Posted on 01/13/2005 10:25:18 AM PST by cainin04
They just can't seem to come up with convincing evidence to win the minds of America, so they resort to teaming up with the ACLU to force their viewpoint. That's called good science nowadays.
God and religion are not addressed by the stickers, only if a theory has been proved to be factual. Evolution has not been proved and remains a THEORY.
The judge is desperately grasping on this one. There is as much reference to space aliens as religion on these stickers (none).
yeah, there is no way they will be attending a school system the agrees with this type of trash judgement!
What the school district should do is just eliminate the teaching of evolution altogether. Then we could hear this idiot judge tell us not teaching evolution is unconstitutional.
I think I am about to call the offices of Sen Saxby Chambliss and the new senator Johnny Isakson. Let's see what can be done!
I have been reading Newt Gingrich's new book and he suggests that we do what Thomas Jefferson did--fire the judges who are not doing their job correctly! Don't impeach them, fire them.
thanks
Excerpt from the ruling:
Nevertheless, the Sticker here disavows the endorsement of evolution, a scientific theory, and contains an implicit religious message advanced by Christian fundamentalists and creationists, which is discernible after one considers the historical context of the statement that evolution is a theory and not a fact
The informed, reasonable observer is deemed aware of this historical context Ca 2to1 Square, 515 U S at 780 (O'Connor, J ., concurring) Further, It is clear from the testimony of the School Board members and the other evidence in the record,
including the revised regulation, that the School Board sought to communicate to students that even though evolution would be taught, they should feel comfortable maintaining and expressing their personal religious beliefs . As stated previously, the School Board's purpose in this regard was not impermissible Nor does this fact alone render the primary effect of the Sticker religious.
However, considering all facts and circumstances related to the Sticker and its adoption, the Court is convinced that the Sucker's primary effect surpasses accommodation and endorses
religion Thus, even though the Sucker may not explicitly advance a particular religious viewpoint and explicitly encourage maintenance of that viewpoint as did the disclaimer in Freiler, the Constitution requires that the government "pursue a
-42-
course of complete neutrality toward religion." Wallace, 472 U S at 60 The Sticker in this case, considered in context, communicates to the reasonable observer that the School Board has violated this mandate
In sum, the Sticker in dispute violates the effects prang of the Lemon test and
justice O'Connor's endorsement test, which the Court has incorporated into its Lemon analysis Adopted by the school board, funded by the money of taxpayers, and inserted by school personnel, the Sticker conveys an impermissible message of endorsement and tells some citizens that they are political outsiders while telling
others that they are political insiders. Regardless of whether teachers comply with the Cobb County School District's regulation on theories of origin and regardless of the discussions that actually take place m the Cobb County science classrooms, the Sticker has already sent a message that the School Board agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and crest ionrsts.
The School Board has effectively improperly entangled itself whiz religion by appearing to take a position Therefore, the Sticker must be removed from all of the textbooks into which it has been placed .
II. Challenge Under Georgia Constitution
In addition to the Establishment Clause challenge, Plaintiffs assert that the
Sucker violates Article I, Section II, Paragraph VII of the Constitution of the State of
Georgia . This provision states the following "No money shall ever be taken from
the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution." As an initial matter, the Court pokes that case law interpreting this provision is sparse . However, in Bennett v City of LaGra~ 153 Ga 428, 112 S E. 482, 484 (1922), the Supreme Court of Georgia declared unconstitutional a resolution passed by the city council of LaGrange that authorized the city to pay the Salvation Army, a sectarian institution, to perform the
-43 -
city's charitable work The court specified in Bennett that the provision at lssuelo seeks to safeguard citizens from having their tax dollars "taken or appropriated" in aid of religious institutions or denominations of religionists See also Savannah v Richter, 160 Ga . 177, 127 S E 148 (1925) (declaring unconstitutional the city of Savannah's assumption of paving assessments against churches and sectarian institutions) .
In addition, while not folding a violation of this provision, this Court previously noted an opinion of the Georgia Attorney General interpreting this provision to afford greater protection or "have a stronger application than the first amendment to the United States Constitution." See Birdine v. Moreland, 579 F
Supp. 412, 417 (N. D Ga 1983) (citing 19b0-b1 Op Ate y Gen p 349)
In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Cobb County School Board used the money of taxpayers to produce and place the Sticker in dispute in certain of the Cobb County School District science textbooks
This Sticker aids the beliefs of Christran fundamentalists and creationists. In light of the prior interpretation of the Georgia Constitution provision challenged by the Plaintiffs and given the Court's conclusion above that the Sticker violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Court likewise concludes that the Sticker runs afoul of the Georgia Constitution
CONCLUSION
Fox the abode-stated reasons, the Court hereby FINDS and CONCLUDES
that the Sucker adopted by the Cobb County Board of Education violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Article I, Section II, Paragraph
'° A version of the provision being challenged by Plaintiffs previously appeared
in paragraph 14 of section 1 of article 1 of the Constitution of Georgia, and it is the prior
provision that Bennett interpreted The prior provision read "No money shall ever be
taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, m aid of and= church, sect, or
denomination of religionists, or of any sectarian institution " Bennett. 112 S E at 484 As
is clear, the language of the prior provision is almost identical to the language of the
current provision
-44-
VII of the Constitution of the State of Georgia In light of this conclusion, the Court
hereby ORDERS as follows
1 . Defendants shall immediately remove the Sticker from all science
textbooks into which the Sticker has been placed
2 Defendants are permanently enjoined from disseminating the Sticker
in any form
3 Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the
Court and serve upon Defendants then claim for damages and a
verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim
entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees
and costs as provided in the applicable statutes and court rules
The parties having resolved the following motions between themselves
without Court involvement, the Court DENIES as moot Defendants' Motion to
Quash Subpoenas [Doc No 74], Defendants' Amended Motion to Quash [Doc No
75], and Plaintiffs' Motion Seeking Leave to Amend the Pretrial Order [Doc No 78] .
