Orwellian Evolution Lawsuit

Charles Johnsonfollow me on twitter
US News • Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 11:41 am PST • Views: 239

The University of California Museum of Paleontology has a website titled, Understanding Evolution For Teachers, and on that site is a page addressing the oft-repeated fundamentalist claim that evolution and religion are mortal enemies: Misconceptions: Evolution and Religion are Incompatible.

The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.

Well, the idea that religion and evolution can coexist peacefully is absolute anathema to some, and now a “schoolteacher” is suing UC, with the bizarre Orwellian argument that this statement is unconstitutional: Cal Web site draws anti-evolution lawsuit.

A Christian schoolteacher from Roseville (Placer County) who takes the Bible literally says a UC Berkeley Web site about evolution is unconstitutional, like a cross in a public park.

The Web site, “Understanding Evolution,” is supported by government funds and violates the constitutional separation of church and state, according to the suit by Jeanne Caldwell.

Rebuffed by lower courts, she has appealed to the nation’s highest court, and UC joined the battle this week, saying in its response that the Internet is not like a park and that, in fact, Caldwell has no right even to file the suit. …

Caldwell says UC’s government-funded assertion contradicts a religious belief that evolution and religion are incompatible and amounts to a state position on religious doctrine. This violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment barring Congress from making any law respecting the establishment or exercise of religion, she says.

She first sued in 2005. UC thwarted the suit in federal district court and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco by successfully arguing that Caldwell’s exposure to the Web page is too minimal to cause the type of injury that would make her eligible to sue. The lower courts threw the case out based on her eligibility and didn’t rule on whether the Web page violates the First Amendment.

And of course, these are the same people who want to teach creationism as science, and see no constitutional violation in that.

UPDATE at 2/15/09 12:54:13 pm:

And of course, this ridiculous, frivolous lawsuit is being heavily promoted by the creationists at the Discovery Institute: Evolution News & Views: University of California Defends Its ‘Right’ to Propagate Pro-Evolution Religious Doctrine.

Advertisement

209 comments

  • Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 Dan G.  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:43:54am

Gasp, the theocrat's are yet again borrowing from the left's cookbook. Who'd a thunk it?

2 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:44:53am

I fail to see how this is unConstitutional since the UC website offers both religious views in their statement.

3 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:45:11am

These people are batshit crazy.

4 lostlakehiker  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:45:29am

The site doesn't say that each and every religious belief is compatible with science. It says differently, if one reads a few lines.

What it says is that not everyone finds that they must choose between religion and science. And that's just a fact.

5 Cathypop  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:46:13am

What a waste of oxygen

6 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:46:57am
7 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:47:10am

re: #4 lostlakehiker

The site doesn't say that each and every religious belief is compatible with science. It says differently, if one reads a few lines.

What it says is that not everyone finds that they must choose between religion and science. And that's just a fact.

Facts offend them.

8 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:47:15am

And I thought the heyday of the California Cults was long since past!

9 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:47:51am

re: #7 Sharmuta

Facts offend them.

Precisely.

10 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:48:21am

I suppose the lawyers are the only ones getting anything out of this?

11 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:48:41am

re: #10 pingjockey

I suppose the lawyers are the only ones getting anything out of this?

Of course!

12 pingjockey  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:48:46am

Later folks.

13 Dan G.  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:48:59am

re: #7 Sharmuta

They never let facts get in the way of their misconceptions.

14 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:49:07am

re: #12 pingjockey

Later folks.

Happy shovelling

15 Jetpilot1101  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:50:53am

The only way this website would be unconstitutional is if "evolution" was somehow a "religion". Since evolution is science, and pretty good science at that, there is no basis for this lawsuit.

I don't know which constitutional lawyer tis jacktard is using to pursue this ridiculous case but whoever he is should probably read the constitution.

16 opnion  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:53:53am

I don't understand the 05 Ninth Circuit Court ruling saying that exposure to the web page is too minimal to cause sufficient damages to give the litigant standing.
It sounds like they are saying that if she were unusually sensitive , that the ordinary reasonable person concept would not be the standard.
What about if she read an entire paper? would that be sufficient to give her standing?

17 transient  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:54:07am

By this teacher's logic, any sort of religion class would be illegal in a university receiving state funding.

But I suppose that would be okay with her, because any university religion class would inevitably not teach religion the very narrowly specific way she believes to be correct.

18 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:55:32am

Semi-OT: Evolution Schmevolution...
The Daily Show's Best Evolution Moments

Yes, the Disco Institute is featured prominently.

19 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:55:45am

UC should counter sue for frivolous and malicious abuse of process and for attorney's fees as well. The notion that California taxpayers are exposed here is repugnant.

20 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:55:51am
21 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:56:50am

re: #15 Jetpilot1101

The only way this website would be unconstitutional is if "evolution" was somehow a "religion".

On that subject, here's a comment just posted in the Louisiana thread:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

22 Kailen  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:57:51am
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[. . .]


There is no "desperation of church and state" as far as "no religious displays on government ground". That's NOT establishing a religion, and IS free expression thereof.

23 abaleh  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 11:59:27am

Today's caricature in the Israeli daily "Israel Today" commemorates Darwin's birthday, and shows humankind returning to the primordial swamp from which our evolutionary forebears ascended.

24 Jetpilot1101  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:01:14pm

re: #21 Charles

On that subject, here's a comment just posted in the Louisiana thread:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I'm no expert but I don't think science classes are teaching "Darwinism"; I think they are teaching evolution. Correct me if I wrong but evolution doesn't explain how life began but only how it came to be in it's current form.

25 transient  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:01:22pm

re: #20 buzzsawmonkey

The government-funded assertion is not a "law." Nor does it in any way prevent the plaintiff Caldwell from asserting her contrary belief that religion and science are incompatible.

Since there is no "law" here; nothing whatever respecting either the establishment of religion (i.e., no government imposition of religion), nor anything preventing her from "freely exercising" her religion (i.e., not preventing her from believing whatever she will), this suit should be dismissed for failing to state a claim.

I agree with you and I picked up on that too, but on the other hand, haven't suits been won by people protesting crosses on public property, prayer in schools, ten commandments in government buildings? None of these cases specifically involve government making a law favoring one religion. She is trying to make her argument on those grounds.

26 Shay4l  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:02:35pm

I love it! Desperation of Church and State

27 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:03:17pm

re: #21 Charles

On that subject, here's a comment just posted in the Louisiana thread:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Heh. ... "Darwinism Religion" ... Strawman. Absolutely necessary strawman.

If they don't have it, or can't maintain it, their entire position goes down in flames.

28 Cathypop  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:03:58pm

re: #21 Charles

Darwinism is a religion? Since when?

29 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:04:38pm

re: #28 Cathypop

Darwinism is a religion? Since when?

Since they needed it to be one.

30 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:05:25pm

It seems like they're attacking from all fronts these days.

Who knew that the idea of a Theocracy was such a popular thing in America of all places?

31 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:06:02pm

Good grief, the logic of this suit is so twisted.

And if everybody starts suing everybody else for stuff that's on the internet, for Pete's sake, we'll none of us ever get any real life stuff done again.

32 opnion  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:06:17pm

re: #25 transient

I agree with you and I picked up on that too, but on the other hand, haven't suits been won by people protesting crosses on public property, prayer in schools, ten commandments in government buildings? None of these cases specifically involve government making a law favoring one religion. She is trying to make her argument on those grounds.


Right , but in 05 the 9th Circuit denied her standing , becuse she could not show damages. Yet in other cases the courts have not required damages , but ruled on Constittionality. It would be more satisfying if the court ruled on the Constitutional issue.

33 transient  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:06:48pm

re: #16 opnion

I don't understand the 05 Ninth Circuit Court ruling saying that exposure to the web page is too minimal to cause sufficient damages to give the litigant standing.
It sounds like they are saying that if she were unusually sensitive , that the ordinary reasonable person concept would not be the standard.
What about if she read an entire paper? would that be sufficient to give her standing?

I am emphatically not a lawyer, but my understanding was that her "exposure" was hardly unavoidable or potentially injurious. She had to seek that website, and then read it. It's not comparable to, say, being in school and unable to walk out of class (without social or disciplinary consequences) if your teacher decides s/he is going to conduct a prayer service.

