Creationism as "superstitious nonsense" violates First Amendment?

No. I could write paragraphs on why it doesn't violate anyone's rights, but I'm too damn lazy today to do so.

He should have stopped at the word religious. I agree that creationism is superstitious nonsense, but once we let teachers make judgments about religion we have to allow teachers to say creationism is scientifically credible too.

Freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion! I wish these religious freaks and these atheists would just cool off for a second and realize that they are fighting an unending battle. Both of these sides are crazies for defending both sides! You can't 100% prove anything about the beginning of time. As long as people realize that adaptation occurs, who cares if something created us or if we just blew up into existence. What a pointless argument, defending either side!

just because someone believes in it does not mean it's NOT superstitious nonsense.

are you saying we can't make fun of those wow kids who treat that as a religion?

Well how sad is this!

Then Total Destruction is IMPOSSIBLE,no?

I don't think it violates anyone's rights, but I do think it was an incredibly poor decision to phrase it that way.

Just because you don't believe in creationism, that doesn't mean that, as someone in a position of power, you get to ridicule those who do. Say there's no evidence to back it up, fine. But there really isn't any call to ridicule someone else's beliefs.

what a pathetic and disgusting statement on the state of our world when it's freedom of religion to preach hate and intolerance but it's a violation of the 1st amendment to say that superstitions are exactly what they are.

what's next? science is evil unless some mullah approves it?

frighteningly pathetic.

Both sides argue there is a beginning, I try to stay out of these debates, obviously failed at this attempt...

My question is, if Obama is a Christian, is he a creationist?

Punishing people for speaking the truth?

The teacher shouldn't have said what he said. Instead he should have argued that there isn't any scientific backup. You don't win an argument by calling someone ugly.

However, I'm curious how this "violates" the First Amendment. Perhaps an abuse of his power as a teacher, maybe a slap on the wrist?

I found a couple of other articles on this ruling and one answered my first question which was how did the subject come up?

From http://mensnewsdaily.com/amyalkon/?p=154

"James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, referred to Creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense" during a 2007 classroom lecture, denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student, Chad Farnan.

The decision is the culmination of a 16-month legal battle between Corbett and Farnan - a conflict the judge said should remind teachers of their legal "boundaries" as public school employees.

"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."

The error on the part of this Judge as I see it is that the Student was violating the establishment clause of the Constitution by promoting religious views in a Public School classroom. So it was the student who engaged a non-secular subject. Creationism is not secular and it cannot even be labeled as science as they do not follow the basic research principles of science.

I could agree with the Judges ruling if the Science teacher had brought up the subject but as it happened he was only responding to religion being forced upon his classroom. He did his job and I will be very interested to see this ruling overturned should it go further in the court system.

As no doubt it will, would it be considered a violation of the first amendment if the teacher were to say that the Roman's and the Greeks belief in and worship of Jupiter or of Zeus was religious, superstitious nonsense? Or are there still people who will try and convince us that those gods are real? Same thing, just different names.

Just as I cannot prove 100% that there are not leprechauns or unicorns does not elevate them to the stature of accepted facts, and not superstitious beliefs,

The phrase "creationism is religious" is OK.

"religious, superstitious nonsense", is disparaging.

Equating religion to superstition, while semantically correct, has connotations that steamroller the beliefs of the faithful.

Now if Horoscopism ever becomes an organized religion, I'm sure there are plenty of potential members to join! So, just let me say ahead of that eventuality, I totally respect your right to be superstitious. (I'm now wondering if a teacher can be fired for saying "knock wood")

perceptual creationism....such as: i am, because i wanted to be... as in 'being" by choice of decisive intelligent placement is valid, as is creationism, understanding a reality of all plausibility is not so understandable.. but that is a common "community" reality.

The Ninth Circuit Court, which is the federal court based in California, has a notorious record of having their decisions overturned by the US Supreme Court.
Which should say something about the ruling.

wirehedd spelled it out nicely.
"what a pathetic and disgusting statement on the state of our world when it's freedom of religion to preach hate and intolerance but it's a violation of the 1st amendment to say that superstitions are exactly what they are."

A Christian, by its definition, means a follower of the teachings of Christ. It's not fair to assume all Christians believe the same.

Wait... if calling creationism "superstitious nonsense" is considered disparaging to Christians and their beliefs than that means that creationism IS religious in nature and not science. Therefore with the separation of church and state creationism should not be allowed to be taught in schools. Im all for this decision if it means that creationism wont be taught to another generation of America's youth.

But it is supershitous nonsense . The people who wrote the bible were not archeologists . Someone made it up because they want to supplant real science . If you can't call something what it , is then it ain't free speech . Rush Dumbulb can say all sorts of nonsense , but it is okay because his opinion is protected . This teacher was asked a question . He gave an honest answer . What we are dealing with here is legislation from the bench . With a bias towards creationism and against the truth . James Selna should not be a judge if he cannot separate church from state and his own personal bias , as he is a threat to the constitution . American principles come first , then whatever belief system...

superstitious nonsense it is but the teacher is not the person to be telling students about religion. a public school teacher shouldn't be talking about ANYONES religion unless they're a comparative religions class teacher

Christains should avoid superstitons.

From Wikipedia
Superstition is a deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand is to fall into superstition.

LIFE

Think about it, contemplate it ,absorbed the essence of your existence.
Wonder