ACLU threatens suit over creation science course in night school
The ACLU has really gone off the deep end in trying to suppress criticism of Darwinism -- now they are threatening to sue over a creation science course in night school!
A news article in the NY Times said,
IMO this creation science course is on solid constitutional ground according to the Supreme Court's decision in Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist. (91-2024), 508 U.S. 384 (1993).
The ACLU tends to not be supportive of civil liberties that are or that the ACLU considers to be of the nature of free exercise of religion.
The threat of lawsuits from both sides here is a good reason for passage of a law capping attorney fee awards in both establishment clause and free exercise clause cases.
.
A news article in the NY Times said,
Why not teach an evening course on “creation science,” the thinking religious man’s antidote to mass-market Darwinism — Mr. Harrison views the theory of evolution as the backbone of atheism — in the Northport school district’s continuing education program for adults. He’d even buy the books . . .
. . . . The autumn 2006 debut of Mr. Harrison’s creation science class provoked complaints from some Northport residents; his autumn 2007 return just may provoke litigation.
The local antipathy toward his topic — and his right to teach it on school property — has sparked the threat of a legal challenge to the Northport school district from the Suffolk County branch of the New York Civil Liberties Union. Ironic?
Well, Mr. Harrison is less than stunned. “There is a pattern with them of looking to limit free speech of a religious nature,” he says. He has an acronym for the group: the Anti-Christian Lawsuit Union.
“This kind of thing is dangerous,” countered Seth Muraskin, the executive director of the N.Y.C.L.U.’s Suffolk office. This month he notified the Northport school board by letter and in person that he might sue if it continues to offer Mr. Harrison’s course . . .
According to Mr. Muraskin, holding the class at a public school violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. “If they were teaching it to kids during the day,” he says, “there would be yelling and screaming all over the place.”
The fact that it is being taught to adults at night has not mitigated the yelling and screaming. Mr. Muraskin entered the fray this year after being contacted by a frustrated parent from the district, Stephen Uzzo, who happens to be the director of technology for the New York Hall of Science.
Mr. Harrison, 51, pitched his curriculum for the fall 2006 semester and it was accepted, but after vetting by the district’s law firm, a disclaimer was added to the course brochure to make clear that the district does not select the topics for the program. It emphasizes that “none of the views presented in the classes should be interpreted as endorsed by the district.” . . .
Warren H. Richmond III of Ingerman Smith L.L.P., the law firm representing the district, said it had never rejected any topic for the continuing education program, which also offers a philosophy course called Problem Solving Through Buddhism.
“But is that a religion or a science or a philosophy; who knows?” Mr. Richmond asked. “In our opinion, the free speech aspect of this situation trumps the establishment clause; I sort of think the N.Y.C.L.U. is being anti-free speech. The whole idea of the First Amendment is that even stupid ideas have a right to be heard.”
The district is, he fears, in a “damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t” position, litigation-wise; prohibit Mr. Harrison’s class, and religious right-leaning law firms will leap at the chance to sue. “Either way, we’ll probably end up in litigation,” Mr. Richmond says. Happy thought, if you’re a lawyer. . . .
. . . .Mr. Harrison notified the district that he does not plan to teach the course for the spring semester. Scared off by the N.Y.C.L.U.? No. He cites an overcrowded schedule. He fully intends to returns to the classroom next fall for year No. 3 of “What Is Creation Science?”
Mr. Muraskin, be forewarned: “To not allow the course to be taught would fall under viewpoint discrimination,” Mr. Harrison says. “I’ve done my First Amendment research, too.”
IMO this creation science course is on solid constitutional ground according to the Supreme Court's decision in Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist. (91-2024), 508 U.S. 384 (1993).
The ACLU tends to not be supportive of civil liberties that are or that the ACLU considers to be of the nature of free exercise of religion.
The threat of lawsuits from both sides here is a good reason for passage of a law capping attorney fee awards in both establishment clause and free exercise clause cases.
