Posted on 01/15/2005 12:03:24 PM PST by wagglebee
After battling a California school district for more than a year over its teaching of evolution, a parent has filed a civil-rights lawsuit in federal court alleging his constitutional rights to free speech, equal protection and religious freedom were violated.
Larry Caldwell's suit against the Roseville Joint Union High School District and school officials in Sacramento centers on his attempt to introduce a curriculum that changes how the theory of evolution is taught, without introducing religious content.
His "Quality Science Education Policy" and related instructional materials include presentation of scientific weaknesses of evolution in biology classes.
"Currently, only the scientific strengths of evolution are taught in biology classes, with no discussion of the scientific weaknesses or criticism of evolution," said Caldwell, a practicing lawyer in Sacramento.
But after proposing the curriculum in 2003, Caldwell says officials refused to follow the normal procedures of review and "did everything in their power to prevent any meaningful consideration of my proposals, systematically violating their own stated policies in the process."
That included "publicly attacking my personal religious beliefs, and even threatening to sue me to stop me from speaking out," he said.
"These are tactics you'd expect in a banana republic, not the state of California."
In June, board members voted 3-2 against the curriculum.
Superintendent Tony Monetti could not be reached for comment.
In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Caldwell emphasized there is nothing about religion in the materials.
"We talked about science, and all the other side wanted to talk about was religion," he said.
Noting he has a law degree from George Washington University, Caldwell said, "I'm not an ignorant anti-science person, by any means."
"They quickly try to paint you as an ignorant, religious nutcase," said Caldwell, who acknowledges he is a Christian. "That's what we're up against.
"A citizen ought to be able to bring in a science proposal on the merits, without casting him as a religiouis fanatic and marginalizing," he continued.
The lawsuit asks the court to reform the district's practices to "ensure that citizens of all political viewpoints and religious beliefs will be able to enjoy their constitutional right to bring education policy proposals before the school board and other school officials on an equal basis, without illegal discrimination."
Caldwell said that for eight months, district officials repeatedly refused to put his QSE Policy on the school board agenda, contrary to California state law.
He claimed that at an open meeting held to hear parental input on school curricula, officials without any justification banned parents from speaking in favor of his proposal.
Caldwell school board member James Joiner attempted to intimidate him and other parents from exercising their free speech rights by asking the school-district attorney to investigate filing a lawsuit against him.
District officials, he claimed, illegally used their positions to try to discredit and defame him by publicly attacking his personal religious beliefs and spreading false rumors.
At one point, Caldwell said, the district falsely claimed he had asked a school official to distribute a religious tract at a school district meeting. The school district later admitted the allegation was false.
Yes, and if this creationism business will hang like an albatross around the neck of the Republican party. Going to ping the list ...
|
It would also be useful to learn what science is: The scientific method.
Please do not turn this into an evolution vs. creationism debate!
This is what so many of us have been praying for! For someone, a Christian, to stand up and demand that WE have free speech too!
Can't those of us who are seeing prayers come true, just rejoice? And can't those of us who think the rest of us are "religious nutcases" just shut it?
You will have your debate threads...please don't make this one of them!
At some point in your life, you are going to have to stand up for yourself! You are going to have to accept responsibility for your perspective and promote it like everyone else does theirs. Look how far the sodomites have come in the past thirty years. They haven't made their gains by staying in the closet.
Excerpts from a relatively long paper: Clarence Thomas @ the Francis Boyer Lecture for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research at Washington, D.C. on February 13, 2001
. . . by yielding to a false form of "civility," we sometimes allow our critics to intimidate us. As I have said, active citizens are often subjected to truly vile attacks.... To this we often respond (if not succumb), so as not to be constantly fighting, by trying to be tolerant and nonjudgmental, i.e., we censor ourselves. This is not civility. It is cowardice, or well-intentioned self-deception at best.
My beliefs about personal fortitude and the importance of defending timeless principles of justice grew out of wonderful years I spent with my grandparents; the years I have spent here in Washington; and my interest in world history, especially the history of countries in which the rule of law was surrendered to the rule of fear, such as during the rise of Nazism in what was one of the most educated and cultured countries in Europe at the time.
These "rules of orthodoxy" still apply. You had better not engage in serious debate or discussion unless you are willing to endure attacks that range from mere hostile bluster to libel. Often the temptation is to retreat to complaining about the unfairness of it all. But this is a plaintive admission of defeat. It is a unilateral withdrawal from the field of combat.
If you trim your sails, you appease those who lack the honesty and decency to disagree on the merits, but prefer to engage in personal attacks. A good argument diluted to avoid criticism is not nearly as good as the undiluted argument, because we best arrive at truth through a process of honest and vigorous debate. Arguments should not sneak around in disguise, as if dissent were somehow sinister. One should not cowed by criticism.
In my humble opinion, those who come to engage in debates of consequence, and who challenge accepted wisdom, should expect to be treated badly. Nonetheless, they must stand undaunted. That is required. And, that should be expected. For, it is bravery that is required to secure freedom.
On matters of consequence, reasons and arguments must be of consequence. Therefore, those who choose to engage in such debates must themselves be of consequence.
