NEWS: Evolution Is A Theory Not A Fact Stickers Must Be Removed From Georgia Textbooks

Cazmedia,

We'll agree to differ....

But the Judge was correct

Just FYI -- the Cobb County school board has decided to appeal the judge's ruling, stating that the decision "amounts to unnecessary judicial intrusion into local control of schools."

www.ajc.com...

Originally posted by CazMedia
If it is a fact, then why is this called a thoery and not fact? DUH!!
You offered nothing to say that the statement was false...you did offer that evolutionary theory was a hard science and creationism a hypothesis, but that does not change the statement in questions truthfullness.

The fact that living things change is definitely true. That is evolution, no matter the method. That much cannot be denied, period.

So if they dont have a problem with teaching evolution, then how do they have a problem with the teacher teaching a more logical alternative? (evolution)

Wouldnt asking for ONE SENTANCE that says other hypothesis exist be both open minded and reasonable? (instead of the close mindedness you claim they have, and have exhibited in your own posts by advocating segregation of christians truthful speech thru censorship)

If religious people had their way, evolution would not be taught at all. There is so little to teach about religion. In "teaching" creationism, you'd only be telling them what the bible says. That's as far as you can go. Isn't that what church is for? There is no education at all in creationism. It has absolutely no evidence to study. Nothing to study = no topic. Basically, if I were to teach creationism, I'd have to say, "Well, you see, "God" created everything, then he created everyone. End of story. Any questions?"

You question what in the textbooks the people found problematic, yet you just said they didnt have a problem with the subject, only the fact that it EXCLUDED a sentance that said other hypothesis exist.
What is your problem with making such a truthful statement for any reason? Again i feel it is because you dont like the messenger...
killing the messenger doenst change the message.

Again, creationism has no leg to stand on. Therefore, it's not taught in public schools. there is no end to the free religious education available, if that's what people want. By choice, we've decided to keep it out of public schools. I agree with that choice. No, I don't like religion or creationism. It holds absolutely no merit. I would not take evolution on faith, as religious people do creationism. The evidence is clear, IMO. Evolution happens, and creationism is no more than a story....a bad one, at that.

CazMedia,
So, what do you think the purpose of putting those stickers in the books would be? Is there one? The ONLY purpose I can see is to cast doubt on evolution, in favor of creationism. Who else would feel it necessary to include a disclaimer about evolution? Why? Have you ever lived in the bible belt? It's a different world. If you're not a christian, you'd swore you stepped into the Twilight Zone. Why would anyone feel it necessary to cast doubt on evolution? I think there's only one answer to that question. It's obvious. The religious people supporting it know their motive, as does the judge. These religious uprisings cannot be allowed, or they'll start taking over. That's what they want to do. They'd like nothing more than to have creationism taught in public schools. Since it's not, they're angry. The stickers are in insult to the kids' intelligence, IMO.

"They kind of say, 'consider it critically,' as if we wouldn't have," Emily said.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Damned]

Originally posted by Nygdan
Incorrect. It ignores the factual side as to the occurrence of evolution, and promotes a religious agenda by merely isolating evolution. A better thing to do would be to start off all science classes with instruction on what science is and what its methodology is. Heck, I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

Actually evolution enjoys isolation by mere fact that it is the only theory of origins generally discussed in high school text books, hence the sticker does not isolate evolution. It simply addresses the isolation it is already given.

well, the creationists seem more concerned with getting their ideas protected in science classrooms, rather than advancing science education.

You can't claim that creationists are trying to get their ideas protected in classrooms where their ideas are not even presented. In most high school class rooms there are no alternative ideas to evolution present so to make the above statement is baseless.

This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. No theory is confirmed by experiments and thusly considered to be fact.

No fundamental misunderstanding here. I have argued your very point myself. However, when dealing with someone who dogmatically proclaims that evolution is a fact you have to deal with them on the level of their certainty. In other words you have to show how there are doubts left in the theory they espouse to be fact. I support the definition of a theory but some cannot comprehend it so they must be convinced using other argumentation.

the fact that the sticker soley concerns itself with evolution is enough to let anyone reasonably state that its an attempt to get creationism in the classroom.

Even if this was an overt attempt to present creationism it is still protected by both the freedom of speech and the freedom of free exercise of religion since the sticker itself made no references to creationism. IF it is an overt attempt to teach creationism the attempt has not crossed the line of legality yet and hence remains a protected exercise of freedom.

originally by Skeptic Overlord Bacteria evolve and advance before our eyes... evolution happens.

Usually SO you take the time to read the comments on the thread before posting so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I have stated again and again that micro-evolution is a substantiated theory. The question mark on the evolution of species is not micro-evolution but macro-evolution. There is no observed mechanism by which Bacteria can become fish. We can see a mechanism that MAY be applicable to this in, micro-evolution. It is irresponsible, however, to say that the observed reshuffling of the genetic code within a species, thus creating variations of features and subspecies is applicable to macro-evolution where new genetic code is added to a species. I do not and never have denied that this is a possibility but it is an unproven one. Until a mechanism is identified by which the genetic code is augmented rather than reshuffled the Theory of Evolution remain in the area of speculation and to put it in the same category as substantiated theories like kinetic theory is dishonest and misleading.

originally by damned These religious uprisings cannot be allowed, or they'll start taking over.

So take away their rights otherwise they might vote against what I want! They might get their way so keep them from expressing themselves. Keep them from practicing their religion anywhere but in their own private life. Quick lets burn the constitution and the bill of rights. We need to make sure these religious people never have a chance to express their beliefs in public office. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush are all bad leaders because they expressed their faith through the way they made law and lead this country. They all prayed in public those evil despots. Why George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both proposed and supported the use of the BIBLE as a textbook in public schools. They must have been brainwashed minions of the religious right. They all swore to serve this country so help them God, those religious fanatics. Burn them Burn them all! dripping with sarcasm

It is people who propose the suppression of groups that do not agree with them that lay the foundation for tyranny. It matters not what their philosophy is be it religious or atheist. Their intolerance breeds hatred and that hatred makes them culpable with men like Hitler and Stalin. Let the wise be wary of such people and their vitriol.




[edit on 18-1-2005 by Johannmon]

Religious groups had their chance, a long time ago. We all know how that worked out. They should never be allowed to be the controlling majority again, IMO. They're not rational people. Many take the bible so literally, they think it should be ok to stone people to death, who don't agree with, nor practice, their religious views. Sorry, I can't help looking down upon these mental midgets. I'll be damned (no pun intended) if they're going to make the rules for normal people.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Damned]

Originally posted by Johannmon
Actually evolution enjoys isolation by mere fact that it is the only theory of origins generally discussed in high school text books, hence the sticker does not isolate evolution. It simply addresses the isolation it is already given.

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. If the sticker-makers are concerned about abiogenesis then they should address it rather than evolution.

well, the creationists seem more concerned with getting their ideas protected in science classrooms, rather than advancing science education.

You can't claim that creationists are trying to get their ideas protected in classrooms where their ideas are not even presented.
They are trying to make it so that creationism is presented in classes. The sticker is part of a 'plan', along with the 'wedge' of intelligent design. Creationists advocate 'fairness' and 'intelligent design' to get c.f. creationism on the table and to 'wedge' open the issue, and then typically drop intelligent design and move for teaching creationism. This is the tactic recognized by the NCSE, and is also why most ID movements and such ultimately fail, since creationism is specifically not allowed in science classes.

In most high school class rooms there are no alternative ideas to evolution present so to make the above statement is baseless.

No alternatives are presented because there are no reasonable alternatives.

In other words you have to show how there are doubts left in the theory they espouse to be fact.

The theory is not proclaimed as fact. The fact is that populatins of organisms change over time. The theory is that this occurs primarily thru natural selection.

the fact that the sticker soley concerns itself with evolution is enough to let anyone reasonably state that its an attempt to get creationism in the classroom.