.
Labels: Establishment clause (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 11/28/2007 01:38:00 AM
27 Comments:
> “creation science,” the thinking religious man’s antidote to mass-market Darwinism <
"Creation science" is an oxymoron and thinking men of any kind reject it as being science.
> Mr. Harrison views the theory of evolution as the backbone of atheism <
In short, he is a religious fanatic.
> The autumn 2006 debut of Mr. Harrison’s creation science class provoked complaints <
As well it should, using public school property for religious purposes.
> his right to teach it on school property <
He has no such right.
> “There is a pattern with them of looking to limit free speech of a religious nature,” <
They are not trying to limit free speech. He can give the class on private property.
> This month he notified the Northport school board by letter and in person that he might sue if it continues to offer Mr. Harrison’s course <
Good for this fine citizen.
> The fact that it is being taught to adults at night has not... <
Made it any less an abuse of public property.
> Mr. Harrison, 51, pitched his curriculum for the fall 2006 semester and it was accepted <
By weak minds.
> The whole idea of the First Amendment is that even stupid ideas have a right to be heard.” <
And they can make themselves heard on private property.
> prohibit Mr. Harrison’s class, and religious right-leaning law firms will leap at the chance to sue. <
And when they lose, the religious right can pay the district's attorney fees.
> IMO this creation science course is on solid constitutional ground <
But you have proven that you know nothing about law.
> The ACLU tends to not be supportive of civil liberties that... <
do not exist.
> free exercise of religion. <
There is no threat here to free exercise of religion. There is no right to carry on religious promotion on public property.
> The threat of lawsuits from both sides here is a good reason for passage of a law capping attorney fee awards in both establishment clause and free exercise clause cases. <
It is a good reason not to cap attorney fee awards. Only the losing side has to pay and it would limit frivilous law suits such as those threatened by the religious right whackos.
Larry, there is no need to thank me for this contribution. I know it is appreciated.
I agree that the ACLU case is likely weak, though not quite as weak as Larry probably thinks. Of course, I don't have all the data I need to make a strong statement one way or the other.
To be fair, some religious activities are allowed on public school grounds, such as Christian student unions and whatnot.
I think the problem is that Harrison's creationism "science" course was financed using public school funds, which would violate the establishment clause. The biggest problem is his $20/hr instructors salary paid for by public education funds. If he had just requested to the use of a public classroom facility for evening bible studies, which is essentially the same thing as this creation "science" nonsense, we wouldn't have a problem. I even dare to postulate that if he advertised it as a philosophy course on religion, he may have been able to get away with it being listed in an official course.
I suspect that:
A)Harrison is your typical arrogant and confrontational religious fundie douchebag
B)Specifically gave his course that crationism "science" moniker to piss off the more science-oriented members of his community
and
C)Probably got into an argument from someone important (or with money to burn) among said members of his community who was also extremely litigious
Conclusion: Harrison intentionally brought this on himself to garner more attention to himself and/or the evolution vs. creationism debate.
The article slyly gives the impression that "creation science" and "intelligent design" are the same thing, although they are radically different. Since most people probably have no idea what intelligent design theory actually is, that's a common Darwinist propaganda-ploy. Or are Darwinists really too ignorant to know the difference? Of course this sort of thing infuriates ID proponents. And, in the long run, it contributes to the collapse of Darwinism.
> The article slyly gives the impression that "creation science" and "intelligent design" are the same thing <
There is little difference.
> although they are radically different. <
Saying that, without any basis, does not make it true.
> Since most people probably have no idea what intelligent design theory actually is <
Larry doesn't seem to. He has design without a designer.
Are creationists really too ignorant to know the lack of a difference?
> in the long run, it contributes to the collapse of Darwinism. <
I see. The fundies and religious whackos will lose every battle and still win the war.
