating this. After all, creationism IS superstitious nonsense and in any other context, is there anything wrong with saying so? No. I can say that here, after all, it's my First Amendment right to call it like it is.

But I'm not the State. I see, from the URL link above, and the PDF of the actual ruling, that there was a SCOTU case in which the "State may not establish a 'religion of secularism'  in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion". (from School Dist of Abington Tp PA v Schempp.

The ruling says

A statement by a government official does not violate the Establishment Clause merely because a particular religious group may find the official’s position incorrect or offensive. Such a finding would require a teacher to tailor his comments so as not to offend or disagree with any religious group. This would be unworkable given the number of different religious viewpoints on various issues.This would also be directly contrary to the fundamental principles of Establishment Clause jurisprudence because it would require a teacher to attempt to teach in accordance with certain religious principles.

Incidentally, it's interesting to note that the student also recorded statements of the teacher that involved, for example, disapproval of abstinence only policies but the court found that since those were not expressly anti-religious statements, they didn't violate the establishment clause. (I'm sure that that the student had a religious tenet that led HIM to believe in abstinence only but that's undoubtedly his extrapolation). So, if I'm understanding this correctly, the dividing line is whether a teacher makes comments upon a matter that isn't expressly about religion, but some might find offensive BECAUSE of their religion-if that's the case, there's nothing wrong in the teacher statements. For example.

Likewise, in Epperson v. State of Ark., 393 U.S. 97, 89 (1968), the Supreme Court struck down Arkansas statutes forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools and in colleges and universities, finding that the statutes violated the Establishment Clause. The Court found that the statutes were unconstitutional even if they merely prohibited teachers from stating that the theory of evolution is 1. Id. at 102-03. This was so even though the theory was contrary "to the belief of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive source of doctrine as to the origin of man." Id. at 107. The Court found that "[t]here is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." Id. at 106 (emphasis supplied). The Court also noted that "the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them." Id. at 107 (citing Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 505 (1952)).

I was a little amused while reading the transcript to see that the student bringing the case edited the teacher's remarks to try to make it look like, in at least one instance, like the teacher was hostile to religion, but when you read (or heard) the entire statement, it was just the opposite. And it was about LIARS! heh. So this kid wanted to make the teacher look bad so he left out the teacher's full statements which, when heard, showed the FedJudge that just the opposite was said (see p 9 of the PDF)

Likewise, the teacher disapproved of the Boy Scouts violating the principle of separation of church and state. FedJudge said that "Corbett cannot be found to violate the Establishment Clause for endorsing a principle set forth by the Supreme Court or for voicing his opinion that the Boy Scouts have violated this principle.

The student also didn't like it that the teacher said that religious groups shouldn't be free from taxation. But that didn't violate the establishment clause.

In fact, most of the arguments and statements from the student about the teacher were thrown out and only one, the Peloza statement was found to violate the establishment clause. (The Peloza comment and discussion about it start on p 15)

The Court turns first to Corbett’s statement regarding John Peloza ("Peloza"). (Farnan’s Ex. I, pp. 222-25.) This statement presents the closest question for the Court in assessing secular purpose. Peloza apparently brought suit against Corbett because Corbett was the advisor to a student newspaper which ran an article suggesting that Peloza was teaching religion rather than science in his classroom. (Id.) Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, "was not telling the kids [Peloza’s students] the scientific truth about evolution." (Id.) Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense."(Id.) 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 theEstablishment Clause.

The Court turns first to Corbett’s statement regarding John Peloza ("Peloza"). (Farnan’s Ex. I, pp. 222-25.) This statement presents the closest question for the Court in assessing secular purpose. Peloza apparently brought suit against Corbett because Corbett was the advisor to a student newspaper which ran  an article suggesting that Peloza was teaching religion rather than science in his classroom. (Id.) Corbett explained to his class that Peloza, a teacher, "was not telling the kids [Peloza’s students] the scientific truth about evolution." (Id.) Corbett also told his students that, in response to a request to give Peloza space in the newspaper to present his point of view, Corbett stated, "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense." (Id.) 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.

So, for a teacher, as long as there is a secular purpose in the context, say, of history (like teaching about King Henry VIII and Catholicism) , one can say "superstitious nonsense"?

one more commentary I liked from Detention Slip -

You're allowed to teach Egyption and Greek "myths" were just stories, but "god" forbid you explain how Christianity was based on the same concepts (For those not up on their history, the Egytpian God Osiris was also born of a virgin, had 12 disciples, was crucified, preformed miracles, was resurrected after three days, etc. -- Osiris was hundreds of years before Christ -- along with countless other pre-christian deities -- these are just recycled ideas. See many more of them here)

I would argue that the current climate protects the religious myths unduely. Why do we favor preserving the myth of Christ over Zeus? Isn't that in violation of the equal protection clause?

Update: James Corbett speaks out. Hope, again, that he appeals.

Q. You were found to have violated the First Amendment's establishment clause when you discussed a 1993 court case involving your former colleague, science teacher John Peloza, who sued for the right not to have to teach evolution. You told your class, "I will not leave John Peloza alone to propagandize kids with this religious, superstitious nonsense." The court said you were referring to Creationism. Do you agree?

A. I was referring to the way John Peloza was teaching in his biology classroom, not Creationism. He was leading kids to the understanding that there were major scientific flaws in evolution. As a matter of science, there really aren't. If that's offensive to someone's faith, I'm sorry.