Even if this was an overt attempt to present creationism it is still protected by both the freedom of speech
Freedom of speech does not apply to public school curriculae.

and the freedom of free exercise of religion since the sticker itself made no references to creationism.

If the claim is that it has nothing to do with religion then its not 'protected' by the free exercise of religion.

IF it is an overt attempt to teach creationism

It definitely is. The sticker proponents, especially on the schoolboard level, are creationists, not evolutionists.

the attempt has not crossed the line of legality yet and hence remains a protected exercise of freedom.

if its an overt attempt to teach creationism then its unconstitutional, as the SCOTUS has already decided.

There is no observed mechanism by which Bacteria can become fish.

Indeed, there would not be, this is where the theory of evolution comes into play. Its known for a fact that populations of organisms change over time. Its theorized that these changes can be adaptive and that this is accomplished thru natural selection. The major scientific challenges to natural selection are primarily based upon its predominance, not necessarily its occurance. There are also some theories that challenge its actual occurance, and they postulate other naturalistic mechanisms. I don't think its necessary to teach high school students any of those challenges. Not necessary, but it would be a good idea. Teaching creationism however would be a silly waste of time.

It is irresponsible, however, to say that the observed reshuffling of the genetic code within a species, thus creating variations of features and subspecies is applicable to macro-evolution where new genetic code is added to a species.

Mutation adds new variation. Its irrational to assume that some magical 'kind' barrier exists that prevents variation from ever crossing that line.

It is people who propose the suppression of groups that do not agree with them that lay the foundation for tyranny.

Creationists in the past have advocated and enacted the supression of evolutionary science, merely because they find it theologically unacceptable. It is creationists who seek supression, not evolutionists. All that is required is that only science be taught in science classes. Insorfar as this sticker is concerned, at best its pointlessly redundant and wasteful.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Freedom of speech does not apply to public school curriculae.

It doesn't does it? Freedom of speech definitely does not mean that anyone can put whatever text they want in a school text book. Good point. If it were thought necessary, I'm sure the author of the text book would have included it. Don't like it? Then write your own text book and see if it's approved for use in public schools. My guess is that there isn't a creationist that would be capable of writing a book on evolution, without making the sole purpose to cast doubt on the subject. Do schools have the authority to change or add anything to text books paid for by taxes? Sounds like what these people want is a private school, where they can teach whatever they want.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by Damned]

Originally posted by Damned

Originally posted by Nygdan
Freedom of speech does not apply to public school curriculae.

It doesn't does it?

Of course not. A public school curriculae can't be based on the ability to say whatever and when ever anyone wants. Its something that is decided upon by the community.

Sounds like what these people want is a private school, where they can teach whatever they want.

Indeed, that is where they should move their kids.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Of course not. A public school curriculae can't be based on the ability to say whatever and when ever anyone wants. Its something that is decided upon by the community.

Who do you think elected the school board. They are given the duty to act according to their beliefs so long as in doing so they stay within the bound of the law which they did in this case. It is their freedom of expression to post this neutral sticker on the textbook. It is constitutionally protected. THe judge erred in his decision also because he based it upon the perceived motivation of the people responsible. That motivation is a protected religious freedom. They can be motivated by religion all they want so long as what they say and do is neutral in nature as this sticker was. Hence the judge by ruling on thier motivation alone trampled their right to exercise their belief system. SImple as that and I will go on record here to say that this decision will be overturned due to its biased nature and baseless legal logic.

Originally posted by Johannmon
Who do you think elected the school board.

The community. What does that have to do with it?

They are given the duty to act according to their beliefs

Their duty as school board members is to ensure that the children of their constituents are educated properly.

so long as in doing so they stay within the bound of the law which they did in this case.

Obviously those with jurisdiction on this matter disagreed.

It is their freedom of expression to post this neutral sticker on the textbook.

The school curriculae is not somethign that is to be used to make political statements or express board members opinions. Its not a tool thru which they can exercise their free speech.

