Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Bettawrekonize -> Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/12/2008 12:18:50 PM)

quote:


On this episode of ID The Future, CSC’s Casey Luskin interviews Rodney LeVake, the plaintiff in the Academic Freedom court case LeVake vs. Independent School District #656. LeVake, a former high school biology teacher, informally expressed doubts about evolution to a colleague who then reported him to the principal. LeVake ended up losing his biology position, not because he taught creationism or intelligent design, but merely because he expressed reservations about evolution to a colleague. Listen as he tells his story of clear academic persecution.


Uncommondescent

It seems like darwinists are so insecure about their beliefs that they must fire teachers for simply disagreeing with them. This is how darwinism and naturalism advance themselves, not through scientific means, but through political ones.

(I would comment at the uncommondescent website but I seem to be indefinitely banned/suspended for no reason).



DanJames -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/12/2008 12:43:14 PM)

I don't think that's how it happened.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub%5C0105%5Cc8001613&invol=1
This case was actually centered around LeVake's reassignment to teach a physical science class due to the fact that he didn't think that UCD made sense from a physiological standpoint. The curriculum requires that UCD be taught as a theory that DOES make sense from a physiological standpoint. He could not, therefore, with good conscience, teach the adopted curriculum. He filed a position report, stating that he would teach evolution "accompany[ing] that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one."
But get this:
quote:

LeVake appealed his reassignment to Superintendent Keith Dixon. On May 14, 1998, Dixon wrote LeVake a letter, affirming his reassignment. Dixon believed that LeVake differed fundamentally with the “commonly held principles of the curriculum as outlined.” Dixon further articulated that LeVake's insistence on teaching the inconsistencies of evolution was not an appropriate method for teaching the approved curriculum.

So there you go, it's inappropriate to teach evolution critically.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/12/2008 1:12:41 PM)

Thanks for the link DanJames (Uncommondescent seems to kinda distort things sometimes. I wouldn't say that they necessarily tell false information, but sometimes they state things in a misleading way).

I listened to the podcast and it seems like LeVake was teaching evolution just as well as anyone else in the same department. The only difference seems to be that, on top of teaching evolution just like anyone else (ie: he taught everything that the mentor teacher next door taught exactly as the teacher next door taught) he also taught criticisms of evolution as well. The link you gave me doesn't seem to (directly) contradict this (though it seems to have been written in a manner that seems to suggest a contradiction of what he said in the podcast, it doesn't directly contradict it. It just tries to put a different "spin" on the issue, it states the issue with a different "tone," and of course, it was written by a secular source and secular sources are unfairly/dishonestly against anything that may contradict naturalism), so the real issue here seems to be that, on top of teaching evolution (just as any other bio teacher taught) he also taught criticisms of evolution. Darwinists are too insecure about their beliefs to allow for such a thing. As I said, "It seems like darwinists are so insecure about their beliefs that they must fire teachers for simply disagreeing with them. This is how darwinism and naturalism advance themselves, not through scientific means, but through political ones." Well, I guess the teacher didn't get "fired" (or "demoted" even) per se, he just got "fired" from his particular position (or "moved").



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/12/2008 1:19:29 PM)

BTW, from your link (DanJames)

quote:


In fact, LeVake admitted in his deposition testimony that “in essence [he] said to [Hubert] that [he could not] teach evolution.” (Emphasis added.)


On the podcast, LeVake seems to imply that this is not true, did the court misquote him? I would like to see the deposition testimony. Do you know where I can get a copy of the exact testimony? I see no reason why LeVake couldn't post it on the Internet somewhere, it's his testimony and he could post it wherever he wants. I think the only way for us to know is to see a copy of that testimony (and not merely an alleged paraphrased quote by the court). I wouldn't be surprised if the court did misquote (or mis - paraphrase) him though. If LeVake does post his exact deposition somewhere and if it seems like the court misquoted (or mis paraphrased) him, I think that would strongly bring into question the validity of the courts testimony on what happened (not only would we know that the court is wrong in this instance, but it would bring into question their testimony of what happened in other instances as well).



essentialsaltes -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/12/2008 2:09:46 PM)

Just to quote a bit from DanJames' link:

quote:

