Posted on 02/22/2006 6:52:51 AM PST by Nextrush
The Dover Area school board voted Tuesday night to pay 1 million dollars in legal fees to the attorneys that successfully sued the school district over its intelligent-design policy.... After board members voted, Beth Eveland, one of the parents who sued the district, told the board she and other plaintiffs at the meeting considered it a fair offer. However, she said they were dismayed that the taxpayers and children were left with the bill and believed the old board members should be held accountable. The smallest amount of accountability is an apology, she said.... Heather Geesey, the only remaining member from the previous board, said after the meeting that she took offense to Eveland's remarks. "I don't think I have anything to apologize for," she said. Former board member Ronald Short also isn't planning to apologize. "I don't have anything to apologize for," Short said. "I believe in what the board did before." The $1 million dollar figure was the result of an agreement worked out between plantiffs' attorneys and the district's solicitor. In exchange, the board agrees it will not appeal.... Rothschild, the plantiffs lead attorney, said lawyers will request an order in court entitling the plantiffs to more than $2 million in costs.... Plaintiffs attorney wanted to make sure that other public school districts pondering whether to pursue a religious agenda will think twice, Rothschild said, We think it's important that the public record will reflect how much it costs to stop an unconstitutional action," he said. "Still, we also recognize that this is a small school district."...... Approximately $250,000 will go directly to recovering out-of-pocket expenses, Rothschild said, and will be divided among American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Pepper-Hamilton. The rest will go toward the ACLU and Americans United.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ydr.com ...
oh dear Lord.
When a church asks for a tax exemption, does the government not have the authority to ask if they are religious?
The government did not punish these people for their beliefs. They "punished" them for trying to push their beliefs on others.
IDers, meet your new comrades in arms in the battle to overthrow conventional science. :)
Problem here is you will never find out because a secret Moslem can tell you he's a Jew, and no court in the land is authorized to rule on that question.
But first, we should always give the voters a choice. Else we identify ourselves as royalists or commies.
Churches really don't need to ask for tax exemptions. The Constitution provides for "free exercise". That means "no taxes". Your question is meaningless.
Nope, Congress passed a law requiring these legal fees be rewarded. Something the Dems did for their special interests groups, but the GOP has done nothing about it.
Individual exercise, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean churches. Besides, Congress would have to pass a law exempting churches from taxes (since the default state is that everybody gets taxed), which would be a law respecting an establishment of religion (religious establishment).
Still, you're getting off-topic. When a party to a court case puts religion on the table, then of course a court has full authority to look into it.
LBJ successfully muddied those waters, making quasi requirements that Churches register for tax-exempt status. LBJ successfully turned what was once considered a right guarenteed by the Constitution, into a right granted by the IRS. Really sick how the Constitution can get so easily twisted.
Besides, how can the government know they're a church if they're not allowed to ask about the church's religion?
Prior to the 1950's, the default state was that everyone just took for granted that Churches were tax-exempt. A little winnie named LBJ authored a law that changed what was once assumed to be a Constutional right of a Church. But anti-religion types love the government having control over churches.
So, according to current legal standards and laws the right of "free exercise" applies to GROUPS.
Interesting, eh?!
I spent many years administering that standard.
(NOTE: the gub'mnt' is not supposed to pick and chose among different religious organizations ~ that is, there is to be NO PREFERENCE ~ and that's just one of the things that flows out of the First Amendment. There are many others.)
Again, when religion becomes a topic in a court case it is the sworn duty of the judge to manage the case according to strictly secular standards and NOT INSERT HIS OWN BELIEFS INTO THE PROCESS.
The ACLU are political rapists.
How long will we bend over and take it from these monsters? Are we free citizens or slaves?
Bring them down !!!
And other people liked to use a church's tax-exempt status to launder money.
The ACLU, on the other hand, by making a profit out of lawsuits is going to shortly find its own nonprofit status questioned.
My money is on their losing it over the "inurements" issue.
And that has what to do with this case?
I, personally, don't consider ID or Creationism to be "legitimate religious beliefs" for one thing, and it incenses me to find a judge who thinks he's some sort of government ordained pope with the authority to tell me what is or is not a legitimate religious belief.
How's them apples?!
Not a chance. The money coming in has nothing to do with their non-profit status (except that donations are tax exempt), only the money going out.
Hey something's wrong here. The judge got to use the "L" word concerning the Creationists.
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.