I don't know enough about the law to know what degree of injury gives you enough standing to file a civil suit.

34 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:06:57pm

re: #30 Summer

It seems like they're attacking from all fronts these days.

Who knew that the idea of a Theocracy was such a popular thing in America of all places?

It's not just for Islamists anymore.

(It never was.)

35 freedombilly  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:07:16pm

It makes you wonder whether half of the people these days who claim something is unconstitutional even own a copy of the document.

36 Summer Seale  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:07:25pm

And we need to fight against the word "Darwinism" because it is absolute gobledygook. It's sorta like calling people who accept The Theory of Relativity, "Einsteinists", or people who accept the Theory of Gravity..."Newtonists".

37 transient  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:07:40pm

re: #32 opnion

Right , but in 05 the 9th Circuit denied her standing , becuse she could not show damages. Yet in other cases the courts have not required damages , but ruled on Constittionality. It would be more satisfying if the court ruled on the Constitutional issue.

Agree 100%.

38 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:07:47pm

re: #31 Cato the Elder

Good grief, the logic of this suit is so twisted.

And if everybody starts suing everybody else for stuff that's on the internet, for Pete's sake, we'll none of us ever get any real life stuff done again.

I would be very interested to know if there is some group or organization helping her pay for this suit of hers.

It can't be cheap.

39 Jetpilot1101  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:08:03pm

I've got to run. Have a great day one and all!

40 Flame Fin Tomini Tang  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:08:52pm

Strange. This logic can be taken to any degree on essentially any topic that any "religion" chooses to say is in conflict with their beliefs.

How does it differ from, say, a Muslim or FLDS member saying polygamy must be allowed for them?

41 opnion  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:08:52pm

re: #33 transient

I am emphatically not a lawyer, but my understanding was that her "exposure" was hardly unavoidable or potentially injurious. She had to seek that website, and then read it. It's not comparable to, say, being in school and unable to walk out of class (without social or disciplinary consequences) if your teacher decides s/he is going to conduct a prayer service.

I don't know enough about the law to know what degree of injury gives you enough standing to file a civil suit.

As far as I can tell , she was not seeking damages. The court ducked the issue & should have ruled on the Constitutional issue & disposed of it.

42 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:09:14pm

IF ... I.D. can't compete as a proveable science
THEN ... another, supporting, argument must be made.

IF ... "Darwinism Religion" can be "created" (and maintained)
THEN ... we (the IDers) can shift the debate away from our weak spot

/understandable tactic ... stupidity nonetheless

43 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:10:21pm

re: #38 reine.de.tout

I would be very interested to know if there is some group or organization helping her pay for this suit of hers.

It can't be cheap.

I'm sure there is. Taking it to the Supremes is always a long and costly proposition.

BTW after service today I received the sacrament of healing.

44 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:10:51pm

re: #31 Cato the Elder

Good grief, the logic of this suit is so twisted.

And if everybody starts suing everybody else for stuff that's on the internet, for Pete's sake, we'll none of us ever get any real life stuff done again.

/hmmm, there's gotta be something in there which I can sue you for ...
... ... lemme think ... hmmm

/

45 itellu3times  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:11:18pm

I've seen people with fish symbols, with feet, on their cars.

I suppose they must go every Sunday and worship at the alter of nucleic acids, and do unspeakable things with monkeys.

46 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:12:14pm

re: #31 Cato the Elder

Good grief, the logic of this suit is so twisted.

And if everybody starts suing everybody else for stuff that's on the internet, for Pete's sake, we'll none of us ever get any real life stuff done again.

Why, I oughta' sue you for saying that!

47 itellu3times  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:12:38pm

re: #45 itellu3times

Altar, alter, heh.

48 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:12:53pm

re: #38 reine.de.tout

I would be very interested to know if there is some group or organization helping her pay for this suit of hers.

It can't be cheap.

Bingo! There IS a Christian advocacy organization behind this -- I had the link to it not very long ago, but I can't find it now. It's not the Thomas More group, someone else.

49 J.S.  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:12:57pm

re: #31 Cato the Elder

In Canada, I was just reading the following headline: "CRTC to review hands-off approach to unregulated Internet, cellphone content." Looks like the CRTC wants the Internet and cellphones "regulated."

50 Gella  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:13:05pm

re: #21 Charles

On that subject, here's a comment just posted in the Louisiana thread:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

great, u can make everything into religion now, science is not a religion, some ppl cant put their mind around it, sad

51 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:13:09pm

Charles, there is a lot more here than meets the eye. The teacher is married to Larry Caldwell, a notorious filer of junk creationist lawsuits...[Link: www.google.com...]

52 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:13:28pm

re: #38 reine.de.tout

I would be very interested to know if there is some group or organization helping her pay for this suit of hers.

It can't be cheap.

Is she the sole plaintiff?

53 transient  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:13:58pm

re: #41 opnion

As far as I can tell , she was not seeking damages. The court ducked the issue & should have ruled on the Constitutional issue & disposed of it.

It sounds like the courts ruled based on the defense arguments, and defense took the easiest route--her eligibility as a plaintiff. Why get into a theoretical argument about the First Amendment when you can win on the argument that the plaintiff has no right to sue?

54 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:14:12pm

re: #48 Charles

Pacific Justice Institute

55 funky chicken  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:14:15pm

re: #15 Jetpilot1101

The only way this website would be unconstitutional is if "evolution" was somehow a "religion". Since evolution is science, and pretty good science at that, there is no basis for this lawsuit.

I don't know which constitutional lawyer tis jacktard is using to pursue this ridiculous case but whoever he is should probably read the constitution.

Can the state of CA countersue this lunatic and her attorney to recover their legal expenses?

56 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:14:37pm

re: #38 reine.de.tout

The Pacific Justice Institute is involved.

57 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:15:10pm

PJI link:
[Link: www.pacificjustice.org...]

58 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:15:17pm

re: #54 Sharmuta

Pacific Justice Institute

[Link: www.pacificjustice.org...]

59 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:16:19pm

re: #52 MandyManners

Is she the sole plaintiff?

[Link: www.plol.org...]

60 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:16:23pm
Rebuffed by lower courts, she has appealed to the nation’s highest court

/hmmm, just a guess, going way out on a limb here, Certiorari denied?

61 sillyquiet  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:16:29pm

I blame the internet for the rise in non-critical thinking skills. Not the technology itself, but the ease with which it allows people of similar (non)thought to share and propagate their (non)ideas. Crap like this have been present in most of modern history of course, but with the thousand-fold increase in ease of communication over the last 10 or 15 years it seems more present and immediate. ID, trooferism, etc. All sides of the same crappy coin, buffed up and polished courtesy of the internet.

62 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:16:34pm
63 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:17:27pm

re: #61 sillyquiet

I blame the internet for the rise in non-critical thinking skills. Not the technology itself, but the ease with which it allows people of similar (non)thought to share and propagate their (non)ideas. Crap like this have been present in most of modern history of course, but with the thousand-fold increase in ease of communication over the last 10 or 15 years it seems more present and immediate. ID, trooferism, etc. All sides of the same crappy coin, buffed up and polished courtesy of the internet.

A million up-dings!

64 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:17:54pm

President of the Pacific Justice Institute, Brad Dacus, on Prop 8:

There was another time in history when people, when the bell tolled. And the question was whether or not they were going to hear it. The time was during Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler. You see he brought crowds of clergy together to assure them that he was going to look after the church. And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend Niemoller made his way to the front and boldly said "Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany." Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back. And as they did Adolf Hitler said, "The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me." And they did, and because they did bombs did not only fall upon the nation of Germany, but also upon the church and their testimony to this very day. Let us not make that mistake folks. Let us hear the bell! Vote on Proposition 8!


65 opnion  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:18:17pm

re: #53 transient

It sounds like the courts ruled based on the defense arguments, and defense took the easiest route--her eligibility as a plaintiff. Why get into a theoretical argument about the First Amendment when you can win on the argument that the plaintiff has no right to sue?


