Boca Raton Student Sues District For Failing To Teach Evolution

When I first read this on one of my favourite "wacko leftie" websites, I thought it was just another spoof from The Onion but it is actually a real news story.

Boca Raton Student Sues District For Failing To Teach Evolution

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL (CBS12)--A Boca Raton father and son are suing the school board of Palm Beach County claiming it fails to teach evolution and so-called truths about religions, specifically Islam.

"Evolution is a very important topic and its greatest scientific breakthrough ever so I believe it should be taught," stated fifth grade student Brandon Silver.

Silver, his brother Ari, and their father, attorney Barry Silver, faced the PBC school board to present an 18-page lawsuit that claims students are not being properly taught about evolution in the classroom and are being given false, misleading, and dangerous information about certain religions.

"Evolution is science and there is no alternative theory to it. It is fact and it is true and the cases throughout the country have ruled you can not ignore evolution or leave it out; that it is a violation of the separation of church and state. It's a violation of the Florida constitution," said Barry Silver.

Click to expand...

The last sentence in the article is rather telling, I think.
"The board says they tried to work with Barry over the years but they simply have to adhere to Florida standards.

Unless they've been changed very recently, Florida standards have required the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in high school science classes. That part "high school", may be the aspect the school board is banking on.

"it is a violation of the separation of church and state"

Considering there is no such thing in the constitution maybe they should be arguing that they aren't being taught government sufficiently either

Crovax said:

"it is a violation of the separation of church and state"

Considering there is no such thing in the constitution maybe they should be arguing that they aren't being taught government sufficiently either

Click to expand...

I'm always shocked by how little constitutional Republicans actually know about the US Constitution.

FieldTheorist said:

I'm always shocked by how little constitutional Republicans actually know about the US Constitution.

Click to expand...

So you think "separation of church and state" is in the constitution?

Crovax said:

So you think "separation of church and state" is in the constitution?

Click to expand...

Of course they do. It has been crammed down their throats by their media and schools. Not always, just in the last few years. To them that is the only thing in the constitution.

Crovax said:

So you think "separation of church and state" is in the constitution?

Click to expand...

The literal phrase "separation of church and state"? No, it's a trivial google exercise to verify that. A statement directly equivalent to "a separation of church and state"? Yes, that and freedom of speech are in the First Amendment. The specific term "separation of church and state" comes from paraphrasing an explanatory text by Thomas Jefferson, who pushed for and basically wrote the First Amendment. I'm not certain how it gets any clearer than that.

FieldTheorist said:

The literal phrase "separation of church and state"? No, it's a trivial google exercise to verify that. A statement directly equivalent to "a separation of church and state"? Yes, that and freedom of speech are in the First Amendment. The specific term "separation of church and state" comes from paraphrasing an explanatory text by Thomas Jefferson, who pushed for and basically wrote the First Amendment. I'm not certain how it gets any clearer than that.

Click to expand...

Exactly Thomas Jefferson's opinion is not law and violating his opinion is not against the law. It is very clear.

Crovax said:

Exactly Thomas Jefferson's opinion is not law and violating his opinion is not against the law. It is very clear.

Click to expand...

Okay, so if someone writes a law, and then has an explanation of the law, your stance is "Nah, I don't care, none of that matters because I don't like it"?

But let's set that aside. What do you think that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means?

FieldTheorist said:

Okay, so if someone writes a law, and then has an explanation of the law, your stance is "Nah, I don't care, none of that matters because I don't like it"?

But let's set that aside. What do you think that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means?

Click to expand...

It means exactly what it says. And if that were to be violated the correct phrase would be that it violated the 1st amendment. There is absolutely no prohibition on violating a wall of separation between church and state.

Crovax said:

It means exactly what it says. And if that were to be violated the correct phrase would be that it violated the 1st amendment. There is absolutely no prohibition on violating a wall of separation between church and state.

Click to expand...

That's not a valid answer. I'm asking you to explain what you think it means, e.g. "To me, it means that there's a separation of church and state, because it's stating that the government cannot hurt or help any religion under it's name. That isn't possible unless the government and all religious institutions/doctrines are kept separate from each other." <-- that's my interpretation. Now you try.

