Alabama: Bill would allow for off-campus creationism classes

[Jason Spaceman]

From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
stop.

But he said he still has a dream of teaching public school students
about creationism, so he asked his legislator to help him encourage
the Etowah County School Board to offer "release-time" classes, in
which public high school students could go off campus to study
creationism and get an elective credit for it.

A bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature has proposed allowing
churches or ministries to teach a religion class off campus, if
parents and school boards give permission and the churches are willing
to be responsible for transporting and teaching students and covering
any expenses.

Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Rainbow City, said he introduced the bill at
the request of Kennedy, a member of his district.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/02/alabama_legislation_proposes_o.html




J. Spaceman

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Jason Spaceman
<jspa...@linuxquestions.net>:

>From the article:
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
>teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
>of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
>stop.
>
>But he said he still has a dream of teaching public school students
>about creationism, so he asked his legislator to help him encourage
>the Etowah County School Board to offer "release-time" classes, in
>which public high school students could go off campus to study
>creationism and get an elective credit for it.

Apparently he doesn't understand that the concept of "no
religious classes supported by public education" isn't about
the school buildings.

Where do these bozos come from? (Rhetorical question...)

>A bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature has proposed allowing
>churches or ministries to teach a religion class off campus, if
>parents and school boards give permission and the churches are willing
>to be responsible for transporting and teaching students and covering
>any expenses.

So the school would *not* be involved? Doesn't sound that
way to me ("...get an elective credit..."). And the idea of
contracting with a religious institution to teach religion
on what is essentially class time (regardless of location)
is just icing on the cake.

>Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Rainbow City, said he introduced the bill at
>the request of Kennedy, a member of his district.
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Read it at http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/02/alabama_legislation_proposes_o.html
>
>
>
>
>J. Spaceman

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[hersheyh]

No one has any problems with his teaching nonsense *after* (or before) school
hours for *no elective* credit. Well, other than that I don't like child abuse and
teaching children nonsense might be considered a form of child abuse, even if
all they will be using such education for is saying "Ya wanna supersize that?".

[JohnN]

On Feb 17, 4:31 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
wrote:

> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
> stop.
>
> But he said he still has a dream of teaching public school students
> about creationism, so he asked his legislator to help him encourage
> the Etowah County School Board to offer "release-time" classes, in
> which public high school students could go off campus to study
> creationism and get an elective credit for it.
>
> A bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature has proposed allowing
> churches or ministries to teach a religion class off campus, if
> parents and school boards give permission and the churches are willing
> to be responsible for transporting and teaching students and covering
> any expenses.
>
> Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Rainbow City, said he introduced the bill at
> the request of Kennedy, a member of his district.

Why can't the kids who want to or are forced by parents, go to Sunday
School at the church of their choice on their own time and dime?

JohnN

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

Or just get elective credit for being Christians? Which seems to be
what's on offer.

Amendment, then? It would save a lot of time, and effort.

I assume that mainly Christians will be accepted in these courses.

I assume that the school knows the professed religion of each child.

I assume that secular authority is not in control of what happens at
the creationism school.

I assume this is one of those stupid, stupid bills that probably never
even gets discussed. Well, except here.

[deadrat]

hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Friday, February 17, 2012 4:31:47 PM UTC-5, Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> From the article:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
>> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
>> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
>> stop.
>>
>> But he said he still has a dream of teaching public school students
>> about creationism, so he asked his legislator to help him encourage
>> the Etowah County School Board to offer "release-time" classes, in
>> which public high school students could go off campus to study
>> creationism and get an elective credit for it.
>>
>> A bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature has proposed allowing
>> churches or ministries to teach a religion class off campus, if
>> parents and school boards give permission and the churches are willing
>> to be responsible for transporting and teaching students and covering
>> any expenses.
>>
>> Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Rainbow City, said he introduced the bill at
>> the request of Kennedy, a member of his district.

>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it at http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/02/
alabama_legislation_proposes_o.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
> No one has any problems with his teaching nonsense *after* (or before) school
> hours for *no elective* credit. Well, other than that I don't like child
abuse and
> teaching children nonsense might be considered a form of child abuse, even if
> all they will be using such education for is saying "Ya wanna supersize
that?".