2. A public school teacher's right to free speech as a citizen does not permit the teacher to teach a class in a manner that circumvents the prescribed course curriculum established by the school board when performing as a teacher.


quote:

The classroom is a “marketplace of ideas,” and academic freedom should be safeguarded. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603, 87 S. Ct. 675, 683 (1967). But Levake, in his role as a public school teacher rather than as a private citizen, wanted to discuss the criticisms of evolution. LeVake's position paper established that he does not believe the theory of evolution is credible. Further, LeVake's proposed method of teaching evolution is in direct conflict with respondents' curriculum requirements. See Clark v. Holmes, 474 F.2d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 1972) (recognizing teacher had no First Amendment right to override judgment of superiors regarding proper course content). Accordingly, the established curriculum and LeVake's responsibility as a public school teacher to teach evolution in the manner prescribed by the curriculum overrides his First Amendment rights as a private citizen. See Webster v. New Lenox Sch. Dist. No. 122, 917 F.2d 1004, 1007 (7th Cir. 1990) (recognizing compelling state interest in choice and adherence to suitable curriculum for benefit of young students overrides individual teachers' desire to teach what they please).

my emphasis

quote:

D E C I S I O N
Because LeVake's position paper and his statement to Hubert make it clear that LeVake would not teach the required course curriculum in the manner established by the school board, LeVake has not presented any genuine issue of material fact regarding his free exercise, free speech, and due process claims. Thus, the district court did not err in granting respondents' motion for summary judgment.

Affirmed.


Case closed. If you don't/can't/won't do your job according to the relevant standards, don't expect to keep doing it. The judge followed the law.

Yes, it would be interesting to see all the transcripts, etc.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/12/2008 3:43:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Case closed. If you don't/can't/won't do your job according to the relevant standards, don't expect to keep doing it. The judge followed the law.


I don't think that just because the court (or you) asserts that he didn't do his job, it means that he didn't do his job. If he properly taught everything in the curriculum, I don't think there should be a problem with him adding his own opinion about the information in the curriculum and encouraging critical thinking.

quote:


Yes, it would be interesting to see all the transcripts, etc.


I think that it's difficult to determine whether or not he claimed that he was unwilling to properly teach the curriculum without the actual transcripts (or without his deposition). If the court did misquote him, that serves as a huge blow to the credibility of the court (and he should call for a mistrial).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/12/2008 10:49:34 PM)

I can no longer access the findlaw link without registering. This happened over the course of a few hours (I didn't need to register from before). What the heck? Are they trying to hide something? Looks like a coverup.

You know what's even stranger. My account is no longer registered there.

It clearly shows under Google Cache that I'm a member.

But now, this link (the link showing the existence of my account on Findlaw) no longer has the same page.

If I type in my user name or e - mail address in http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/forget it no longer recognizes it. That's strange.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/12/2008 11:00:46 PM)

I wonder if they're going to try to change the original page (the one Danjames originally linked to) and then try to change the reason for LeVake's dismissal from the biology department. It would be interesting to witness such a conspiracy happening right before my eyes.

I know what I read on that page, if I read it again and see it changed, I'm probably gonna know.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/12/2008 11:05:49 PM)

I got SO lucky!!!

Google's Cache still has the original story (before they updated it so that I can no longer access it). I SAVED IT TO MY HARD DRIVE!!! I suggest everyone do the same, and HURRY UP before google's cache updates!!!!

(I would post this on uncommondescent but they banned/suspended me).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/13/2008 2:05:24 PM)

Now the findlaw link once again works without asking me to login or register. The page hasn't been changed and Google's cache reflected the login screen for a while (instead of displaying the case information) and now it displays the case information. Perhaps the site with the case was just down for a while and they put it back up.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/13/2008 11:54:13 PM)

Wow, someone on uncommondescent finally kinda gets the gist of the issue

Patrick on post 13 finally seems to have figured it out (again, I would have posted there much earlier, but I can't post there). This whole time, everyone there seems to have misunderstood the situation and it took them only this long to finally get things on track.

Patrick
quote:

For another example, what if I were a Darwinist and I thought the curriculum mandated an incorrect, outmoded version of the theory. Could I then teach the curriculum and then contradict it, stating the views of some modern evolutionary biologists?


