[Stultis]

Goessling said this is a case in which reasonable minds can disagree. "This is not a separation-of-church-and-state case," she said. "This is a case allowing competing theories to be taught. ... The sticker is a simple declaratory statement that does not favor or disfavor evolution as a scientific theory."

**************

This is my position on the issue as well.

It seems to me that Goessling's position is contradictory. She also said, "It appears that, on a daily basis, we're bombarded with attacks on Christian expression."

If the stickers are conceived as a response to some kind of presumed "attack on Christian expression," then they are obviously somehow themselves a defense of "Christian expression." But this contradicts what Goessling says in the portion you quote, that it really has nothing to do with religion and it's only about competing scientific theories!

[trisham]

But this contradicts what Goessling says in the portion you quote, that it really has nothing to do with religion and it's only about competing scientific theories!

***************

Not exactly. Her words are: "This is a case allowing competing theories to be taught. ..."

[Chiapet]

It seems to me that Goessling's position is contradictory. She also said, "It appears that, on a daily basis, we're bombarded with attacks on Christian expression."

Agreed. Goessling's position is contradictory, and also completely disingenuous. To state that she's in favor of the stickers because of "attacks on Christian expression" is ridiculous, considering the stickers were the idea of creationists/IDers to begin with. Seems as though it was "Christian expression" that threw the first punch.