It is constitutionally protected. [ THe judge erred in his decision also because he based it upon the perceived motivation of the people responsible.

That motivation is a protected religious freedom.

No, it is not protected. Religious Protection is ensured by seperation of church and state and the prevention of the establishment of religion, not by having a religious minority foist irrational beleifs on a scientific theory. This sticker soley exists to promote a religious agenda to denigrate evolutionary biology and is part of a larger well established plan to have creationism taught in public science classes. The judge presiding over the case did not need to ignore the context of the situation or the motives of the people presenting it.

They can be motivated by religion all they want so long as what they say and do is neutral in nature as this sticker was.

It was however fundamentally partisan, not-neutral, because it singles out evolution and apparently 'biological origins'. It attacks the science that the sticker supporters view as a threat to their theology. That is not neutral.

Hence the judge by ruling on thier motivation alone trampled their right to exercise their belief system.

No one's beleifs are being trampled or prevented here.

.
CazMedia,

2 + 2 = 4 is a Theory too.

Why don't you put this proviso on Math books?
Why don't you put it on Physics books?

WHY?

BECAUSE IT IS RELIGIOUS POLITICS. PERIOD.

Get your religion OUT of public school science classes.

Galileo got this same kind of BS from Religiously invested people who didn't want to see the TRUTH presented.

Kudos for this judge standing up against ignorance.
.

.
This sticker is like putting a sign on a woman or a black person.

"This person may not be able to do any more than a white male"

The sticker/sign does'nt have to say anything of substance, it is the fact that you put it on a specific class of person that make it egregious.

The fact that you put the sign on anyone in particular makes them a focus as though "You need to keep your eye on this person". Everyone will be ready to pounce on everything these people do while white males are getting away with murder.

You are singling out evolution yet not objecting to the Physics, astronomy, geology that support it.

[edit on 18-1-2005 by slank]

Some of you people are soo FIXATED upon religion and segregation of Americans based upon weather they have religious beliefs and how they may or may not democratically utilize such beliefs that you cant see
a failure of the legal system because of a judgment based upon 3 big ASSUMPTIONS!

Throw this anti religious ferver out the window and look at the actions of the judge in this case!

If you ever find yourself before a judge for some reason, you better pray you dont get the same level of assumptive justice as this judge dished out.
Hope that the judge uses actual evidence, not something he/she has assumed about your case.

The appeal is underway
www.firstcoastnews.com...
storyid=30961

In a 4-2 vote yesterday, board members said in a statement that US District Judge Clarence Cooper's decision was an unnecessary judicial intrusion into local control of schools. The decision came after board members met with lawyers in a closed session.

Hmm, 4-2, thats 2/3 of the elected school board saying this is violating community standards by judicial impositions upon the will of the people that elected the board and have exppressed 2000 to 6 their desires for this true and neutral sentance to be included.
a sentance that doesnt mention religion, thats not teaching anything other than have an open mind.

We'll see if the appeals judge will kill a true statement because of who the messenger was that brought it.

The will of the people? How exactly does that represent the will of the people. The members of that school board were elected as part of a concerted effort in Cobb County to push a religious agenda. The Head of the board has been quoted as saying evolution was a meer "buzzword". Funny, would you want to see your child educated in this manner? I doubt highly. However, if Cobb country wants the education of its children to be hijacked by religous superstition and iffy, nebulous dogmatic teachings, perhaps they can become the formost suppliers of ditch diggers in the country :shk:

You cannot take the religious aspect out of the judges decison because religous groups have forced thier agenda onto everybody. Period.

And just because 2000 people wanted it in the books does not make it right. Schools in the south refused to desegregate and had support of thier populations. Did that make them right?

FredT speculates, much like the judge in this case did,

The will of the people? How exactly does that represent the will of the people. The members of that school board were elected as part of a concerted effort in Cobb County to push a religious agenda.

So you can speak as to the will, intent, or reason that every voter there voted for or against the election of the individule board members eh?
How exactly do you know the reasons that the voters elected those board members?
Perhaps you could speculate us up yet another assumption about intent here too eh?

As to how this represents the will of the people....

As the board was democratically elected....the peoples will of servants were chosen for this job (school board member)

As 2000 local citizens apparently told the school board their exceptations about curriculum for their community and only aparently 6 people stood in opposition to this plan...the will of the aparent majority of citizens was reflected by the actions of the school board. (until the ACLU and lawyers got into it.)

How again does local government work here? This sounds like not only local citizens democratically electing officials (your trying to assume all voters for them were "IN" on some scheme?)
and
a much larger portion of the local citizens were expressing how their now elected officials were to meet the communities desires as compared to a much smallergroup telling the officials to use a different plan...

A majority of the school board wants to appeal the case.

A reasonable person could look at this and say it appears that local community standards were being expressed by the school board, hence reflecting the will of the people.
This is based on the evidence available.
Did I really need to hold hands to point this out? This seems obvious.

I would have NO problems with my child being exposed to the sticker on their science book...as it is worded it does not imply anything more than keep an open mind while learning...big deal....OOOOHHHH BOOOGA BOOOGA...the sticker is gonna corrupt him and make him a religious zealot....Im gonna assume that kids wont spend more than 2 seconds reading it and moving on, most without even thinking about it ever again.


FredT imposes meaning on a statement,

TextYou cannot take the religious aspect out of the judges decison because religous groups have forced thier agenda onto everybody. Period.

How can you infer any religious anything from reading the true statement?

PS...democracy isnt forced, its derived from a collective and fair system to determine things in the most equitable fashion possible,
are you advocating another form of governance? perhaps Monarchy or despotisim would suit you better...anyone for socialism or communism?
ANY of these forms of governance ALWAYS leave someone "left out" so to speak....at least in a free and open democracy, you are free to MOVE ON to somewhere else where things are more to your liking.
But i feel you think imposing ideas from a few unelected people onto the democratic majority is a more fair solution eh?
DONT embarrass yourself by insulting the level of suffering of blacks under segregation to any possible "suffering" of people that had to view this sticker. The issues are not the same nor is the level of suffering.
(tho i suspect your willingness to segregate people by religion would go along well with other forms of segregation)
Inclusive means everyone, isnt that a bitch? Whom else do you wish to exclude and upon what criteria?

Still killing the truth because you dont like the messenger eh?
Please conjure up some assumptions that will negate a true statement from being true because of either; the intent of speaking the truth, or your discrimination against the person speaking the truth.
Which reason will you acknowlege changes truth to something other than a true statement?

Which assumptions would you like a judge to make on what other pending cases that will suit you?

I assume they will win on appeal.

How about a sticker on the bible "The concept of one or more Gods is a theory, not a fact, see Quran for alternative resources" ?

Would not be received well i guess, just who are those scientific atheist liberals to mess with peoples personal believes, coreection THE ONE and ONLY believe ????

Since evolution is a public mainstream believe, just who are those creationists to mess with public believes in public places ???

Respect must work both ways.


[edit on 19-1-2005 by Countermeasures]

Countermeasures poses an already asked and irrelavent question,

How about a sticker on the bible "The concept of one or more Gods is a theory, not a fact, see Quran for alternative resources" ?

Id be fine to put a sticker on the Bible that says, "The concept of one or more Gods is a theory, not a fact, keep an open mind when studying it."
BUT
You specifically imply another STATED ideology when you reccomend the Quran.
The sticker in question in this court case makes NO SUCH implications whatsoever.
Big difference.

Your logic also fails here,

Since evolution is a public mainstream believe, just who are those creationists to mess with public believes in public places ???

Are you implying that the so called "creationists" are somehow not part of the general public, or somehow less of an equal citizen?
Do they not apparently, (according to the info available) seem to constitute MORE of the local public than those that oppose the sticker?
Are these "creationists" less able to lobby their elected officials than other citizens?