That's exactly what I've been arguing (probably for years now). If a teacher teaching string theory wanted to briefly introduce students to criticisms about string theory, there would probably be no problems with that (as long as he fully and properly taught everything in the curriculum). If they wanted to introduce students to other physical hypothesis, there would generally be no problems with that either. As long as what students are introduced to does not contradict the notion that unguided naturalistic philosophies are sufficient for explaining our origins, then there is generally no problem with it. As soon as someone questions the notion that unguided naturalistic philosophies are sufficient for explaining our origins, then the secular community has a problem with it. The reason for this is that naturalistic philosophies are too insecure to allow for students to be exposed to criticisms and opposing views.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/14/2008 12:23:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Wow, someone on uncommondescent finally kinda gets the gist of the issue

Patrick on post 13 finally seems to have figured it out (again, I would have posted there much earlier, but I can't post there). This whole time, everyone there seems to have misunderstood the situation and it took them only this long to finally get things on track.

Patrick
quote:

For another example, what if I were a Darwinist and I thought the curriculum mandated an incorrect, outmoded version of the theory. Could I then teach the curriculum and then contradict it...



The finding of the court (and the appellate court) was that "LeVake would not teach the required course curriculum," so this question has no relevance to the case at hand.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/14/2008 1:21:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:


For another example, what if I were a Darwinist and I thought the curriculum mandated an incorrect, outmoded version of the theory. Could I then teach the curriculum and then contradict it...

The finding of the court (and the appellate court) was that "LeVake would not teach the required course curriculum," so this question has no relevance to the case at hand.


Well, it does have relevance to the case at hand. While it is true that LeVake claims that he would teach the course curriculum, what Patrick said was relevant because, if LeVake was willing to teach everything in the required curriculum regarding evolution (which seems to be what he claims) but, on top of teaching the curriculum, he wanted to add critical thinking and his own opinion (which seems to be the case), then a relevant question becomes, is this tolerable in other situations (ie: where evolution and origins are not involved)?

quote:


I will teach, should the department decide that it is appropriate, the theory of evolution. I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one.


(from the findlaw site).



Veritas -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/14/2008 9:44:41 AM)

quote:


I will teach, should the department decide that it is appropriate, the theory of evolution. I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one.


quote:

Based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, LeVake alleged that respondents violated his right to free exercise of religion, free speech, due process, freedom of conscience, and academic freedom.

On the one hand, LeVake is saying he wasn't turning the class into a religious one. -- On the other hand, he's claiming they violated his right to free exercise.

How can he say it isn't about religion and then turn around and say their actions prevented him from exercising his religion?



essentialsaltes -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/14/2008 10:54:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:


I will teach, should the department decide that it is appropriate, the theory of evolution. I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one.


(from the findlaw site).


Yes, that's what Levake said. And the school said that he wasn't teaching evolution in accordance with the curriculum. That's party A and party B. I don't expect anyone to believe either side over the other at this point. But they take their argument to the court, which acts as a neutral party to decide the issue. The court decided in favor of the school. Levake appealed, and again the court decided against him.

I know you are suspicious of the courts and have even been worried that an Orwellian conspiracy was changing things on the findlaw site, but I can't follow you into that paranoid assumption and credit Levake's story over the decision of the court.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/14/2008 1:29:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
On the one hand, LeVake is saying he wasn't turning the class into a religious one. -- On the other hand, he's claiming they violated his right to free exercise.

How can he say it isn't about religion and then turn around and say their actions prevented him from exercising his religion?


The idea is that they violated the first amendment in general.


Besides, lawyers always sue everyone in sight for everything in sight (I took that in my law course), it's common practice for them. They sue on side issues they know they aren't going to win (but those aren't the main issues that they're suing for) just because they can. For instance, often times when suing for damages in civil cases, they sue for lost wages as well (on the side) knowing that they're not going to win the lost wages but the main thing that they're suing for is not the lost wages, it's for the original damages (and that's what they expect to hopefully win). This is common practice (that's what I learned in my law courses), it's nothing new. The freedom of religion is not the issue here, it was just tossed in as at side to describe in general what the first amendment protects one from.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/14/2008 1:36:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Yes, that's what Levake said. And the school said that he wasn't teaching evolution in accordance with the curriculum. That's party A and party B. I don't expect anyone to believe either side over the other at this point. But they take their argument to the court, which acts as a neutral party to decide the issue. The court decided in favor of the school. Levake appealed, and again the court decided against him.

