Court Issues Troubling Decision In Dover Intelligent Design Case
Wed, Dec 21, 2005
ANN ARBOR, MI — Today the district court judge issued a lengthy opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, holding that the School District violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by reading to students of a ninth-grade biology class a short, one-minute statement that mentions “intelligent design” twice. Pursuant to this statement, the book Of Pandas and People, which addresses intelligent design arguments, was placed in the school district library for students to voluntarily review, along with other books that are critical of intelligent design. This statement was read in a class in which Darwin’s theory of evolution was taught pursuant to the Pennsylvania academic standards and pursuant to its standing in the scientific community. Moreover, the primary and only required text for this class, Biology by Prentice Hall, fully and comprehensively covers the theory of evolution, and it was co-authored by one of the experts who testified for the Plaintiffs. According to the judge’s opinion, this “policy” violates the Establishment Clause, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center, commented, “What is clear from this decision is that our present Establishment Clause jurisprudence, as several Supreme Court justices have noted, is in hopeless disarray and in need of substantial revision. In his opinion the judge bemoaned that the school district ‘deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.’ In this respect, he was correct. This case should have never made it into a federal courthouse. The Founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change ‘established religion’ in violation of the Constitution that they drafted.”
Several Supreme Court justices have openly criticized the way in which this body of constitutional law has developed. For example, Justice Thomas stated in his concurring opinion in the pledge of allegiance case, “Our jurisprudential confusion has led to results that can only be described as silly.” In Edwards v. Aguillard, a case relied upon by the district court in which the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism alongside evolution, Justice Scalia criticized the Court’s “embarrassing Establishment Clause jurisprudence.” In a school prayer case, then Justice Rehnquist noted, “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.” Justice Rehnquist is referring to the metaphor of the wall of separation between church and state.
Thompson continued, “The district court’s decision today continues along this path of applying a fundamentally flawed jurisprudence. Unfortunately, until the Supreme Court adopts a more coherent and historically sound jurisprudence, school districts like Dover will be at risk of costly lawsuits by the ACLU for adopting such modest curriculum changes such as the one at issue.”
Ninth Circuit Appellate Court asked to Reconsider its Ruling that it is OK For Public Schools To Teach Seventh Graders “To Become Muslims”
Mon, Dec 19, 2005
ANN ARBOR, MI. – A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled in a short unpublished memorandum opinion that it was constitutionally permissible for twelve-year-old public school students to be told they would “become Muslims,” has been asked to reconsider its decision by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Law Center has also asked all twenty-four active judges on the Ninth Circuit to decide the case.
For three weeks in 2001, impressionable twelve-year-old students were told that they would become Muslims, memorized verses from the Koran, took Islamic names, wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the Star and Crescent Moon, which is the symbol of Muslims, were handed materials that instructed them to “Remember Allah always so that you may prosper,” completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting, and memorized and recited the “Bismillah” or “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be to God,” which students also wrote on banners that were hung on the classroom walls.
Richard Thompson, Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “This ruling is evidence of a double-standard when it comes to religion in public schools. If students had been instructed on Christianity, as they had on Islam, a Constitutional violation would have most likely been found. The appeals court should clarify in a published opinion just how far public schools can go in teaching about religion. Christians want to know.”
The Law Center represents several parents and their children who challenged the California Byron Union School District’s practice of teaching twelve-year-old students “to become Muslims.”
A federal district court judge in San Francisco had previously determined that the school district had not violated the constitution. Edward L. White III, a Law Center attorney, had asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ three-judge panel to overturn the district court’s decision.
The three-judge panel, however, affirmed the ruling of the district court in a short unpublished memorandum decision. In its unpublished decision, the three-judge panel overlooked, and did not rule on, the plaintiffs’ claims that their free exercise of religion rights and their parental rights had been violated.
The Law Center has asked the three-judge panel to reconsider its ruling and to rule on the free exercise and parental rights claims.
Thomas More Law Center Challenges New Jersey District’s Total Ban on Christmas Music In Federal Appellate Court
Thu, Dec 15, 2005
ANN ARBOR, MI — The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has filed its opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, challenging the constitutionality of a New Jersey school district’s policy that banned all religious music in the district’s public schools. The School District’s ban was specifically focused on preventing the playing of Christmas music, including simple instrumentals, during the 2004 year-end celebrations in its public schools.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “This blatant anti-religious policy is yet another example of the total and militant hostility that many public schools exhibit towards the celebration of Christmas. The Grinch is alive and well in New Jersey.”