The guy has sued the school district multiple times before and the cases have all been dismissed. While the school district hasn't offered any specifics there is no way in hell that they have avoided teaching evolution.

FieldTheorist said:

That's not a valid answer. I'm asking you to explain what you think it means, e.g. "To me, it means that there's a separation of church and state, because it's stating that the government cannot hurt or help any religion under it's name. That isn't possible unless the government and all religious institutions/doctrines are kept separate from each other." <-- that's my interpretation. Now you try.

Click to expand...

If this is your interpretation, you obviously oppose the government mandated birth control portions of Obamacare and support the rights of individuals/companies to refuse marriage services to GLBT when it violates the individuals/companies religious beliefs right?

FieldTheorist said:

That's not a valid answer. I'm asking you to explain what you think it means, e.g. "To me, it means that there's a separation of church and state, because it's stating that the government cannot hurt or help any religion under it's name. That isn't possible unless the government and all religious institutions/doctrines are kept separate from each other." <-- that's my interpretation. Now you try.

Click to expand...

I don't have to interpret anything the words are clear and the fact the we have God in our declaration on independence, God on our money and in our pledge and Christmas as a national holiday pretty much prove your interpretation wrong.

FieldTheorist said:

Okay, so if someone writes a law, and then has an explanation of the law, your stance is "Nah, I don't care, none of that matters because I don't like it"?

But let's set that aside. What do you think that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means?

Click to expand...

It means whatever a conservative wants it to mean. Like "intelligent design" is just as valid as evolution.

FieldTheorist said:

I'm always shocked by how little constitutional Republicans actually know about the US Constitution.

Click to expand...

Or the findings of the Supreme Court, which carry the same weight. But some religious asshats just don't want to deal with the real world.

GPS_Flex said:

If this is your interpretation, you obviously oppose the government mandated birth control portions of Obamacare and support the rights of individuals/companies to refuse marriage services to GLBT when it violates the individuals/companies religious beliefs right?

Click to expand...

No, nor do I see a plausible argument for your assumption that I should. And there's many obvious reasons.

1.) Healthcare is something offered to the employee by law from the government, and it serves a non-religious purpose. We allow companies/corporations far too much control over their employees lives as it stands (that's a massive understatement). But back to your claim, no, of course . If you're a Christian Scientist, does that mean you're allowed to refuse all of your employees healthcare because you don't believe in healthcare at all? What about blood transfusions? If you work for a follower of Jehovah's Witness, should they be allowed to deny you blood transfusions because they believe they are immoral and wrong? What if you work for an Orthodox Jew? Should he or she be allowed to forbid you from getting pig tissue transplant if you have organ failures for which pig tissue is very healthy?

2.) They are already paying for these "violations of their religion," anyways. That's what medical insurance is. They pay money into the system, and that system gives out the drugs, treatments, and medical services on an as-need basis. The only thing that you're saying is that the medical provider should get paid for all of these treatments, but when it comes time for their employees to get the treatments, they can't receive them. But the employer has already paid for them, let's not get confused over that.

Crovax said:

I don't have to interpret anything the words are clear and the fact the we have God in our declaration on independence, God on our money and in our pledge and Christmas as a national holiday pretty much prove your interpretation wrong.

Click to expand...

Now you're just being openly ridiculous. The declaration of independence isn't even a legal document, and even so, are you serious? You think that the First Amendment is consistent with calling the US a "Christian government"? For god's sakes, read up on the history of religious freedom in America, it would be very educational for yourself.

To clarify briefly, "In God we trust" and "Under God" both in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency was red-scare crap that McCarthy feat-mongered the US into putting onto our coins in the 1950's because he wanted the US to be maximally anti-commie, so that's a very recent change. Christmas is one of many national holidays. But Christmas is a secular holiday, it's been observed by Christians and non-Christians for over a hundred years now. Sure, it obviously has it's origins in the Christian religion, but Christmas itself (the date, for instance) has it's origin in Pagan religion. So Christmas itself is actually a pagan festival that was repurposed and renamed by Christians some 1,300 years ago. Please, feel free to educate yourself on any of these topics.

