Creationists in court.

fishbob

Seasonally Disaffected
fishbob
Joined
Jan 17, 2003
Messages
7,316
Location
Chilly Undieville
Paraphrasing some background information: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/national/10SCHO.html?th

Teresa Becker chose, in her sophomore year, to major in theology . She had received $1,200 in state scholarship money for her freshman year at Ave Maria College in Ypsilanti, Mich., in 2000. The next year she received $2,750 in state aid. Last June, she was promised that amount for her junior year, too. When word of her choice of a major reached state officials, they wrote her:
"Students enrolled in a course of study leading to a degree in theology, divinity or religious education are not eligible to receive an award," it said, paraphrasing a state law. "Your award has changed from $2,750.00 to $0.00." Ms. Becker sued.

Ms. Becker's lawyers at the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich., emphasized what they called the unfairness of the distinction the Michigan law draws.

"An atheist committed to scientific materialism may study the Big Bang, the laws governing the subsequent organization of matter and, ultimately, the amphibian from which man is said to have evolved — all without forfeiting his scholarship," they wrote in court papers. "But Teresa must forfeit her scholarship if she wishes to discuss the Uncaused Cause that created the stuff of the Big Bang, and the notion that the laws that govern creation are not merely statistically improbable but so irreducibly complex that the heavens proclaim the glory of the Lord."
Click to expand...

How will the legal system deal with "irreducible complexity" as a legal argument? The way this case appears to be shaping up - a potentially small claim, fairness in scholarships is the main issue - will refutation of the creationist argument even be challenged?
 
This isn't discrimination--merely a case of unintended consequences.

The reason behind this state law, no doubt, is the fact that theology degrees are easily obtainable from diploma mill "churches" and "theological seminaries". The idea is to prevent people from getting thousands of dollars of "scholarships" for nothing.

Perhaps the law should be amended... but it certainly wasn't put there to opressing religion, merely to fight fraud.
 
Easy solution:

You wanna argue that evolution isn't true? Prove it, scientifically! Invoke one single paranormal phenomenon (or anything you cannot account for) of any kind, at any time, and yer out!

Sorry, kiddo, but that's the harsh way of science. Believe what you want, but if you wanna play science, deal with reality.
 
huh. that's an interesting situation. How could a state scholorship of a theology student not be seen as supporting a religion? Unless, maybe, it was theological history...
 
The state was wrong in revoking the scholarship, she will win the case.
 
Whatever happens, it won't be good for science. Either the state wins and there's public outcry about religious discrimination, or they lose with the obvious consequences.
 
The case is not about the validity of evolution, it is about the fairness of the scholarship programs. Her choice of major caused her to lose a scholarship, perhaps unfairly. If she was treated unfairly, she deserves to win. If she knew the restrictions before she applied, she deserves to lose.

My question is whether the "irrefutable complexity" argument will be presented and accepted without discussion.
 
Hey, fishbob. The link is a subscription article. Can you provide more details? Specifically about the law used to revoke the scholarship? Is it a First Amendment deal?
 
State money is better spent on engineers, scientists, and business majors than on people who write endless crap about nonsense that contributes nothing back to the state's investment. It's that simple.
 
American said:
State money is better spent on engineers, scientists, and business majors than on people who write endless crap about nonsense that contributes nothing back to the state's investment. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

What about art, music and sports?
 
More excerpts from the article:

Eleven states prohibit aid for the study of theology. In addition to Michigan and Washington, they are New York, New Jersey, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wisconsin, according to a supporting brief filed in the Supreme Court by five state attorneys general.

The Washington case is in some ways the narrower one. The State Supreme Court interpreted theology to mean "instruction that resembles worship and manifests a devotion to religion and religious principles in thought, feeling, belief and conduct."

In Washington, then, teaching about religion as an academic subject, as opposed to religious teaching meant to inspire devotion, is fine.

The Michigan law is seemingly broader, and its original purpose is not well understood. In an e-mail message to an Ave Maria College official in January, the director of the state's scholarship office, Diana Todd Sprague, wrote: "I am not clear on why this was part of the statute since it was established in the 60's. It has been described to me as having to do with the separation of church and state, but I am not certain."

Jason Allen, a Republican state senator from here, called the history of the law murky. Senator Allen has introduced legislation to allow state aid for students studying theology.
Click to expand...

It appears to be a first amendment deal in some states, others just don't know. Win or lose, I think that this particular case is a fair treatment issue, to be decided by looking at the details that were not reported in the NY Times.

Does anyone have any input related to what happens when an unrefuted creationist argument pops up in a court case? Specifically, could it be cited as a precedent in future court cases?
 
Grammatron said:


What about art, music and sports?
Click to expand...

Oh, Gawd, don't get him started...


No, wait, they all contribute to tourism! And that means tourims dollars! WE'RE SAVED!!!
 
If this case is handled as an equal protection issue, Ms. Becker should lose. A theology student is not a member of a "suspect class" warranting heightened judical scrutiny. Michigan need only come up with a rational basis for the different treatment. Any rational basis will do. Skeptic's reasoning above that Michigan may wish to limit "diploma mill" theology courses would be enough under the "any rational basis" test.

Then again, the Supreme Court has been playing havoc with the equal protection tests of late, especially in Michigan (see Grutter v. Bollinger, for example, in which the traditional strict scrutiny test applied to racial and ethnic classifications was watered down beyond recognition).


edited for case citation
 
Reading the first post again, the following words stand out for me:

...Thomas More Law Center, a conservative public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich...[said that] "But Teresa must forfeit her scholarship if she wishes to discuss the Uncaused Cause that created the stuff of the Big Bang, and the notion that the laws that govern creation are not merely statistically improbable but so irreducibly complex that the heavens proclaim the glory of the Lord."
Click to expand...

What is the situation in law where a legal representative has a clearly and publicly stated political/religious interest in the outcome of a client's case? And I question the situation where a religious statement is being made as a claim before the law.

On another point, the original idea of scholarships per se is to financially assist students in their studies. They were actually monies TO THE MAXIMUM OF some value. So if it can be shown that there are actually no costs involved in the girl's study program (i.e. it's a degree-mill) then the scholarship should be awarded to cover those costs, i.e. nil value.

Just a left-field idea.
 
Tony said:


Originally posted by Upchurch---
State money going to further her education in her personal religion?
---

Yes.
Click to expand...

Then you advocate overthrowing the constitution? Are you a revolutionary who espouses deliberate violations of the constitution of the United States?
 
The reason these schools get the state aid is because of their teaching of their acredited secular courses.

Otherwise any kook can open a witchcraft school and force the state pay for the tuition of Voo Doo Doll-ology Dept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom