I kind of agree with the kid. I completely understand the teacher wanting to show the negative impact religion has had on religion BUT in a history class, you cannot just talk about your religious view all of the time. If this was a Christian teacher always speaking about his religion, there is no doubt atheists would be offended.

The fact is a history teacher needs to do his job, not spill his agenda onto his students. Talking about religion in a historical context is fine, but to say Christians are just plain wrong- that's just teaching intolerance, and has nothing to do with history.

Well, IF and I do mean IF the comments excerpted here are representative of what Corbett says in his classroom on a regular basis, I'm hate to say it - but O'Reilly is right. (I really really hate to say it, too.) I can see Corbett discussing the role of religion in European history in specific contexts and being negative with complete justification. But his comments appear to be a generalized attack on Christians, "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." I may agree completely, but Corbett isn't there to push his private beliefs about religion outside of a disciplined, specific, treatment of historical events of European history. So, if Corbett was discussing the 30 years' war or its aftermath or any of a number of other specific events in European history - go for it.

I'm sorry, but I am really confused. I understand how the community may not appreciate this teacher and put pressure on the school board to have him fired...but what has he done that is illegal that would give any merit to a lawsuit?

This little lamo weasal has just seen a chance to make some money and his shyster lawyers have dollar signs in their eyes.

"Irreversable damage"?

One of his friends had to be pulled out of the class because he was confused because he started to believe the truth?

This is madness.

I'm so sickened by this kind of crap.

No offense to the 40% good US citizens but America is a failed experiment which needs to be razed and started again.

Well.

The chant of the right is that lefty universities shout down alternative expression. And here they are trying to muzzle a professor. I read in the linked LA Times article that "Corbett had violated the student's constitutional rights by making "highly inappropriate" and offensive statements in class regarding Christianity"? We now have a Constitutional Right not to have our silly beliefs examined and criticized in an institution created specifically for dissection and examination of ideas? We now have a Constitutional Right to remain unoffended?

Don't think so.

Whatever happened to exercising one's constitutional right to drop a class? And maybe attend Bible study instead?

fp

This clip isn't funny. It's really, really scary.

In all the sci-fi novels about dark future totalitarian states, there's the concept of turning your neighbors or parents in to the authorities if they demonstrate potentially disloyal behavior.

So... for example, if you're a student and your teacher keeps talking about how religion is the instrument of totalitarianism... well, ya know, if you secretly taped that and tried to use it to get him fired... that right there is like something right out of 1984.

Oh well. I know Big Brother loves me, so I've got nothing to worry about, right?

-- Furry cows moo and decompress.

My take:

1. This teacher is a tool

2. This kid is a tool

3. O'Reilly is a tool

4. We are all contributing to the problem by watching this bullshit rather than discussing relevant info

Yeah, if this dude just bangs on about religion 24/7 at the expense of actually teaching his material then he needs his dumb ass fired. The fact that he name dropped Hannity & O'Reilly during a history class is a pretty clear indicator that something's not right with the guy.

What? He turned her daughter into an "intolerant Christian hating know-it-all?" In other words that guy's daughter is smart enough to take AP classes and go to college.

Does it actually violate establishment? Let's look up the Lemon test:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

   1. Teaching.
   2. Eh. Not as much as teaching them evolution.
   3. No.

Yeah, the teacher might be on the wrong side of the line but it doesn't mean I wouldn't have wanted to have that teacher back in High School.

It's European history. That's pretty much Christian history and how Christianity messed up and did this and that. The idea that religion was used to subjugate peasants... is entirely on the level. I'm pretty sure that being right and teaching the subject he's suppose to teach puts him on the correct side of correct.

Chad's lawyer looks like a high school kid too.

Can I be first to hit Godwin.

First thing to do was attack the professors/teachers who spoke out about the stupidity of the government/doctrine.

"The fact that he name dropped Hannity & O'Reilly during a history class is a pretty clear indicator that something's not right with the guy."

Not always true. You will be surprised that there are people who quote these two guys as fact. I suspect the recording is out of context.

Kids should know how to learn while listening objectively by the time they are in high school. Plain spoken and engaging teachers, whether you agree with them or not,are exactly what students need in order to develop critical thinking skills.

The teacher told no lies. History does not have two sides.

People on the right, the religionist types, purposefully want to undermine the courts and undermine the valid lawsuits brought forth by secularists, so they bring up this bullshit. Note how they lawyer, all of a sudden I'm sure, is advocating for the establishment clause...but wait I thought that the separation of church and state didn't exist?

I find nothing objectionable about telling students (and this is AP, advanced placement...college level, college credit class) about religion's dark history. I was taught similar stuff in my high school way back when too.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." Seneca the Younger (4? B.C. - 65 A.D.)

religion is what keeps the poor from killing the rich.

• seen on bumper sticker

To talk about history and not mention the church and it's influence is heresy. To imagine that religion only did good things is outright villany.

In all the sci-fi novels about dark future totalitarian states, there's the concept of turning your neighbors or parents in to the authorities if they demonstrate potentially disloyal behavior.

If you would have said this statement 10 years ago, I would have laughed at you. Amazing how far we have fallen that this is an apt comparison to ninteen eighty-four.

As a Christian, I see nothing wrong with examining how organized religion has had such a tremendously negative affect on history. And I would think that if this student had any faith at all, he would not feel threatened by this and would, in fact, embrace the truth of history as a warning.

But it sounds like this instructor is going beyond simply conveying history. (Of course, it is the O'Reilly version, so who knows how much BOR has twisted the actual event.)

Looks like Corbett has plenty of support among his students, past and present: http://tinyurl.com/222lt5

But I do think he should be careful not to bully.

If Americans were as religious today, as Germans were in the 1930's Bill'O would be our information minister and we would be invading Poland right now.

I had religious teachers that mentioned God in class. This guy should probably tone it down, History isn't all about god, or the lack there of, but he should be able to talk about it occasionally without censorship.

To all who (sadly) agree with the kid and O'Reily on this one. I have a Question for you. How do you teach European history and not talk constantly about religion? It is nothing but religion, we are talking about the people who brought us the Crusades. The Popes had more controlle then the Royalty. There were executions based on killing none Christians, or even Christians of a different religion. Just because Christians have a historie they would like to see buried doesn't mean we should let them in the name of religious freedom.

I think the teacher should have simply been less specific. Instead of saying "Jesus glasses" he should've just said "religious glasses" and perhaps mentioned christianity (as well as perhaps a few others) as an example afterwards.

It would still reflect negatively on religion, but if all he's stating is that religion in general manipulates people (as opposed to singling out Christians) then it'd be more difficult for him to be ostracized, or at least not as easy.

What needs to be remembered is that it's atheism which is the default, not any religion.

Thanks, debaser71, for that Seneca the Younger quotation. Absolutely to the point.

Regarding using "jesus glasses". Isn't this s european history class? I see no reason not to mention christianity or jesus since it's 100% relevant to european history. Now if the teacher was discussing ancient greek history or native american history well then "jesus glasses" would be out of line.

The problems here are: 1) Talking about Hannity and O'Reilly has nothing to do with history, which is what he's being paid to teach

2) Assuming the only religion that matters is Christianity is short-sighted in the extreme (the jump from religion to "Jesus-glasses")

3) He has a point that religion alters behaviour, but he fails utterly to support that statement, besides his adolescent comments about "Jesus-glasses" and O'Reilly etc. Where are the examples and references. Where is history being thought.

In the event it is typically the case that religion is useful way of convincing people to shun personal short-term gain for the long-term gain of the group. Charity for example makes no sense. However it could be argued that the cohesion thus engendered is useful.

4) There is a lot more to European history than religion. The renaissance, the enlightenment, the revolutions of the 18th century, the rise of nationalism in the 19th century, the industrial revolution and the rise of fascism and commmunism in the 20th century all had very little to do with organised religion. The schism, crusades, reformation and inquisitions only occupy a century or so, and the first two are all about power, not faith. These were the days when the Vatican was a country, whose head of state was also a head of the official religion (like the current situation in the U.K. with the queen)

5) I suspect the rants were quite entertaining, and the exams weren't too hard. I suspect he tried to be a friend of the students. Unfortunately he was meant to be their teacher, and the naiveté and poor explanation of his political beliefs, and the fact that he regularly uttered them, means he was most likely a very poor teacher indeed.

6) Suing this idiot is a whole other venture into idiocy.

Norm, I've been blogging regularly for 3 and a half years, and I'd still give my eye teeth to have such an insight-laden discussion in my comments boards as you've got right here. Anyway, I put in my two cents on this here, and it amounts to this:

The only criticism I’d have of Corbett’s approach is really, from my perspective, a hair-splitting issue: you don’t want to make religion a Jesus-only issue with kids. As you’ve seen, I have a general revulsion for all gods, prophets, angels, and higher powers in general. The wisdom that I would like to see kids arrive at through education is that there is no such thing as a cosmic hierarchy (which makes other hierarchies, such as corporate or governmental hierarchies, all the more meaningless); and that the universe doesn’t work through power or control. The sun doesn’t exercise power; it just burns. Watch an athlete sometime who’s “in the zone”: she doesn’t strive to beat an opponent, but instead just enters the flow of the sport’s dance. So both “higher” and “power” are the most bizarre and inaccurate terms we could possibly concoct to describe the universe, the Great Way, or even god, if there were such a thing. In short, Jesus was a great teacher and a wise man — but a god? Nah, to make him a god takes away his humanity, which is his treasure. Same with the Buddhist leader, the Dalai Lama: Tenzin Gyatso, great guy, smart guy, insightful guy. God-King? Give me a break.