Here's my favorite quote from the above link:

<quote>
For example, there is no delta to the Colorado River, which is evidence that it
was washed out after the flood.
</quote>

The cretinists are relying on Zorach v Clauson 343US306 (1952), which allowed
New York's catch and release program for indoctrinating students in religion.
One hour per week release time with no school involvement (or even
acknowledgment) other than accepting attendance reports. The majority said
"blah blah blah no coercion blah blah we're a religious people blah blah blah."
Justice Black's dissent may be summed up in one word -- "Bullshit!"

The problem with the Alabama proposal is obviously "elective credit." Any
course that grants credit probably needs its curriculum certified by the school
system. Prong three of the Lemon test will kill that dead.

[Paul J Gans]

Because many of those folks who want the government out of
their lives also want the government to pay for everything.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Harry K]

On Feb 18, 2:40 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

> even gets discussed.  Well, except here.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I assume the christains would scream like a sstuck pig if anything
other than Christaniety was taught.

Harry K

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<eaff0fd0-a45b-4ca3...@9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,

Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I assume the christains would scream like a sstuck pig if anything
> other than Christaniety was taught.
>
> Harry K

Oh sure. The Calvinist would complain if Lutherism were taught. And the
Southern Baptists would complain and be complained about the other two.

And all three would go ape feces about a few ecumenical "Hail Marys".

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman
<jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:

> From the article:

>
> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
> stop.

The subject has been discussed here before, but I still do not
understand it: why wasn't Kennedy arrested and put in jail? Why
were the Crteationists on the Dover Area Board of Education
members not put in jail?

> But he said he still has a dream of teaching public school students
> about creationism,

Thn he should go to his cult and ask the cult laders if he may do
so there--- there are no laws against that.

> so he asked his legislator to help him encourage
> the Etowah County School Board to offer "release-time" classes, in
> which public high school students could go off campus to study
> creationism

... which is just dandy if the stuident's parents agree, and if
the students do not neglect their real students. So what was the
bloody problem?

Oh; here is the problem:

> and get an elective credit for it.

Ooops! State-funded occultism. Well, that's not only against the
law, but also immoral and unethical. If stdents are allowed
electric credits for Christian occultism, why not also allow
credit for astrology, palm reading, dowsing, $scientology
auditing, necromancy, sheep entrail reading, and denying the
evidence for tobacco-caused lung cancer?

> A bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature has proposed allowing
> churches or ministries to teach a religion class off campus, if
> parents and school boards give permission and the churches are willing
> to be responsible for transporting and teaching students and covering
> any expenses.

This is great! No problem with this at all, legally, morally, and
ethically. Intellectually of course it is repulsive and abusive.
As long as the victims do not receive any education credit for the
indoctrination and brainwashing, why would anyone object?

> Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Rainbow City, said he introduced the bill at
> the request of Kennedy, a member of his district.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/02/alabama_legislation_proposes_o.html
>
> J. Spaceman

--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:19:08 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>:

>On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman
><jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
>
>> From the article:
>>
>> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
>> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
>> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
>> stop.
>
>The subject has been discussed here before, but I still do not
>understand it: why wasn't Kennedy arrested and put in jail? Why
>were the Crteationists on the Dover Area Board of Education
>members not put in jail?

Because none of their transgressions are criminal acts.

[Richard Clayton]

On 19-Feb-12 13:00, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:19:08 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by AGWFacts<AGWF...@ipcc.org>:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman
>> <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
>>
>>> From the article:
>>>
>>> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
>>> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
>>> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
>>> stop.
>>
>> The subject has been discussed here before, but I still do not
>> understand it: why wasn't Kennedy arrested and put in jail? Why
>> were the Crteationists on the Dover Area Board of Education
>> members not put in jail?
>
> Because none of their transgressions are criminal acts.

