Circuit Court Says Okay for Teachers to Bash Christianity

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals not only resides in the land of nuts, fruits and flakes (California), it also has them serving on the bench.

In a decision rendered by the court of Friday, they upheld a high school teacher’s right to defame, degrade and debase Christianity in the classroom in front of students.

In 2007, a suit was filed by Chad Farnan against Capistrano Valley High School teacher James Corbett.  Farnan’s case listed over twenty-two statements made by Corbett that were “derogatory, disparaging, and belittling regarding religion and Christianity in particular.”

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Why Isn’t The FBI Investigating George Soros?

Some of the statements listed in the suit were:

  •  “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”
  •  “Aristotle was a physicist. … He argued that there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense.”
  •  “How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to counter that rational approach.”
  •  “People believed before the scientific revolution that the Bible was literal and that anything that happened, God did it. They didn’t understand.”
  •  “The people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon … .”
  •  “What part of the country has the highest murder rate? The South. What part of the country has the highest rape rate? The South. What part of the country has the highest … church attendance? The South. Oh, wait a minute. You mean there is not a correlation between these things?”
  •  “Well, we know abstinence doesn’t work. And we know one other thing, and that is, once people become sexually active, they often don’t stop for, like, 40 or 50 years. I mean, generally, when you start you don’t, like, have a conversion and try to become re-virginized, you know. It’s not going to happen.”

Then to my surprise I read where the judges said that Corbett “is a Christian who regularly prays and attends church services.”

In the court’s ruling, Judge Ray C. Fisher stated “exhibiting some hostility to religion do not violate the Establishment Clause if the government conduct at issue has a secular purpose, does not have as its principal or primary effect inhibiting religion and does not foster excessive government engagement with religion.”

Also in the court’s ruling it stated:  “Teachers must … be given leeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills and develop their analytical abilities. … At some point a teacher’s comments on religion might cross the line and rise to the level of unconstitutional hostility. But without any cases illuminating the … demarcation between permissible and impermissible discussion of religion … we cannot conclude that a reasonable teacher standing in Corbett’s shoes would have been on notice that his actions might be unconstitutional.”

This is one of the most hypocritical statements I’ve seen come out of any federal court.  The courts state that teachers must be given the leeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills but at the same time the courts keep telling teachers that they cannot discuss biblical creation or offer challenges to the theory of evolution.

In other words, it’s okay to openly ridicule and demean a student and their faith in front of other students, but it’s not okay for a teacher to openly defend the Christian faith or challenge the deified religion of naturalism.

I truly wish some legal advocacy group such as the Rutherford Institute or the Christian Law Association would take this court’s ruling and challenge it on the premise of contradicting prior court rulings over the discussion of religion in the classroom.

I also wish the public was aware that any federally appointed judge is subject to impeachment.  If they were aware of it, I’m sure the impeachment list would be a lengthy one, including the three hypocrites sitting on the bench in this case.

Previous Who’s the Real Racist?
Next How Would You Rate America’s Education System?


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.