>>>>>
The article slyly gives the impression that "creation science" and "intelligent design" are the same thing
<<<<<
Oh please, the level of self-delusion you fundies exhibit is astounding. Granted there are technical differences with the wording, ID is just creationism repackaged, dressed up, fancy-wrapped, and redistributed to the masses.
Evidence brought to light in the Dover trial showed that the Discovery Institute itself, who were the de facto inventors and distributors of this ID garbage, classified ID under creationism sciences, and revisions of their ID propaganda publications such as the much disputed Panda textbook, showed that the literal transition from creationism to ID is reduced to a simple replacement of the term "creationism" with the term "intelligent design" over the span of a single revision.
The only reason why this would infuriate ID proponents is that it may force some to research the link, conclude that ID and creationism are one and the same from all the evidence, and expose these ID proponents as either liars or woefully ignorant.
"Creation science" is an effort by some fundamentalists to find scientific evidence in support of a literal interpretation of Genesis: usually with life created within the last 10,000 years, dinosaurs clambering on board Noah's Ark, etc. I'm not aware of any intelligent design theorists who are involved in "creation science."
I'm favorable to intelligent design theory, but I'm not a theist, and I don't believe in a Creator-God. If you don't understand, try to educate yourself: I don't have to time to try tonight.
> expose these ID proponents as either liars or woefully ignorant.<
Or in Larry's case, both.
>>>>>>>>>
I'm not aware of any intelligent design theorists who are involved in "creation science."
<<<<<<<<<
Are you blind or did you forcibly tape your eyes shut? The people behind Of Pandas and People were some of the biggest theorists of creation science as evidenced by the earlier drafts of their book, where the term "creationism science" is coined rather extensively throughout the text. In Edwards v. Aguillard, 1984, Kenyon was the one who made the affidavit that
"Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation."
which got shot down as religious in nature for the blatant references to Genesis and other biblical scriptures.
It was due to the outcome of this trial that Kenyon revised all instances of creationism to ID and became the ID theorist we all know and love today.
Perhaps YOU should educate YOURSELF before making unfounded claims. I'm curious as to in what way you are favorable to ID theory. As a scientific theory, it rejects scientific methods, doesn't produce any useful data or conclusions, and overall hinders progress. What other purpose is it good for other than bolstering religious faith?
Anonymous said,
>>>>> The biggest problem is his $20/hr instructors salary paid for by public education funds. <<<<<
His salary or wages might have been covered by fees charged by the night school -- who knows. The news article said that there were 13 students in 2006, so if there were 13 sessions of 3 hours each, then a $60 fee from each student would have paid his wages.
ViU, you have no support here, not even from your fellow trolls. Even Anonymous and Kevin Vicklund concede that the course might be constitutional according to court precedents.
It is imprecise and misleading to call intelligent design "creationism" because (1) the word "creationism" by itself is usually assumed to mean biblical creationism and (2) ID makes no assumptions as to causes except to oppose the idea of evolution driven solely by what we now consider to be natural genetic variation.
> ViU, you have no support here, not even from your fellow trolls. <
You are not in a position to call other people trolls. You hide in the condo that your parents provide and rarely come out into the real world except when you run out of beer, potato chips, and candy bars.
> Even Anonymous and Kevin Vicklund concede that the course might be constitutional according to court precedents. <
Did I use the term "unconstitutional" or are you "interpreting" again?
> It is imprecise and misleading to call intelligent design "creationism" because (1) the word "creationism" by itself is usually assumed to mean biblical creationism <
But it can mean any sort of creation by a designer (god)>
> (2) ID makes no assumptions as to causes except to .. <
Have a designer. I know how much you would like to have design without a designer, but the two things are inseperable. Whether that designer is the biblical god or your little green men who publish the Los Angeles Times is not an issue.
Let's see if we can pin the jackass down into actually taking a position and sticking with it.
Do you believe that Intelligent Design requires a designer?
>>>>>>
ViU, you have no support here, not even from your fellow trolls. Even Anonymous and Kevin Vicklund concede that the course might be constitutional according to court precedents.