I know you are suspicious of the courts and have even been worried that an Orwellian conspiracy was changing things on the findlaw site, but I can't follow you into that paranoid assumption and credit Levake's story over the decision of the court.


No one is forcing you, or anyone, to credit Levake's story over the decision of the court or vice versa (it's not like you, or the court, are the ultimate authority over what really happened and just because you decided not to credit his story it somehow makes his story any less credible. You, just like anyone else, have your biases over who you want to credit and those biases are influenced in part by your biases on your metaphysical beliefs). I think that, without LeVake's original deposition testimony, it's difficult to determine whether or not the court misquoted him (but I wouldn't be surprised if they did). If the court did misquote him, then that does serve as a huge blow to the credibility of the court.

Also note, the findlaw site says

quote:


I will teach, should the department decide that it is appropriate, the theory of evolution. I will also accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory without turning my class into a religious one.


quote:


In fact, LeVake admitted in his deposition testimony that “in essence [he] said to [Hubert] that [he could not] teach evolution.” (Emphasis added.)


On the one hand, Levake said that he would teach evolution. On the other hand, the court paraphrased him as saying that he couldn't. Why would he state that he would teach evolution and then say that he wouldn't. This doesn't make sense unless the court (or findlaw) misquoted (or mis-paraphrased) him. The fact that the sentence stating that he wouldn't teach evolution is a paraphrase is very suspicious. The only way to know if they mis - paraphrased him is to see the original deposition.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/14/2008 1:46:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I know you are suspicious of the courts and have even been worried that an Orwellian conspiracy was changing things on the findlaw site,


What happened on the findlaw site seemed suspicious at the time. It happened within a short period of time that the podcast was released and then my specific account stopped being recognized within that period (and I haven't signed into my account for well over a year but I know it stopped being recognized within a short period because the link showing its existence no longer shows that it exists but google's cache of that link shows that it exists). In retrospect, the former was probably just a computer glitch and, as to the later, maybe if you don't login to your account for a long period of time, their computers automatically delete it (just a guess). Or perhaps when a specific case has a lot of traffic, they want people to login (that might explain the former) and when the podcast was released, naturally, the traffic of that case would go up.

quote:


but I can't follow you into that paranoid assumption and credit Levake's story over the decision of the court.


I'm not assuming anything, I'm just presenting the facts for others to read. I didn't say that the court misquoted him and I didn't say that they didn't, I'm just merely presenting both sides of the issue so that others can be more familiar with the case. You are free to make up your mind as to what happened and so is anyone else.

Conspiracies have happened in the past and sometimes they still happen today (ie: for a long time, in certain parts of the world they would censor any information about democracy). A court misquoting someone doesn't seem like such a hard thing to pull off. After all, naturalistic philosophies are tax funded and the secular community does dishonestly censor criticisms and opposing views of evolution and other naturalistic philosophies from public schools, the fact that they are dishonest in this regard supports their overall dishonesty.



Veritas -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/14/2008 2:31:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
On the one hand, LeVake is saying he wasn't turning the class into a religious one. -- On the other hand, he's claiming they violated his right to free exercise.

How can he say it isn't about religion and then turn around and say their actions prevented him from exercising his religion?


The idea is that they violated the first amendment in general.

First amendment in general, but LeVake mentioned Free Expression in particular.
quote:


Besides, lawyers always sue everyone in sight for everything in sight (I took that in my law course), it's common practice for them. They sue on side issues they know they aren't going to win (but those aren't the main issues that they're suing for) just because they can. For instance, often times when suing for damages in civil cases, they sue for lost wages as well (on the side) knowing that they're not going to win the lost wages but the main thing that they're suing for is not the lost wages, it's for the original damages (and that's what they expect to hopefully win). This is common practice (that's what I learned in my law courses), it's nothing new. The freedom of religion is not the issue here, it was just tossed in as at side to describe in general what the first amendment protects one from.

Freedom of religion may not be the only issue, but it is one of the issues. LeVake made it so by claiming his right to free exercise was violated.