Much emphasis these days is placed on who has the quickest tongue, and who looks best on television. There seems to be an obsession with how one looks to others; hence, a proliferation of public relations professionals and spin doctors. As I was counseled some years ago, perceptions are more important than reality. But this is madness. No car has ever crashed into a mirage. No imaginary army has ever invaded a country.
It does no good to argue ideas with those who will respond as brutes. Works of genius have often been smashed and burned, and geniuses have sometimes been treated no better.
But, there is much wisdom that requires no genius. It takes no education and no great intellect to know that it is best for children to be raised in two parent families. Yet, those who dare say this are often accused of trying to impose their values on others. This condemnation does not rest on some great body of counterevidence; it is purely and simply an in-your-face response. It is, in short, intimidation. For brutes, the most effective tactic is to intimidate an opponent into the silence of self-censorship.
Even if one has a valid position, and is intellectually honest, he has to anticipate nasty responses aimed at the messenger rather than the argument. The aim is to limit the range of the debate, the number of messengers, and the size of the audience. The aim is to pressure dissenters to sanitize their message, so as to avoid hurtful ad hominem criticism. Who wants to be calumniated? It's not worth the trouble.
But is it worth it? Just what is worth it, and what is not? If one wants to be popular, it is counterproductive to disagree with the majority. If one just wants to tread water until the next vacation, it isn't worth the agony. If one just wants to muddle through, it is not worth it. In my office, a little sign reads: "To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."
This tendency, in large part, results from an overemphasis on civility. None of us should be uncivil in our manner as we debate issues of consequence. No matter how difficult it is, good manners should be routine. However, in the effort to be civil in conduct, many who know better actually dilute firmly held views to avoid appearing "judgmental." They curb their tongues not only in form but also in substance. The insistence on civility in the form of our debates has the perverse effect of cannibalizing our principles, the very essence of a civil society.
Gertrude Himmelfarb refers to two kinds of virtues. The first are the "caring" virtues. They include "respect, trustworthiness, compassion, fairness, decency. " These are the virtues that make daily life pleasant with our families and those with whom we come in contact.
The second are the vigorous virtues. These heroic virtues "transcend family and community and may even, on occasion, violate the conventions of civility. These are the virtues that characterize great leaders, although not necessarily good friends."
She notes that the vigorous virtues have been supplanted by the caring ones. Though they are not mutually exclusive or necessarily incompatible, active citizens and leaders must be governed by the vigorous rather than the caring virtues. We must not allow our desire to be decent and well-mannered people to overwhelm the substance of our principles or our determination to fight for their success. Ultimately, we should seek both caring and vigorous virtues-but above all, we must not allow the former to dominate the latter.
Listen to the truths that lie within your heart, and be not afraid to follow them wherever they may lead you.
The "equal time" ploy has already been ruled un-Constitutional, in 1987:
EDWARDS, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. v. AGUILLARD.
Ok...you are purposefully ignoring what I am saying...so I guess that you win...by completely dodging the issue...does the victory taste sweet?
That was the best line in the article.
I agree with you. This lawsuit doesn't concern the actual curriculum. It never got that far. It's about how much time the board should spend on privately-introduced proposed curriculums.
Noting he has a law degree from George Washington University, Caldwell said, "I'm not an ignorant anti-science person, by any means."
That was second best line in the article. They didn't teach any science classes at my law school, and I doubt they do at Georgetown, either. My guess is that he's exactly what he claims not to be.
Why doesn't this moron just homeschool his stupid children?
"I responded by saying that you have no first amendment right to equal floor time at board meetings."
What you ignored (or overlooked, if my accusation was incorrect I apologize) is that I never said that EVERY PERSON should get equal floor time at board meetings. This guy is presenting possible curriculum, and has been turned down, based on his religion, whereas whoever presented evolution as curriculum, was not turned down. This guy was discriminated against and "shushed" based on his beliefs and based on the fact that they didn't wanna hear his "God mumbo-jumbo". My point, is simply that, we have listen to Anti-God mumbo jumbo ALL THE TIME, all in the name of "free speech"...and it's high time that they have listen to us. And thank God someone is finally standing up for that.
"IF he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs, THEN he might have a case."
I was operating under this assumption. I should have stated that.
To the best of my knowledge, Darwin was a Christian (although not devout) who believed his theory was correct but also believed God was the one who set it all in motion. Even if this is wrong, why do the schools and other atheists insist upon perverting this man's work?
More:--snip--
...... After publication of Origin of Species, Darwin continued to write on botany, geology, and zoology until his death in 1882. He is buried in Westminster Abbey.
--------snip--
Darwin's work had a tremendous impact on religious thought. Many people strongly opposed the idea of evolution because it conflicted with their religious convictions. Darwin avoided talking about the theological and sociological aspects of his work, but other writers used his theories to support their own theories about society. Darwin was a reserved, thorough, hard working scholar who concerned himself with the feelings and emotions not only of his family, but friends and peers as well.
--------
(I found this interesting. Do a Google search. There's a lot more.)
Darwin was NO christian!
Get real!
"How do Darwin's observations interfere with your belief in scripture?"
Order of creation, time and do you really think the Judeo Christian God is an "ape"? According to the Bible humans are created in His image and He is NO ape. That's just the tip of the ice berg on how offensive evolution is from an atheist perspective.
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.