The department of paleobiology at the Smithsonians National museum of Natural History has received a speech in from harvard university. Previously, he as Vice President arch and at the Royal Ontario Museum in toronto and was a professor of zoology at the university of toronto. From 2004 to 2009, cancer served as associate director for research and collections at the National Museum of natural. He published extensively on dinosaurs and other extinct vertebrates. Hes done a lot of media appearances with america and europe, and with that, please join in welcoming our very own monsters. Okay. Good evening. Its my pleasure to talk to you today about one of the strangest episodes in the history of science in the united, the infamous bone wars. This happened during the 19th century, and it seemed for many years my paleontology had sort of a dark shadow over it because thought this was really a science for very strange people. But the thing was that over time we realized that in fact these bon
The department of paleobiology at the Smithsonians National museum of Natural History has received a speech in from harvard university. Previously, he as Vice President arch and at the Royal Ontario Museum in toronto and was a professor of zoology at the university of toronto. From 2004 to 2009, cancer served as associate director for research and collections at the National Museum of natural. He published extensively on dinosaurs and other extinct vertebrates. Hes done a lot of media appearances with america and europe, and with that, please join in welcoming our very own monsters. Okay. Good evening. Its my pleasure to talk to you today about one of the strangest episodes in the history of science in the united, the infamous bone wars. This happened during the 19th century, and it seemed for many years my paleontology had sort of a dark shadow over it because thought this was really a science for very strange people. But the thing was that over time we realized that in fact these bon
All High School Juniors and children in the gallery and state legislatures a. Some of those elements we think are not ones that the court should acknowledge is whether or not it advances religion. If you ask a chaplain for the state assembly i and sacrament f california who is going to the assembly are you going to advance your religion today . What this court said is the limit of the legislative prayer is a problem ties to example. We think with respect to the Second Circuit if got it just about right to the question is does it preach conversion or threaten and damnation to non believers or you use the word advanced and proselytized. Its not proselytized or advanced. That is the link which is the proselytized and whether or not it is in fact fair to ask the minister or the priest or the chaplain if he or she advances their religion. We dont whitmarsh says is advanced doesnt mean having a single chaplain of a denomination were looking at the content of the sectarian prayer in light of
Case the much easier case, because of that separation of the one part that is the strongest argument for the other side, that there is an element of coercion, that your application is is being ruled on, that the separation the town has adopted makes that much less persuasive. We think the other elements that the respondents have pointed to for coercion are ones that trouble us because they are things that have analogs in our history. So, for example, they point to the presence of children. But, of course, on the senate floor are the senate pages, who are all high school juniors. And as the reply brief points out, there are often children in the galleries at state legislatures being acknowledged. And so some of those those elements that the respondents have pointed to for coercion we think are not ones that the court should should adopt. Of course, your your test is whether or not part of your test is whether or not it advances religion. If you ask a chaplain for the state assembly in s
Greece shows that at least four nonchristian prayergivers delivered prayers thereafter in 2009, 10, 11 and 13. On the sectarian points, clearly the line. Counsel. Im sorry . One a year. Im sorry, your honor . Four additional people after the suit was filed. Yes, your honor. One a year. Approximately. How often does the legislature meet . Once a month. And on the sectarian line, i just like to point the court to the senate brief, the amicus brief filed by senators, pages 8 to 17 which shows the extensive history from the beginning of the republic until today of prayer in congress. That would be sectarian and unconstitutional under respondents position. With respect to coercion, its unquestionably true that there is less basis for claiming coercion here than there was in marsh. In marsh, senator chambers was required to be on the senate floor by rule, he had to be there to do his job and the practice was to stand every single time, which he did because he felt coerced to do it, whereas,