He can't claim his right to free exercise was violated and expect anyone to believe it isn't about religion. By bringing up Free Exercise, he's made it clear it IS about religion.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

On the one hand, Levake said that he would teach evolution. On the other hand, the court paraphrased him as saying that he couldn't. Why would he state that he would teach evolution and then say that he wouldn't. This doesn't make sense unless the court (or findlaw) misquoted (or mis-paraphrased) him. The fact that the sentence stating that he wouldn't teach evolution is a paraphrase is very suspicious. The only way to know if they mis - paraphrased him is to see the original deposition.


Another possibility is that LeVake is talking out of both sides of his mouth, much like when he claims it's not about religion, and then turns around and says his right to Free Expression is violated.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/15/2008 12:41:50 AM)

It does not follow that claiming free exercise must pertain to religion. This is the kinda bad logic evolutionists use to argue their position and the reason that evolutionists use bad logic to defend their position is because evolutionists have no choice. Evolutionists can't defend their silly position with good logic (because their position is nonsense) so they must resort to try to defend their position with bad logic.



Veritas -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/15/2008 12:52:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize


It does not follow that claiming free exercise must pertain to religion. This is the kinda bad logic evolutionists use to argue their position and the reason that evolutionists use bad logic to defend their position is because evolutionists have no choice. Evolutionists can't defend their silly position with good logic (because their position is nonsense) so they must resort to try to defend their position with bad logic.

It certainly does follow that free exercise must pertain to religion. In the first amendment, the words "free exercise" are immediately followed by the words "of religion". When one speaks of the free exercise clause in the first amendment, they are referring to the free exercise of religion. It's not bad logic, it is what the clause says.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/15/2008 12:58:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
It certainly does follow that free exercise must pertain to religion. In the first amendment, the words "free exercise" are immediately followed by the words "of religion". When one speaks of the free exercise clause in the first amendment, they are referring to the free exercise of religion. It's not bad logic, it is what the clause says.


My mistake (and I knew that but I guess it's been a while since my last law course and I didn't stop and think. It's also been a long day).

quote:


First amendment in general, but LeVake mentioned Free Expression in particular.


He mentioned many things in particular (more than just one thing regarding the first amendment), but the idea is that he was referring to the first amendment in general (he was just stipulating what was in the first amendment). This is common practice among lawyers. Lawyers do this all the time, they always sue for irrelevant stuff that they know they won't win (but that stuff is not the center of the lawsuit). If you don't know this, then I suggest you take a law course. The reason for suing was not about religion. The idea in general is the first amendment. Again, it's common practice for lawyers to sue everyone in sight for everything in sight (even if the lawyer knows they won't win everything and they know they won't win most of the stuff and the rest of the stuff they're suing for is not the center of the case). That's what I learned in my law classes (LeVake was represented by lawyers from the ACLJ and they probably just tacked on a bunch of irrelevant stuff habitually).



Veritas -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/15/2008 1:58:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:


First amendment in general, but LeVake mentioned Free Expression in particular.


He mentioned many things in particular (more than just one thing regarding the first amendment), but the idea is that he was referring to the first amendment in general (he was just stipulating what was in the first amendment). This is common practice among lawyers. Lawyers do this all the time, they always sue for irrelevant stuff that they know they won't win (but that stuff is not the center of the lawsuit). If you don't know this, then I suggest you take a law course. The reason for suing was not about religion. The idea in general is the first amendment. Again, it's common practice for lawyers to sue everyone in sight for everything in sight (even if the lawyer knows they won't win everything and they know they won't win most of the stuff and the rest of the stuff they're suing for is not the center of the case). That's what I learned in my law classes (LeVake was represented by lawyers from the ACLJ and they probably just tacked on a bunch of irrelevant stuff habitually).


Lawyers do not "always sue for irrelevant stuff that they know they won't win", they sue for relevant stuff they think they might have a chance, however slight, of winning. You don't hear free exercise mentioned in, say, a medical malpractice suit. He did mention more than one specific right in the first amendment that he believes was violated, free speech was another first amendment right he claimed was violated. I didn't mean to imply free exercise was the only right he claimed was violated. His claim that Free Exercise was violated indicates this is about religion. He didn't have to bring up Free Exercise, but he did. And the only reason to bring up Free Exercise is religion.

