Skip to comments.Discrimination Against Intelligent Design Film Cited in California Science Center Lawsuit
Posted on 11/25/2009 10:15:23 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
For the record, this post is being posted in News/Activism by the express permission of Jim Robinson, founder and owner of Free Republic:
Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR.
They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but Ill be damned if theyre gonna ban Him or it from FR!
The TRUTH scares them.
Darwin and evolution are a farce. The problem is their “faith” in them has become a “religion”. Evolution and Darwin define life down. It is one of the reasons life is viewed as cheap. Human life is viewed as road kill and no big deal.
The TRUTH does more than scare, it offends them. It has the audacity to tell them they are wrong. Oh the huge manatee.
As with global warming, so with evolution. Science will be a lot better off when it’s back in the hands of scientists, instead of being in the hands of ideo-political hacks who also happen to have science degrees.
The TRUTH does more than scare, it offends them. It has the audacity to tell them they are wrong. Oh the huge manatee.
 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
 When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.
 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
The Bible sure knows the human nature of the evil ones.
Amen to that!!!
PS Are you saying that the notion that scientists are impartial and apolitical is a farce? Are you saying that it is time for the American people to start questioning their motives, as well as their science? Have you no descency, sir!
And scare them it should!
Mythsonian...I can’t say it has a nice ring to it, but it certainly has the ring of the cold, hard truth.
All, do not assume this is legitimate news or that Jim Robinson endorses the content. This is NOT about the defense of religious freedom, it is about the doctrine of certain churches, which is outside the purview of JR's statement.
(note: no one should be surprised that Less (GGG) has taken the same liberties with the statements and positions of FR's founder as he has with both Scripture and science.)
It's the only thing they understand.
Wow. You know what JR is thinking and are speaking for him?
On whose authority? Did he appoint you to act as his spokesperson? Or are you just reading his mind and letting us know what he's transmitting to you?
Got any links to back that up?
tell us, why isn't news of a lawsuit legitimate news?
Should we then consider all news of lawsuits not legitimate news?
I actually read what JR posted. The meaning is quite clear. If you want to discuss issues of faith, creation, and those dirty evos then the religion forum is for you. If you want to discuss assaults on religious freedom then news and activism is the right place.
Who appointed you anything either?
Because suits of this nature are frivilous.
"On March 23, 2009, the Supreme Court denied certiorari without comment to Caldwell v. Caldwell, which challenged the constitutionality of the Understanding Evolution website a joint project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education. The San Francisco Chronicle (March 23, 2009) reports, One page on Cals 840-page Understanding Evolution web site says Darwinism can be compatible with religion. The four-year-old suit by Jeanne Caldwell said the government-funded web site contradicts her religious belief about the incompatibility of religion and Darwinism and amounts to a state position on religious doctrine that violates the Constitutional separation of church and state. Caldwell filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 2005. But her suit was dismissed in 2006 because she failed to allege that she had federal taxpayer standing, failed to sufficiently allege state taxpayer standing, and failed to establish that she suffered a concrete injury in fact. When she appealed the decision, the appellate courts decision concluded, Accordingly, we believe there is too slight a connection between Caldwells generalized grievance, and the government conduct about which she complains, to sustain her standing to proceed. Reacting to the Supreme Courts decision not to hear the case, a lawyer for the University of California told the Chronicle, We believe the lower court rulings were correct, and were glad this ends the matter."
As a Christian I am alarmed by any attempt by any faith, including my own, to attempt to convert public resources to the perpetuation of anything remotely theological. Once precedent is set, there would be no prohibition of utilizing my tax dollars to promote Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Wiccan, Mormon, Satanic, or Pagan theology.
You agree the Center shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against a film just because they may not like its viewpoint, don't you?
Yes, but......I also agree that public funds and resources should remain completely secular. I don't want my taxes supporting anybodies religion, not even my own. Don't you agree the government would do worse job with religion than it would do with health-care?
In addition to the indisputable militant atheism, a part of the problem is the Young Earth creationism (and associated ‘creation science’ charlatanry), which gives all other branches of creationism a bad name.
No one is suggesting even remotely that renting an Imax theater to someone implies support of the group so the question of government involvement with religion was never an issue. It was the purported association of the Smithsonian and a certain viewpoint in someones mind and the honoring of a valid contract that was the issue at hand.
I have as much legal right to use the public, paid for by taxes, street for a religious or other opinion parade as the most irreligious, secular group in the world even if the city doesn't like my viewpoint and they are bound to honor a contract with me even if a museum doesn't like it.