Did you see Bill "It's all about me" O'Reilly plugging his book twice during the interview. What a wanker.

I am an atheist or non-theist, whatever. I probably agree wit the teachers views but should he really be bring this up in this class?

I'd just like to add that we are basing this discussion off of one minuet of the teachers lessons. One minuet that was edited by fox news and a student who is suing the man. We must asume there is much of the story we are not getting.

Although I share the teachers opinions, the teacher was clearly out of line. It's one thing to teach the history of the Spanish Inquisition or the debauchery of medieval Catholic popes, etc... but teachers represent the state and shouldn't be trying to force-feed religious views during class time. (Atheism is a religious view)

I'm with the Dr. here. As an AP teacher myself, I attempt to engage my students in critical thought. Advanced Placement classes are college-level classes, designed to challenge those students not challenged by mainstream education. It seems that Mr. Chad Farnan refused to meet the challenges of this course by running away in offended dread from the big bad wolf of self examination.

Those of you who claim: "the teacher was clearly out of line,""Corbett isn't there to push his private beliefs about religion," and so on and so forth should take pause. Consider the role of the teacher. Firstly, it is not a belief that religion has been used throughout history to subjugate the masses. Read your Marx. Secondly, as teachers, our job is to go left when the priest goes right, not to represent the state, but to stand up for reason and just criticism, to question, to challenge and to advocate thought.

The teacher sounds just like a Fundamentalist Intelligent Designist. This guy is part of the problem, not the solution. There are a great many ways to say, "Jesus glasses" that may be more effective in nurturing critical thought.

Hooooold on. I thought the bible thumpers didn't believe in the separation of church and state. I've been told that if Atheists don't like Christianity being pushed in schools then they should go start their own schools.

But when the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden they agree with the ACLU and become huge supporters of the Establishment Clause.

Bill O'Reilly has previously said the separation of church and state argument is "bogus" because it doesn't appear in the Constitution.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612150010

Funny how he didn't mention that in this interview because a Christian was complaining.

The fact is European History is filled with religious warfare, religious based sexism, hatred, persecution, control of the masses, etc. If you leave out the impact of religion in European history then you don't have much left to teach. Bill O'reilly isn't just a liar, he's ignorant as well.

This guy has had this shtick going for 18 years. I think the recording must be a bit out of context. How do his students do, on average, on the AP test?

Simply, the kid's an indoctrinated doofus (not his fault), the lawyer is a greasy opportunist, and most likely an ignorant fundamentalist. The Fox network....well I don't want to say anything inflammatory.

I stopped reading the comments for this after the first few so I hope this doesnt fall on deaf ears...

on 12/12/2007 the House of Representatives resolved that... (1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

  (2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

  (3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

  (4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

  (5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

  (6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.

...And with this court case thats going to go very high profile in January. I predict that there will be more cases like this appearing really soon.. you know kinda like an orchestrated attack towards (haters of the christian faith)... hell there's a few comments in here that make me question if this blog is in fact being visited by atheist watch dogs spreading propaganda... if you dont believe that there are major faith based legal think-tanks out there then watch this recreation of the Dover Pennsylvania Intelligent Design Trial http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

The quotations from the class room are hard to interpret, given that we have no context for them (this is typical of Fox News and the American media generally).

That said, as they stand, I both to agree with most of them and do not think they belong in the classroom, at all. It is one thing to make causal, factual claims about the often pernicious influence on religion on society. It is altogether something more to say "putting on your Jesus glasses prevents you from seeing the truth," which is highly charged, sweeping, and tendentious claim, not a fact. I can only imagine how I would have reacted in high school if my teacher had said, "putting on your atheist glasses prevents you from seeing the Truth."

The problem is not what is being taught--religious persecution and manipulation is a fact of European history--but the way the teacher has elected to communicate his lessons. The idea that highly charged, non-factual statements that may be offensive to some are a sound pedagogical means to "inspire" students to think critically is nonsense. An effective teacher provides the means to think critical and demonstrates probity by example--mixing in personal hostility is not inspiring.

But at worst, his behavior is unprofessional and injudicious, not a constitutional issue.