Parents in court over evolution
 

Eleven parents in the US state of Pennsylvania are taking their local school board to court in an attempt to protect the teaching of evolution.

BBC News

Re: Parents in court over evolution
 

Hmm, that's weird. It only took one parent to have "under God" taken out of the pledge of allegance.

Re: Parents in court over evolution
 

>Hmm, that's weird.
No, it's not only understandable, it's expected. Everybody is a hypersensitive weenie these days. The fall of the human race is entertaining to watch.

Re: Parents in court over evolution
 

There never seems to be enough chlorine in the gene pool.

Re: Parents in court over evolution
 

That person had the billions (dollars that is) of the ACLU behind him, if anyone supports people who are in favour of teaching evolution or keeping a phrase like that they're immediately branded religious fanatics which is bad press...

Re: Parents in court over evolution
 

If the supreme court orders the phrase "under God" out of the pledge, what's next, the phrase "in God we trust"? Now where have I seen that phrase before? Oh yeah...on all of our currency! :eek:

Re: Parents in court over evolution
 

Well, the ten commandments were taken out of a court in Alabama(i think) because some guy believed people would be more lenient and moral before judging people.....Not that the ten commandments would suddenly convert someone, but wouldn't you want a moral and lenient person?

Re: Parents in court over evolution
 

The USSC didn't remove the phrase "under God". It was a state court after the USSC had thrown out a similar case for being too idiotic for them to even consider and voided a lower court decision to that effect, telling them to do their homework again.

Re: Parents in court over evolution
 

Actually, it's still being argued, but there is the possibility of some colateral damage if it does.

"Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."

"My reading of the stelliscript [majority ruling] suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," Fernandez wrote.

"'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!"

This was taken from the following article.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/...ge.allegiance/

Re: Parents in court over evolution
 

Excuse me for interrupting this wonderful discussion, but do you mob realise just how silly it looks to the rest of the woeld that you have a 'First amendment' to your Constitution guaranteeing that people be allowed 'free exercise' of their religion, yet expect people to pay allegiance to a particular deity?

And do you realise how illogical it is that you argue and debate about it so much?

Last I checked, saying one thing and doing another was called hypocrisy.



I'd also add that it's really disappointing to see the legal system used to restrict what can be taught in schools. Education should be allowed to introduce people to all strains of understanding. People should be allowed to make their own choices about what to believe.