Today is
Wednesday, October 27, 2021

Google Safe Search

Home > Shame!

Cobb County Ruling a Direct Attack on God

“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”  I challenge the Honorable Clarence Cooper of the United States District Court thr the Northern District of Georgia to tell me how this endorses any religion at all.  Evolution is not a proven fact.  To teach it as such is wrong.  This has nothing to do with Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism, Roman Polytheism, Wicca, Scientology Atheism or any other religion.  It has to do with common sense.

"The judge ruled that the sticker promoted religion.  Where?  I know that elite lefties are wont to read all law to their advantage, freely inserting things not contemplated by the statute."

The judge ruled that the sticker promoted religion.  Where?  I know that elite lefties are wont to read all law to their advantage, freely inserting things not contemplated by the statute.  Well, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." U.S.Const, Am. 1.  It looks as if the alarmed parents read the sticker above and reacted with the "Ewwww. This reeks of Gawwwwwd!" reaction.  Here’s what the court said: "Plaintiff Kathy Chapman’s "alarm bells went off" when she saw the Sticker in her child’s textbook, and she immediately felt that the Sticker ’came from a religious source’ because, in her opinion, religious people are the only people who ever challenge evolution."  This is from Chapman’s trial testimony.  Continuing, "Plaintiff Jeff Silver perceived the effect of the Sticker to ’open the door to introducing schools of thought based in faith and religion into science classes.’  He also believed that the Sticker disparaged evolution and implicitly asked students to think about alternative theories Not surprisingly, the Sticker also raised a red flag for Plaintiff Jeffrey Selman because the Sticker singled out evolution and was, in his opinion, obviously religious. Thus, the Sticker is now before this Court for consideration of its constitutionality."

So now, if God haters think that something that disputes a God-hater’s dogma is religious, it is so?  Here’s the exact law as the judge related it:

"To determine whether the Sticker at issue violates the Establishment Clause, Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent direct the Court to apply the three-prong test articulated in Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105, 29 L. Ed 2d 745 (1971) See Santa Fe, 530 US at 314 (applying the Lemon test in analyzing an Establishment Clause challenge), Glassroth v Moore, 335 F.3d 1282, 1295-96 (11th Cir 2003) (same) Under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if. (1) it does not have a secular purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 US at 612-13 If the government-sponsored action or message fails to meet either of these three prongs, then the challenge under the Establishment Clause succeeds. Glassroth, 335 F.2d at 1295. As the Eleventh Circuit unequivocally recognizes, however, "there is no bright-line rule for evaluating Establishment Clause challenges" and "each challenge calls for line-drawing based on a fact-specific, case-by-case analysis" King, 331 F.3d at 1275-76 (citing Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 US 668, 679, 104 S. Ct. 1355, 79 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1984))"  Selman, et. al. vs Cobb County School District, et. al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 432 at *34-35.  (ND. Ga., 2005)

Clinton-appointee Cooper then notes that the stated purpose of the sticker "is to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion, and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward religion."  He then warps the law to conclude that although this statement was definitely "not a sham", it is unconstitutional.  The ruling is long and complex, and requires me to re-read it several times.  On first blush, however, it appears that the court has erred.

These plaintiffs hate God, they hate anyone who does not hate God, and they think that they have the right to impose their anti-God sterile joyless viewpoint on the people, turning the United States into an atheist gulag.  And of course, the ACLU, rarely on the right side of any issue, chooses to aid and abet these people in imposing their world view on the unwilling.

Thanks God for appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court.  You will see this one overturned.