PLEASE, show some more segregation of this group...discriminate more openly against them for doing what they have done....impose the will of an unelected minority onto the majority.....
Its ok, really, we here in America discriminate LEGALLY against people all the time!
Just stand up and take credit for doing so is all i ask.

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. If the sticker-makers are concerned about abiogenesis then they should address it rather than evolution.

I am not sure where you think I reference abiogenesis in my argument. If you think that Evolution has nothing to do with origins then perhaps you should take issue with its author who titled his original work “The origin of Species”!!!!!

They are trying to make it so that creationism is presented in classes. The sticker is part of a 'plan', along with the 'wedge' of intelligent design. Creationists advocate 'fairness' and 'intelligent design' to get c.f. creationism on the table and to 'wedge' open the issue, and then typically drop intelligent design and move for teaching creationism. This is the tactic recognized by the NCSE, and is also why most ID movements and such ultimately fail, since creationism is specifically not allowed in science classes.

Even if the above is 100% true, it makes no legal difference since the action being litigated crossed no legal boundaries. Until it does you must allow the evil plot to progress. Then when the vile religious schemer’s cross a legal boundary in their actions you come rushing in with all your pent up holy humanist zeal and place injunctions on them. You must however wait until they do something that is illegal. This sticker most certainly was not.

No alternatives are presented because there are no reasonable alternatives.

The day that science declares that it is unreasonable to say that a complex and patterned system cannot be the direct caused by applied intelligence is the day that science goes blind. I challenge you to apply the above principle to the observed conditions found at Stone Henge or at the great wall of China. Yet those monuments show a far smaller degree of complexity in their system than do the simplest of life forms known to man, the virus. I do not say definitively that life was designed and created but to definitively discount that possibility is intellectually dishonest and demonstrates a covert animosity toward the idea that there is a vastly superior intelligence to ours in the universe.

Freedom of speech does not apply to public school curriculae.

It most certainly does. As a duly elected body the school board is charged with the formation of a curriculum that teaches information and theory that is consistent with science and the social make up of the community it serves. They are given a freedom to express that paradigm in a large variety of ways so long as they do not trample the rights of those who may differ from the majority in the community and so long as they meet the minimum educational requirements of the state. This is why some school districts offer different sports, different activities, some have a heavier emphasis upon elective sciences, some on college prep classes. School boards are supposed to help direct the education of the students in their district. The sticker posted was one communities expression of their responsibility since it seems a majority on the elected board felt that evolution was not a substantiated theory and wanted the student body to carefully consider it and allow for alternatives to be considered. This tramples on no ones rights, suggests directly no other theories and expresses the will of the constituents of this school district. Hence it is protected free expression and the words free speech. IF there was not free speech in the High School Curriculum then textbooks could be censored for including any theory which someone else didn’t like. If there was no freedom of speech in the curriculum then school districts would have the power to completely remove the theory of evolution from the pages of the textbook if they found it offensive. Fortunately there is a freedom given universally in this country to express yourself, not only personally but also in the execution of the offices and responsibilities you have been given so long as that freedom does not abridge the freedom of another. Hence Evolution is found in all public school curriculum, but don’t go whining just because that freedom of expression cuts both ways and allows the truth about the theory of evolution to be emphasized along with the theory itself.

If the claim is that it has nothing to do with religion then its not 'protected' by the free exercise of religion.

You fail in your logic in that it is the judges decision that trampled on the religious freedoms of the school board by basing his decision on their motives. In his decision he plainly states that the sticker was neutral. He then goes on to justify his decision based on the motivations of the one’s who advocated for its posting. To adjudicate based upon the motives of a person rather than the actions in question is to censor the motives of that person. The motives in question apparently sprang from religious beliefs and to censor those beliefs is an abridgement of that persons constitutional right to free exercise of religion. An American has the right to believe their religion is fact and to act accordingly so long as their actions do not abridge the rights of others. The actions in this case do not abridge any other persons rights. Therefore the judge’s decision is an unconstitutional censorship of religious expression.

If its an overt attempt to teach creationism then its unconstitutional, as the SCOTUS has already decided.