Perjury is. But I'll wager most state prosecutors know a losing case
when they see one -- especially when it would give the defendants
further opportunity to beat their breasts, rend their garments, and
bewail their tragic martyrdom.

[rest snipped, with apologies]

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

[deadrat]

AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman
> <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
>
>> From the article:
>>
>> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
>> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
>> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
>> stop.
>
> The subject has been discussed here before, but I still do not
> understand it: why wasn't Kennedy arrested and put in jail? Why
> were the Crteationists on the Dover Area Board of Education
> members not put in jail?

Because violating First Amendment rights is a civil issue.

><snip/>

[Stuart]

On Feb 19, 6:19 am, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman
>

> <jspace...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
> > From the article:
>
> > Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
> > teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
> > of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
> > stop.
>
> The subject has been discussed here before, but I still do not
> understand it: why wasn't Kennedy arrested and put in jail? Why
> were the Crteationists on the Dover Area Board of Education
> members not put in jail?

Because stupidity is not a criminal offense.

Stuart

[hersheyh]

On Sunday, February 19, 2012 1:56:06 PM UTC-5, Richard Clayton wrote:
> On 19-Feb-12 13:00, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:19:08 -0700, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by AGWFacts<AGWF...@ipcc.org>:
> >
> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman
> >> <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From the article:
> >>>
> >>> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
> >>> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
> >>> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
> >>> stop.
> >>
> >> The subject has been discussed here before, but I still do not
> >> understand it: why wasn't Kennedy arrested and put in jail? Why
> >> were the Crteationists on the Dover Area Board of Education
> >> members not put in jail?
> >
> > Because none of their transgressions are criminal acts.
>
> Perjury is.

If prosecutors ever charged every individual who ever got on the stand and
lied about what they did, the jails would be even more full than they are.

[Frank J]

On Feb 18, 1:07 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Jason Spaceman

> <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>:

>
> >From the article:
> >-----------------------------------------------------------
> >Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
> >teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
> >of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
> >stop.
>
> >But he said he still has a dream of teaching public school students
> >about creationism, so he asked his legislator to help him encourage
> >the Etowah County School Board to offer "release-time" classes, in
> >which public high school students could go off campus to study
> >creationism and get an elective credit for it.
>
> Apparently he doesn't understand that the concept of "no
> religious classes supported by public education" isn't about
> the school buildings.
>
> Where do these bozos come from? (Rhetorical question...)

And how can they still be so clueless to not just parrot the DI, and
just demand a designer-free phony "critical analysis" of evoution,
from which most students would infer that creationism - several
mutually contradictory versions in fact - is validated by default?

Unless this guy is anything but clueless, meaning that, unlike the
average rube, he's keenly aware of Dover, and how even the designer-
free phony "critical analysis" would not pass the Lemon test - on
campus at least. But if that were the case, he'd most likely demand
an off-campus phony "critical analysis," not "creationism." So my vote
is still that he's that clueless as to have missed the last 25 years
of anti-evolution "evolution."

And yet, regardless of how shrewd or clueless they are, they never
EVER demand a critical analysis of "creationism," on campus or off.

> >A bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature has proposed allowing
> >churches or ministries to teach a religion class off campus, if
> >parents and school boards give permission and the churches are willing
> >to be responsible for transporting and teaching students and covering
> >any expenses.
>
> So the school would *not* be involved? Doesn't sound that
> way to me ("...get an elective credit..."). And the idea of
> contracting with a religious institution to teach religion
> on what is essentially class time (regardless of location)
> is just icing on the cake.
>
> >Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Rainbow City, said he introduced the bill at
> >the request of Kennedy, a member of his district.
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
>

> >Read it athttp://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/02/alabama_legislation_proposes_o.html

[Frank J]

I just wrote that too. But I should add that, while that is legal, it
does not make it *moral.* Especially if long-refuted arguments against
evolution are taught, unanswered, in the same place that preaches
"thou shalt not bear false witness."

