1 Million Settlement Dover Lawsuit(Most to ACLU, Americans United,not lawyers)

York Daily Record ^ | 2/22/06 | Lauri Lebo and Michelle Starr

[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.....

[PatrickHenry]

There continues to be confusion on the part of some as to whether the judge was acting correctly when he inquired into the religious motivation of the school board. Again, I urge that you read the opinion: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..

You will learn that the defendant school board agreed that the court should make the inquiries that it did:

The parties are in agreement that an applicable test in the case sub judice to ascertain whether the challenged ID Policy is unconstitutional under the First Amendment is that of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), (hereinafter "the Lemon test"). See Edwards, 482 U.S. 578 (applying Lemon test to strike down Louisiana's "Creationism Act"); see also Epperson, 393 U.S. 97 (considering the purpose and the primary effect of an Arkansas statute forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools).

[antiRepublicrat]

How do you know the board had a "religious agenda"?

It came out in the trial quite clearly. At least skim over some transcripts and read the decision before commenting further.

Second question ~ when did we give the government the authority to examine religious truth?

We didn't. This isn't about religious truth.

[mo]

something about this whole thing smells of a quid pro qou ..somewhere here.....

[Steve_Seattle]

" . . . but they do not constitute a scientific theory in themselves."

Wrong again. ID and several similar but distinct theories - not limited in application to evolution - are indeed testable theories. These include such proposals as Sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields" theory, the "holographic universe" theory, etc., which have been put forth by various highly-trained scientists. I really don't see that this little sop to ID in the curriculum was a threat either to science or to the future of the republic. But I think it is a threat both to science and to civil liberties when a rigid orthodoxy and uniformity of thought is enforced through the threat of massive lawsuits intended to suppress new ideas and creative thinking. Today's science is yesterday's heresy and tomorrow's superstition. I'll say it again - the spirit of the Inquistion is alive and well amongst the anti-ID crusaders.

[jim_trent]

> I'm still waiting, probably in vain, for the perjury charges against these guys.

So am I. There were a LOT of people around here who were adamant that Clintion should face perjury charges. They are silent on these guys. Perjury is perjury.

[Steve_Seattle]

To finish my thought: should a school district be subject to a million-dollar lawsuit if they require teachers to mention - say - Rupert Sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields" theory (a minority theory) in biology classes, simply as another theory that has been floated by a trained biologist, as a stimulus to creative thinking? Where does this end? Must we examine the motives of people proposing new ideas, and punish only those who we think have some hidden religious agenda? Or is the intent just to punish people of Christian belief, and go a bit softer on the New Agers and Eastern religions folk, or the Muslims (who are getting away with far more mischief in the public schools than the IDers ever dreamed of)? Just how many new or controversial ideas are you willing to tolerate? Any at all?

[generally]

"The court was not asking the defendants to declare their religious beliefs, just to explain whether those religious beliefs were the motivation for the ID policy they adopted.

...and, the court's authority to do so rests on the fact that the defendants put their religious motivations at issue."

This would be an excellent result, if it now enabled us to go after schools that push the Muslim agenda. How about a little "separation of church and state" where Islam is concerned? Why is it ok to teach the pillars of Islam in public schools?

[Steve_Seattle]

What constitues a "religious agenda," and to what extent are any and all "religious agendas" unconstitutional? Many of the Founders were strong believers that social cohesion and social order were largely dependent on belief in a creator; thus, for 200 years some religious instruction was allowed in public schools, virtually everywhere in the country. The Founders opposed sectarian influence in the schools, but did not oppose what they called "general Christianity," nor did they insist that any and all references to religion be expunged from the public schools. Now, there were problems with this, because the "general Christianity" inevitably had a Protestant cast to it, which was one of the things that led to the rise of the parochial school system. But it is a historical fact - despite what this so-called conservative judge might think - that a non-sectarian religious agenda was not considered unconstitutional in this country for nearly two-hundred years.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"These include such proposals as Sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields" theory,"

Not testable. It's new age nonsense.

"the "holographic universe" theory, etc.,"

Ditto.

Also, not particularly germane to ID. ID proponents make claims based on ignorance; "We don't know of anything that could do this naturally yet, therefore it was an intelligent designer(God)." It's a gutless choice for people who don't want to do the hard work of real research.

