Archive for December 20th, 2005

Judge: ACLU not ‘reasonable’

Tuesday, December 20th, 2005

YES!!! At last some sanity in the courts.

A U.S. appeals court today upheld the decision of a lower court in allowing the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse display, hammering the American Civil Liberties Union and declaring, “The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”
Attorneys from the
American Center for Law and Justice successfully argued the case on behalf of Mercer County, Ky., and a display of historical documents placed in the county courthouse. The panel voted 3-0 to reject the ACLU’s contention the display violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
The county display the ACLU sued over included the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Charta, the Star Spangled Banner, the National Motto, the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution and a picture of Lady Justice.

Writing for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Suhrheinrich said the ACLU’s “repeated reference ‘to the separation of church and state’ … has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”
Suhrheinrich wrote: “The ACLU, an organization whose mission is ‘to ensure that … the government [is kept] out of the religion business,’ does not embody the reasonable person.”
The court said a reasonable observer of Mercer County’s display appreciates “the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American traditions.”
Francis J. Manion, Counsel for the ACLJ, argued the case before both the 6th Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
“This is a big victory for the people of Mercer County and Kentucky generally,” said Manion in a statement. “For too long they have been lectured like children by those in the ACLU and elsewhere who claim to know what the people’s Constitution really means. What the Sixth Circuit has said is that the people have a better grasp on the real meaning of the Constitution; the Court recognizes that the Constitution does not require that we strip the public square of all vestiges of our religious heritage and traditions.”

Judge: Pa. Intelligent Design Mandate Unconstitutional

Tuesday, December 20th, 2005

In my earlier post, I stated:
“I have to wonder if statistics was offered at the universities where the theory of evolution was taught. I ask this because anyone who has studied statistic can apply it to the probability of life being created by an accidental sequence of events. They will find that it is statistically impossible for life to have been created by accident.Don’t throw out the intelligent design theory yet.”

Now a federal judge in Pennsylvania apparently hasn’t studied statistics either and has ruled that intelligent design cannot be taught in public school.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that “intelligent design” cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district.
The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include “intelligent design,” the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.
Intelligent design is the theory that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause. The school board policy was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.
“It seems to me that a number of states and a number of school boards which may be considering something similar will be watching,” Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor, said before the ruling.
Lawyers for the school board had hoped Jones would limit the scope of his ruling to the board’s motivation for adopting the curriculum change.
But attorneys for eight families suing to have intelligent design removed from the science curriculum wanted Jones to rule more broadly on the scientific validity of intelligent design.
The board’s attorneys said members sought to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to
Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection causing gradual changes over time; intelligent-design proponents argue that it cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.
The plaintiffs argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools.
The Dover policy, adopted in October 2004, requires students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin’s theory is “not a fact,” has inexplicable “gaps,” and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” for more information.

And we would expect something different from a liberal federal judge on the East Coast? It’s better to push a flawed theory then open up minds to other equally plausable theories. This nonsense that it’s “just religion under a different cover” is crazy.

I wouldn’t be so upset about it if they would just teach evolution as a theory and not fact. But it’s too much to ask for our liberal, anti-Christain education system to do that.

Read the rest of the article here.

The Twelve Days of Christmas

Tuesday, December 20th, 2005

On the Eighth Day of Christmas my true love gave to me…
Eight Maids A-milking,
Seven Swans A-swimming,
Six Geese A-Laying,
Five Gold Rings,
Four Calling Birds,
Three French Hens,
Two Turtle Doves,
and A Partridge in a Pear Tree

Banned ‘Jesus Dancers’ file federal suit

Tuesday, December 20th, 2005

Good for them. There was no reason for them to be banned in the first place.

Six girls barred from performing in a city’s holiday show because they wore “Jesus Christ Dancers” shirts filed a federal lawsuit in San Diego today.
WorldNetDaily reported, the girls, ages 8 to 12, were scheduled Dec. 3 to perform a hip-hop dance routine at a “Holiday Festival” in Chula Vista, Calif., but a city official prevented them from going on stage because of the Christian message on their T-shirts and their accompanying Christian music.
The black shirts, bearing a silver cross, had the words “Jesus Christ Dancers” on the front.
American Family Association Center for Law & Policy is representing the girls and their instructor, Lita Ramirez, in the suit against the city and a recreation supervisor, John Gates.
The dancers were listed first on the Holiday Festival’s schedule of performers, but officials kept the girls waiting 80 minutes as they deliberated about whether to allow the act, according to the troupe’s instructor, Lita Ramirez.
When finally informed they could not perform, the girls began to cry, some hysterically, parents said.
Ramirez, described the experience as humiliating.
AFA senior trial attorney Brian Fahling called the conduct of Chula Vista officials “inexcusable.”
“The city allowed a Hawaiian prayer dance, a belly dancer and other ‘holiday’ performers, and there was a tree-lighting ceremony afterward where a rabbi lighted a menorah, but six young girls wearing T-shirts with ‘Jesus Dancer’ and a cross silk-screened on them was too offensive,” he said.
Fahling said that without judicial resolution, “there is no way to guarantee that these little girls and other Christians won’t receive similar treatment by the city in the future.”
The lawsuit alleges the city’s decision “was impermissible viewpoint-based discrimination against religious speech in a public forum.”
Specifically, the complaint says, the city prohibited “the name of Jesus being displayed and the songs with words that praise the Christian God from being played while permitting other religious and secular songs and expression.”