>
> JohnN- Hide quoted text -

[deadrat]

Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19-Feb-12 13:00, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:19:08 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by AGWFacts<AGWF...@ipcc.org>:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman
>>> <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From the article:
>>>>

>>>> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
>>>> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
>>>> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
>>>> stop.
>>>

>>> The subject has been discussed here before, but I still do not
>>> understand it: why wasn't Kennedy arrested and put in jail? Why
>>> were the Crteationists on the Dover Area Board of Education
>>> members not put in jail?
>>
>> Because none of their transgressions are criminal acts.
>

> Perjury is. But I'll wager most state prosecutors know a losing case

> when they see one --

The trial was in federal court, so a USA would have to indict. Lying
under oath isn't necessarily perjury. For one thing, the lie must be
about something material to the case. The judge was unamused when he
found out that one of the IDiots had lied in a deposition about the source
of the money for the cretinist books. The judge noted that had he known
about the lie at the time the deposition was taken, he would have granted
a TRO against the school district. TROs are granted only when failing to
grant one will cause irreparable harm to a winning plaintiff or when the
plaintiff is likely to win. I've always thought this was a signal from
the judge to the USA that the lie was about a matter material to the
trial. If so, the USA didn't take the hint.

<snip/>

[Frank J]

On Feb 18, 3:45 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2012 4:31:47 PM UTC-5, Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > From the article:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
> > teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
> > of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
> > stop.
>
> > But he said he still has a dream of teaching public school students
> > about creationism, so he asked his legislator to help him encourage
> > the Etowah County School Board to offer "release-time" classes, in
> > which public high school students could go off campus to study
> > creationism and get an elective credit for it.
>
> > A bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature has proposed allowing
> > churches or ministries to teach a religion class off campus, if
> > parents and school boards give permission and the churches are willing
> > to be responsible for transporting and teaching students and covering
> > any expenses.
>
> > Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Rainbow City, said he introduced the bill at
> > the request of Kennedy, a member of his district.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>

> > Read it athttp://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/02/alabama_legislation_proposes_o.html

>
> > J. Spaceman
>
> No one has any problems with his teaching nonsense *after* (or before) school
> hours for *no elective* credit.

Or even with credit, elective or otherise *on their parents' dime.*

These bedwetters demand nothing less than an evolution-denier's
welfare state.

> Well, other than that I don't like child abuse and
> teaching children nonsense might be considered a form of child abuse, even if

> all they will be using such education for is saying "Ya wanna supersize that?".- Hide quoted text -

[Paul J Gans]

Yet because of the very amendment they love to cite, such a law
would empower the same thing for other religions.

[jillery]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:45:09 -0800 (PST), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:

IIUC those bedwetters view evolution as a religion which they are
obliged to support with their taxes. As long as they view evolution
in opposition to religion, their argument is self-consistent. Those
who say science proves God doesn't exist add fuel to that fire.

[Frank J]

On Feb 20, 8:39 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:45:09 -0800 (PST), Frank J <f...@verizon.net>

I'll grant you that the rubes (Dover's Bill Buckingham being the "type
specimen") see themselves as self-consistent, but the perps (the DI
gang being "type specimens") know darn well that evolution is not a
religion. The DI goes so far as to advise *against* teaching
creationism or ID, and demanding only that the phony "critical
analysis of evolution" be taught. With no critical analysis of the
"critical analysis" of course.

Besides, most perps and rubes alike either home school their children
or pay for their education at fundamentalist schools. One would think
that, as (mostly) self-described conservatives, they would demand that
others pay for their own childrens' education.

> Those
> who say science proves God doesn't exist add fuel to that fire.
>
>

Very true.

>
> >> Well, other than that I don't like child abuse and
> >> teaching children nonsense might be considered a form of child abuse, even if
> >> all they will be using such education for is saying "Ya wanna supersize that?".- Hide quoted text -
>

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:56:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richard Clayton
<richZIG.e....@gmail.com>:

>On 19-Feb-12 13:00, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:19:08 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by AGWFacts<AGWF...@ipcc.org>:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman
>>> <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From the article:
>>>>
>>>> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
>>>> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
>>>> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
>>>> stop.
>>>
>>> The subject has been discussed here before, but I still do not
>>> understand it: why wasn't Kennedy arrested and put in jail? Why
>>> were the Crteationists on the Dover Area Board of Education
>>> members not put in jail?

>> Because none of their transgressions are criminal acts.

>Perjury is. But I'll wager most state prosecutors know a losing case
>when they see one -- especially when it would give the defendants
>further opportunity to beat their breasts, rend their garments, and
>bewail their tragic martyrdom.

Given that AGW's primary reference was to Kennedy, in which
there was no suggestion of perjury, I mainly addressed that.
But as for the testimony in Dover, has anyone demonstrated
that any of the creationists in the case knowingly lied,
which is required for a perjury charge?

>[rest snipped, with apologies]
--

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:42:41 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Frank J
<fc...@verizon.net>:

Of course not; being Divine Revelation, creationism isn't
subject to analysis.

[Harry K]

On Feb 20, 9:17 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:56:06 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Richard Clayton

> <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On 19-Feb-12 13:00, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:19:08 -0700, the following appeared

> >> in talk.origins, posted by AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org>:

>
> >>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman

> >>> <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>  wrote:

>
> >>>>  From the article:
>
> >>>> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
> >>>> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
> >>>> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
> >>>> stop.
>
> >>> The subject has been discussed here before, but I still do not
> >>> understand it: why wasn't Kennedy arrested and put in jail? Why
> >>> were the Crteationists on the Dover Area Board of Education
> >>> members not put in jail?
> >> Because none of their transgressions are criminal acts.
> >Perjury is. But I'll wager most state prosecutors know a losing case
> >when they see one -- especially when it would give the defendants
> >further opportunity to beat their breasts, rend their garments, and
> >bewail their tragic martyrdom.
>
> Given that AGW's primary reference was to Kennedy, in which
> there was no suggestion of perjury, I mainly addressed that.
> But as for the testimony in Dover, has anyone demonstrated
> that any of the creationists in the case knowingly lied,
> which is required for a perjury charge?
>
> >[rest snipped, with apologies]
>
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."

>                           - McNameless- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes but I can't name names. ONe was the board member who lied about
the source of the books...or the financing of them. There were clear
cases of perjury through the trial and the judge called them liars in
his ruling.

Harry K

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:57:31 -0800 (PST), Frank J <fc...@verizon.net>
wrote:

I remain unconvinced there is a substantial difference of opinion on
this point between, as you say, the rubes and the perps. They may
have differences of opinion on the best strategies, but IIUC they
agree on the why they oppose evolution. Evolution explains humanity's
origins and existence with material evidence. They view this as
undermining the foundations of morality. Denominational differences
aren't relevant to that.

>Besides, most perps and rubes alike either home school their children
>or pay for their education at fundamentalist schools. One would think
>that, as (mostly) self-described conservatives, they would demand that
>others pay for their own childrens' education.

That ship sailed long ago. It's generally recognized that a certain
level of education for everybody has a collective benefit. So
laissez-faire principles notwithstanding, and like defense, road, and
gas prices, education is part of the public welfare. The issue is no
longer who pays the band, but who calls the tune.

[deadrat]

Harry K <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 20, 9:17 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:56:06 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Richard Clayton
>> <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 19-Feb-12 13:00, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:19:08 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by AGWFacts<AGWFa...@ipcc.org>:
>>
>> >>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:47 -0800 (PST), Jason Spaceman
>> >>> <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>  wrote:
>>
>> >>>>  From the article:
>>

>> >>>> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
>> >>>> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
>> >>>> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
>> >>>> stop.
>>

Perjury has very stringent requirements. An untrue statement under oath must
be made knowing its falsehood, and the statement must be material to an issue
at trial. This obviously precludes a mistaken statement, but in addition,
the statement must be unambiguous. Statements that are misleading and even
those intended to mislead cannot be perjurious if they are technically true.

