Kansas Insitution to sue about teaching science in science room.

Like condemning the masses to perpetual poverty and wage-slavery to profit a minute class of uber-rich leaches?Or do 'weird beliefs' get a pass when they fall under your politics? How about the homeless, underemployed, elderly, single parents, disabled, vulnerable, disadvantaged, and generally poor-to-do?Should they also be protected from other people's 'weird beliefs'? Let's add 'bad politics' to the list of things folk should do in private.Is that okayeven if it makes you a hypocrite?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Sorry, I cannot comply. I know that some well paid lawyer wrote that complaint.I understand that the lawyers did not have much to work with, but surely something other than simply typing a 'Chick tract' into legal form was called for here.

The lawyers may be well paid but that does not mean that the lawyer was competent or honest. Remember that the CCoI has created their own legal education system and that there is gold, lots of gold, in them thar Biblical Christians.If the client was happy with the content of the complaint then why should we complain?I had a friend once who too was severely handicapped and even though he was in his mid twenties always said I should hold his hand, look both ways and only walk across the street when the sign said "Walk". Every time we crossed the street he was thrilled when we got across safely and once at his house he proudly recounted every crossing to his mother.Is it not possible that the complainants might be as enthralled with the wisdom and truth found in Chick Tracts and with the irrefutable arguments found in the complaint as my friend was in how he remembered to hold hands, look both ways and only cross the street when the sign said "Walk"?Edited by jar, : extraneous "not" removed. Appalin spallin

No, not really. Can you, for example, find in it any references to any relevant case law? This well-paid lawyer refers to exactly one case, McGowan v. Maryland, in the whole darn thing, and it is possible that he didn't bother to read it. You may look yourself at the link and decide its relevance.So what was the "highly-paid lawyer" being paid for, if not his knowledge of the law? Well apparently to repeat some standard dumb creationist whining about how science is a religion and so teaching it violates the First Amendment, waaaah! You don't need to be a lawyer to do that, in fact it's positively a handicap.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This issue was decided almost 45 years ago in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968), where the Court held, "[t]here is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."Case dismissed.

I think it sad that there are still Christians in this country who think that America is ever going to return to its Christian roots, or that the American justice system could possibly serve a Christian worldview any more as it once did. The system is utterly revisionist and anti-Christian these days. It's long past time the Christians completely opted out of the system, kept their children out of the public schools, either home schooled them or sent them to private schools, en masse.I'd add one thought however. As a sophomore in high school in 1957 I was subjected to one very aggressive teacher who debunked and ridiculed Christian belief as strenuously as anyone at EvC does. At the time I wasn't much of a Christian believer, my parents weren't really believers, they'd just sent us to church and made no real issue about any of it, so under the onslaught of this math teacher I lost what little "faith" I had at the time, and found this teacher's carryings on quite humorous, sophisticated and refreshing. My best friend and I could be said to have worshiped the man for his contribution to our enlightenment. He made an avowed atheist of me.Thirty some odd years later God reached down and made a believer of me totally unexpectedly.We don't have to depend on having Christian faith affirmed in the schools or anywhere else; it's God who saves, and often in history it has been when Christianity is most ridiculed and persecuted that the greatest revivals have broken out. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, McGown v. Maryland is a rather pathetic attempt at finding an on point case, but there simply isn't much relevant, not overturned case law to work with. There is some balancing to do between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause but for these issues, the balance has already been struck.The lawyers were handed bad facts on the wrong side of the law, but the brief probably did give the plaintiff's a warm fuzzy feeling when they read it. The same feeling they likely get when they read a Jack Chick comic.What I would have expected was an argument for overturning current law, and not a brief that ignores current law. This brief is pathetic, and I think it is laugh worthy. Maybe the law firm is doing this pro bono to get some good PR in the community.

Your teacher very likely did violate constitutional law in so doing. But almost certainly your teacher was not following guidelines anything like the ones at issue here which don't require any such thing. A child being ridiculed, particularly by a person in authority is no laughing matter. But a return to the society of 1957? No thanks.

Because it is bad advocacy to write and file complaints simply to make the client feel good. I'm not asking you to complain. I think filing such a complaint borders on malpractice, so I'm complaining. I expect they were, but a lawyer is not a stenographer. This complaint is at least arguably a violation of Rule 11, which could result in sanctions against the lawyer and/or his client.Rule 11 (b)(2)....an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

They could always say that they're stupid.That should clear 'em.

Again, I see nothing in your rule that would make the complaint a violation of your rule 11 as long as the lawyer says he does not consider it frivolous.And there is gold in them thar Biblical Christian pockets.

Most christians are not stupid enough to condemn their children to an inadequate education, given by incompetent people.Edited by Theodoric, : There their

What happens when it's time to get into university or compete for jobs? You would be setting them up for absolute failure. Seems like a bad approach. Seems like you're easily persuaded by authority figures.- Oni

They have their own universities.They have their own jobs.No need to compete. Just hide. Deny. And repeat.

Like the Amish?