Posted on 05/25/2006 2:59:09 PM PDT by dukeman
ADF filed friend-of-the-court brief in defense of textbook stickers which accurately stated that evolution is a theory
ATLANTA — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit today vacated a lower court decision that declared Cobb County science textbook stickers which stated “evolution is a theory, not a fact” unconstitutional. The court was critical of the district court for issuing its ruling against the stickers despite holes in the evidentiary record in the case and remanded the case back to the district court for new proceedings.
“No school should be in trouble for simply stating the facts. That’s what schools are supposed to do. Though we wish the appeals court would have ruled on the constitutional merits of the case without sending it back to the district court, we are pleased that the district court’s ruling against the school district has been vacated,” said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster.
In its ruling today, the 11th Circuit wrote, “The problems presented by a record containing significant evidentiary gaps are compounded because at least some key findings of the district court are not supported by the evidence that is contained in the record.” The full text of the court’s ruling in the case Selman v. Cobb County School District can be read at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/CobbCountyDecision.pdf.
The lower court judge agreed that the stickers were not applied to the textbooks for a religious purpose and were devoid of religious content. Nonetheless, he deemed the stickers a violation of the so-called “separation of church and state” for the sole reason that many people were aware that Christians supported the stickers.
According to the friend-of-the-court brief ADF attorneys filed in the case, “The District Court’s analysis will lead to absurd results…. The Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit the passage of a secular law, for a secular purpose, simply because Christians actively lobbied for the law” (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3404).
The sticker which had been applied to each textbook read, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
Well then, guess y'all should go back to calling it evolutionary hypothesis or speculation ;-)
As far as the ACLU is concerned... Bring it on! The pendulum has swung too far and the courts are beginning to see the monster they created.
The reason why the Supreme Court will overturn the Lemon Test is because their "precedent" has created absurd results and created confusion in the lower courts. Both Alito and Roberts indicated that stare decisis is not sacrosanct and where prior decisions have led to confusion or absurd results or unnecessary or frivilous litigation (such as we had here and in the Dover decision), then they are more than willing to revisit the Court's prior decisions.
The Lemon Test's days are numbered. I look forward to an appeal from this case. This is the one I have been waiting for.
So is the Germ Theory of Disease, but I don't hear of too many creationists that refuse vaccinations and antibiotics, at least not this side of Nigeria..
I know that the Corvette has evolved! Is that not proof?!
I thought this was a "legal" thread. The crevos seem to have turned it into another endless crevo debate. Oh well. Everyone put on their asbestos underwear.
It doesn't matter.
Just because Christians support something doesn't make it an establishment of religion.
For Pete's sake, Christians also support "telling the truth." If they lobby for a law requiring honesty in legal proceedings, does that mean we should excise truth from our legal system because it establishes a religious tenet?
Besides, there even if they allowed churches to put church-paid "What Would Jesus Do?" stickers in every textbook....EVEN that would not be an establishment of religion.
Established religion is a state-sponsored and supported religion in which one is taxed to support the religion, and non-membership in the religion prevents government service.
This is a better case than Dover to show the absurdity of the Lemon Test, although in Dover the judge had to rely on his personal religious philosophy to arrive at his decision. (And, unfortunately for the defense, the defendants were less than candid about some of their earlier actions.)
He declared as fact that creationism and intelligent design were the same movement, which is absurd on its face.
Like saying that unionism and liberalism are the same thing because they share some interests.
|
Please, please don't throw evolution in the briar patch!
Keep it legal now that the thing is being turned crevo.
The court's rationale is unassailable. That is why the ACLU will NOT appeal this to Scotus.
That pretty well seals the deal.
The whole idea of requiring a "secular purpose" is what is wrong with the Lemon Test. It seeks to determine the religious motives of the lawmakers rather than simply consider the actual effect of the law.
In that sense laws against stealing could be overturned if the motives of the legislators were to adopt portions of the Ten Commandments into law. Further, the purpose prong of the Lemon Test creates the very "excessive entanglement of religion and government" prohibited by the third prong of the test, only this time it is the Courts and religion that have become entangled - with courts questioning the religions motives of the lawmakers (or school districts) in enacting the laws or regulations.
The Lemon Test has given us contradictory and absurd results and I believe that it's time is up. It is a stupid way to analyze first amendment questions. I believe that if this case is appealed, that the Supreme Court will abandon this dinosaur.
It's kind of odd that the textbook authors of "Pandas" were able to do a search and replace on creationism/ID.
Nobody ever accused the ACLU of being smart. If they are anything, they are consistent. And their consistency will spell their doom. I predict they will take this up. They simply cannot let it stand.
It seems odd to me that Democrats read Saul Alinsky.
The stickers should include the names of all the politicians responsible for their existence.
Since Germ theory, Gravity theory, Nuclear theory and other scientific theories can also be described the same way as the sticker, yet the sticker was only required for evolution, is a demonstration that it is solely a religious message. This will be the result when this case gets back to the 11th circuit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.