FieldTheorist said:

No, nor do I see a plausible argument for your assumption that I should. And there's many obvious reasons.

1.) Healthcare is something offered to the employee by law from the government, and it serves a non-religious purpose. We allow companies/corporations far too much control over their employees lives as it stands (that's a massive understatement). But back to your claim, no, of course . If you're a Christian Scientist, does that mean you're allowed to refuse all of your employees healthcare because you don't believe in healthcare at all? What about blood transfusions? If you work for a follower of Jehovah's Witness, should they be allowed to deny you blood transfusions because they believe they are immoral and wrong? What if you work for an Orthodox Jew? Should he or she be allowed to forbid you from getting pig tissue transplant if you have organ failures for which pig tissue is very healthy?

2.) They are already paying for these "violations of their religion," anyways. That's what medical insurance is. They pay money into the system, and that system gives out the drugs, treatments, and medical services on an as-need basis. The only thing that you're saying is that the medical provider should get paid for all of these treatments, but when it comes time for their employees to get the treatments, they can't receive them. But the employer has already paid for them, let's not get confused over that.



Now you're just being openly ridiculous. The declaration of independence isn't even a legal document, and even so, are you serious? You think that the First Amendment is consistent with calling the US a "Christian government"? For god's sakes, read up on the history of religious freedom in America, it would be very educational for yourself.

To clarify briefly, "In God we trust" and "Under God" both in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency was red-scare crap that McCarthy feat-mongered the US into putting onto our coins in the 1950's because he wanted the US to be maximally anti-commie, so that's a very recent change. Christmas is one of many national holidays. But Christmas is a secular holiday, it's been observed by Christians and non-Christians for over a hundred years now. Sure, it obviously has it's origins in the Christian religion, but Christmas itself (the date, for instance) has it's origin in Pagan religion. So Christmas itself is actually a pagan festival that was repurposed and renamed by Christians some 1,300 years ago. Please, feel free to educate yourself on any of these topics.

Click to expand...

No it doesnt. The pagans celebrated the winter solstice which is December 21st-22nd. The December 25th date comes from the belief that a pious man only lived whole years and died on the day of his conception

Crovax said:

No it doesnt. The pagans celebrated the winter solstice which is December 21st-22nd. The December 25th date comes from the belief that a pious man only lived whole years and died on the day of his conception

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, the season for these pagan festivities were anytime from late November to early January, so that's not really rebutting anything that I said. Yule, the Germanic holiday that Saxon pagans followed was on the days you listed.

Apparently, the rest of my points regarding your general lack of understanding about religious freedom in the US government are unattested, either because you concede them, you don't feel like addressing them, or you don't know how to address them. Either way, I'm not really interested in continuing to watch you bloviate about things that you don't understand. Again, I encourage you read even the slightest amount of US Supreme Court rulings, but I'm done discussing this with you.

FieldTheorist said:

Strictly speaking, the season for these pagan festivities were anytime from late November to early January, so that's not really rebutting anything that I said. Yule, the Germanic holiday that Saxon pagans followed was on the days you listed.

Apparently, the rest of my points regarding your general lack of understanding about religious freedom in the US government are unattested, either because you concede them, you don't feel like addressing them, or you don't know how to address them. Either way, I'm not really interested in continuing to watch you bloviate about things that you don't understand. Again, I encourage you read even the slightest amount of US Supreme Court rulings, but I'm done discussing this with you.

Click to expand...

Or its because I'm waiting in line to the the star wars movie and typing on my phone, but whatever makes you feel better about yourself

I support science without politics as much as anyone but not sure whether every theory has to be covered in 5th grade. And I suspect Big Brain and Quantum are probably more significant and also not appropriate for 5th graders.

FieldTheorist said:

No, nor do I see a plausible argument for your assumption that I should. And there's many obvious reasons.

1.) Healthcare is something offered to the employee by law from the government, and it serves a non-religious purpose.

Click to expand...

Not “offered” but “mandated” and no, it serves the religion of atheism.

FieldTheorist said:

We allow companies/corporations far too much control over their employees lives as it stands (that's a massive understatement). But back to your claim, no, of course .

Click to expand...

So you’re more worried about the control a company has over an employee who can quit his/her job and go get another one than you are the woman in America who has no protection from Sharia law right? We can’t mess with the men who actually, and completely enslave women because it doesn’t fit our political agenda. That must be ignored while we fiddle about and dwell on, no, make federal cases and riots out of, micro-aggressions that only the hyper sensitive left is in tune with and allowed to rule upon the legitimacy thereof.



Let’s dig into these reasons for your interpretation of the US Constitution and see if actually allow room for your political positions.

FieldTheorist said:

If you're a Christian Scientist, does that mean you're allowed to refuse all of your employees healthcare because you don't believe in healthcare at all?

Click to expand...

Yep. If the government thinks people need to have healthcare, it can provide healthcare. It isn’t a complicated issue. It hurts a certain religion when the government mandates that they violate their religious beliefs.

FieldTheorist said:

What about blood transfusions? If you work for a follower of Jehovah's Witness, should they be allowed to deny you blood transfusions because they believe they are immoral and wrong?

Click to expand...

Nope. You either have a problem with the definitions of words or you don’t understand how the real world works. If a homeless person asks me to buy them a house, I’m not denying them housing and forcing them to be homeless. Like I said, if the government wants to provide it for everyone, there is a way to do it that doesn’t hurt Jehovah's Witness. It’s only complicated because you can’t see how hypocritical you are.

FieldTheorist said:

What if you work for an Orthodox Jew? Should he or she be allowed to forbid you from getting pig tissue transplant if you have organ failures for which pig tissue is very healthy?

Click to expand...

You seem to equate “forbid” with “not pay for”. I trust you are smart enough to see how refusing to buy me a car isn’t forbidding me from driving. Really, you do understand the difference right? If not, I have desire to chat further with you.

I recall having almost a week in my high school Biology class regarding Charles Darwin, evolution and natural selection... It was a very interesting subject. Whether it is the right or wrong, i'm not going to say, but the school's should have every right to teach it. It is a scientific theory, and should be added to the curriculum. It does not involve the discussion of any religion, so it is not interfering with "church and state," plus science backs the claim. Do I believe it should be forced into belief, no. But it wasn't. It was simply taught as this is Darwin and modern science's belief of the creation of earth. My teacher even said before starting that the unit was not in any way to sway our beliefs, and I don't believe it did... It never once said, this is how it happened, but instead, here's a theory... No different from the Big Bang Theory.

Crovax said:

I don't have to interpret anything the words are clear and the fact the we have God in our declaration on independence,

Click to expand...

On? hmm okay

God on our money

Click to expand...

WWJD?

and in our pledge

Click to expand...

Yo dude the pledge was written by a SOCIALIST and god was in the original version for a long time.

and Christmas as a national holiday pretty much prove your interpretation wrong.

Click to expand...

Lots of Pagan traditions in that Christmas thing.

GPS_Flex said:

Not “offered” but “mandated” and no, it serves the religion of atheism.

Click to expand...

Bald is a hair color.

Crovax said:

So you think "separation of church and state" is in the constitution?

Click to expand...

First, from the US Constitution:

US Constitution said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Click to expand...

Which means that, not only are we free to practice whatever religion we subscribe to, but no laws shall be passed respecting the establishment of any religion over another. It's pretty plain and simple. What did our forefathers have in mind when they penned this clause? Let's ask one of them:

James Madison said:

“The civil government … functions with complete success … by the total separation of the Church from the State.”

Click to expand...

This underlying belief by our forefathers is the reason the Establishment Clause was put into our Constitution.

I also keep hearing that we are a "Christian" nation. Really? Let's ask some more founding fathers by looking at some of their own documents. This will settle the argument, and also buttress the truth, which is that Separation of Church and State IS in the Constitution, as evidenced by the Establishment Clause:

"“The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion.” ~1797, The Treaty of Tripoli, initiated by President Washington, signed by President John Adams, and approved by the Senate of the United States"

“… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” ~Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802

“[T]he number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.” ~James Madison's Letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819

“The [president] has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction” ~Alexander Hamilton

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” ~George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

“I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” ~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

“Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.” ~James Madison

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.” ~James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments

You lose ~Dana Elliott, December 2015