Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Thoughts in a Haystack
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Religion & Law
: Thoughts in a HaystackPolitical Protection
By John Pieret
This protects the freedom of speech for teachers in the classroom. I want teachers to be able to show those holes in Darwin's theory of evolution without fear of chastisement.Hays also does a "Luskin" (the technical term for self-contradictory dissembling). First he says that "[t]he bill does not allow or authorize the teaching of creationism or intelligent design" but then says that it would permit discussions about "competing theories." What other allegedly "competing theories" are there, particularly if, as the bill purports to do, the field is restricted to "scientific" views?
But Mayo is too busy making shish kabob to stop for that:
[I]f Hays and other legislators want to go there in the name of "academic freedom," then they should be consistent.Suddenly, "academic freedom" isn't so important to Hays:If it's OK for science teachers to discuss the holes in Darwin's theory of evolution, it should be OK for health teachers to discuss shortcomings with the "abstinence only" dogma that has been deemed the only acceptable talking point when it comes to preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
If it's OK for science teachers to talk about controversial alternatives to Darwin, it should be OK for health teachers to talk about birth control and abortion.
That's more of a parental responsibility than a school responsibility.Hays adds:
At this point we don't need to introduce any more controversy. It's already controversial enough.Yeah, Rep. Hays ... we already knew this bill is, as Mayo rightly puts it, "a thinly veiled attempt to inject religion" into public school science classes by political means, not about "academic freedom."
.
Full post as published by Thoughts in a Haystack on March 20, 2008 (boomark / email).
Privacy Protection Act 42 USC 21A
Federal Newsroom Law
Truth In Lending Act
Consumer Loans and Consumer Credit Protection Act
imbee Data Collection
Industrious Kid, Inc. pays $130,000 civil penalty for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
Germantown Primary Care Associates, P.C.
Unlawfully collected fees refunded in Consumer Protection Act violation suit.
ValueClick
allegedly violated consumer protection laws by promising ‘free’ goods that where not actually free.
Hutchinson Oil
Over $75,000 settlement reached in consumer protection lawsuit.
Indianapolis
alleging the city's police are overly aggressive against the homeless in violation of the protection of free speech and unreasonable searches guaranteed in the US Constitution.
School Misrepresentation
Lehigh Valley College agrees to pay $200,000 settlement for violating consumer protection laws.

CLC to prepare generic legal docs for election-protection groups
Increased Order of Protection Remedies
Liens rapides du 9 septembre 2008 au 13 septembre 2008
FRC to Release New Poll on the Political Impact of State Marriage Amendment
China's Courts, Tenth "Best" Out of Twelve.
Same-Sex Marriage Group Distorts Truth About Florida Marriage Protection Amendment