The brief was filed on behalf of Michael Stratechuk, who sued on his own and on behalf of his two children, who are students in the New Jersey School District. According to the brief, the school district’s ban on religious music conveys the impermissible, government-sponsored message of disapproval of and hostility toward religion in violation of the Establishment Clause, and it deprives the Stratechuk children the right to receive information and ideas, an inherent corollary of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and academic freedom.
Robert Muise, the attorney handling the case for the Law Center, noted in the brief: “Christmas is a national holiday, and religious music in the public schools is one of the rich traditions of this season. Those that are hostile to these traditions hide behind the mantle of ‘tolerance,’ only to promote intolerance. Indeed, we learn to understand and respect traditions, customs, and beliefs not by being offended or threatened by the traditions of others, but by understanding the meaning of such traditions and why they have the capacity to inspire.”
The New Jersey School District policy at issue in this case was recently featured in a book, The War On Christmas, by Fox News anchor, John Gibson.
Persistent Reverend; Wellington OKs Nativity Display
Wed, Dec 14, 2005
ANN ARBOR, MI. – For the last four years during the Christmas season, the Village of Wellington, Florida has displayed a menorah but no nativity. Undaunted by the failure of Wellington officials to take up his written request for a nativity display last year, Reverend Tim Bumgardner of the Palm Beach Worship Center again made his request, this time with the help of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The Reverend’s persistence paid off. Although Village officials had initially indicated there would be no nativity added to the menorah this year, but would take up the issue in 2006, the Reverend’s appearance on the O’Reilly Factor brought national attention to Wellington.
On Tuesday, December 13th, the Village Council unanimously voted to include a nativity alongside the menorah. More than 200 residents, most in favor of the nativity, packed the community center. They heard the Reverend’s message of inclusion, “Scrooges (ACLU) are trying to steal Christmas from our nation and community,” he said. “Leave up the menorah, recognize our wonderful Jewish community…. but put up the nativity. It is Christmastime in America.”
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “In many communities across America, officials feel that if they are going to put up any religious display celebrating the holiday season, they are legally compelled to put up either a nativity display or a menorah display, but not both. The primary reason for this confusion is a series of incoherent Supreme Court cases dealing with religious displays which have the unfortunate effect of pitting one religion against another.”
Law Center trial counsel Edward L. White III spoke to the Village attorney and sent a letter to Village officials requesting, that they either add a nativity scene to their display of a menorah and evergreen tree or permit Rev. Bumgardner, himself, to place a nativity next to the menorah and tree. Mr. White explained that the menorah is a religious symbol and is the principal symbol of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. The evergreen tree, however, is a secular symbol and is not the principal symbol of the Christian holiday of Christmas.
Mr. White explained that the nativity scene is the principal symbol of Christmas and it must be added next to the menorah and tree so that the Christian faith is properly represented in the Village’s display. Mr. White concluded by noting that the absence of the nativity scene from the Village’s display demonstrated hostility toward Christians, which the United States Constitution forbids.
At Tuesday’s Village Council meeting, Thomas More Law Center affiliate attorney Dina Cellini and Rev. Bumgardner advanced these arguments when they addressed the Village Council.
Beaver Borough, Pennsylvania OK’s Nativity Display; Thomas More Law Center Instrumental
Wed, Dec 14, 2005
ANN ARBOR, MI. – Through the efforts of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Deborah and Michael Sturm will finally get to erect a nativity scene display on public property.
On Tuesday, December 13th, Law Center trial counsel Edward L. White III accompanied the Strums to the Beaver Borough Council meeting in Pennsylvania. In November, Mr. White had written to the Borough Council to request that the Council grant the Strums permission to erect a nativity scene in a public park in the Borough. The request was placed on the Borough Council’s agenda for the December 13th meeting.
During last night’s meeting, White made a presentation with the Sturms to the Council and answered Council questions dealing with the legality and specifics of the display. After much discussion, the Council voted 7-2 in favor of the Sturms’ request.
White indicated that the nativity display will go up this Saturday. Ironically, that is the same day on which citizens will protest against Beaver County for not allowing any nativity displays outside the County courthouse. The Courthouse is across the street from the park where the Sturms are putting up their nativity. The Sturms will be speaking at the protest and those at the protest will be invited to cross the street and visit their nativity scene in the Borough park.
White commented, “December 13th was a great night for our clients and for the public recognition that Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ.”
Thomas More Law Center Defends Nativity Scene Display Requests In Florida and Pennsylvania
Mon, Dec 12, 2005
ANN ARBOR, MI – Attorneys with the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, will attend town council meetings in the Village of Wellington, Florida, and the Borough of Beaver, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday, December 13, 2005, to request that their clients be permitted to erect nativity scenes on public property.
In Wellington, the Law Center represents the Reverend Tim Bumgardner of the Palm Beach Worship Center. The Law Center has requested that Wellington officials approve the Reverend’s request for officials to erect a nativity scene next to a menorah and a lit evergreen tree that appear outside the Village’s Community Center or, in the alternative, to permit the Reverend Bumgardner to erect a nativity scene on that same public property. Attending the meeting with Reverend Bumgardner will be Thomas More Law Center affiliate attorney, Dina Cellini. Reverend Bumgardner recently appeared on the O’Reilly Factor to discuss the lack of a nativity scene in Wellington.
On the same date, Law Center trial attorney Edward L. White III will attend the Borough of Beaver Council meeting with client Deborah Sturm. Mrs. Sturm has requested to display a nativity scene in a public park, and the Borough Council will decide the matter at its December 13th meeting. Assisting in the representation of Mrs. Sturm is Thomas More Law Center affiliate attorney Noah Fardo of Pittsburgh.
The Law Center has been defending the right to publicly display nativity scenes throughout the nation. This past November 2005, Law Center attorney Edward L. White III successfully represented the Samona family of Novi, Michigan, who had been threatened with fines if they did not remove the nativity scene from the front yard of their private home. The management company of their subdivision backed down and the nativity scene remained.
In 2003, the Law Center sued the Town of Palm Beach, Florida, for its refusal to respond to repeated requests of citizens to display nativity scenes alongside town-sanctioned menorahs. The federal district court judge in that case acknowledged the importance of recognizing religious holidays and ordered Palm Beach to treat all religious symbols equally.
In 2004, the Law Center sued the Town of Bay Harbor Islands, Florida, for denying a citizen the right to display a nativity scene next to a menorah in a public forum. The federal district court judge in that case granted the citizen the right to display her nativity scene during the Christmas season.
The Law Center also is currently challenging the policy of a New Jersey school district that banned all religious music, including instrumentals, from public schools in the district.
And, the Law Center continues to press its 2002 case against the New York City public school system whose written policy permits students to display the Jewish menorah and Islamic star and crescent in school, but specifically prohibits students from displaying Christian nativity scenes.
Front-Page of Sunday’s Detroit News – Thomas More Cases Range From Defending Intelligent Design to Opposing Same-Sex Marriage
Sun, Dec 4, 2005
By Kim Kozlowski
ANN ARBOR– Richard Thompson is confident the day will come when the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
As head of a law firm touting itself as Christianity’s answer to the American Civil Liberties Union, Thompson would gladly litigate a case that could give the nation’s highest court an opportunity to further restrict or even reverse the case that legalized abortion. This is because the Thomas More Law Center, which Thompson co-founded in 1999 with Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan, sees its mission as protecting life at conception, religious freedoms and family values, one case at a time.
The law center was recently thrust into the limelight with the nationally watched case challenging intelligent design, a controversial theory that explains life as being so complex that it could have been created only by an intelligent being.
But the five attorneys in the firm’s Ann Arbor office — along with 403 volunteer lawyers in other states — are working on 200 cases in 40 states on issues ranging from keeping Christian symbols on public property to protecting the speech of anti-abortion activists to challenging the gay community.
The law firm, among a handful in the country working exclusively on Christian causes, seeks to change American culture that it believes has been shaped by liberal organizations.
“If we succeed in those issues, we will succeed in returning to our culture established by our Founding Fathers,” said Thompson, 68, president and chief counsel of the firm and the former Oakland County prosecutor who tried to stop Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who has claimed to have helped more than 130 people commit suicide.
The law firm’s work is getting attention.
Just last week, it represented the Novi family that prevailed over a neighborhood association to keep a nativity scene in their front yard.
Critics such as the ACLU say the Thomas More Law Center is advocating the dominance of one religion in this country.
“We are seeking to enforce the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,” said Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan. “They are trying to rewrite it. The founders of this country wrote the First Amendment to get away from religious tyranny and to ensure this culture had a fertile soil for multiple religions to grow. That’s not what the Thomas More Law Center wants.”
Still others are concerned about how it uses its legal muscle to chip away at Roe v. Wade.
The Thomas More Law Center recently reviewed ballot language proposed by Citizens for Life, an anti-abortion Lansing group, which seeks to amend Michigan’s Constitution and define life as beginning at conception in hopes of paving the way to making abortion illegal in Michigan.
The Michigan Board of Canvassers is scheduled to consider the language Wednesday. If approved, the group said it hopes to get the measure on the ballot and passed as soon as possible.
In South Dakota, the More center helped write a bill that was nearly passed last yearthat would have banned abortions in that state. Observers thought the intent was to force litigation on women’s constitutional right to have an abortion, perhaps as far as the U.S. Supreme Court.
Planned Parenthood’s Kate Looby says fighting efforts like those waged by the center are frustrating.
“I’d like to spend my time preventing unplanned pregnancies and taking care of children here right now that need our love and energy,” said Looby, South Dakota state director for Planned Parenthood Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota. “It’s very frustrating to us on the front lines of this culture war.”
But others say it’s about time someone is working in the judicial system to fight for Christian interests.
His organization “relies on the Thomas More Law Center as a faithful and extremely effective ally in promoting and defending the traditional family values shared by most Americans,” said Gary Glenn, president of American Family Association of Michigan, an organization best known for fighting gay rights.
Roots in Election Loss
The Thomas More Law Center was founded after Thompson lost his elected seat as Oakland County prosecutor in the wake of trying to prosecute Kevorkian. Soon after, he and Monaghan, a devout Catholic, were talking about the country’s political climate and how culture wars were being waged and won in the courts.
Monaghan put up the $500,000 to start the law firm, named after the Catholic patron saint of lawyers. He increased its funding annually through mid-2004. Now, the $2.3 million public interest law firm is funded exclusively by 50,000 individuals with $25 annual memberships and other benefactors. “They are an excellent organization, and one that is an avid defender of the Christian faith and religious expression and exercise as it relates to the Christian faith,” said Jared Leland of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington, D.C., law firm working on behalf of all faiths.
The More center received considerable attention recently during the 40-day trial defending the decision of a school board in Dover, Pa., to require science teachers to tell students about holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution and about the theory of intelligent design.
The latter is backed by some scientists, as well as President Bush and Pope Benedict XVI. But most scientists and others oppose it, arguing that intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
Bernadette Reinking, a new Dover school board member opposed to teaching intelligent design in science classes, bristled at the interference.
“We felt there was an outside interest trying to control what was happening in Dover,” Reinking said.
The school board members who supported the policy were voted out of office in the election last month, so it is unclear where the lawsuit may be headed. The judge hasn’t rendered a decision, and the new board could reverse the policy.
But Thompson said it wouldn’t matter if the lawsuit were dropped because it already has thrust intelligent design into the public dialogue.
“The genie is out of the bottle,” he said.
Fights are on Varied Fronts
The center rarely hesitates to take on controversial cases.
It has been defending the 50-year display of a 29-foot cross atop Mount Soledad in La Jolla, Calif. The firm is also representing 12 anti-abortion activists who were fined millions of dollars for identifying and publishing the names and addresses of abortion doctors in Portland, Ore.
The firm has also worked on a variety of Ten Commandments cases and worked to stop same-sex marriage rights in Michigan and other states.
The center is also not shy about ruffling its neighbors, including the Ann Arbor Public Schools.
“We seem to be a test case for them,” said district spokeswoman Liz Margolis.
A federal judge last year ordered the school district to pay $100,000 to the firm in legal fees following the case of student Elizabeth Hansen. Hansen unsuccessfully sought to get her opposing views on homosexuality discussed on a Diversity Week panel in which ministers explored the compatibility of homosexuality with some faiths. The courts ruled her rights to free speech were violated.
School officials said it was simply a mistake by educators who are not well-versed in constitutional law. They also said their decisions were not part of a pattern of bigotry, but just the opposite: They sought to promote tolerance and understanding.
Randy Friedman called the lawsuit “opportunist,” especially in an era when all school districts are struggling with limited dollars.
“If you are pursing a principle, even if it’s a praiseworthy principle, aren’t there ways to achieve it without stripping away badly needed dollarsfrom innocent kids?”
Friedman said. “The only people that got penalized here was the kids.”
School officials also can’t figure out why the firm has filed another lawsuit challenging their same-sex benefits policy, when the city, county and university have similar policies.
“We spend a lot of potential instruction money trying to defend the rights of the students and our staff against a small minority of people trying to dictate how public schools should operate,” Margolis said.
But Thompson said that’s ridiculous.
