If you enjoy what you read here you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

The U.S. First Amendment - Contradictory?

Calling Creationism “Superstitious Nonsense” is Violation of 1st Amendment, Judge Ruled.

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal judge ruled that a public high school history teacher violated the First Amendment when he called creationism “superstitious nonsense” during a classroom lecture...

...Farnan sued in U.S. District Court in 2007, alleging that Corbett violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment by making repeated comments in class that were hostile to Christian beliefs...

...The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law establishing religion. The clause has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In the Farnan/Corbett case, the question should not have been did the teacher have the right to call creationism "superstitious nonsense" but rather, the onis should have been on Farnan to prove Corbett's statement untrue, prove that creationism is not religious nonsense.

Does this ruling constitutionally enshrines religious nonsense, making religious nonsense unassailable in the U.S?

Religion is against the concept of free speech becuase, as I've blogged before (here), free speech is based on free thought - a condition which religion stifles with rules, regulations and laws of it's own.

Those held captive within the confines of their family's religious doctrine do not have true freedom of speech.

Is the conscription of an innocent into the family's traditional dogma, an attack on the child's rights under the U.S. first amendment?

Is therefore, baptism, christening, hazing or whatever label the religious have for the ceremony, in which an innocent's freedom of thought is removed, unconstitutional?

This is one of the Too many questions

I'm British, if I have misconstrued the Amendment's meaning, please let me know.


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,


If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May

Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Get TMQ on your Kindle

Copyright Crispy Sea

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

All blog posts copyright http://atheist.diatribes.co.uk

TMQCrispySea 2009-2014