It's Something All of Us in the West Have in Common.
Published on May 15, 2010 By Infidel In Religion

Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools. The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas

Daniel v. Waters was a 1975 legal case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes because it violated the Establishment clause of the US Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_v._Waters

Hendren et al. v. Campbell et al. was a 1977 ruling by an Indiana state superior court that the young-earth creationist textbook Biology: A Search For Order In Complexity, published by the Creation Research Society and promoted through the Institute for Creation Research, could not be used in Indiana public schools. The ruling declared: "The question is whether a text obviously designed to present only the view of Biblical Creationism in a favorable light is constitutionally acceptable in the public schools of Indiana. Two hundred years of constitutional government demand that the answer be no." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendren_v._Campbell

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1258-1264 (ED Ark. 1982), was a 1981 legal case in Arkansas which ruled that the Arkansas "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act" (Act 590) was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. The judge, William Overton, handed down his decision on January 5, 1982, giving a clear, specific definition of science as a basis for ruling that “creation science” is religion and is simply not science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987 regarding creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life."The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District


Comments (Page 14)
14 PagesFirst 12 13 14 
on Feb 21, 2011

B.T....let's just put it this way...truth always rises to the top.  The best friend of truth is time. 

I don't wish to argue with you, nor do I have any intention of trying to "convert" you.  So you can relax. 

 

on Feb 28, 2011

KFC THANK god ... at long last ... hope it lasts at least a little while?

Leauki, I know … sorry … maybe this will help, it worked for me.

Merit:  value that deserves respect and acknowledgment

Values: the range or extent of somebody's ability to see something

on Mar 01, 2011

Leauki, I know … sorry … maybe this will help, it worked for me.

Merit:  value that deserves respect and acknowledgment

Values: the range or extent of somebody's ability to see something

No, that doesn't answer my question. (And please stop underlining words, it makes your text more difficult to read.)

I didn't ask you to define "merit" and "value", I asked you how Ahmadinejad or Weiss would apply or not apply either of those things to each other.

on Mar 01, 2011

Leauki

You just want to argue, oh well? I do not care if you want to stay confused or not. You see I was talking about views and merits, not Ahmadinejad or Weiss; that was something you interjected. And I saw no point in going further until you understood what value and merit means and that I was not talking about anyone’s specific views of anything. Guess not huh? I will work on them underlines and stuff just for you, hehehe.         

(Merit:  value that deserves respect and acknowledgment) (Theology)

(Values: the range or extent of somebody's ability to see something) (The real world)

If you want to talk about Ahmadinejad or Weiss, I suggest you write an article on them, and I will do my research and respond … in kind. I do not even know where you got that quote but it doesn’t really matter, I guess … BECAUSE I DO NOT DO RELIGION, silly boy. Might as well ask me about the Pope ... same thing, sorry.

on Mar 01, 2011

I must have meant "Please repeat your words." My bad. I phrased that weird.

on Mar 02, 2011

Leauki:

Not a problem ... STAY CONFUSED, you write shorter responses then!

14 PagesFirst 12 13 14