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 Cal’s 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 court’s decision concluded, “Accordingly, we believe there is too slight a connection between Caldwell’s generalized grievance, and the government conduct about which she complains, to sustain her standing to proceed.” Reacting to the Supreme Court’s 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 we’re 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.