<<<<<<
I never said that I agree that the course might be constitutional, but merely pointed out some aspects of it that violate the establishment clause, specifically that public school funds were used to fund the class. I even went as far to suggest some changes that Harrison could have made to keep it, assuming he can swallow his religious pride.
>>>>>>>
It is imprecise and misleading to call intelligent design "creationism" because (1) the word "creationism" by itself is usually assumed to mean biblical creationism and (2) ID makes no assumptions as to causes except to oppose the idea of evolution driven solely by what we now consider to be natural genetic variation.
<<<<<<<
Perhaps there is some confusion with this terminology due to the various legal changes that have occurred. "Creationism" is the literal interpretation of Genesis and other biblical scriptures regarding the origins of man and other species at face value. The term being debated here is "creation science" which is using biblical scripture to explain modern scientific findings regarding the origin of man and other species ,which consists largely of belittling scientific methods such radiometric dating, geochronology, and genetics as being inaccurately and inconclusive while not offering any non-religious alternative methods (sounding familiar anyone?). After Edwards v. Aguillard, "creation science" was repackaged as "intelligent design" literally through a simple change in terminology as evidenced by the revisions used in the Dover trial.
However, creation science and intelligent design are all derivative works of creationism, and many consider them to be similar if not the same due to the common conclusion that is implied by all three theories: God did it. For the sake of argument, let's say that these three theories are different and distinct, but when you look at the big picture, you realize that they were specifically formulated to reach the same conclusion for all intents and purposes.
While you may mock the "Darwinists" for this minor misconception, the fundies themselves are guilty of the exact same sort of confusion, labeling all aspects of evolution theory as "Darwinism" and the like, whereas if one were to actually do research, one would see that modern evolution theory contains information not covered by Darwin's original theories, but that it is a derivative work of Darwin's original theories along with the works of others. Furthermore, conclusions may still be changed as new scientific methods are developed, and new theories are formulated to accept this possibility.
Anonymous said,
>>>>> I never said that I agree that the course might be constitutional, but merely pointed out some aspects of it that violate the establishment clause, specifically that public school funds were used to fund the class. <<<<<<
Here are your exact words:
To be fair, some religious activities are allowed on public school grounds, such as Christian student unions and whatnot.
I think the problem is that Harrison's creationism "science" course was financed using public school funds, which would violate the establishment clause. The biggest problem is his $20/hr instructors salary paid for by public education funds. If he had just requested to the use of a public classroom facility for evening bible studies, which is essentially the same thing as this creation "science" nonsense, we wouldn't have a problem.
So you said that the problem was public financing of his pay, and I pointed out that the pay might be covered by student tuition. Or he could even waive the pay. Problem solved.
What about Kansas University Prof. Paul Mirecki's for-credit course "Intelligent Design, Creation Science, and other Religious Mythologies"? (the course was cancelled after he said that it would be a "nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies") No one ever said that course was unconstitutional.
>>>>>> Perhaps there is some confusion with this terminology due to the various legal changes that have occurred. <<<<<<
No one has done more to create confusion about terminology than the Darwinists. To the Darwinists, any criticism of Darwinism is ID.
Darwinist Ken Miller says that evolution is the method his god chose for creation, so maybe evolution should be called "evolutionary creationism."
Trying to turn the controversy into a battle of definitions is stupid.
I don't see anywhere where I argued for the constitutionality via court precedents and such. I simply pointed out parts of the course which are unconstitutional, and offered some explanations and suggestions regarding why a similar religious course on Buddhism was allowed to proceed.
As I recall, Larry, it was the fundies who started this war of terminologies, attacking evolution over the definition of "theory," and coining the whole creation "science" and intelligent design controversy in an attempt to skirt the letter of the law. Don't be a hypocrite (or in your case, don't be so blatant about it).
> What about Kansas University Prof. Paul Mirecki's for-credit course "Intelligent Design, Creation Science, and other Religious Mythologies"? (the course was cancelled after he said that it would be a "nice slap in the big fat face of the fundies") No one ever said that course was unconstitutional. <
That course was not claimed to be science. It included ID and Creationism in their proper category - Religious Mythologies.
> To the Darwinists, any criticism of Darwinism is ID. <
It is only the creationists who have said that.
> Trying to turn the controversy into a battle of definitions is stupid. <
So stop being stupid. You are the one who is playing the Cheshire Cat. "A word means exactly what I want it to mean, no more, no less."
VIU said,
>>>>> That course was not claimed to be science. <<<<<<
There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state.
>>>>> It included ID and Creationism in their proper category - Religious Mythologies. <<<<<
Mirecki's and Harrison's courses are two different views of the same subject. Allowing Mirecki's course while not allowing Harrison's course would be viewpoint discrimination.
>>>>>> To the Darwinists, any criticism of Darwinism is ID. <
It is only the creationists who have said that. <<<<<<
Wrong. The Darwinists insisted that the former Ohio evolution lesson plan is ID, but a lot of it is not ID.
> There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state. <
How thick can you be. ID is not bad science. It is not bad science at all.
> Mirecki's and Harrison's courses are two different views of the same subject. <
One is calling mythology science and the other is calling mythology mythology. I guess you can't see the difference.
> Allowing Mirecki's course while not allowing Harrison's course would be viewpoint discrimination.<
Not at all. It is quite legal to discriminate against someone who wants to teach a class telling people that 2+2=3 and calls it math.
> Wrong. The Darwinists insisted that the former Ohio evolution lesson plan is ID, but a lot of it is not ID. <
A lot if it is ID. It would be allowable to include it in a class on superstition.
>>>> ID is not bad science. It is not bad science at all. <<<<<
Right -- ID is good science.
>>>>>> One is calling mythology science and the other is calling mythology mythology. <<<<<<
That all depends on your point of view.
>>>>> It is quite legal to discriminate against someone who wants to teach a class telling people that 2+2=3 and calls it math <<<<<<
What does this have to do with math? Can you show by mathematical proof that Darwinism is true?
>>>>> A lot if it is ID. <<<<<
But the Darwinists claim that it is all ID. I don't remember exactly, but I think that none of it is ID.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>> I don't see anywhere where I argued for the constitutionality via court precedents and such. <<<<<
Then what was the point of referring to the establishment clause? That is relevant only if you are talking about constitutionality via court precedents.
>>>>> As I recall, Larry, it was the fundies who started this war of terminologies, <<<<<<
And it is the Darwinists who have made a science out of the war of terminologies, e.g., coining the term "intelligent design creationism." I have never seen the term "evolutionary creationism" used to describe the views of even just some evolutionists, let alone the views of all evolutionists.
>>>>> attacking evolution over the definition of "theory," <<<<<
Well, evolution is a theory, so where is the attack?
>>>>>> and coining the whole creation "science" and intelligent design controversy in an attempt to skirt the letter of the law. <<<<<
It's just giving new names to distinguish new concepts. There is nothing in the bible about irreducible complexity, DNA, bacterial flagella, blood-clotting cascades, etc..
The jackass brayed...
> It's just giving new names to distinguish new concepts.<
It's just giving names to misidentify old concepts.
Larry's reading skills took a dive and posted...
>>>>
Then what was the point of referring to the establishment clause? That is relevant only if you are talking about constitutionality via court precedents.
<<<<
Do you seriously have reading problems or are you blind? I said I never argued FOR the constitutionality of said course. In fact, if you read the original comment, I was noting the various aspects of the course that would violate the establishment clause.