If the fact LeVake is claiming Free Expression is not enough to show that this is about religion, I submit that the ACLJ filed his appeal. That should be enough to convince anyone. It's definitely about religion!



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/15/2008 11:00:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
Lawyers do not "always sue for irrelevant stuff that they know they won't win", they sue for relevant stuff they think they might have a chance, however slight, of winning.


I've seen cases where a lawyer sued for lost wages on the People's court and the lawyer didn't win the lost wages (the judge thought it was ridiculous). Afterwords, the lawyer said he knew he wasn't going to win lost wages, but he just threw that in there for the sake of throwing it in there. The lawyer did end up winning what he expected to win though. It is common practice for lawyers to do this.

quote:


You don't hear free exercise mentioned in, say, a medical malpractice suit.


I know, but the point is that lawyers do often sue for stuff that are irrelevant to the case. This particular case was not about religion, that was just thrown in there by the ACLJ.

quote:


He did mention more than one specific right in the first amendment that he believes was violated, free speech was another first amendment right he claimed was violated. I didn't mean to imply free exercise was the only right he claimed was violated. His claim that Free Exercise was violated indicates this is about religion. He didn't have to bring up Free Exercise, but he did. And the only reason to bring up Free Exercise is religion.


But the case was not about free religion, it was about other stuff. Yeah, the ACLJ may have brought that up as a side thing, but lawyers do that all the time.

quote:


If the fact LeVake is claiming Free Expression is not enough to show that this is about religion, I submit that the ACLJ filed his appeal.


As lawyers, they probably just threw that in there for the sake of throwing that in there (because that's what lawyers do). That's not to say that they meant it to be the main reason why they were suing (or that they even expected to win under free exercise of religion). At most, you can say that it was only part of the case (and only an infinitesimally small part, so small that it's not really relevant to the case. The only reason anyone should dwell on such a small aspect of the case is if they have something against religion or they are afraid of something threatening their naturalistic religion. There is nothing religious about simply criticizing evolution and the case seems to have centered around the fact that LeVake wanted to introduce criticisms of evolution in addition to everything in the curriculum).

quote:


That should be enough to convince anyone. It's definitely about religion!


Just because the ACLJ submitted it does not necessarily mean it was about religion. Even if it was about religion to the ACLJ, that's not to say that it was about religion to LeVake. Claiming that teaching criticisms of evolution is about religion is no more ridiculous than saying that teaching evolution is about religion. After all, evolution is associated (and consistent) with the religion of naturalism. If public schools want evolution to be taught in classrooms, they should allow criticisms and opposing views to be taught (even if some of those opposing views maybe religious or affiliated with various religions, as long as they don't favor any religion over another. As it stands, they favor the religion of naturalism and that's unconstitutional). If there were relevant biological phenomena that people from a particular religion interpret in a particular way, I see no problems with teaching their interpretation as well (after all, they teach how many naturalists interpret the evidence (ie: evolution) and naturalism is a religion. Even if you don't want to label it a religion, it's still ideological and non - scientific and there is no reason that a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence is more scientific than the interpretation of a religious person. It's not like UCD is any more falsifiable than, say, creationism or intelligent design. But the point here is that there is certainly nothing religious about simply teaching criticisms of evolution and the threat to evolution of teaching criticisms of evolution seems to be why the court didn't want LeVake to teach the class. It seems like evolution is too unscientific to advance itself through scientific means so it advances itself through dishonest political means and that's how evolution has acquired the status that it has. Even though evolution does appeal to dishonest tactics to advance itself, it still has difficulty convincing anyone of its validity).



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Teacher gets fired when colleague rats his doubts about Darwinism (9/15/2008 12:10:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas
Another possibility is that LeVake is talking out of both sides of his mouth, much like when he claims it's not about religion, and then turns around and says his right to Free Expression is violated.
...
I submit that the ACLJ filed his appeal.


This is what even makes it more suspicious. It seems very unlikely that the ACLJ, a group of very experienced lawyers, would on the one hand say (or have him say or submit) that he was willing to teach evolution, and on the other he was not. The court (or findlaw) did paraphrase the quote that said he wouldn't teach evolution and on the podcast he seemed to imply that the court misquoted him on that. Without the original deposition, it's difficult to know whether or not he was misquoted.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI