by VorJack
âIt appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant informationâ
– From the Texas Court Ruling (pdf) which continues to deny the Institute for Creation Research the right to award a Masters Degree
You ever notice how some true believers – not all such, and not all of any one type – but how some true believers cannot pass up a chance to write a manifesto?
The very phrase “Creation Research” should be the big give-away there; it says loud and clear “We have already drawn our conclusion and will be ignoring or suppressing anything that doesn’t support it”.
Edited highlights (Part 1):
“Plaintiff the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School (âICRGSâ) seeks to offer a Master
of Science degree with a major in Science Education from âa Biblical scientific creationist viewpointâ
in Texas.”
“The panel ultimately recommended ICRGSâs application for a certificate of authority be
rejected. Essentially, the panel reasoned much of the course content was outside the realm of science and lacked potential to help students understand the nature of science and the history and nature of the natural world.”
“Commissioner Paredes, after assessing the results of the âfresh review,â concluded it had been âthorough and balanced.â He joined the review panel in recommending the Board deny ICRGSâs application for two major reasons: first, he found the proposed programâs curriculum was inconsistent with the standards or conventions of science and science education, and secondly, he found the programâs curriculum was inconsistent with the Boardâs standards, and specifically with Standard 12, relating to curriculum.”
“Based on the Boardâs denial, ICRGS brought this lawsuit (which was removed to this Court
in May 2009) against the members of the BoardâCommissioner Paredes, Lyn Phillips, Joe Hinton, Elaine Mendoza, Laurie Bricker, Whit Riter, Brenda Pejobich, and Robert Shepard (collectively, the âBoard Member Defendantsâ)âunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringement of its 1st and 14th Amendment rights to free speech, free exercise, equal protection, and due process, and against the Board Members and the Board itself under the Texas Constitution, the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (âTRFRAâ), and Chapter 106 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code” [NB - shotgun aproach much? Sue for EVERYTHING and see what happens!]
“Summary judgment may be granted if the moving party shows there is no genuine issue of
material fact, and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). In deciding
summary judgment, the Court construes all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” [NB - Both parties applied for summary judgement]
“ICRGS is not exempt from the Boardâs authority under subchapter G. Plaintiffâs motion for summary judgment on this issue is accordingly DENIED.”
“Having addressed this primary issue, the Court will proceed to address each of ICRGSâs causes of action in turn, to the extent it is able to understand them. It appears that although the Court has twice required Plaintiff to re-plead and set forth a short and plain statement of the relief requested, Plaintiff is entirely unable to file a complaint which is not overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant information.” [NB - do you think he meant "meandering"?]
“First, although it is difficult to follow ICRGSâs complaint, it appears ICRGS contends the
Board engaged in âviewpoint discriminationâ against ICRGS, thereby violating its constitutional rights to free exercise of religion, free speech, and equal protection… ICRGS makes an as-applied challenge to the Stateâs regulation of its issuance of degreesâand specifically, to the Boardâs decision to deny its application under those lawsâbasing all of its constitutional claims on an identical set of facts.”
“The âfree exercise of religion” means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires… Thus, the First Amendment forbids âall governmental regulation of religious beliefs as suchâ… However, the government does not impermissibly regulate religious belief when it promulgates a âneutral, generally applicableâ law or rule which happens to result in an incidental burden on the free exercise of a particular religious practice or belief… Thus, a law that is neutral and generally applicable prompts rational basis review, rather than strict scrutinyâit need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest in order to survive a constitutional challenge…
“…the Court finds the Boardâs decision to deny a certificate of authority to ICRGS is
subject only to rational basis review, as the rules which governed the decision are neutral and generally applicable. Having so decided, the Court turns to the question of whether the Boardâs application of those rules to ICRGS was ârationally related to a legitimate state interestâ.”
“Dr. Patterson, one of the review panel members, stated he found âthe course descriptions
indicated a very narrow and over-simplified approach to understanding or teaching modern science”… Dr. Patterson noted the textbooks specified in several of the program
course descriptions were introductory texts typical for freshman-level undergraduate classes. Dr. Patterson states in his declaration, â[t]he rigor of the proposed course work appeared to be
remarkably low, certainly not what we would expect of graduate-level courses.â [NB - Emphasis mine]. He also concluded the overall curriculum of the program indicated a âstrikingly deficient and incorrect understanding of modern science, its methods, procedures, ways of knowing, and generally-accepted conclusions.â [NB - Emphasis mine] He found many of the course descriptions reflected an intent to indoctrinate students in a particular religious-based mode of thought and set of conclusions [NB - Emphasis mine] , ârather than preparing them to instruct students in modern scienceâ. “
“Dr. Skoog found ICRGSâs stated purpose of teaching students to be leaders in science education could not be met by the program because ICRGS rejects (as is evidenced by its courses, course content, and mission statement) âthe underlying principle that science works by providing âexplanation through natural law.ââ Id. He discussed details of the proposed program and course work at length, and concluded the program âignores established scientific evidence,â and âintegrates selective scientific data that gives credence to [the framework of Biblical creationism], but ignores, or circumvents, a large body of scientific data that erodes and shatters the foundation of this framework”. “
“the program must âadequately cover the breadth of knowledge of the discipline
taughtââin this case, science and science education.â Dr. Stafford quoted the following excerpts from ICRGSâs program catalog:
1. âIt is the position of the institute that…all genuine facts of science support the Bible.â
2. âThe phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from
inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the creator.â
3. âAll things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the
Creation Week described in Genesis…[.] The creation record is factual, historical, and
perspicuous; thus all theories of origin and development that involve evolution in any
form are false.
(emphasis added by Stafford). Dr. Stafford concluded these statements (and others) constituted
a rejection of the fundamental principles which guide what scientists do, because scientists must
âremain open to all facts and all observations of natural phenomena in order to refine and improve their comprehensive explanations of how natural processes appear to work”. “
Not going to do Part 2 of the edited highlights of this; suffice it to say that it’s more of the same.
He may really have meant “maundering”:
Main Entry: maun¡der
Pronunciation: \ËmoĚn-dÉr, Ëmän-\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): maun¡dered; maun¡der¡ing \-d(É-)riĹ\
Etymology: probably imitative
Date: 1621
1 chiefly British : grumble
2 : to wander slowly and idly
3 : to speak indistinctly or disconnectedly
Tyvm, I stand corrected :-)
I think they probably meant maundering, not meandering.
Maundering: 1. to talk in a rambling, foolish, or meaningless way. 2. to move, go, or act in an aimless, confused manner.
Plus, a lot of whack-a-loons try to make the law do what it was not intended to do in the first place – ruling on political issues for example, or granting a judgment where there are no particularized damages or no standing. They think if they just complain a lot, they will be granted relief in order to shut them up.
Activist judges aside, courts rule on very narrow issues that are clearly articulated with quantifiable (or at least reasonably identifable) damages. The whack-a-loons never have that stuff, and never full understand why they have to have it in order to win something in their favor. More often then not, they should be lobbying their legislatures to get what they want.
In a sense, thank God for that. Maybe it keeps the craziness down to a more tolerable level.
If I had read nothing beyond the quotation from the judge’s ruling, I would have thought that the plaintiff was Orly Taitz.
I just get all warm and fuzzy inside when I see radical religions rejected in mainstream society (if that is the proper term).
*made my day*
“…overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering, and full of irrelevant informationâ
On some other blog, I commented that I decided that this is a splendid definition for B.S. I don’t remember where it was.
So there’s hope for Texas yet?
What, pray tell, is “prolixity”?
Hey, sometimes obfuscation works!