There IS hope for this country after all.
Judge John Jones’ ruling in the Dover, PA school board case a couple of weeks ago was dead-nuts perfect. Every case about ID…every case…will eventually include Jones’ 139-page conclusion and decision, and in each case opponents of the separation of church and state will lose.
A federal judge barred a Pennsylvania school district yesterday from mentioning “intelligent design” as an alternative to evolutionary theory in a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members for lying under oath and for their “breathtaking inanity” in trying to inject religion into science classes.
Breathtaking inanity. I absolutely love it!
…(the Judge) explicitly sought to vanquish intelligent design, the argument that aspects of life are so complex as to require the hand, subtle or not, of a supernatural creator. This theory, he said, relies on the unprovable existence of a Christian God and therefore is not science.
And some sanity injected into the discussion by this judge. I love that, too!
Bottom line, I begrudge no one for their personal and private beliefs. Private…as in don’t push it into a public school. I am simply of the opinion (and Judge Jones is as well) that the existence of the christian god is unprovable…the existence of any supreme being is unprovable at this point.
Does that mean I can prove that there isn’t a god? Of course not, no one can do that either. Do I hope there’s a heaven the way it’s described by christians? Abso-freakin’-lutely I do. I’m just open minded enough that I’ll take a wait-and-see attitude on it.
9 responses so far ↓
1
Anonymous
// Jan 2, 2006 at 7:35 pm
You’re just open-minded enough not to tolerate a differing point of view to be available to youngsters in order for them to make a determination.
That’s the trademark of the left – flood the arena with one single perspective, while silencing any other(s).
Personally, I do not have a “horse” in this intelligent design debate. I just think its interesting how the left, whenever it disagrees with a particular philosophy, aims to silence that philosophy rather than engage in a discussion of it.
The left likes to spout off about freedom of speech, but only when it serves their particular agenda. When someone else wishes to exercise that freedom they celebrate when the other side is muzzled.
Shameful!
2
BJ Stone
// Jan 2, 2006 at 8:49 pm
You’ve got all the freedom you want to teach ID in church, in private religious schools, in your home.
Not in a public school. Why is that so hard to understand? I wouldn’t expect to be able to come into Peoria Notre Dame and teach a course on agnosticism…or Islam for that matter.
3
Anonymous
// Jan 2, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Ofcourse, it’s perfectly acceptable to the left to teach courses (in public schools) about homosexuality or how to use a condom.
4
Anonymous
// Jan 2, 2006 at 11:33 pm
The libs never get it. The Constituion says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The libs are always looking for ways to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Teaching ID in public schools would certainly not be the equivalent of Congress passing a law that establishes a specific religion. But over time the libs have twisted this around to mean no religion may be exercised.
That’s not what the Constitution says.
5
BJ Stone
// Jan 3, 2006 at 4:47 am
Keep spouting about “the left”. And then read the main post again. The judge who wrote the ruling was a conservative republican, appointed by Bush. It’s not just “the left” that carries this opinion.
6
Annonymous
// Jan 3, 2006 at 6:44 am
Please show us where the article says the judge is conservative. Again, a liberal twists the truth.
One thing Judge Jones is – he’s wrong. He needs to re-read the Constitution. It says what it says. And that’s all it says.
FYI, Republicans who are not conservatives are referred to as RINOs.
7
BJ Stone
// Jan 3, 2006 at 3:29 pm
I’d rather respond to someone who will put their name next to a post, but I’ll just finish my part of the discussion with this from the AP:
“Jones is a lifelong Republican who ran for Congress and narrowly lost more than a decade ago. He has described his mentor as Tom Ridge, the former Pennsylvania governor who served as homeland security secretary. Bush appointed Jones to the bench in 2002.”
Also, how come it is that anytime a Republican does something the extreme right doesn’t like, they become a “RINO”? I thought you guys were the party of “inclusion for everyone”. Guess not.
8
Annonymous
// Jan 4, 2006 at 2:18 am
Stretching the Constitution to keep out intelligent design
By ANDREW CLINE
January 2, 2006
Federal Judge John E. Jones III, a George W. Bush appointee, has ruled unconstitutional the referencing of intelligent design in public school science classes in Dover, Pa. He called it a “mere re-labeling of creationism” and said it amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Which raises a question: How intelligently designed are public schools in which intelligent design cannot even be referenced?
Unlike the Scopes case of 1925, the Dover case did not involve politicians yanking evolution from the classroom and replacing it with creationism. It involved a statement the Dover school board required biology teachers to read to their students:
Advertisement
“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
“Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is not evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
“Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
“With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.”
I disagree with the wording of that statement. But it defies logic to say it establishes a state religion. And in fact, Judge Jones does not conclude that. Under Establishment Clause jurisprudence, he doesn’t have to.
In the 1984 case Lynch v. Donnelly, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor created a new standard that redefined the Establishment Clause. Government policies don’t have to “establish” a state religion – as the Constitution requires – to be unconstitutional. They simply have to “endorse” a religious point of view. Justice O’Connor succeeded in rewriting the First Amendment, and Judge Jones used that rewrite to strike down the intelligent design statement.
As the Establishment Clause morphs into a general anti-religion clause and judges continue to strike down not the establishment of religion, or even the teaching of it, but the mere practice of pointing it out to students, it is easy to imagine a day when no reference to God, religion or spirituality will be allowed in school.
After all, the Dover school board did not replace evolution with intelligent design. The board made students aware of its existence and instructed them to make up their own minds. If that is unconstitutional, then surely it is conceivable that some ambitious parent could sue successfully under the Establishment Clause because a civics teacher quotes George Washington – “The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army” – or Abraham Lincoln – “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in.”
Assuming, of course, that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are still taught in public schools.
The ruling moves us another step toward a place the Founding Fathers would not have recognized, a place in which religion and public life are kept rigidly separate.
Yet as much as champions of this ruling have gloated in the past two weeks, the struggle over science curricula, or religion in school, is far from settled. The heart of the Dover case really is not creationism vs. Darwinism. It is parents vs. government. As long as children are compelled to attend government-run schools, parents will fight over what is taught in those schools.
The real solution lies not in another court challenge to another curricular guideline, but in a more intelligent design of our public school system. When public education is financed by the government but provided in the private sector, and parents can choose the schools their children attend, these sorts of disputes will evaporate.
What we really are arguing about in these cases is who gets to decide what children learn in school. The more control we give to parents, the less control zealous school board members, or judges, will have.
Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader in Manchester, N.H.
9
Vonster
// Jan 4, 2006 at 7:12 pm
You (BJ) and Rob Berry. Ugh.
Leave a Comment