[antiRepublicrat]

nd several similar but distinct theories - not limited in application to evolution - are indeed testable theories. These include such proposals as Sheldrake's "morphogenetic fields" theory,

Well, you stopped using a faulty interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so you had to find something else.

Sheldrake's "theory" (used in the vernacular sense) never went anywhere because it had no scientific basis and his experiments were weak at best.

"holographic universe" theory,

You mean "holographic principle," a conjecture about entropy in cosmology using quantum gravity. As with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you took a part of competely unrelated real scientific research and tried to make it fit ID.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The court was not asking the defendants to declare their religious beliefs, just to explain whether those religious beliefs were the motivation for the ID policy they adopted.

The court was thus acting improperly. It was never the intent of the Framers that the Constitution be interpreted to prohibit people from having a religious motivation for their behavior, even when acting in a public capacity. What was prohibited was sectarianism, i.e., requiring membership in, or granting favorable status to, a particular sect. One example was the founding of the Thanksgiving holiday - a day set aside by the government for people to give thanks to God (and not to the Indians, or for our good fortune, as some revisionists would have you believe). People might have a religious motivation for all sorts of legitimate acts - ending slavery, protecting the environment, promoting equal rights for women - and to pretend that the Constitution requires that these motivations somehow be expunged from our thinking is absolutely false. To begin with, it is impossible, and the Constitution does not demand the impossible.

[Steve_Seattle]

I made no reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And you never answered the question as to what minority theories - in science or any other field - should be allowed mention in public schools, and which shouldn't, and which - if mentioned - warrant million dollar lawsuits.

[antiRepublicrat]

Must we examine the motives of people proposing new ideas, and punish only those who we think have some hidden religious agenda?

Take it back to this specific case. They had a religious movtive and wanted to use a religious text to teach a religious "theory." They lied and used subterfuge and obfuscation in their efforts. Would they have had to do that if their efforts were sincere?

I can see putting "morphogenetic fields" in science class right next to erototoxins and homeopathy's "Theory of Infinitesimals" as examples of what is not good science.

[dmz]

This is a secular state and religion must never be on the minds of anyone engaged in the business of serving as an agent of the state

---

you should be telling that to the members of the school board who attempted just what you are saying should never happen. of course, none of them are engaged in the business of serving as an agent of the state anymore, having been voted out on their collective derrieres.

[antiRepublicrat]

I made no reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Of course not. The leaders of the ID/Creation movement asked people to stop using it a few years ago because the fact that it was a fraud had spread far enough (love that Internet) so that nobody was buying the BS anymore. It was becoming embarrassing.

And you never answered the question as to what minority theories - in science or any other field - should be allowed mention in public schools

If you're on the issue of pure science, then no. My opinion is that we should not be teaching fringe theories in K-12, only established science. But that's just my opinion.

and which - if mentioned - warrant million dollar lawsuits.

The lawsuit isn't over competing scientific theories. It is about an attempt to start religious indoctrination in schools.

[shuckmaster]

I really hate seeing so much money that should have been going to local education going to the ACLU but, what other course do people have when dishonest lying idiots deliberately try to pervert the students science classes with obvious charlatan pseudo science? It would seem to me that Behe, the DI, and other sneaky special interest groups who suckered the bozo's who were recently voted off the school board should be held liable for a portion of the damage they've caused. Instead, they're using this debacle to further their charlatan book and donation sales. A sucker born every minute...

One good thing to come out of this is that other school boards have a very clear message that the line has been drawn when it come to bait and switch. They can't get away with deceiving students with superstitious myths of the supernatural in a class where they expect to be taught biology.

[Dimensio]

That is your OPINION.

It would also appear to be the OPINION of one of ID's major proponents and witness for the defense, Michael Behe, who testified under oath during the trial that science would have to be redefined in order to accomidate ID, and that the same redefinition would also allow astrology to be considered science.

If that's an opinion, it seems to be one shared by the folks on the ID side, so I still don't understand your objection.

[shuckmaster]

I think it was actually the Thomas More Law Center who was shopping the case around.

They were the main ones and should be held at least partially liable. The DI ducked and ran when they saw the case was a sure loser.

[muawiyah]

You still cannot be required to state it.

[muawiyah]

Then the board members WERE ALSO WRONG. Just where do these public servants get the idea that religion should be part of government?

At least the voters got a shot at the board members ~ most are gone. But who's going to drag the Inquisitor off the bench.