At Dover, one of the defendants collected money from his church for the
cretinist books, gave the cash to his brother-in-law, and had his brother-in-
law write him a personal check. He was asked about the source of the money
in a deposition. I didn't bother to look up the exchange, but for purposes
of illustration, let's suppose it went like this:

Q. Did you receive money for the books, directly or indirectly, from a
church?

A. No.

Q. Where did the money come from?

A. My brother-in-law.

The first answer is almost certainly perjury. The board member knew that the
money came from the church indirectly, because he arranged for the
indirection.

The second answer is almost certainly not perjury. It's technically true,
even though it's designed to mislead.

So if the actual exchange omitted the first question and contained only the
second, there's no perjury.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:28:48 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Harry K
<turnk...@hotmail.com>:

>Yes but I can't name names. ONe was the board member who lied about
>the source of the books...or the financing of them. There were clear
>cases of perjury through the trial and the judge called them liars in
>his ruling.

OK; thanks. That's the sort of thing for which perjury
charges are appropriate. Doesn't change my rebuttal
regarding Kennedy, though.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:48:24 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <a...@b.com>:

Thanks for the further clarification. I trust the initial
question ("Why were the Crteationists on the Dover Area
Board of Education members not put in jail?") has been
satisfactorily addressed, at least regarding Kennedy and
anyone at Dover whose testimony followed your last example.

[Mike Dworetsky]

But, but...the board member who gave this cock and bull story eventually was
given an out by his legal team, who provided testimony that he lied under
oath because he had been on drugs and was addicted (oxytocin, IIRC).

This flimsy excuse was probably enough to tip the judge to the "do not
prosecute" choice.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Walter Bushell]

In article <8oKdnYclp5Tvi9nS...@bt.com>,

"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

> But, but...the board member who gave this cock and bull story eventually was
> given an out by his legal team, who provided testimony that he lied under
> oath because he had been on drugs and was addicted (oxytocin, IIRC).
>
> This flimsy excuse was probably enough to tip the judge to the "do not
> prosecute" choice.

Shouldn't being on drugs be an aggravating circumstance?

[James Beck]

It would tip me there too, actually. The opioids are hard on judgment.
DSM-IV notes clinically significant maladaptive behavior,
psychological changes due to their effects on the nervous system,
belligerence, and impaired judgment/social/occupational functioning.

I'd be tempted to prosecute the lawyer that let him testify, though.

[deadrat]

It's not the judge's choice to prosecute. It's the USA's.

Lawyers pretty much have to follow their clients' legal directives.

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Feb 17, 10:31 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
wrote:
> From the article:
> -----------------------------------------------------------

> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
> stop.
>

> But he said he still has a dream of teaching public school students
> about creationism, so he asked his legislator to help him encourage
> the Etowah County School Board to offer "release-time" classes, in
> which public high school students could go off campus to study
> creationism and get an elective credit for it.
>
> A bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature has proposed allowing
> churches or ministries to teach a religion class off campus, if
> parents and school boards give permission and the churches are willing
> to be responsible for transporting and teaching students and covering
> any expenses.
>
> Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Rainbow City, said he introduced the bill at
> the request of Kennedy, a member of his district.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/02/alabama_legislation_proposes_o.html
>
> J. Spaceman

Everybody should learn creationism in class. The understanding of the
relationship between creator and created is the foundation of science.
With creationism both free expression of subjective opinion is
validated, and objective facts are validated, each in their own
domain. With methodological naturalism free expression is not
validated, only objective facts are held valid. And because only
objective facts are validated in methodological naturalism it leads to
treat morality, what ought and ought not, also as matters of fact. I
am confident that students who are better at distinghuishing matters
of subjective opinion, from objective matters of fact, would do
generally better in all classes.

creator - created
subjectively identified to exist - objectively established to exist
chooses - chosen
create new information- copy or transfer existing information from
nature
faith - fact
spiritual - material
expressive - descriptive

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:49:58 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by James Beck
<jdbec...@yahoo.com>:

I wonder why taking a drug provides an "out". To be
consistent, shouldn't we afford the same protection to drunk
drivers?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:07:56 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com>:

>On Feb 17, 10:31 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
>wrote:
>> From the article:
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Joseph Kennedy, 84, got fired in 1980 for reading the Bible and
>> teaching creationism at Spring Garden Elementary School when parents
>> of the public school sixth-grade students objected and he refused to
>> stop.
>>
>> But he said he still has a dream of teaching public school students
>> about creationism, so he asked his legislator to help him encourage
>> the Etowah County School Board to offer "release-time" classes, in
>> which public high school students could go off campus to study
>> creationism and get an elective credit for it.
>>
>> A bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature has proposed allowing
>> churches or ministries to teach a religion class off campus, if
>> parents and school boards give permission and the churches are willing
>> to be responsible for transporting and teaching students and covering
>> any expenses.
>>
>> Rep. Blaine Galliher, R-Rainbow City, said he introduced the bill at
>> the request of Kennedy, a member of his district.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it athttp://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/02/alabama_legislation_proposes_o.html
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>
>Everybody should learn creationism in class.

Then you should propose that for schools in the Netherlands.
Enjoy the response from the rational people.

[James Beck]

On Feb 22, 1:17 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:49:58 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by James Beck

> <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com>:

>
>
>
> >On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:10:55 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
> ><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >>Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:48:24 -0600, the following appeared
> >>> in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <a...@b.com>:
>

Some states do--that's essentially what a deferred prosecution does.
What we usually do now with alcoholism doesn't make much sense,
either. The judge likely had credible evidence that the claim was
true, knows that there are no established standards for prescription
drug intoxication, and that the odds of winning were low. Prosecuting
those cases might be consistent with society's principles, but violate
their economic interests.

On the other hand, the torturing of law, regulation, and science
necessary to make prosecution on alcohol intoxication profitable
creates a substantial cottage industry for expert witnesses and
defense lawyers. Deferring prosecution in favor of treatment won't be
a perfect option, either.

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

On Feb 22, 7:19 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:07:56 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by

> "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com" <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com>:

Creationism validates both objective facts (material) , and free
expression of subjective opinion (spiritual), each in their own
domain, creator and created. Contrast this with methodological
naturalism which only validates objective facts. When only objective
facts are valid, then emotions must therefore also be a matter of
objective fact, and we are led straight into social darwinism, and to
destroy all free expression.

[Harry K]

On Feb 22, 10:17 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:49:58 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by James Beck

> <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:10:55 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
> ><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >>Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:48:24 -0600, the following appeared
> >>> in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <a...@b.com>:
>

"The law is an ass". Local case just resolved by mediation. Cop off
duty drove drunk, hit car, left scene, fired. Result of mediation.
Cop ordered reinstated with 2 years back pay. Why? Alcoholism is a
disease and agency did not help him with it.

Harry K

[Harry K]

On Feb 22, 11:19 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

> destroy all free expression.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Translation. "opinions and belief should be allowed to affect facts".

Harry K

[nando_r...@yahoo.com]

You don't straightforwardly accept emotions, free expression as valid.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:53:50 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by James Beck

<jdbec...@gmail.com>:

>On Feb 22, 1:17 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:49:58 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by James Beck
>> <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com>:

>> >On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:10:55 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
>> ><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

<snip>

I wasn't referring to intoxication per se, but to drunken
driving. If you know of any states which "defer prosecution"
of drunk drivers, especially if said driver causes an
accident, please list them so I can avoid driving there.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:19:05 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by

"nando_r...@yahoo.com" <nando_r...@yahoo.com>:

Ignoring your tortured and faulty logic, what was there
about my suggestion you failed to understand? Don't
pontificate in Usenet, do it in your political structure
where it can have some effect. And as I said, enjoy the
response from the rational people there.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:04:48 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Harry K
<turnk...@hotmail.com>:

>"The law is an ass". Local case just resolved by mediation. Cop off
>duty drove drunk, hit car, left scene, fired. Result of mediation.
>Cop ordered reinstated with 2 years back pay. Why? Alcoholism is a
>disease and agency did not help him with it.

Gee, I wonder if the court would apply the same "logic" if
it were a case involving a meth head wielding a baseball bat
on a politician? Or on a judge?