But if you look at their reasoning it is because exposure to the web page is no sufficient to cause damages. Ok, she decides to read a Science proffesor's lecture on the University web site.
Using the Courts reasoning , it looks like quantity of information is the key to achieve standing & she could then assert sufficient exposure.

66 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:19:17pm
67 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:19:20pm

re: #44 pre-Boomer Marine brat

/hmmm, there's gotta be something in there which I can sue you for ...
... ... lemme think ... hmmm

/

re: #46 MandyManners

Why, I oughta' sue you for saying that!

Why, I oughta...

68 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:20:41pm

re: #54 Sharmuta

Pacific Justice Institute

How do you find this stuff?
I googled Christian advocacy, and then Christian advocacy in education, and got more stuff than I could look at.

69 Dom  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:20:43pm

Some unarranged thoughts:

Of all pursuits there cannot be many worthier and much greater manifestations of faith than the pursuit and imparting of painstakingly learned absolute knowledge for all society in the belief that understanding the mechanics of life and the universe will save and enrich life from here onwards. And there can be little more debased than politically opposing said truth in favour of superstition and prejudice. The integrity demanded of scientists ought to please any God.

And to be thorough: many religious people of all stripes, and agnostics, and atheists are committed to self-improvement and good deeds. As far as they can tell most atheists and agnostics prefer not to be dishonest and pay lip-service to a belief unproven to their satisfaction.

Goodwill is missing from the creationist attitude to scientists. These are our saints. What does God reckon of all this?

70 itellu3times  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:20:54pm

re: #61 sillyquiet

I blame the internet for the rise in non-critical thinking skills. Not the technology itself, but the ease with which it allows people of similar (non)thought to share and propagate their (non)ideas. Crap like this have been present in most of modern history of course, but with the thousand-fold increase in ease of communication over the last 10 or 15 years it seems more present and immediate. ID, trooferism, etc. All sides of the same crappy coin, buffed up and polished courtesy of the internet.

Yah, it allows the idiots to build up critical mass.

But on some dark days, I think it's just sort of something that was unavoidable, as the world gets more complex, more people just opt out. The Luddite phenomenon - yeah, that was economic, but you know what I mean.

71 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:21:33pm
72 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:22:18pm

Gee- imagine my surprise to find Pacific Justice Institute on the DI's site!

[Link: www.discovery.org...]

73 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:22:31pm

re: #68 reine.de.tout

It's in the news link.

74 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:22:33pm

re: #48 Charles

Bingo! There IS a Christian advocacy organization behind this -- I had the link to it not very long ago, but I can't find it now. It's not the Thomas More group, someone else.

Someone's using the name of the great Thomas More to promote this kind of crap?

75 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:23:10pm

re: #54 Sharmuta

They've got a blurb by Bill O'Reilly on their home page.
good grief!

76 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:23:16pm

re: #67 Cato the Elder

Why, I oughta...

LOL!

77 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:23:21pm

Here's the entire text.

[Link: www.plol.org...]

78 nyc redneck  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:23:23pm

this looks so frivolous.
how can she assert any injury to her or any constitutional violation here?
the opinion expressed by U.C. is not definitive in any way regarding religion.
it is a general open ended statement abt. the prevailing attitudes people have toward evolution.
there is no directive or pressure being put religious people that violates their rights to worship as they please.
it is very tenuous argument.

79 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:23:43pm

re: #75 reine.de.tout

"Culture Warriors."
/

80 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:23:54pm

re: #60 Killian Bundy

/hmmm, just a guess, going way out on a limb here, Certiorari denied?

Maybe it would be better for the court to hear it and then smack her down.

81 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:24:08pm

PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE JOINS BATTLE FOR QUALITY SCIENCE EDUCATION

Roseville, CA — Pacific Justice Institute has joined a federal lawsuit filed by a local parent who has endured intense opposition and unlawful tactics from school officials after he proposed a more objective policy for teaching evolution in the classroom.

In an effort to restore balance and scientific soundness to science education, Larry Caldwell acted on his right under the First Amendment and California law to be involved in local curriculum decisions by proposing a Quality Science Education Policy. This proposed policy simply states that because scientific theories are constantly subject to change, they should not be taught dogmatically. Instead, teachers should "help students analyze the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution.”

This common-sense policy, even though derived from a “California State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences,” and endorsed by respected scientists, prompted local school officials to launch an aggressive, mean-spirited campaign against Mr. Caldwell. For over a year, school officials continually denied him a fair hearing on his proposal, in clear violation of California and federal law, denied other parents the right to speak in favor of the proposal and launched personal attacks. Mr. Caldwell commented, “I tried to exercise my basic rights as a citizen to propose a new idea, and school officials responded by suspending normal procedures, publicly attacking my personal religious beliefs, and even threatening to sue me to stop me from speaking out.”

After months of frustration and game-playing by school officials, Mr. Caldwell, who is also an attorney, filed a lawsuit to protect the rights of all parents to be involved in their children’s education. Pacific Justice has joined the case as co-counsel and will expend every effort necessary to ensure that local school officials are held accountable when they do not comply with the law.

“Parents remain the first and foremost authorities in their children’s education,” stated Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute. “We will not stand idly by while school officials illegally ignore badly-needed, common-sense proposals to improve our educational system.”

82 Lynn B.  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:24:40pm

re: #73 Sharmuta

It's in the news link.

Also here, where the case is discussed in more depth.

83 sillyquiet  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:25:01pm

re: #70 itellu3times

Yah, it allows the idiots to build up critical mass.

But on some dark days, I think it's just sort of something that was unavoidable, as the world gets more complex, more people just opt out. The Luddite phenomenon - yeah, that was economic, but you know what I mean.

"Idiots at critical mass." If ANY one sentence sums up the irrational boobs of the world, that is it.
Creationist Activism: Idiots at Critical Mass
9/11 Trooferism: Idiots at Critical Mass
PETA: Idiots at Critical Mass
Pick your t-shirt!

84 Lynn B.  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:25:35pm

re: #82 Lynn B.

Ack! Oops. Wrong link! sorry...

85 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:25:38pm

Larry Caldwell, Quality Science Education for All, Roseville, California, Kevin T. Snider (argued), Pacific Justice Institute, Sacramento, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.

86 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:25:38pm
87 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:25:52pm

re: #78 nyc redneck

I thinks its even worse than that. It's legal harassment that should be shut down immediately.

88 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:26:38pm
89 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:26:39pm

re: #79 jaunte

"Culture Warriors."
/

year, right.
O'Reilly is so full of himself.


The blurb you posted upthread here re: #64 jaunte

by Brad Dacus makes just no sense at all.

90 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:26:42pm

re: #86 buzzsawmonkey

The number of deceptive buzzwords in that article is off the charts.

Well- it's the DI. What do you expect?

91 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:27:35pm

re: #71 buzzsawmonkey

Call a lawyer and sue me:

[Link: www.youtube.com...]

What? ... THAT ol' re-tort AGAIN?!

92 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:27:37pm

re: #89 reine.de.tout

The bizarre thing is, he thinks it's perfectly sensible.

93 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:27:48pm
94 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:28:04pm

re: #78 nyc redneck

this looks so frivolous.
how can she assert any injury to her or any constitutional violation here?
the opinion expressed by U.C. is not definitive in any way regarding religion.
it is a general open ended statement abt. the prevailing attitudes people have toward evolution.
there is no directive or pressure being put religious people that violates their rights to worship as they please.
it is very tenuous argument.

/it's a free country, can't stop people from filing lawsuits just because they're ridiculous and going nowhere

95 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:28:32pm

re: #81 Sharmuta

These words:

help students analyze the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution.

sound so grand.

But it seems to be code for toss out science, insert ID/Creationism.

96 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:28:43pm

re: #80 MandyManners

Maybe it would be better for the court to hear it and then smack her down.

/um, no

97 shiplord kirel  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:29:00pm

These idiots are trying to hijack the left's methods, particularly the detestable doctrine that I call Amendment Zero, the notion that freedom of (whatever, usually speech) means the right to be free of disagreement, opposition, criticism, or discomfort. This is universally accepted by even the dimmest left-conformist and is usually the first thing out of their mouths when confronted with dissent. Nothing about the free exercise of religion provides freedom from disbelief or the right to suppress contrary opinions.

