Pro-Life Students on Over 3,000 Campuses to Go Silent

logicshouldprevail »

Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:34 pm Agree: 20   Disagree: 11

IHS,

Let's assume you're right and that the Bible is one hundred percent clear that a non-viable human being is a person and that it is murder to abort it.

The problem with your reasoning is that we live in America-a country which is not supposed to show favoritism towards any religious or non religious perspective. As the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled countless times, the First Amendment Establishment Clause (which trumps the free exercise clause in cases involving actions or inactions motivated by religion), no government can endorse or hinder religion. Instead neutrality is required. Based on this, it is irrelevant what the Bible says on this matter with regards to law in the U.S..

Besides this point, I think that consciousness and the ability to comprehend one's state of being should trump the interests of a first trimester youngster who barely has brain development. Based on this, seeing as an unwanted pregnancy may effect that mother's life, I argue that the mother should have an unrestricted ability to have an abortion until brain tissue begins developing. Again, I realize the Bible says children are a gift from God, but again, the BIble ALONE shouldn't be used when forming neutral laws in this country (laws banning crimes such as robbery may correlate with the laws of the Bible, but they also have secular reasons apart from scripture).

It is also to useful to note that in secular society, Doctors have come to differing conclusions as to when life begins. Some believe it begins the moment the sperm meets the egg. Others believe that it begins with a heartbeat. Still others believe that it begins when brain tissue begins to grow. My point is that there is no consensus and hence women should have the right to choose-at least during the first trimester of their pregnancy.

Additionally, if abortions were banned, who would be adopting the thousands of inner city babies born to 'gansta wanabee' urban mamas that are simply unfit to be parents?

Finally, I will say that the law is very contradictory on the abortion issue. At one end, courts have ruled that pre-viable babies do not have constitutional rights. However, at the other end, someone who murders a newly pregnant mother can be held liable for two murders.

High Court to Hear Arguments on Mojave Cross

logicshouldprevail »

Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:07 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 6

Jimbobfunny,

Respectfully, your comment shows you do not understand how the Establishment Clause to our Constitution is to be interpreted at all. I read your response to mine on the cheerleader Bible verse article, and would like to respond to that as well.

To you, Christianity is the truth, but to millions of non believers, or to people of other faiths, it isn't. We share this country equally with those people. Based on this, what may be "of the devil" to you, isn't to these groups of people.

Based on this, a balance needs to be struck. The Establishment Clause has been interpreted as preventing Government endorsement or hindrance (note this latter term) of religion. Instead, neutrality is required. Sometimes to implement this neutrality, an appear to secularism (a worldview which accommodates a litany of conflicting perspectives, though I realize not evangelical Christianity) is necessary. At other times, secularism may itself be so non-neutral, that it actually hinders religion, thus equally violating the Establishment Clause.

Based on this, the stars of David and the crosses on the graves at Arlington were placed there by family members of the victims. It would not be an establishment clause violation because it is obvious that these religious symbols were placed there to honor each individual victim in the way the family members wanted it. Therefore, Government establishment would not be perceived by a reasonable person.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Hi Viking,

Yes, you are right. I did not phrase what I wanted to say properly. If students, privately in the stands at the game, held up the same signs, I suspect, it would not be considered government endorsement. However, the question becomes what if the cheerleaders, or members of the marching band, in their school uniforms, went into the stands at some point during the game and held up the signs? I think an argument could be made that the audience would equally perceive this as school sponsored endorsement, just like what I think is going on in this current case.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:41 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Blacksho89,

"logicshouldprevail seems to have a better ability to argue than a certain Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago..."

LOL, eloquently stated! I don't teach Constitutional law, but I am definitely very passionate about the subject.

In the movie Luther, Luther explained to his mentor that because of his doubts about Christianity, he'd be "a fraud as a preacher." The mentor replied (I'm paraphrasing) "man teaches what he needs to learn most." I definitely think this applies to Obama.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

tpique1,

You're right that the phrase separation of church and state is not in the constitution. However this doesn't matter because the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" has been interpreted lawfully by the U.S. Supreme Court to require separation of the two.

This of course brings us into a discussion about judicial review, which would be a digression here.

For now, note that the phrase separation of church and state does not mean "strict separation." For example, you cited a case from 1947. This case is very famous: Everson v. Board of Education. In that case, the township had a policy of reimbursing parents whose children had to take city transportation to get to school. In line with this policy, the county reimbursed parents whose kids went to religious schools. Violation of separation of church and state? If the U.S. required strict separation, it would, but our country doesn't. Based on this, because the law was a neutral law, the court ruled that not allowing parents to be reimbursed would actually violate the Establishment Clause by hindering religion.

