Both sides had asked for summary judgment on the facial challenge, a term that applies when the legal issues are unambiguous and the matter can be decided without any need for further examination.

IANAL, but I don't think this is right. Summary judgment applies when there are no disputed *factual* issues, and the only issues that exist are issues of law (which includes interpretation of laws, policies and contracts, but only if both sides agree on what the text of the policy/contract is). Page 7 of the opinion states that summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."

Thus the cross-motions for summary judgment on the facial claims: the facts of how the policy is carried out are obviously irrelevant to those claims. The policy either is invalid on its face or it isn't, there's no need for testimony about its effects or how it is applied. It's the kind of issue that is practically guaranteed to be resolved at summary judgment.

 
The fact that the policy isn't facially invalid doesn't necessarily mean it won't be found invalid as applied. The court's apparently approving citations of Kitzmiller and McLean to support its statement that "[A]n informed observer would be aware of the controversial nature of intelligent design and creation as scientific beliefs" is a favorable sign, though. The court appeared to be saying that the plaintiffs will have to prove that UC's standards have no "rational relation" to their legitimate goals of admitting qualified students.

There were a few people who said they would bring lawsuits if the posters were indeed posted in classrooms. I don't know what the status of that is.

I can understand a religious organization wanting to insert God into the classroom. What boggles my mind is when elected school board members actually spend a school district's money and time on these idiotic issues when there are real educational issues that need to be dealt with.

Here is the link to the American Family Association. They are the organization that is backing the "In God We Trust" campaign.

"In God We Trust Poster Campaign!

You need not go back that far to find exemplars of this idiocy from another religion; think of the ecstatic hijackers as they shouted "Allahu akhbar!" during their deaths. Morons.

Goyo --

Whereabouts in East Texas? My daddy's side of the family is from Pittsburg, in Camp County. Me, I'm exiled to SoCal. Anyways, my regards to the Long Pineys.

(1) "'Whatever the Bible says is so; whatever man says may or may not be so,' is the only [position] a Christian can take . . . ."

(2) "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."

(3) "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible."

Well, that explains a lot.

I recently had a conversation with a young girl who is studying to be a biology teacher. The only problem is that she's a young earth creationist. I had to explain to her - as slowly and as deliberately as I could - that it was ethically unsound for her to have preconceived notions about anything before running an experiment, as it will produce a biased conclusion.

She accused me of persecuting her beliefs. When I didn't yield, she said she'd pray for me.

*SIGH* She has a long way to go if she wants to be a science teacher...

Brock,

If he had arrived at Rome to a full Imperial pardon, he probably would have sued for the sentence to be carried out.

Or it would have been seen as god's triumphant hand coming in to save such a righteous person who persevered in the face of such persecution. No matter what, they always spin it so that they count the hits and ignore the misses.

(2) "If [scientific] conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
(3) "Christians must disregard [scientific hypotheses or theories] that contradict the Bible."

Sweet fucking Loki on a raft. This is in a science book?

And they accuse atheists of being arrogant and close-minded.

Excuse me. I have to go find the top of my head, which just blew off. I think it landed on the toaster.