Changes

==ACLU and the Establishment Clause==

==ACLU and the Establishment Clause==

A example of ACLU litigation regarding the Establishment Clause was ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist.'', 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html</ref> , also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting teachers from teaching [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that evolution was "theory, not fact."<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist.,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref>

A example of ACLU litigation regarding the Establishment Clause was ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist.'', 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html</ref> , also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist.,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref>

In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on ''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', which had previously invalidated "warning labels" placed on Cobb County textbooks, stating that evolution is "theory, not fact."  His Honor also relied on the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]] that he applied in his analysis of the Dover case.<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref>  The Judge used this reasoning as one step towards his conclusion, and cites ''Selman'' and other Supreme Court cases as backing up his own affirmation of the ''Selman'' holding.<ref>''See Kitzmiller'', 400 F. Supp. 2d at 723-24.</ref>

In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on ''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', which had previously invalidated "warning labels" placed on Cobb County textbooks, stating that evolution is "theory, not fact."  His Honor also relied on the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]] that he applied in his analysis of the Dover case.<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref>  The Judge used this reasoning as one step towards his conclusion, and cites ''Selman'' and other Supreme Court cases as backing up his own affirmation of the ''Selman'' holding.<ref>''See Kitzmiller'', 400 F. Supp. 2d at 723-24.</ref>