This is the crux of what I have been saying in my posts: Separation of church and state means that no government (including state governments as the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment applicable to the states via incorporation) can endorse or hinder religion. Instead the government must remain neutral.

This means that if the cheerleaders held up signs at their school sponsored event that encouraged atheism and quoted atheists, this would equally be unconstitutional as a violation of the Establishment Clause (i.e., government sponsored hindering of religion).

The purpose of separation of church and state is to prevent the degrading of religion (an individual, private matter between you and your God which would become corrupted if fused with the worldliness of politicians) and to make sure that the Government sticks to secular matters.

Anyone who truly believes that the Government should be endorsing religion should be asking themselves: (1) What version of the Bible do they want taught in public school or sent to third world countries courtesy of the government expenses? (tons of Christian sects all use different versions, Are you telling me a devout Catholic would be okay with the KJV being used?) and (2) Do you know the horrible results that history has born witness to when church and state have been merged? Look the crusades, the corruption over indulgences, relics, persecution of Jews, etc. The list goes on and on.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

weekenderman,

You stated:

"I'm guessing that because I pay taxes to the government, Logic would say I "represent" the government and therefore have no free speech either."

No, I wouldn't say that. What I would say is that you being a tax payer (and me as well) doesn't give us standing to sue the government for infringement of religious liberties, but this brings us into a whole other area of Constitutional law: the case and controversy requirement of Article III, something which would constitute (pun intended) a digression here.

For now, suffice it to say that based on prior case law, students holding up religious based signs at a public school sponsored event-regardless of whether these signs were student initiated or not, constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause. You can check the cases I cited in some of my prior posts and read them in greater detail if you so desire.

I would also like to point out that it is true that the founding fathers (at least some of them) used public funds to further religious goals. There are several reason why the founders got away with this: (1) our country was less religiously diverse and hence less people would have complained in the first place, (2) the founders simply ignored the language they inserted into the Constitution ("congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.")(note that free exercise absolutely applies to beliefs only and religiously motivated actions can be regulated)(additionally note that the founders were still humans-subject to their individual biases), and (3) The 14th Amendment-which alters the balance between the federal and state governments hadn't been enacted yet, and thus state governments could have their own religions without violating the Establishment Clause.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

seedplanter,

You asked a very good question:

"If these cheerleaders are permitted to fly banners with various inspirational messages, then it becomes a matter of freedom of speach to incorporate inspirational messages albeit a religious source. Congress shall not prohibit the "free exercise of". Keep in mind, it was Thomas Jefferson who authorized for the government to fund the printing of Bibles to be used in public schools.

How can this be denied as a matter of freedom of speach???"

The First Amendment (as interpreted by U.S. Supreme Court case law) prevents limits on private speech and free exercise of religious beliefs, while at the same time banning Government endorsement of religion, and banning religious actions if: (a) there is a compelling reason to expressly ban them-very hard to come up with a good reason, or (b) a neutral law, which applies to everybody incidentally bans the practice-i.e., using an illegal drug as part of a religious activity, murdering, etc.

The First Amendment also prohibits Government endorsement of religion and Governmentally non neutral, viewpoint discriminatory speech.

The question becomes whether something is public or private speech, a religious action or a mere belief, or government endorsement of religion.

In this case, I would argue that the speech is a religious action, which thus brings into play the Establishment clause. I would argue that the action, by taking place at a public event does constitute religious endorsement. I would also argue that the speech, by being produced at a public event, and by being religious in nature also brings the Establishment clause into play as well as the ban on non-neutral public speech.

You'd have the same situation if the cheerleaders held up signs specifically endorsing a political candidate over the others. Because the speech is at a public event (assuming the school is a public school) it constitutes government-sponsored viewpoint discrimination and would equally be unconstitutional in my opinion.

You're right that Jefferson definitely did authorize the use of federal money to print bibles. I would argue however that the Constitution is not an infalliable document but has words, which involve meanings that change over time. Also, arguably, one could argue that Jefferson violated the First Amendment! If he wanted a government sponsored religious preference, he could have put that in the Constitution. Equally, if the founders didn't want judicial review by the courts (whereby allowing for the interpretation of the constitution) they could have expressly banned this in the Constitution.

I would also argue that there is a difference between neutrality and government hostility towards religion. Hostility involves express acts or teachings against religion. Endorsement is the opposite. Neutrality simply doesn't address the religious or non religious viewpoints.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:48 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

seedplanter,

Mr. Logic, thank you for your legal evaluation. Will you be officiating this court by chance?

LOL, Nope, I'm just an attorney who took 6 semesters of Constitutional law in law school and loves debating First Amendment issues.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Blacksho89,

The difference between this event and "meet me at the pole", is that the latter is not a school sponsored event. The U.S. Supreme Court has specifically addressed pregame footaball events, noting that they are school events and that therefore the school is involved. Based on this, even if the signs were entirely initiated by the student body, it is at a school sponsored event. Meet Me at the Pole take place before or after school hours, and is entirely voluntary. The school has not scheduled the event but merely knows it is going on.

See the prior two cases Weisman and Santa Fe, that I cited a few posts ago. They agree with my reasoning.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:43 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Slacker,

Let me address your objections more clearly:

1. Free exercise of religion is not involved here because these are not private beliefs here, these are actions. As I explained, the U.S. Supreme Court differentiates between religious beliefs, which are absolutely protected, and religious actions motivated by belief which are not. If you disagree, than you should be open to legalizing polygamy and making exceptions for religiously motivated murder, sacrifice, etc.

2. The cheerleaders are representative of the school when they participate in a school sponsored function, wearing the school cheer leader uniform. The U.S. Supreme Court has not just limited establishment clause violations to laws favoring religion pass by Congress. If a government body tacitly approves a religious endorsement, that is also a violation. The case law is pretty set in this area.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:01 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Slacker,

You might want to read both of my previous posts. You stated: "A Group of Cheerleaders does not equal Congress...."

The First Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine. I admit that the founders probably would not have intended this (seeing as the 14th Amendment was drafted in the last 19th century), but this is steady policy and there is probably no turning back. Consult any text book on Constitutional law and you will see this is settled doctrine.

Based on this, the cheerleaders (as I explained in my prior posts here) by attending a school sponsored event, do represent the school. As the school is a public school, the government is involved here. See my prior posts where I provide case law supporting my views.

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Jimbobfunny,

If you had read the U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing the First Amendment, you would know it makes no difference whether it is an official policy of the school, or whether the cheerleaders are holding the signs.

The signs are being held at a school function, by students that represent the school. Therefore, the fact that these students are holding signs endorsing a particular type of religion over other religions violates the Establishment Clause.

You should read Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 ("the principle that government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supercede the fundamental limitations imposed by the Establishment Clause . . . [A]t minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support of participate in religion . . .").

In Weisman, the Court held that psychological coercion was equally a violation of the Establishment clause, meaning that in this case, unbelievers seeing the signs at a school function would feel awkward and perhaps even feel compelled to pretend to be okay with it, judging by the crowds reactions.

You also might want to read, Santa Fe Indep. Sch. District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) . This case addressed prayer at football games, where a student would be voted to lead a prayer before the game would begin. The Court noted that "the pregame ceromony is clothed in the traditional indicia of school sporting events, which generally include not just the team, but also the cheerleaders and band members dressed in uniforms sporting the school name . . . In this context, members of the . . . audience must perceive the pregame message as a public expression of the views of the majority of the student body delivered with the approval of the school administration."

Both these cases make clear that the cheerleaders, by acting in a school sponsored event, are representing the school and thus the school is directly involved. Also, the Weisman case makes clear that cases such as this one do involve the Establishment of Religion as unbelievers attending a school event will have to deal with a religious display, which would appear to an objective viewer to be sponsored by the school, and therefore the government.

With regards to the first Amendment free exercise clause, it protects an individuals right to believe what they want. However, actions (even if otherwise taken for religious reasons) can be banned. For example, in a 1990's case, Smith v. Unemployment Division members of an indian tribe could not smoke illegal drugs at their worship meetings, because there were neutral laws on the books banning these drugs.

Logical people cite examples to back up their beliefs. The onus is on you now my illogical friend . . .

Report: Over 350 Public Schools Teaching the Bible

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:06 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 1

Understanding the Bible is important for literature, music, history and art majors in college. Try reading Milton's Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno, or any other great piece of Western literature without understanding the basic stories in the Bible. Try understanding the mindset of medieval Europe and the clash between the Protestants and Catholics without an understanding of basic scripture.

As long as the Bible is not being taught from a religious perspective, but surveyed more as an important document that has (for better or for worse) shaped Western civilization, I have no problem with it being taught in Public School.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Abington Township, Penn. v. Schempp has stated: "the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

Ga. Community Defends Bible Verses in Football Games

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:57 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 11

A senior cheerleader was quoted in this article as stating: "Our freedom of speech and freedom of religion is being taken away."

This is not a free speech or free exercise of religion case. This is an establishment clause case ("congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .") wherein the posting of biblical signs by a public high school constitutes an endorsement of religion over non religion. Cases such as these have already hit the U.S. Supreme Court. The basic rule is that the government cannot endorse or hinder one religion over another religion, religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion. Instead, the government must remain NEUTRAL.

In this case, the cheerleaders are specifically posting bible verses. Consequently, by doing this, it appears that the school itself (the government institution) is accepting this type of religion thinking. To non-believers, this may be particularly frustrating and embarrassing.

I have no problem with the tenants of Christianity, but I truly believe that Government endorsement of religion degrades religion and destroys government.

Pastors to Talk 'Politics' from Pulpits this Sunday

logicshouldprevail »

Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:17 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 2

Pastors/churches should be able to talk about politics while still claiming IRC § 503(c) charitable status. Anyone that says otherwise is being a hypocrite.

Many public universities, also qualify as charities under this IRC section, along with other non-profit groups. Yet, these institutions can speak and endorse political candidates all they want without fear of losing their tax exempt status. Why should churches be any different?

While I was a law school student, I remember how blatantly leftist all the professors were, how they would openly attack President Bush. Somehow this is okay under current IRC policy, yet churches cannot endorse their views?

Homeschooled Girl Ordered to Attend Public School Over Her 'Rigid' Faith

logicshouldprevail »

Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

RebornInReverse,

You stated: "Secular humanism isn't a faith, it's a stance that for a state to be fair and just and accommodate all the world-views of a multicultural society, it must itself be free of all faiths and world-views."

The 1st Amendment Establishment Clause has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent the endorsement or hinderance of religion, with particular emphasis on context. These courts have also pointed out that the state must be NEUTRAL with respect to religion or non religion.

You're right, I do not consider secular humanism a religion. However, I consider it to be a perspective opposite to the teachings of various faiths. In that respect, it is NOT NEUTRAL, and therefore should not be blindly endorsed by the state in attempts to prevent establishment of religion. Such an approach would result in government hinderance of religion, which is equally forbidden by the Establishment Clause.

Public schools as well as other governmentally run facilities and institutions should attempt to be neutral at all times. If this is impossible, I would argue that secular humanism, which does encompass many different tenants should be used, but only if necessary, given the fact that it is not neutral.

Homeschooled Girl Ordered to Attend Public School Over Her 'Rigid' Faith

logicshouldprevail »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:21 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in prior cases that parents have a fundamental, 14th Amendment-protected right to raise their children as they see fit. This includes education. In this case, the father (presumably the one without physical custody, seeing as the girl is being homeschooled by her mother) has claimed that homeschooling is not appropriate for his daughter (despite her high marks) and thus she should attend a public school. The lower court has agreed with this opinion. Personally, this case should be overturned. Assuming this article is correct, the evidence shows that the child is healthy and receiving high marks. What the dad doesn't like is the fact that she is receiving a religious viewpoint contrary to what he (and the court) feels is correct. The First Amendment allows people to peacefully practice their own faiths, unrestricted, as long as there is not a generally applicable law on the books, incidentally limiting religious expression (example smoking peyote-Smith v. Unemployment Division). To my knowledge there is no general law banning home schooling in New Hampshire. Thus, religious homeschooling cannot be singled out. With regards to the fundamental right to raise children, it appears based on the facts that the mom has sole physical custody. She has determined it is in the best interests of her child to be homeschooled. As the girl is not being physically harmed, the court had no right to interfere in the mother's decision. Note: disagreeing with a religious education is not a valid constitutional argument to interfere with how a child is raised-see my First Amendment reasoning above. Johnzon, one other thing: I agree with your philosophy. I think a comparative religions program should be mandated in public school to expose people to as many different world-views as possible. At the very least, people will be less ignorant of each other. However, this doesn't change the fact that generally, people have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, and also have a fundamental right to freely practice their religion under the 1st and 14th Amendments. I disagree with raising children as Muslims, yet I have no right under the U.S. Constitution to interfere with how someone else's child is raised. hide

What Does the 'Real Church' Look Like?

logicshouldprevail »

Sun Aug 30, 2009 11:41 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 1

I cannot believe that someone flagged my previous post. I am laughing with surprise right now, as I did not attack, or swear, or call names in this post. All I did was state my opinion, calmly, with appropriate examples as to why I consider it unnecessary, for me as a Christian, to attend church. In short, the person who flagged me is a "flaggot."

