Pennsylvania welcomes sanity back to its school districts

Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum

HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives even while professing religious beliefs, he said.

[...]

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote.

[...]

The plaintiffs challenging the policy argued that intelligent design amounts to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools. The judge agreed.

"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

[...]

But, he wrote, "our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

The controversy divided the community and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the Nov. 8 school board election.

Said the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

The board members were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

[...]

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on a technicality, and the law was repealed in 1967.

The war's far from over, but gosh it feels nice to win a battle here and there, doesn't it?

(no subject)

Stayed up way too late watching "Fingersmith" on Logo last night, despite the fact that I was recording it. It was just so damn good! Then I couldn't fall asleep 'cause I really wanted to go watch the rest but couldn't justify staying up until midnight to do it. Blah, at least I got most of the tricky editing stuff done yesterday that I needed to at work. Today will undoubtedly be more meetings and more discussions, but I think I'm awake enough for that.

Got some writing done last night and I like the way my current fic is shaping up. It's going to be something of an endurance test, though, as it's a long one. If I could figure out a way to shorten it without losing too much of the story I would, believe me, alas I don't think it's going to happen. The worst part is I'm already contemplating a sequel and that is just so very, very wrong.

Damn you vegans!

via Rising Hegemon

Beware the vegans!:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show...

...One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a "Vegan Community Project." Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's "semi-communistic ideology." A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Wow, I feel safer already!

And did you know that the NYT sat on the Snoopgate story for over a year at the president's request? Or that he called the Times' editor into the Oval Office to try to get the story buried even longer?

...Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

Now let me think, what might this story have effected had it been released a little over a year ago...

But two journalists, who declined to be identified [sic], said that editors at the paper were actively considering running the story about the wiretaps before Bush's November showdown with Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

Top editors at the paper eventually decided to hold the story. But the discussion was renewed after the election, with Risen and coauthor of the story, reporter Eric Lichtblau, joining some of the paper's editors in pushing for publication, according to the sources, who said they did not want to be identified because the Times had designated only Keller and a spokeswoman to address the matter.

(no subject)

So remember weeks ago when I posted about Target and their anti-woman policy when it comes to Plan B? Remember that I sent them a email letting them know that they wouldn't be getting another penny from this woman? Well guess what I just got...a response at long last. Here, let me share it with y'all:

Dear Target Guest ,

In our ongoing effort to provide great service to our guests, Target consistently ensures that prescriptions for the emergency contraceptive Plan B are filled. As an Equal Opportunity Employer, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also requires us to accommodate our team members’ sincerely held religious beliefs.

Yes, they're still citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so basically they're saying their employees can decide which items for sale at their store fit in with their personal beliefs and which don't, right? Wrong.

In the rare event that a pharmacist’s beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for the emergency contraceptive Plan B, our policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner, either by another Target pharmacist or a different pharmacy.

- The emergency contraceptive Plan B is the only medication for which this policy applies.

But, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't say that employees can only infringe on the rights of women who specifically want access to Plan B, so why single that one out? Jennifer, do you have a response to that?

- Under no circumstances can the pharmacist prevent the prescription from being filled, make discourteous or judgmental remarks, or discuss his or her religious beliefs with the guest.

Ok, so they can't call you a dirty slut or a hell-bound whore, that's nice I guess, but Jennifer, you're still not addressing the fundamental question.

Target abides by all state and local laws and, in the event that other laws conflict with our policy, we follow the law.

Or our somewhat nutty interpretation of that law...You know, I begin to suspect that Jennifer's never read the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

We're surprised and disappointed by Planned Parenthood’s negative campaign. We’ve been talking with Planned Parenthood to clarify our policy and reinforce our commitment to ensuring that our guests’ prescriptions for the emergency contraceptive Plan B are filled. Our policy is similar to that of many other retailers and follows the recommendations of the American Pharmacists Association. That's why it's unclear why Target is being singled out.

Um, Jennifer, I think if you take a look at their site you'll note that Target hasn't been singled out, indeed there are several lists that focus on companies who are allowing their fundie pharmacists to choose not to fill a legal prescription, and those who aren't. So it's not like they just hate you and want to pick on you, it's that you all made a fundamentally poor business decision and now you're going to have to deal with the consequences of that decision. Like when Ford decided to distance itself from its gay consumers 'cause the religious nuts threatened to boycott them. Remember how well that went?

We're committed to meeting the needs of our female guests and will continue to deliver upon that commitment.

Unless you want Plan B and our pharmacist decides he or she doesn't want you to have it, then tough titties.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hanson
Target Executive Offices
[THREAD ID:1-17DKZL]

Well props to Jennifer for signing the email, though boo for not allowing us to respond to her response. I'd very much like her to explain this whole Civil Rights Act nonsense rather than just using it as a talking point. I'm honestly quite curious. I'd be happy to send her a link to the act and to the blogs that demonstrated what a bad idea it was to get political and side with the fundie fringe consumers over everyone else, but, well, I have nowhere to send it, alas.