The "religious right" as conventionally defined is itself a creature of the media-industrial complex, the televangelism boom of the 1970s to be specific, and is therefore a rather exotic group of dissidents within the enemy camp rather than a fellow opponent of that same enemy. This shows in the RR's fondness for hijacked lefty talking points, figures of speech, frivolous legal reasoning, and, now, the invocation of non-existent rights. We also see this in the media political arm's recent conciliatory gestures toward conservative evangelists like Rick Warren.
Fundamentalist extremism is useful to the media culture in a number of ways. The most obvious is to discredit all opposition to media culture social and political objectives. A related, and more insidious, effect is to divert otherwise conservative people out of the process with nonsense like creationism or anti-Christian conspiracy theories.

98 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:29:09pm

re: #92 jaunte

The bizarre thing is, he thinks it's perfectly sensible.

He must, I guess, or he wouldn't have made that available for all the world to see.

99 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:29:21pm

re: #96 Killian Bundy

/um, no

Why not?

100 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:29:23pm

re: #93 buzzsawmonkey

Which is of course the intent of men like Larry Caldwell. Intimidation, pure and simple.

101 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:30:18pm

re: #91 pre-Boomer Marine brat

What? ... THAT ol' re-tort AGAIN?!

Injunction Junction, what's your function?

102 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:30:19pm

re: #64 jaunte

President of the Pacific Justice Institute, Brad Dacus, on Prop 8:

There was another time in history when people, when the bell tolled. And the question was whether or not they were going to hear it. The time was during Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler. You see he brought crowds of clergy together to assure them that he was going to look after the church. And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend Niemoller made his way to the front and boldly said "Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany." Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back. And as they did Adolf Hitler said, "The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me." And they did, and because they did bombs did not only fall upon the nation of Germany, but also upon the church and their testimony to this very day. Let us not make that mistake folks. Let us hear the bell! Vote on Proposition 8!

This is outrageous! The guy actually tried to use revulsion of Hitler to get people to vote for a gay marriage prohibition bill in California, when the Nazis treated gays just like they did the Jews (first forcing them to wear identifying signs - pink triangles, rather than the yelow stars that jews were forced to wear, then exterminating them).

Whatever one thinks of the merits of the bill in question, this tactic is morally reprehensible.

103 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:30:27pm

re: #96 Killian Bundy

/um, no

Never mind. I forgot to put on my thinking cap.

104 opnion  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:30:46pm

re: #94 Killian Bundy

/it's a free country, can't stop people from filing lawsuits just because they're ridiculous and going nowhere

Right, but the Supreme Court does not have to hear it. They may though, becuse the lower court did not rule on the Consttutionality.

105 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:30:54pm

re: #93 buzzsawmonkey

Any idiot with the money--or the backers--and the time can sue anybody for anything. The suit may not get very far, but the mere fact of a suit will cause many administrators in many instances to run for cover rather than stand up to the intimidation and risk the attendant costs of doing so, especially if they have skittish boards or tight budgets.

And any time there is a suit, there is some small incremental change made somewhere along the line - either in people's thinking, or in the decision that's handed down.

And it is by small, incremental changes over a period of several years that things end up getting out of whack.

106 funky chicken  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:31:09pm

re: #64 jaunte

President of the Pacific Justice Institute, Brad Dacus, on Prop 8:

Youtube Video

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? That doesn't even make sense...at all. Hitler and Prop 8?

107 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:31:37pm

re: #101 calcajun

Injunction Junction, what's your function?

*confused look*
duh?

/empty suit

108 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:33:05pm

re: #104 opnion

Right, but the Supreme Court does not have to hear it. They may though, becuse the lower court did not rule on the Consttutionality.

/wanna bet?

109 Lynn B.  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:33:18pm

re: #104 opnion

Right, but the Supreme Court does not have to hear it. They may though, becuse the lower court did not rule on the Consttutionality.

What?

110 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:33:33pm

re: #106 funky chicken

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? That doesn't even make sense...at all. Hitler and Prop 8?

It does if you're a meta-four-flusher.

111 gopninja  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:33:39pm

incoming 5-4 decision... sadly with this court im not 100% sure which side it will be on.

112 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:33:56pm

re: #96 Killian Bundy

/um, no

Maybe yes. There is a creeping attack in free speech. You see it in Europe and it is making its way here. The argument is that people have the right to free speech, but not to offend. (which is bullshit--making me responsible for your hurt feelings)

These types of suit need to be heard and publicized. Otherwise, we risk having a Gestapo of Politeness overseeing us.

Is it too early for Scotch?

113 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:34:30pm

re: #110 pre-Boomer Marine brat

It does if you're a meta-four-flusher.

/heh ... maybe that was an example

114 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:35:19pm

re: #93 buzzsawmonkey

Any idiot with the money--or the backers--and the time can sue anybody for anything. The suit may not get very far, but the mere fact of a suit will cause many administrators in many instances to run for cover rather than stand up to the intimidation and risk the attendant costs of doing so, especially if they have skittish boards or tight budgets.

They're just trying to SLAPP the website around:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

115 itellu3times  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:35:23pm

re: #81 Sharmuta

"help students analyze the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution.”

Any and every science class will do that, without their help, thank you very much.

116 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:35:26pm

re: #107 pre-Boomer Marine brat

*confused look*
duh?

/empty suit

Oh. I thought we were going into legal puns. Sorry.

117 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:35:28pm

re: #111 gopninja

incoming 5-4 decision... sadly with this court im not 100% sure which side it will be on.

Which justices do you think would side with her?

118 jcw46  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:36:06pm

Good grief! Can't these folks stick to one argument that at least makes some sense? Is the teaching of Evolution a "theory" or a "religion"?

Is this the new tack? The claim that the theory of evolution is the theology of the religion of "Darwin" is a very slippery slope for a "christian" to be suing anyone about. Anyone of right mind can see that this "argument" could be applied in other ways by others and many of those applications would be detrimental to Christianity and other religions.

119 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:36:06pm
120 calcajun  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:36:25pm

re: #116 calcajun

Also, I was too brief in my reply. Pleading for a second chance.

121 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:36:36pm

re: #116 calcajun

Oh. I thought we were going into legal puns. Sorry.

oops, I thought so too.
Did I not follow suite?
I was trying to with "suit".

122 opnion  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:37:10pm

re: #108 Killian Bundy

/wanna bet?

No because it's a tough call. None of us know if the Supreme Court will entertain this based on a compelling Constitutional issue.
The lower court should have ruled that the University was not establishing Evolution as a religion. That would have defeated the Constitutional issue, at least that's my opinion.

123 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:37:29pm
124 itellu3times  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:37:38pm

re: #97 shiplord kirel

These idiots are trying to hijack the left's methods, particularly the detestable doctrine that I call Amendment Zero, the notion that freedom of (whatever, usually speech) means the right to be free of disagreement, opposition, criticism, or discomfort.

I like that, "amendment zero".

But it is a common leftist tactic, eg "freedom from hunger", as a basic right and function of government.

125 opnion  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:38:29pm

re: #109 Lynn B.

What?

The lower court did not rule on merits. They denied the plantiff standing because she could not show damages.

126 pre-Boomer Marine brat  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:39:02pm

re: #120 calcajun

Also, I was too brief in my reply. Pleading for a second chance.

re: #121 pre-Boomer Marine brat

I get too esoteric sometimes. I know what I'm saying. No one else does.

127 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:39:15pm

How much is this costing California tax payers?

128 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:39:28pm

re: #112 calcajun

These types of suit need to be heard and publicized.

It's gotten zero traction in the lower courts, why should the Supreme Court even afford it the time of day?

/if and until they manage to come up with a non-frivolous argument, let the lower courts rulings stand on the matter

129 shiplord kirel  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:40:19pm

re: #127 MandyManners

How much is this costing California tax payers?

More than they can afford, even if it's just $1.98

130 Lynn B.  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:40:32pm

re: #122 opnion

No because it's a tough call. None of us know if the Supreme Court will entertain this based on a compelling Constitutional issue.
The lower court should have ruled that the University was not establishing Evolution as a religion. That would have defeated the Constitutional issue, at least that's my opinion.

The SC doesn't have a Constitutional issue before it. IF they take the case and overturn the lower courts on the standing issue, they would most likely simply remand for a determination on the merits. IF that happens, the Constitutional issue may be appealed back up to them. Or not.

131 nyc redneck  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:40:41pm

re: #87 MrPaulRevere

I thinks its even worse than that. It's legal harassment that should be shut down immediately.

there is something so wrong here. if a law suit can be brought for something like this non-issue then we will be besieged.

132 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:42:08pm

if this becomes the norm and these cretins are of the GOP I will withdraw my donations and allegiance to any elected official or candidate that does not renounce this intrusive and harmful bullshit...I personally am at the end of their rope

133 gopninja  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:42:36pm

re: #117 MandyManners

Which justices do you think would side with her?

I dont know... I thought the Kilo v new london case two years ago was a freaking gimme, but the 'leftward' leaning justices disagreed... I really dont trust many of those justices from either bent to do what I consider to be the right thing. I have to appear in a civil court for a custody issue and I know 100% i have a locked down tight case to present, but its all dependent on which side of the bed our judge woke up on.

134 MrPaulRevere  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:42:39pm

re: #114 Salamantis

Outstanding link, thanks!

135 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:43:53pm

re: #127 MandyManners

How much is this costing California tax payers?

who cares?...they have no money anyway...you will pay for it

136 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:44:00pm

re: #134 MrPaulRevere

Outstanding link, thanks!

No Problemo!

137 opnion  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:44:17pm

re: #130 Lynn B.

The SC doesn't have a Constitutional issue before it. IF they take the case and overturn the lower courts on the standing issue, they would most likely simply remand for a determination on the merits. IF that happens, the Constitutional issue may be appealed back up to them. Or not.


The constituional issue is the 'Establishment Clause' as thin as it is.
The Ninth Circuit should have ruled that her suit lacked merit, not that she did not have standing. In that case the Supreme Court probably would refuse to hear it.

138 Lynn B.  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:45:51pm

re: #125 opnion

The lower court did not rule on merits. They denied the plantiff standing because she could not show damages.

See #130 above. And the standing issue went beyond a simple failure to show damages. The court found there was “too slight a connection between Caldwell’s generalized grievance and the government conduct about which she complain[ed]…to sustain her standing to proceed.”

139 Randall Gross  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:46:18pm

re: #88 Charles

Yep, that's them.

Here's the Chairman of PJI campaigning for Prop 8, once again with the Nazi bit. Also note that on many issues you find Howard Ahmanson and PJI always on the same side, wondering if he's their sugar daddy:

140 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:46:53pm
141 Lynn B.  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:47:36pm

re: #137 opnion

The constituional issue is the 'Establishment Clause' as thin as it is.
The Ninth Circuit should have ruled that her suit lacked merit, not that she did not have standing. In that case the Supreme Court probably would refuse to hear it.

And, again, the Establishment Clause issue is not before the Court on appeal, as it wasn't adjudicated below. The Ninth Circuit also didn't have the EC issue before it for the same reason. It ruled on the issue that was appealed to it. That's the way it's supposed to work.

142 Killian Bundy  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:47:41pm

re: #137 opnion

The Ninth Circuit should have ruled that her suit lacked merit, not that she did not have standing. In that case the Supreme Court probably would refuse to hear it.

Unless you have standing, you don't get to argue the constitutional issues, end of lawsuit.

/horse before the cart

143 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:48:28pm

There is no legal issue here and the judge should go Chuck Barris and use a gong instead of his gavel when he tosses it out of court.

144 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:48:31pm

re: #139 Thanos

Here's the Chairman of PJI campaigning for Prop 8, once again with the Nazi bit. Also note that on many issues you find Howard Ahmanson and PJI always on the same side, wondering if he's their sugar daddy:


[Video]

spooky...like a telepreacher

145 opnion  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:51:15pm

re: #138 Lynn B.

See #130 above. And the standing issue went beyond a simple failure to show damages. The court found there was “too slight a connection between Caldwell’s generalized grievance and the government conduct about which she complain[ed]…to sustain her standing to proceed.”

Actually, the Ninth Circuit ruled on standing. The Court said the exposure to the web page was not sufficient to cause damages. Becuse she was not damaged she was denied standing.
Look I agree that the suit is nutty, I just don't like the Court's reasoning.

146 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:52:34pm
147 summergurl  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:52:54pm

The Presidential robes are too stifling for this guy --- He is going to be to take alot of 3 day weekends I predict

Time to play some B-ball

148 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:53:55pm

re: #45 itellu3times

I've seen people with fish symbols, with feet, on their cars.

I suppose they must go every Sunday and worship at the alter of nucleic acids, and do unspeakable things with monkeys.

Only person I know with a footy-fish on her car is an Episcopalian. I don't know what they do in church, but it seems to resemble a mass in some way.

149 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:54:50pm

re: #146 mdspinboy

I don't post much, but I do read LGF quite regularily. I must say that there have been a ton of 'evolution' threads lately.

What gives?

big news these days...if you read regularly you it seems you would know that...

150 opnion  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:55:11pm

re: #141 Lynn B.

And, again, the Establishment Clause issue is not before the Court on appeal, as it wasn't adjudicated below. The Ninth Circuit also didn't have the EC issue before it for the same reason. It ruled on the issue that was appealed to it. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Right, the issue on appeal is standing. If the Ninth Circuit would have granted standing & ruled on the merits, there would be no appeal on standing

151 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:55:37pm

re: #146 mdspinboy

I don't post much, but I do read LGF quite regularily. I must say that there have been a ton of 'evolution' threads lately.

What gives?

Attacks upon public school science class by theocrats who demand that other peoples' kids be forcibly indoctrinated in their pet religious dogmas there.

152 jaunte  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:58:13pm

Brad Dacus of PJI has issues:


Week of 'tolerance' intolerant of traditional values.
Schools across America are participating in "No Name Calling Week" this week. However, one Christian attorney fears a worthy goal could be concealing pro-homosexual propaganda.

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), says while the event's name sounds innocent, it is a way of indoctrinating children so that they will support the homosexual agenda after they become adults.


[Link: www.onenewsnow.com...]

153 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:58:21pm

re: #146 mdspinboy

If you read regularly as you say, then you know exactly "what gives"

If you lied and you don't really read regularly, then perhaps you might first educate yourself and then join in the conversation.

154 shiplord kirel  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:59:04pm

EEGAD!

Man arrested in wife’s beheading

If you're going outside, be alert for pig droppings, MSNBC has put the most un-PC fact right in the opening sentence!

A suburban Buffalo man who founded a cable TV station to promote better understanding of Muslims in the U.S. has been arrested on charges he beheaded his wife.

Swine have taken flight in swarms not seen since the Berlin wall came down and certain media gods admitted that communism was bad. It is almost as though they had starting a story by admitting the party affiliation of an arrested Democrat (Not that such a thing could ever happen.)

155 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 12:59:38pm

re: #148 SanFranciscoZionist

Only person I know with a footy-fish on her car is an Episcopalian. I don't know what they do in church, but it seems to resemble a mass in some way.

She was also once told to read her Bible by an annoyed cop who'd pulled her over for speeding, in reference to the fish. She did some reading following that, but never found any reference to putting fish with feet on your car. I think she should have taken his badge number and made his life difficult.

156 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:00:56pm

re: #146 mdspinboy

Not regularly enough, apparently.

157 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:02:39pm

re: #152 jaunte

Brad Dacus of PJI has issues:


[Link: www.onenewsnow.com...]

So, lessee, kids who call other kids 'gay' and 'homos' are actually expressing their freedom from the homosexual agenda?

Oh, for God's sake!

158 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:03:39pm

OT: I love having a geek for a boss!

159 zombie  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:05:27pm

This lawsuit is more significant than it might seem on the surface. The website that is being challenged as "unconstitutional" says what ought to be the most innocuous statement imaginable -- essentially, UC Berkeley is saying, "Can't we all get along?" The creationist reply is not merely, ""No! We most definitely CANNOT get along!" Nor is it even,"I am offended by your implication that we can all get along." No, their reply is the chilling,"IT is ILLEGAL to even SUGGEST that we can all get along."

This goes straight to the endgame of the creationist agenda: They don't want simply to "present both sides of the argument." They want to shut down the argument altogether. They don't want the other side (i.e. rationality) to even have permission to speak in public.

This lawsuit rips the mask off their façade of evenhandedness. It reveals that coexistence between science and religion is not their goal; their goal is theocratic domination. That's why this story ought to be front page news.

160 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:05:30pm

re: #89 reine.de.tout

year, right.
O'Reilly is so full of himself.

O'Reilly's full of something, and it ain't love for his fellow man. Or woman.

161 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:05:47pm
162 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:06:44pm

re: #146 mdspinboy

there have been a ton of 'evolution' threads lately.

What of it?

163 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:07:32pm

re: #140 buzzsawmonkey

While gays might not have been treated quite as badly as Jews or Gypsies in Nazi Germany, they were sure as hell treated inhumanely, and inhumanly, enough to render it quantums beyond the pale for that bloviating hemorroidal asshole to cynically and gratuitously invoke revulsion with Hitler as an emotional bludgeon with which to promote the bashing of gay rights, whether one agrees with their receiving those rights or not.

But I guess if one is a pathological homophobe, the legitimacy and veracity of an attack is neither relevent nor germane; the only thing that counts is whether or not it's effective.

Racists, sexists, homophobes, religious bigots, Islamofascist apologists, and moonbat leftists, all seem to share this sick and twisted stance.

164 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:07:33pm

re: #146 mdspinboy

Why not jump in and post more often? Do some research here?

165 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:07:42pm

re: #162 MandyManners

What of it?


that's a vicious, hate reply...caution

166 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:08:38pm

re: #151 Salamantis

Attacks upon public school science class by theocrats who demand that other peoples' kids be forcibly indoctrinated in their pet religious dogmas there.

Nice nutshell!

167 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:09:08pm

re: #162 MandyManners

What of it, please kind sir?

168 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:09:32pm

re: #165 albusteve

that's a vicious, hate reply...caution

Is No. 167 nicer?

169 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:10:26pm

re: #157 SanFranciscoZionist

So, lessee, kids who call other kids 'gay' and 'homos' are actually expressing their freedom from the homosexual agenda?

Oh, for God's sake!

Yeah; all of a sudden it is intolerant not to tolerate the intolerance of others. What an Alice In Wonderland Through The Looking Glass inversion!

170 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:11:08pm

re: #159 zombie

This lawsuit rips the mask off their façade of evenhandedness. It reveals that coexistence between science and religion is not their goal; their goal is theocratic domination. That's why this story ought to be front page news.

If they could have a blasphemy law that wouldn't apply to anyone else's god, they'd do it in a heartbeat. And I have no doubt there are many who cream their pants (to borrow a phrase from Medaura) at the thought of implementing Leviticus as a guide to punishments.

The translation of "sharia", as I understand it, is simply "holy law" - they want the same thing as the Islamists.

And I'm beginning to believe they're far more likely to achieve at least some of their ends in this country than any set of jihadists could ever hope to do.

171 Bloodnok  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:12:28pm

re: #158 Sharmuta

OT: I love having a geek for a boss!

(straightens bowtie, smiles)

172 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:13:36pm

re: #168 MandyManners

Is No. 167 nicer?

yes...we must be prudent at all times...some folks are extra sensitive...dont be hatin on someone by asking why...sugar coat it for them and offer a cookie

173 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:15:34pm
174 albusteve  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:17:02pm

re: #170 Cato the Elder

If they could have a blasphemy law that wouldn't apply to anyone else's god, they'd do it in a heartbeat. And I have no doubt there are many who cream their pants (to borrow a phrase from Medaura) at the thought of implementing Leviticus as a guide to punishments.

The translation of "sharia", as I understand it, is simply "holy law" - they want the same thing as the Islamists.

And I'm beginning to believe they're far more likely to achieve at least some of their ends in this country than any set of jihadists could ever hope to do.

that's scary...flag waving ultraAmerican Holy Warriors...good grief, I hope your're wrong

175 Throbert McGee  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:20:07pm

I can see why the very first sentence is problematic (never mind its redundancy):

The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect.

To Jeanne Caldwell, this evidently sounds a bit too much like:

The misconception that every sentence in the Bible must be taken literally is incorrect.

...and that hypothetical sentence would very obviously be on shaky Constitutional grounds because it endorses (or rather, un-endorses) a particular religious view.

Simplest solution -- just reword that first sentence so that it's couched in the same terms as the rest of the paragraph:

The notion that one always has to choose between science and religion is rejected by many theologians and many millions of lay religious believers.

...then tell Caldwell to piss up a rope.

176 Throbert McGee  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:25:02pm

re: #175 Throbert McGee

Simplest solution -- just reword that first sentence so that it's couched in the same terms as the rest of the paragraph:

The notion that one always has to choose between science and religion is rejected by many theologians and many millions of lay religious believers.

Changing the first sentence as I suggest would be an improvement in two other ways. As it's worded now, it comes uncomfortably close to the logical fallacy argumentum ad numeram -- because it makes a categorical assertion about what is factually true, but the paragraph that follows speaks in terms of "what many people believe."

If it's not obvious why I call this "close to a logical fallacy," imagine that the first sentence were moved to the end of the paragraph, and one four-letter word added:

... In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution. THUS, the misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect.

That's a textbook case of the "Argument to Numbers" fallacy right there.

The second improvement in my rewording: It gets rid of "The misconception... is incorrect," which is a fucking embarrassment on a university website!

177 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:25:06pm

re: #174 albusteve

that's scary...flag waving ultraAmerican Holy Warriors...good grief, I hope your're wrong

It's not a new, or newly recognized, danger:

Image: Fascism.png

178 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:28:07pm

re: #177 Salamantis

It's not a new, or newly recognized, danger:

[Link: shii.org...]

What I find interesting is that the original author viewed such a claim as being used against Christianity, rather than for the sake of establishing a Christian theocracy. Another case of cynical inversion.

179 snopes  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:29:34pm

#159 Zombie is right on.

Since many theists believe in both their religion and accept the theory of evolution as fact, this lawsuit demonstrates that the ID movement is about one religious viewpoint and one religious viewpoint only, that of the Dispensationalists. IMO, this lawsuit clearly reflects that and should give serious pause to every non-Darby religious person otherwise sympathetic to the ID movement.

180 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:30:04pm

re: #173 buzzsawmonkey

You will note I said nothing above about "gay rights"--a different conversation--and certainly did not suggest that the homosexually-inclined were not persecuted under the Nazis.

I certainly agree that using Hitler and Nazi Germany as an indiscriminate bludgeon for advancing domestic agendas is a corrupt and cynical practice. It is precisely for that reason that I took it upon myself to correct certain historical inaccuracies in your original post.

Yes, homosexuals were persecuted under Hitler; yes, they were sent to concentration camps, where their uniforms bore a badge which attested to the reason for their confinement; yes, they suffered the same maltreatment and death which all those who were sent to such camps experienced. They were not, however, forced to wear pink triangles on their civilian clothes prior to being confined, and they were not earmarked for extermination as a group, nor shipped as a group to the extermination camps in the East.

This is a fair comment. It is important not to counter lies with exaggerations; else one risks descending to the level of one's adversaries.

181 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:31:01pm

"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545

182 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:32:33pm
183 funky chicken  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:46:02pm

re: #152 jaunte

Week of 'tolerance' intolerant of traditional values.
Schools across America are participating in "No Name Calling Week" this week. However, one Christian attorney fears a worthy goal could be concealing pro-homosexual propaganda.
Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), says while the event's name sounds innocent, it is a way of indoctrinating children so that they will support the homosexual agenda after they become adults.

But having these people as the most vocal, and most media-promoted members of the republican party doesn't turn off moderates. Uh huh.

184 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:46:11pm

re: #174 albusteve

that's scary...flag waving ultraAmerican Holy Warriors...good grief, I hope your're wrong

There's a documentary from 1991 on YouTube, "Blood in the Face", about some of these people. (Not necessarily connected with our average creationist friends, but you never know.) It bears watching, if you've never seen it.

re: #64 jaunte

And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend Niemoller [sic] made his way to the front and boldly said "Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany." Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back. And as they did Adolf Hitler said, "The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me."