>>>>
And it is the Darwinists who have made a science out of the war of terminologies
<<<<
In case you haven't noticed, science is all about terminologies and classifications. A lot of the same is found in engineering as well. (you should know this assuming your engineering background wasn't made up) Religion just happens to suck bad at playing the word game and are reduced to attacking methods, terms, and definitions of scientific theories without supplying ANY possible method of testing and proving their own biblical scripture-based theories. Kinda like trolling a discussion by insulting everyone's input and declaring your own opinion to be absolute and above all others.
As I said before, creationism, creation science, and intelligent design may have minor differences in wording but they were all formulated to reach the same specific conclusion that every one of their theorists already had in mind. They are not scientific theories, because if they were tested using scientific methods, each one would be stuck at the hypothesis stage. A theory in this case, is something that is repeatedly tested and found to predict/explain the mechanisms of an observed phenomenon, in this case, evolution.
Fundies love the word play game in this case, defining theory as a simple assumption on equal footing with their creationism/ID garbage to rationalize their unconstitutional invasion into the public education system.
Anonymous said,
>>>>>Do you seriously have reading problems or are you blind? I said I never argued FOR the constitutionality of said course. In fact, if you read the original comment, I was noting the various aspects of the course that would violate the establishment clause. <<<<<<
OK, bozo, let's go back to the original comments. Here is what I said --
ViU, you have no support here, not even from your fellow trolls. Even Anonymous and Kevin Vicklund concede that the course might be constitutional according to court precedents.
Note the new emphasis on the words "concede" and "might."
Here is what Kevin Vicklund said --
I agree that the ACLU case is likely weak, though not quite as weak as Larry probably thinks. Of course, I don't have all the data I need to make a strong statement one way or the other.
Here is what you originally said --
I think the problem is that Harrison's creationism "science" course was financed using public school funds, which would violate the establishment clause. The biggest problem is his $20/hr instructors salary paid for by public education funds. If he had just requested to the use of a public classroom facility for evening bible studies, which is essentially the same thing as this creation "science" nonsense, we wouldn't have a problem. I even dare to postulate that if he advertised it as a philosophy course on religion, he may have been able to get away with it being listed in an official course.
BTW, I pointed out that paying the teacher with public funds might not be an issue because his pay might be covered by student tuition.
Now compare your and Kevin's statements with the hardline statements in ViU's original comment, e.g. , "They are not trying to limit free speech. He can give the class on private property."
So my original statement was not all that inaccurate.
==========================================
>>>>> As I said before, creationism, creation science, and intelligent design may have minor differences in wording but they were all formulated to reach the same specific conclusion that every one of their theorists already had in mind. <<<<<
They have big differences in wording and big differences in meaning.
> Even Anonymous and Kevin Vicklund concede that the course might be constitutional according to court precedents. <
But I thought you said that I was "Anonymous"?
> They have big differences in wording and big differences in meaning. <
Another unsupported (and false)statement.
Incidentally Anonymous. Larry was an engineer although never a very good one. He was able to get through school by reading the work of others in the library. Unfortunately he was incapable of original thought so he ended up being fired (oh, I'm sorry Larry, laid off from every job.
I assume this post will be censored. Larry seems to back at that again.
ViU driveled,
>>>>>> Larry, there is no need to thank me for this contribution. I know it is appreciated. <<<<<<
ViU, you stupid fathead, even Ed Brayton conceded that the course might be constitutional, after initially arguing that it is unconstitutional. He said,
It really depends on how exactly the funding is set up. If it's set up so that private groups or individuals can teach a class on anything if they want, then it would be difficult to keep out a creationism class. I don't have the details on how they set up those classes.
So where does that leave you? Up Shit Creek without a paddle, that's where.
>>>>>> Larry, there is no need to thank me for this contribution. I know it is appreciated. <<<<<<
To which Larry brayed...
> ViU, you stupid fathead, even Ed Brayton conceded that the course might be constitutional <
Which has no relationship to what I said. So where does that leave you? Up Shit Creek without a paddle.
You are getting much worse. Have they changed your medication recently?
Post a Comment
<< Home