By
George Kane
Michael
Newdow lost the first round of his suit to end the practice
appending, in violation of the constitutionally prescribed script,
the words ‘so help me God' to the presidential oath of
office. But he asserted that the loss is actually a good thing:
It may sound
disingenuous, but I have always advocated for losing in the District
Court if possible. Basically - except for findings of fact (which
rarely exist in constitutional cases such as this) - it is
advantageous to lose. As the loser, you are the Appellant in the next
round. That allows you to frame the issues, since you go first during
the briefing. The Appellant starts with a maximum 14,000 word Opening
Brief. The ‘winners' then have a 14,000 word limit to
respond with their Respondent Briefs. Then the loser gets to speak
last, with a 7,000 word Reply Brief.
During the oral
argument, the advantage persists. The Appellant goes first, and then
can reserve time for rebuttal, so that [the appellant] goes
last as well.
So pop the Champagne,
and get ready for the round that really counts. Of course, we may
lose again there, in which case the litigation will essentially be
over (since the Supreme Court will never accept the case for
certiorari if we lose in the Court of Appeals). But we have a very
strong case, with that little detail called the Constitution of the
United States on our side. So, in my opinion, at least, we're in very
good shape.
The
new President and congress dominated church/state separation news
at the beginning of the year, but now the focus has returned to the
courts and state legislatures. I have a personal interest in one
court case that the religious right is appealing, from my native
California and my alma mater University of California. The
conservative Christian plaintiffs claim that the University of
California is discriminating against the students from religious high
schools when they reject classes for meeting admissions requirements.
UC requires incoming freshmen to have taken 15 specific classes in
high school, in math, science, English, foreign language, and social
studies. In the case Association of Christian Schools
International v. Stearns, plaintiffs claim that ‘UC
has targeted courses that emphasize disfavored religious viewpoints,
such as the idea that God has influenced human history and provides a
universal, unchanging standard of truth and morality.' All
incoming freshmen must have passed in high school a class in World
History. Their complaint is that UC has refused to recognize for this
requirement such courses as the Holocaust, Jewish
Leadership, Jewish Philosophy, Women in Scripture, Moral Theology,
History of Christianity, and Catholic Traditions. I'm sorry,
but how broad is the knowledge of World History that a student
receives in any of these classes? The only point of the suit seems to
be to foster a sense of victimhood among conservative Christians.
In
East Brunswick New Jersey, high school football coach Marcus
Borden's fight for the right to lead his team in prayer before
games has come to a legal dead end. When the school ordered him to
desist, Borden originally won in federal court. How in the world can
that possibly happen? With pro bono assistance from Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, the school district had
that ruling reversed on appeal. The final word on the story is that
SCOTUS has refused to hear the case, exhausting Coach Borden's
appeals.
Late
last year, Louisiana enacted a Science Education Act to
promote ‘open and objective discussion of scientific theories
being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins
of life, global warming, and human cloning.' Drafted by the
conservative Christian Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), the bill
promises support for teachers who ‘use supplemental textbooks
and other instructional materials to help students understand,
analyze, critique, and review scientific theories,' providing
cover for teachers to promote Intelligent Design as science.
National science organizations
are responding by boycotting Louisiana. The Society for Integrative
and Comparative Biology, with more than 2300 members, has moved its
2011 convention from New Orleans to Salt Lake City. The boycott has
been joined by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology (ASBMB). Losing these large conventions will add to
Louisiana's financial crisis.
In
Mississippi, Representatives Chism and Espy have introduced House
Bill No. 25. Can you read it without breaking out in laughter?
The State Board of
Education shall require every textbook that includes the teaching of
evolution in its contents to include the following language on the
inside front cover of the textbook: "The word ‘theory'
has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge;
abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic
statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both
observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural
world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed
observations. This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial
theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the
origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared
on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should
be considered a theory.
Evolution refers to the
unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living
things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the
origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including:
the sudden appearance of 24 the major groups of animals in the fossil
record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major
groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the
lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in
the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions
for building a living body possessed by all living things. Study hard
and keep an open mind."
Nearly identical language
is written into a bill just introduced in the Texas House of
Representatives. The bill would additionally restore language
requiring the teaching of the ‘strengths and weaknesses'
of scientific theories. That language had been previously removed at
the insistence of Texas' leading scientific societies and over
1400 scientists in Texas, because its intent was to baldly introduce
Intelligent Design into science classrooms as an alternative to
evolution. The bill additionally stipulates that ‘no student in
any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way
because he or she subscribes to a particular position on scientific
theories or hypotheses.' In other words, any explanation is
just as good as any other.
Another new bill in the Texas
legislature would exempt private, nonprofit educational
institutions that do not accept state funding and state-administered
federal funding from approval by the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board to award academic degrees. This is because the
Board unanimously refused to permit the Creation Research Institute
to offer an online master's degree in science education. If the bill
passes, Texas will surely become a magnet for fraudulent
organizations offering advanced degrees for sale.