His firm is only working to ensure that the rights of Christians are not trampled on and to reform what he sees as an increasingly anti-Christian society.
“We look at ourselves as counterculture,” Thompson said. “We’re trying to change the culture.”
Victory for the Nativity Display; Management Company Backs Down
Wed, Nov 30, 2005
ANN ARBOR, MI – After being threatened with fines from their management company if they did not remove a nativity scene from their front lawn, the Samona family of Novi, Michigan, has been informed that the demand to remove the nativity has been withdrawn.
The management company first informed the Samona family that if they did not remove the display, they could be fined up to $100 a week until the display was removed. Since moving into their new home three years ago, the Samona family has displayed a nativity scene on their front lawn during each Christmas season. This year, however, the management company of their subdivision sent them a letter demanding that they remove the nativity scene.
In defiance, the Samona family contacted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which agreed to represent the family at no charge. The Law Center contacted the management company yesterday on the family’s behalf.
Today the family received a letter from the management company informing them that their nativity display was not in violation of any rules or regulations of the subdivision and apologizing to the family for any distress they have caused. To show its regret over the incident, the company is sending the family a gift basket as a “as a token of our remorse, in the spirit of this holiday season.” The Samona family has requested that the company forward the gift basket to the Saint Vincent DePaul Society in Pontiac, Michigan.
According to Edward White, trial counsel for the Law Center who represented the family, “We are pleased the management company quickly realized the mistake it had made and corrected the matter. The Somanas are a great example for everyone. They showed that people should fight for what they believe in. I am glad the Thomas More Law Center was able to help them.”
Pope Sides with ‘Intelligent Design’ Advocates
Sun, Nov 13, 2005
Chicago Sun-Times – By Nicole Winfield
VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI has waded into the evolution debate in the United States, saying the universe was made by an ”intelligent project” and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.
Benedict made the off-the-cuff comments during his general audience Wednesday. The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published the full text of his remarks in its Thursday editions.
Benedict focused his reflections for the audience on scriptural readings that said God’s love was seen in the ”marvels of creation.”
He quoted St. Basil the Great, a fourth century saint, as saying some people, ”fooled by the atheism that they carry inside of them, imagine a universe free of direction and order, as if at the mercy of chance.”
Remarks hailed by advocates
”How many of these people are there today? These people, fooled by atheism, believe and try to demonstrate that it’s scientific to think that everything is free of direction and order,” he said.
”With the sacred Scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us: In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word — this word that created everything and created this intelligent project that is the cosmos — is also love.”
His comments were hailed by advocates of intelligent design, who hold that the universe is so complex, it must have been created by a higher power. Proponents of the theory seek to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum.
Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible’s story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language and does not belong in science curriculum.
John Paul’s remark ‘rather vague’
Questions about the Vatican’s position on evolution came up in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.
In a New York Times op-ed piece, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was ”more than just a hypothesis.” Schoenborn said the late pope’s statement was ”rather vague and unimportant.”
Schoenborn attended Wednesday’s audience.
San Diego to Appeal Cross Decision – Judge Nullified Citizens’ 75% Vote to Maintain Landmark
Thu, Nov 10, 2005
World Net Daily – by James Lambert
The city of San Diego will appeal a court ruling that nullified an overwhelming vote by its citizens to save a historic cross that sits on public land.
Attorney Charles LiMandri, who represented the city in the case, told WorldNetDaily yesterday that newly elected Mayor Jerry Sanders informed him of the decision to appeal the Oct. 7 ruling by San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett.
Cowett’s decision effectively overturned Proposition A, passed by 75 percent of voters in July, which called for the city to donate the cross to the federal government as the centerpiece of a veterans memorial.
But Cowett ruled such action would be an unconstitutional aid to religion.
The conflict arises from an ACLU lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 29-foot concrete structure, which has been the center of a war memorial on city land since 1954.
Deputy City Attorney David Karlin confirmed to WND that Sanders intends to appeal the decision. Karlin explained that the city cannot file its appeal until the court signs an entry of judgment, which must be requested by the plaintiff. When that occurs, likely some time this month, the city will then have 60 days in which to file an appeal.
LiMandri, who works with the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest group, believes the case ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He has offered his services again to San Diego pro-bono, but the city has not decided yet who will represent it in the new legal round of appeal.
The Law Center provided legal analysis that formed the basis for a federal law that declared the cross and memorial as a National War Memorial and authorized the federal government to receive a donation of the land.
A bill authorizing the federal government to take over the memorial was authored