I think these pricks made that up. I studied Niemöller and even did the voiceover for the English version of a documentary film about him, and I never heard this particular story. But why wouldn't they lie about him since they lie about everything else?

185 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:48:36pm

re: #180 Salamantis

This is a fair comment. It is important not to counter lies with exaggerations; else one risks descending to the level of one's adversaries.

I might add that the unvarnished truth is in this case more than sufficient.

186 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:56:02pm

re: #159 zombie

This lawsuit is more significant than it might seem on the surface. The website that is being challenged as "unconstitutional" says what ought to be the most innocuous statement imaginable -- essentially, UC Berkeley is saying, "Can't we all get along?" The creationist reply is not merely, ""No! We most definitely CANNOT get along!" Nor is it even,"I am offended by your implication that we can all get along." No, their reply is the chilling,"IT is ILLEGAL to even SUGGEST that we can all get along."

This goes straight to the endgame of the creationist agenda: They don't want simply to "present both sides of the argument." They want to shut down the argument altogether. They don't want the other side (i.e. rationality) to even have permission to speak in public.

This lawsuit rips the mask off their façade of evenhandedness. It reveals that coexistence between science and religion is not their goal; their goal is theocratic domination. That's why this story ought to be front page news.

We've had people arguing exactly the same thing here at LGF.

187 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 2:07:18pm

re: #185 Salamantis

I might add that the unvarnished truth is in this case more than sufficient.

One more point; if one discovers that the unvarnished truth is not sufficient to successfully advocate one's position, one should consider rethinking one's embrace of one's stance.

And yes, I'm talking to you, Disco Institute. You and your covertly infiltrationist Wedge Strategy.

188 clgood  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 2:42:54pm

An interesting post from Dr. Novella on why there's value in debating creationists.

189 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 3:02:05pm
190 Sharmuta  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 3:03:08pm

re: #189 mdspinboy

If you don't want it anymore, then just don't use it.

191 Salamantis  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 3:43:08pm

I also posted a link to this in the spinoffs; it is well worth reading:

[Link: www.independent.co.uk...]

192 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 3:53:53pm
193 Cutty Sark  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 3:56:18pm

What's the big Deal ?

GOD CREATED the Universe , and the Universe facilitated Evolution .

194 Cutty Sark  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 3:58:01pm

And for those "other people " ...the Universe facilitated Intelligent Design .

What's all the hoopla about ?

195 Throbert McGee  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 4:38:48pm

re: #184 Cato the Elder

There's a documentary from 1991 on YouTube, "Blood in the Face", about some of these people. (Not necessarily connected with our average creationist friends, but you never know.) It bears watching, if you've never seen it.

I assume that the documentary Blood in the Face was a tie-in with the book of the same title -- it's a fascinating (if often nauseating) read, and also a goldmine of neo-Nazi and white supremacist cartoons that condense equal parts of "hateful," "bizarre," and "kitschy" into a single image.

The title, by the way, refers to a bogus etymology that rationalizes the name "Adam" as meaning "he who blushes visibly red" (i.e., "he who shows blood in the face"), because of the phonetic similarity to adom, the Hebrew word for "red." Since only pale-skinned people turn red when the blood rushes to their face, Adam's very name is taken as proof of his whiteness by neo-Nazi "Christians."

196 Cutty Sark  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 4:52:18pm

I love the way apersions are cast ...such subtlety !

ya neva know do ya ?

197 voirdire  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 5:42:02pm

The entire world empire of false, organized religion whose worshipers believe that a true theocracy can rise as a political expression of its adherants, is not long for this earth.

198 Alberta Oil Peon  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 5:54:18pm

re: #94 Killian Bundy

/it's a free country, can't stop people from filing lawsuits just because they're ridiculous and going nowhere

One possible counter-measure: charge these idiots with barratry.

I don't know if barratry is on the statute books in all states, but it should be.

199 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 15, 2009 6:35:28pm

re: #195 Throbert McGee

I assume that the documentary Blood in the Face was a tie-in with the book of the same title -- it's a fascinating (if often nauseating) read, and also a goldmine of neo-Nazi and white supremacist cartoons that condense equal parts of "hateful," "bizarre," and "kitschy" into a single image.

The title, by the way, refers to a bogus etymology that rationalizes the name "Adam" as meaning "he who blushes visibly red" (i.e., "he who shows blood in the face"), because of the phonetic similarity to adom, the Hebrew word for "red." Since only pale-skinned people turn red when the blood rushes to their face, Adam's very name is taken as proof of his whiteness by neo-Nazi "Christians."

Yes, Throbert - same people behind book and movie.

The comforting thing is the old footage from 1991 showing these fools confidently announcing the coming race war. Here we are 18 years later and a product of "race-mixing" is the President! How they must be writhing. (Those of them who are still alive; a lot of the bastards were doddering old pantaloons even then.) The documentary is certainly worth watching if you have the time - the YouTube link will take you to the first part, and there are eight parts in all.

There is indeed a pun in the original Hebrew adam/adom, because "adom" could also be used as a synonym for the read earth typical of the region, from which the first man was supposedly made. But of course what these loons make of it is nonsense. They go on to state that only he who blushes has a conscience, thus white men (there are two women interviewed in the film, the rest are men of differing levels of inbreeding) are moral, and by extension, all the others are...you get the idea.

The funny thing is that if "adom" were meant to refer to his skin color, Adam was clearly anything but Nordic pale! Someone should point that out to the folks in charge of animatronics at the Creation Museum!

200 KyMouse  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 10:20:01am

As noted above, "the idea that religion and evolution can coexist peacefully is absolute anathema to some," and in fact, it has been since the days of the founding fathers of Darwinian macro evolution.

For example, Ernst Haeckel wrote in his preface to "The Evolution of Man" (my copy is from 1897), "In this spiritual warfare, which now moves all thinking humanity, and which prepares the way for a future existence more worthy of man, spiritual freedom and truth, reason and culture, evolution and progress stand on the one side, marshalled under the bright banner of science; on the other side, marshalled under the black flag of hierarchy, stand spiritual servitude and falsehood, want of reason and barbarism, superstition and retrogression."

That's an interesting use of the phrase "spiritual warfare" by a scientist, isn't it? But it just doesn't sound very scientific to me.

A more modern example of this is, I think, the claim by Carl Sagan that the universe is all there is. I'm not sure what scientific proof he offered that there is nothing supernatural, transcendent or divine anywhere. Sounds more like a statement of personal belief, or faith, to me.

The idea that the universe and life came about through random chance does seem incompatible with John 1:3, "All things were made through Him [Jesus], and without Him nothing was made that was made." I see no indication that that statement can be taken in any way other than literally, and thus I'm not clear how Christians can accept both beliefs.

I inherited this wonderful set of 1896-97 books about evolution (by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, Schmidt and other luminaries) from my grandfather, and it wasn't until I started reading them that I saw Darwin's claim that "the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman." Wow, my teachers never told me that his studies led him to believe that.

Or that Oscar Schmidt wrote (in "The Doctrine of Descent and Darwinism") that "inferior human races exist -- we may also call them human species -- which are related to the others, as are lower animals to higher. It might even be given as the characteristic of the genus man, that its species occupy such extraordinarily different grades of mental condition. We are not misled by the contrary statements of missionaries and other philanthropists; by the talk of human dignity and divine resemblance...[I]f we contemplate the ethnology and anthropology of savages, not from the standpoint of philanthropists and missionaries, but as cool and sober naturalists, destruction in the struggle for existence as a consequence of their retardation...is the natural course of things."

The rest of my family wanted to chuck out these old books, but I'm so glad I kept them! (By the way, I wrote some of the above remarks in an email to Charles, but then I discovered that the registration door was open, and decided to expand on them a bit.)

201 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 10:41:09am

Here we go again.

202 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 10:42:21am

re: #200 KyMouse

I see no indication that that statement can be taken in any way other than literally, and thus I'm not clear how Christians can accept both beliefs.

Maybe you should ask Pope Benedict. He doesn't seem to have the same lack of clarity you do.