You need to base the criteria for this test upon the action taken not the motivation of the persons initiating the action. Otherwise, as explained above, you decision becomes unconstitutional in the other direction. The action taken was neutral and therefore not an “overt attempt”.

Mutation adds new variation. Its irrational to assume that some magical 'kind' barrier exists that prevents variation from ever crossing that line.

All right, I will give you a little biology lesson to help readers understand the “barrier” to use your term, that exists.

The DNA of a bacteria is much smaller in physical length than the DNA of say a monkey. There are far fewer Chromosomal pairs in the DNA. The mechanism that has yet to be defined and which you are calling a “barrier” is that mechanism by which additional length, and chromosomal pairs can be added to the DNA of a being. The only viable genetic mutations that have been observed involve a reshuffling of the genetic code that exists within the original length of a DNA strand. No mechanism has been found by which new Chromosomes can be added. No new Chromosomes = no bacteria becoming fish.

To continue a computer analogy you cannot run Microsoft Windows XP on 64K of memory. There simply is not enough space. In the same fashion you cannot fit the genetic code of a human being into the DNA of a bacteria. There is not enough space for the code. Therefore your “barrier” is the unknown mechanism by which additional “memory space” is added to the DNA. In the case of DNA memory space is defined by number and length of chromosomal pairs. Until the theory of evolution defines the process by which DNA is augmented not simply reshuffled, it will remain only an unsubstantiated theory of “The origin of Species”

Originally posted by Nygdan
No, it is not protected. Religious Protection is ensured by seperation of church and state and the prevention of the establishment of religion, not by having a religious minority foist irrational beleifs on a scientific theory. This sticker soley exists to promote a religious agenda to denigrate evolutionary biology and is part of a larger well established plan to have creationism taught in public science classes. The judge presiding over the case did not need to ignore the context of the situation or the motives of the people presenting it.

You seem to understand only the establishment clause of the constitution but forget its partner the free exercise clause. If you think there is to be a wall of separation I challenge you to find that verbage anywhere in the constitution or anywhere in the supporting documents of the constitution. YOu cannot do it because it is not there and never has been. The two clauses dealing with religion were put there with the intent of making sure that just this kind of biased decision would never happen in this country where a judge would feel it is in his purview to adjudicate someones actions based soley on their religious beliefs. This country is slipping dangerously close to an oligarchy if terrible decisions like this one are allowed to stand.

It was however fundamentally partisan, not-neutral, because it singles out evolution and apparently 'biological origins'. It attacks the science that the sticker supporters view as a threat to their theology. That is not neutral.

SO here you disagree with the judges decision when he stated that the text of the message was nuetral? Show me where the sticker attacks science. Maybe you feel it attacks science because you have made Evolution your God and hence to challenge the absolute validity of the theory offends your religious beliefs. Well let me tell you something friend, there is not constitutional right to not be offended.

In addition the only singling out here is done by the textbook since it only presents the theory of evolution and not any of the other hypothesis that are available. You can't whine about being singled out if there are no other alternatives presented. If other theories were presented then the verbage to be fair would have to include them as well but since no other alternatives are taught no other alternatives need be addressed by the sticker.

........Johannmon
You fail in your logic in that it is the judges decision that trampled on the religious freedoms of the school board by basing his decision on their motives. In his decision he plainly states that the sticker was neutral. He then goes on to justify his decision based on the motivations of the one’s who advocated for its posting. To adjudicate based upon the motives of a person rather than the actions in question is to censor the motives of that person. The motives in question apparently sprang from religious beliefs and to censor those beliefs is an abridgement of that persons constitutional right to free exercise of religion. An American has the right to believe their religion is fact and to act accordingly so long as their actions do not abridge the rights of others.

You have answered your own question!!!

An American has the right to believe their religion is fact....so long as their actions do not abridge the rights of others..........


EXACTLY!!! YOU HAVE GRASPED IT..... HALLEILUAH!!!!!!!!!


[edit on 19-1-2005 by spacemunkey]