The Center and it's actions were wrong.
The courts will decide that. Until then it isn't news.
Had the local Catholic Church been told they couldn't rent a theater available to all others, you would be crying discrimination and intolerance and the sanctity of contracts, wouldn't you?
And all those hated creationists would argue they had as much right as anyone.
And I you.
Another repost of stuff you posted before. It was several weeks ago. This is a frivolous lawsuit because the religious group violated the contract.
Had the local Catholic Church been told they couldn’t rent a theater available to all others, you would be crying discrimination and intolerance and the sanctity of contracts, wouldn’t you?
As a Christian, are you alarmed by the attempt to convert public resources to the perpetuation of things clearly anti-theological?
You clearly know as little about law as you do science and theology.
I don’t claim to be an expert at all three, as you appear to be doing. I asked a question, which you are dodging.
Allow me to ask it a different way, as to leave religion out of it.
“As an American, are you alarmed by the attempt to convert public resources to the perpetuation of things clearly anti-American?”
It’s not just your question as you can see from #25 and 28.
And you are completely sure that this is not already the case?
I also noticed that we are not getting any direct answers, yet.
I will be patient. Perhaps Mr. Law will respond.
BTW, I do believe that any theatre has the right to refuse to screen any selection of movie.
However, backing down after entering a contract to do so, I believe is a violation of law.
Moving his ox so it won’t get gored.
I would agree. However, they still violated a contract, did they not? Why did they agree to show it in the first place?
So, if your neighbor rapes and murders a little girl, until he gets convicted, it isn't news?
Those of us who have carried on debates on highly charged subjects here on FR have pretty much seen it all.
The “you are an idiot compared to me” tactic is played all the time, and easily recognizable. Usually the poster wants you to respond by claiming you are ‘smarter’, or ‘know it all’ so they then can try to prove to you how they have this one niche of expertize which should cause us all to go prostrate at their feet.
They come here (FR) to ‘teach’, not to ‘learn’. And that is their loss.
And right you are, the contract was valid from all reports and whatever someone else says about the event has nothing to do with it.
I suppose the Center agreed before they rec'd their orders from above (The Great Mythsonian).
It do get funny after a while. Cheers!
It depends in how you define anti-American. Besides, elections have consequences. If we want to change government policy we need to change those we elect.
So is the complaint about a contract being broken or that id/creationism don’t belong in a scientific forum?
“More details are now coming out from the lawsuit filed against the California Science Center by the American Freedom Alliance (AFA), filed in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Central District). AFA’s lawsuit contends that the California Science Center engaged in viewpoint discrimination when cancelling AFA’s contract to screen the pro-intelligent design (ID) documentary Darwins Dilemma at the Centers IMAX Theatre on October 25th.”
The California Science Center relies on California General Fund support. By California state law the charter of the CSC prohibits nonsecular activities and programming. This mandates "viewpoint discrimination". As a California taxpayer I do not want my hard earned money going to promote any secular activities or, in the case of the California Science Center, non-science related materials like YEC and other "Chariots of the Gods" like pseudo science.
Perhaps you can quote or show that “state charter”? The school has a state charter and the foundation by law has it’s bylaws but what is the charter of the Center that prohibits “non-secular” activities?
Either you are sloppy or intentionally misrepresenting my statement;
1) There is no "state charter". There is the CA constitution and CA state law. You can find it all at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
2) The California Science Center is NOT a school.
“The California Science Center relies on California General Fund support. By California state law the CHARTER of the CSC prohibits nonsecular activities and programming. This mandates “viewpoint discrimination”. AND
“1) There is no “state charter. There is the CA constitution and CA state law.” 2) The California Science Center is NOT a school.”
That's good since I didn't say it was a school.
“You can find it all at
I'm not going to wade through the entire California legal code to find what you say is there but cannot produce.
However a 30 second search of google produced:
“Science Center School
Learn about the elementary school located on our campus.....
Imagine an elementary school with all of the resources a teacher or parent could ever want. Its located near world-class museums, a major university and a state-of-the-art teacher professional development center. The school features an integrated curriculum emphasizing science, mathematics and the use of technology. Its teachers are fully credentialed with a demonstrated ability to make science and math engaging and accessible to their students. And its not a magnet school but, rather, a neighborhood school for underserved groups of children and their parents. While such a school seems like a dream, it is a dream that has become reality in South Los Angeles, the result of more than a decade of collaborative work between the California Science Center and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).
PS...IT'S A CHARTER SCHOOL! On the grounds!
I don't think it's me that is sloppy or misrepresenting.