203 Cutty Sark  Mon, Feb 16, 2009 12:54:11pm

#197 , better tell the Republican Party that . Charles asked a rhetorical question on one of the threads describing an ot Statement by some creastionist:

"why is it always a republican " [paraphrase]

The Answer is simple , republicans have been massaging these types of people for the last two decades . And they 've just stopped short of calling Democrats the anti-christs .
So much so that it emboldens people like the poster who claimed that they would rule the politics of this country .
Idealogues , racists, supremacists , and bigots come is all stripes ,shapes and sizes .

204 KyMouse  Tue, Feb 17, 2009 9:08:37am

Re #202, I was hoping you could provide some clarity. I'm not Roman Catholic, so I doubt the pope would return my calls. Seems like a valid question to ponder. Darwin's theory tells us that a blind, purposeless material process is what really created the universe and life, and that "God" is merely the product of a primitive human imagination. On the other hand, the Bible begins with this declaration: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," which John 1:3 continues with the assertion that "All things were made through Him [Jesus], and without Him nothing was made that was made." Now, it seems to me fair to ask how Christian pastors, or Christians in general, reconcile those two concepts.

By the way, someone recently asked me about Schmidt's reference to "divine resemblance," which that professor dismisses along with the concept of human dignity. I think he was referring to the idea that human beings are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). If that concept is "misleading," as he indicates, and there is no Creator, I wonder what happens to our idea that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. The alternative might be that we have only the rights that the state, or at least those stronger (fitter) than we, decide that we can have.

205 Charles Johnson  Tue, Feb 17, 2009 9:34:39am

re: #204 KyMouse

Re #202, I was hoping you could provide some clarity. I'm not Roman Catholic, so I doubt the pope would return my calls. Seems like a valid question to ponder.

You don't have to wait for the Pope to return your calls. The Vatican has made several public statements on the matter of evolution:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

And you clearly have basic misunderstandings about the theory of evolution that I don't have sufficient time to clear up. I suggest you educate yourself. Here are two good books to start with:

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

206 Yashmak  Tue, Feb 17, 2009 11:53:50am

re: #3 pingjockey

These people are batshit crazy.

They'd be less dangerous if that were true.

207 KyMouse  Tue, Feb 17, 2009 12:00:11pm

Thanks for the reading suggestions, Charles! I've jotted them down. I still have several of my grandfather's books to go through, including one on leaf mold (rather, mould) that I'll probably skim through. There's only so much about leaf mold that I can read at any one sitting. One of the others is called "Other Worlds than Ours," and it has some pretty cool plates of the planets as imaged through 19th century telescopes. Think I'll frame a few of them.

208 Salamantis  Tue, Feb 17, 2009 12:59:22pm

re: #204 KyMouse

Re #202, I was hoping you could provide some clarity. I'm not Roman Catholic, so I doubt the pope would return my calls. Seems like a valid question to ponder. Darwin's theory tells us that a blind, purposeless material process is what really created the universe and life, and that "God" is merely the product of a primitive human imagination. On the other hand, the Bible begins with this declaration: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," which John 1:3 continues with the assertion that "All things were made through Him [Jesus], and without Him nothing was made that was made." Now, it seems to me fair to ask how Christian pastors, or Christians in general, reconcile those two concepts.

Nonfundamentalist Christians - that is, those who are not Biblical Literalists - accept that the Bible was written by fallible human beings, and can include parable, poetry, metaphor, simile, era-linked human prejudices, contradictions and inaccuracies. They embrace the spirit of the scriptures more than the letter. This distinguishes them from not only Biblical Literalists, but also from Muslims, who believe that the Qu'ran (literally, the Recitation) was dictated to Muhammed, from Allah (God) by the Archangel Gabriel, and is word-for-word accurate and correct for all time.

By the way, someone recently asked me about Schmidt's reference to "divine resemblance," which that professor dismisses along with the concept of human dignity. I think he was referring to the idea that human beings are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). If that concept is "misleading," as he indicates, and there is no Creator, I wonder what happens to our idea that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. The alternative might be that we have only the rights that the state, or at least those stronger (fitter) than we, decide that we can have.

Buddhists, Taoists and Confucians have created praiseworthy moral codes in the absence of a cosmic guarantor, and contemporary research is doing well, too:

[Link: pinker.wjh.harvard.edu...]

Excerpt:

I’ve suggested that the dominant theory of human nature in modern intellectual life is based on the Blank Slate, the Noble Savage, and the Ghost in the Machine, and that these doctrines have been challenged by the sciences of mind, brain, genes, and evolution. The challenges have also been seen to threaten sacred moral values. But, in fact, that
doesn’t follow. On the contrary, I think a better understanding of what makes us tick, and of our place in nature, can clarify those values. This understanding shows that political equality does not require sameness, but rather policies that treat people as individuals with rights; that moral progress does not require that the mind is free of selfish motives, only that it has other motives to counteract them; that responsibility does not require that behavior is uncaused, only that it responds to contingencies of credit and blame; and that meaning in life does not require that the process that shaped the brain have a purpose, only that the brain itself have a purpose.

Finally, I’ve argued that grounding values in a blank slate is a mistake. It’s a mistake because it makes our values hostages to fortune, implying that some day, discoveries from the field or lab could make them obsolete. And it’s a mistake because it conceals the downsides of denying human nature, including persecution of the successful, totalitarian social engineering, an exaggeration of the effects of the environment (such as in parenting and the criminal justice system), a mystification of the rationale behind responsibility, democracy, and morality, and the devaluating of human life on Earth.

Sal: As to inalienable rights, I will quote Robert A. Heinlein to you in the next post.

209 Salamantis  Tue, Feb 17, 2009 1:00:02pm

"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

Source: Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 119, Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

Name:

Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

Turn off ads by subscribing!
For about 33 cents a day, our subscription option turns off all advertisements at LGF!
Read more...


► LGF Headlines

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Articles

  • Loading...

► Tweeted Pages

  • Loading...

► Top 10 Comments

  • Loading...

► Bottom Comments

  • Loading...

► Recent Comments

  • Loading...

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

7 out of 10 laboratory mice prefer it.

TwitterFacebook
LGF Pages
Recent Pages

MikeySDCA
China Is Culturally Superior to America - the Atlantic Wire
2 hours, 15 minutes ago
Views: 64 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

researchok
'I Was Looking Forward to a Quiet Old Age': Instead, Etta Shiber, Helped Smuggle Stranded Allied Soldiers To Freedom
7 hours, 46 minutes ago
Views: 104 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 1 • Rating: 0

Daniel Ballard
Late Afternoon Light-Kalanchoe
15 hours, 27 minutes ago
Views: 121 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

Eclectic Infidel
City College of San Francisco Budget Update
16 hours, 19 minutes ago
Views: 134 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 0

Michael McBacon
Kansas governor signs 'Shariah bill' to ban Islamic law
20 hours, 50 minutes ago
Views: 250 • Comments: 6
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 6

Aigle
National Geographic Traveler Veers Off Track
1 day, 20 hours ago
Views: 477 • Comments: 7
Tweets: 0 • Rating: -5

MichaelJ
Apple TV Slated to Debut in December?
1 day, 22 hours ago
Views: 239 • Comments: 0
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 1

Ascher
Israeli Who Saved Turk on Everest: You Never Abandon a Friend - Israel News, Ynetnews
1 day, 23 hours ago
Views: 308 • Comments: 1
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Haywood Jabloeme
The Harrassment of Patterico & Its Roots in Left-Wing Activism
1 day, 23 hours ago
Views: 530 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 4

Curt
Brian Banks: (Video) Falsely accused of rape speaks out
2 days, 1 hour ago
Views: 285 • Comments: 2
Tweets: 0 • Rating: 5

 Frank says:

I was writing all kinds of positive and negative canons and weird inverted this and retrograde that and getting as spaced-out mathematically as I could and I was going "Wait a minute (laughs), who cares about that stuff?" I had always liked rhythm and blues so here I was stuck between the slide rule and the gut bucket somewhere and I decided that I would opt for a third road someplace in between. -- From an 1972 interview to Martin Perlich. On giving up writing serial music.