Re: [asa] Re: 7th Circuit Decision

In Can School Boards Impose Beliefs? The Supreme Court Speaks you
quote "WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S.
624 (1943)" (Findlaw
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624)
and ask

<quote>Inquiring minds want to know, "What about the Minnesota drive
in public education to stamp out Christianity?" In late 2005 patrons
of Minnetonka school board meetings called for a defense of
materialism from Christianity. How? By banning ideas that support
Christianity while allowing ideas that support materialism.1 Now I
ask, does that violate the above views of the Supreme Court? If you
think it does the call the Minnetonka board members and tell them so.

1. Don't take my word for it. Read the publicly available minutes of
the board meetings of the Minnetonka, Minnesota school board in late
2005 where Intelligent Design was disallowed because it doesn't
contradict Christian beliefs, and is believed in by Christians.
</quote>

I decided to follow your advice and check the school board meeting
minutes at http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/district/schoolboard/

I found two relevant sets of minutes, neither one really seems to
support your claim that the meetings called for a defense of
materialism from Christianity.

http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/district/schoolboard/minutes/12105minutes.pdf
http://www.minnetonka.k12.mn.us/district/schoolboard/minutes/121505specialmeetingminutes.pdf

What am I missing?

PS: PZ Myers from Pharyngula fame was present as well

<quote>P.Z. Myers, Biology Instructor from University of
Minnesota-Morris, said while he was not a
resident of the School District he had a personal interest in what was
being taught at Minnetonka.
After reading the current Minnetonka standards for Science, he said he
found them "impressive,
well stated, and rigorous." With regard to the proposal to revise
some of the Science standards
to be closer to the State standards, he noted that a recent national
review found that Minnesota
State standards in evolution were "...a little big lacking, and a
little weak." Dr. Myers said that
Minnetonka standards were stronger than Minnesota State standards and
he would advocate that
the District "keep them as they are."
</quote>

What the minutes do show is a statement that points out that ID is not
science and that ID followed from the DI's Wedge Document.

<quote> We are all free to draw our own conclusions, but these seem to
me to be very reliable and
complete sources of scientific information. And to me they all say
the same thing; that I. D. is
not science, does not belong in a science classroom and that
biological evolution, and here I
quote the American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences, " is more
than just a theory. It
is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of
matter or the germ theory
of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress.
But the phenomenon of
gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

There was one particularly interesting, if not disturbing piece of
information that came our
way. It's from an article titled, " Intelligent Design: The New
Creationism Threatens All of
Science and Society, by Marshall Berman, 1995-2005, American Physical
Society. The article
includes information about the Discovery Institute's Center for the
Renewal of Science and
Culture and their goals. One of the twenty-year goals is to "see
design theory permeate our
religious, cultural, moral and political life".

 Another paragraph reads as follows:

 "John Mark Reynolds is a CSC fellow on the faculty at Biola
University (listed by Access
Research Network as an ID college,www.arn.org/college.htm). He
writes, "Torrey Honors
Institute (at Biola) is at war with the modern culture. Torrey does
not want to 'get along with
materialism, secularism, naturalism, post-modernism, radical feminism,
or spiritualism. We
want to win over every facet of the culture, from the arts to the
sciences, for the Kingdom of
Christ." ( Reynolds, J. M. undated). The real goals of the modern ID
movement are evident.
Their target is all of science and society: evolution is just the
beginning, the edge of the
"Wedge." </quote>

This is followed by

<quote>It would appear the promotion of I. D. is not about science at
all-but rather about the
promotion of a worldview that would impose upon us all the religious
beliefs of a select few.
This is the bigger part I mentioned earlier. It seems we are engaged
in a battle for our
religious freedoms all over again.
</quote>

The issue seems to be both of presenting science and protecting
religious freedoms.

Remember that the theory of evolution remains silent on the topic of
religion, materialism etc.

The case you quoted
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624)
is interesting since it rejects a forced saluting of the flag in
schools.

<quote>The subject now before us exemplifies this principle. Free
public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and
political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class,
creed, party, or faction. If it is to impose any ideological
discipline, however, each party or denomination must seek to control,
or failing that, to weaken the influence of the educational system.
Observance of the limitations of the Constitution will not weaken
government in the field appropriate for its exercise.</quote>

The part you quoted from the ruling is preceded by

<quote>Lastly, and this is the very heart of the Gobitis opinion, it
reasons that 'National unity is the basis of national security,' that
the authorities have 'the right to select appropriate means for its
attainment,' and hence reaches the conclusion that such compulsory
measures toward 'national unity' are constitutional. Id., 310 U.S. at
page 595, 60 S.Ct. at page 1013, 127 A.L.R. 1493. Upon the verity of
this assumption depends our answer in this case.

National unity as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and
example is not in question. The problem is whether under our
Constitution compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for
its achievement. </quote>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 1 13:06:40 2007