Additionally, if the person who flagged me is a Christian, church goer, you've just provided me with another reason why I don't attend church. Close-minded people such as yourself that like to ban free speech. I violated no rules here by drafting that prior post. Yet, you had to be a pharisee about it.

What Does the 'Real Church' Look Like?

logicshouldprevail »

Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:51 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

Flagged as inappropriate. show I find church to be completely useless in many ways. I have gone to several churches throughout my life. (Mostly baptist or messianic-jewish), but I just don't feel closer to God when I'm there. I believe that our relationship with Jesus Christ is an individualistic one, where one's heart alone determines one's standing before God. Based on this, I feel closer to God when I am at home, studying the Bible at my pace and praying when I feel called to do so, not when a pastor says it's time for some "corporate" prayer. Some issues I have church: 1. I feel the music is almost like a cliquey club, where new members don't know all the words, and thus feel embarrassed and nervous, while old members belt out and even harmonize with the melody because they've been singing the songs all their lives. 2. The pastors always try to provide a more cohesive world-view than the Bible actually says. For example, with one church I attended, the pastor began this lecture on the end times, explaining how the rapture would come before the tribulation. He said that based on certain passages, he was absolutely convinced that the rapture would happen first. Yet, having studied eschatology, I noticed that he failed to understand that the same passages he used to quote that the rapture would happen first, are also used by other churches to support their teachings that the rapture would happen post-trib! Personally, I think the Bible is intentionally ambiguous in many secondary areas, and thus, it is up to individual Christians to formulate their own views. Churches shouldn't be supplying comprehensive world-views to make people feel like "everything is all figured out." 3. Many churches are overly legalistic, frowning on men who have long hair, singling out homosexuality or abortion as sinful practices, while not criticizing other less "political" sins. One pastor, while giving a sermon on 1 Cor 11, even made fun of men who had long hair, calling them a disgrace, even though a man with long hair was sitting right in the front row. Personally, I think the passage dealing with long hair has a 1st century application and is not meant to be applied anymore, (just like passages that say that women should not dress like a man-women wear pants today, or have short hair-many women wear short hair today). 4. Finally corporate prayer. I can't stand it. I pray when I feel called to pray. Sometimes, this is everyday, sometimes it is only once a week. I will not force myself to close my eyes and pray to God when I do not feel I am being called to do this. Yet in church, the pastor always asks everyone to close their eyes and to pray. I just don't feel comfortable praying because everybody else is doing it. I know that the Bible says not to neglect Christian fellowship, but it doesn't define this as church, per say. Maybe meeting with a Christian friend every now than could qualify. hide

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

logicshouldprevail »

Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:55 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

I am not going to comment on the merits of whether evolution or intelligent design is the more plausible explanation. What I am going to comment on (seeing as I am a licensed attorney and have studied Establishment Clause issues intensely while in law school) is how bad the reasoning is in the Kitzmiller case really is.

For example, the opinion itself is full of generalizations and idiotic assumptions.

Example: the judge examined the fact that the group seeking to promote Intelligent Design used the same book as a Creationist group used, just editing out the word "creationist" and replacing it with "intelligent design." Based on that, the judge reached the broad conclusion that all of the Intelligent Design movement and all of the Creationism movement were the same things.

Yet, this idiotic judge, earlier in the opinion admits two interesting things: (1) Intelligent Design was around at least during the middle ages, where Aquinas formulated his famous syllogism: (a) Complexity necessitates design, (b) the universe is complex, (c) therefore the universe had a designer. The judge also notes that many other religions besides Christianity adhered to Intelligent Design. (2) Creationism began in the late 19th century, following the rise of Christian Fundamentalism.

Based on this, the judge is calling Intelligent Design the same thing as Creationism, while earlier presenting divergent history and facts for the two movements!

I think that the case should have a much more limited holding. The particular group that advocated teaching ID in the school screwed up by introducing a book that had earlier been used as a creationist text. Hence, obviously, this particular group's version of Intelligent Design was the same as Creationism. However, it does not follow that all Intelligent Design proponents are Creationists, based on this conclusion.

One more thing: I am sick of people saying that it is illegal to teach Intelligent Design in this country. It is not. A district court (not the U.S. Supreme Court) struck down a statute in Pennsylvania allowing for Intelligent Design. Each district court (unlike the U.S. Supreme Court) has a finite jurisdiction that does not encompass the entire country. Until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the subject, or Congress passes a law banning Intelligent Design nationwide, school districts (regardless of the merit of Intelligent Design) are legally allowed to continue teaching it as long as they are not within the jurisdiction of the district court that decided Kitzmiller.