The Court GRANTS the Application to File Brief Amicus Curiae of Amicus
Curlae of Colorado Citizens for Science, Kansas Citizens for Science, Michigan
Citizens for Science, Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education, New
Mexico Academy of Science, New Mexicans for Science and Reason, New Mexico
Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education, and Texas Citizens for
Science [Doc . No 87]
50 ORDERED this day of 2005
v
`CLARENCE COOPER
Maybe he objects to the stickers encouragement of critical thinking in a public school.
The Sticker here disavows the endorsement of evolution, a scientific theory, and contains an implicit religious message advanced by Christian fundamentalists and creationists, which is discernible after one considers the historical context of the statement that evolution is a theory and not a fact
Can someone tell me again how the sticker reads, word for word.
According to the article, "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."
"Why is it a religious statement to note that the Theory of Evolution is a theory?"
It isn't. But the lack of demand for similar stickers to be put in textbooks about other scientific theories is telling.
The real question is why is evolution singled out? The answer is that the sticker has been put forward for relgious, not educational reasons. As if to demonstrate this, a lot of people here who support the sticker are making statements such as "this is just another attempt to remove God from schools". Such statements make it obvious that the proponents of these stickers are supporting them for religious reasons. Can't anyone see this?
If you disagree with evolution for religious reasons and therefore want stickers on it then just say so.
"It isn't. But the lack of demand for similar stickers to be put in textbooks about other scientific theories is telling."
You are assuming that laymen understand the connotations of a 'theory' in science. The sticker clearly implies that since evolution is only a 'theory,' then it is not suitable to be taught as science in the classroom. This of course is intentionally dishonest.
Obviously you understand the distinction as I gather from your statement: "The real question is why is evolution singled out?"
Exactly, why are there not disclaimers on textbooks about germ theory, the theory of flight or the theory of gravity?
The whole point of these stickers is that they are intentionally misleading people into thinking evolution is not real science, which is wrong, at least according to the scientific community.
A voice of sanity in a sea of mysticism & ignorance.
Also:
Judge orders removal of evolution stickers from textbooks in Georgia school district
Judge Orders Removal of Evolution Stickers
JUDGE RULES EVOLUTION DISCLAIMERS "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
Posted at least twice already.
That's jumping at shadows, the unspoken motives behind the veil. A justiciable case is one where there is definable harm. I suspect the decison will eventually be overturned.
What the court missed is that it's the content that matters, not motives or speculations about the motives of those who want the stickers.
A salutory but unspoken counter-motive could be that the sticker is necessary to remind students that the text teaches evolutionary theory not as a theory but as a fact. Treating it as a proven fact is an article of faith that many in the scientific community reject-- that's not science.
The obvious fear driving this challenge is that people with certain don't want children to be encouraged to use their minds and test the dogma for themselves.
"A salutory but unspoken counter-motive could be that the sticker is necessary to remind students that the text teaches evolutionary theory not as a theory but as a fact. Treating it as a proven fact is an article of faith that many in the scientific community reject-- that's not science."
Gravity, relativity and flight are also theories, where are the stickers for them? A theory in science does not mean what you think it means, theories do not become fact. A theory is as close to fact as science gets.
"That's jumping at shadows, the unspoken motives behind the veil."
The fact that evolution is the only scientific theory to be singled out in this political "sticker campain", raises serious doubts about proponents claims that the motive behind it is to better science education. Why not for example, write that all scientific theories are not fact? Why single out evolution?
Opponents of these stickers see it as a slippery slope. The sticker itself, apart from unfairly singling out evolution, is educationally irrelevant. But it is a step which further activism by the stickers proponents can be based upon. It is common knowledge that most of these backers ideally want to change the science curriculum far further than a mere sticker. They won't stop there. They want to bypass the opinion of the scientific community in an unprecedented way, and put ideas into science classes that are not scientifically endorsed.
The political furour at the moment is far removed from content. The ACLU and all this poltical bs is focused on religion and state. There seems to be no focus on the critical question of whether or not such stickers actually benefit science education.
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.