The Dover Ruling
Yesterday the blog was not functioning well, so I didn't get to mention this. U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching Intelligent Design in the Dover, Pennsylvania, schools violated the constitutional separation of church and state. The voters up there have already kicked out the entire school board that proposed this stupid idea, and now the judge backs them up.
I've been reading through the judge's opinion, and I think it will become a much-referenced, classic document. Both sides had ample opportunity to present their best case. Leaders of the Intelligent Design movement testified, as well as skeptics and scientists arguing against it. The judge's memorandum opinion lays out the evidence and the arguments piece by piece, placing each one in the context of the legal decision being requested, and he frames his comments in very readable, plain English, explaining how he interprets the facts as they were presented. Read all 139 pages of it HERE.
This judge, it will be noted, is a Republican, appointed by President Bush. Before reading this opinion, I had seen some writers refer to it as a "smackdown" of Intelligent Design, and ... yes, that's a perfect word for it. He not only dismantles the legal case, he disintegrates the entire point of view from numerous angles, just demolishes it. You just know these guys are going to file another lawsuit somewhere, but the fact is, they won't get a judge more favorable to their position, and they won't get a better chance to make their case.
Here's a little paragraph to give you the feel for this ruling:
I wish we could call this The End of an Era. Unfortunately, we can be sure the nuts are going to pop up somewhere else, with some equally "breathtaking inanity."
I've been reading through the judge's opinion, and I think it will become a much-referenced, classic document. Both sides had ample opportunity to present their best case. Leaders of the Intelligent Design movement testified, as well as skeptics and scientists arguing against it. The judge's memorandum opinion lays out the evidence and the arguments piece by piece, placing each one in the context of the legal decision being requested, and he frames his comments in very readable, plain English, explaining how he interprets the facts as they were presented. Read all 139 pages of it HERE.
This judge, it will be noted, is a Republican, appointed by President Bush. Before reading this opinion, I had seen some writers refer to it as a "smackdown" of Intelligent Design, and ... yes, that's a perfect word for it. He not only dismantles the legal case, he disintegrates the entire point of view from numerous angles, just demolishes it. You just know these guys are going to file another lawsuit somewhere, but the fact is, they won't get a judge more favorable to their position, and they won't get a better chance to make their case.
Here's a little paragraph to give you the feel for this ruling:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
I wish we could call this The End of an Era. Unfortunately, we can be sure the nuts are going to pop up somewhere else, with some equally "breathtaking inanity."
posted by JimK at 11:40 AM
53 Comments:
So now, in Pennsylvania, Darwinism, which is not based on evidence, has become the state religion. Any disagreement with it is only motivated by religious belief according to this "classoc ruling", which proves the judge reads the East Coast newspapers.
Reading a brief statement that evolution is not necessarily a fact and then teaching a multiple week class on evolution was such a threat to the sacred principles of evolution that it had to be stopped- BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE!!!
Interesting that the same people that want to help homosexuals are so interested in supporting the principle of "survival of the fittest".
Anon- get some education- from a real college or university
I do my very best to be polite and diplomatic on this blog, and some on the other side, such as EH and Orin, certainly deserve respect. They earned it. But now that a Bush-appointed Republican judge has used the word, I will as well -- Anon, you are inane,in addition to being personally insulting, hateful, malicious, contemptuous and downright ignorant of every topic you've chosen to discuss. I will no longer bother to respond to anything you write.
anonymous the idiot will never understand logic Dana. Logic will part their hair as it goes over anonymous the idiot's small minded bigoted head.
snow white
Anonymous writes:
"So now, in Pennsylvania, Darwinism, which is not based on evidence, has become the state religion."
Proof by blatant assertion, which seems to be Anonymous' basic mode of attack, is no proof at all.
Jim writes,
Dover, Pennsylvania, schools violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
Please show me where in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights for that matter, it mandates a "separation of church and state". The First Amendment has two clauses; one is the Free Exercise clause, and the second is the No Establishment clause...there is nothing about a mandated "separation of church and state".
Does this mean I support returning prayer to the public schools? No, because now that it is not a part of the public culture, I doubt it would work in the way those that advocate it think it would. Time to move on...
The so-called "separation of church and state" is perhaps the most pernicious myth in contemporary American culture (right up there with the myth that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the US; it did nothing of the like...it simply nationalized all 50 state laws into a single national standard - in California, for example, abortion was already legal, made so ironically by then Gov. Ronald Reagan). This myth had its orgin in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association (of Connecticut, I think), where the expression was minted. Now I admire Jefferson (in fact I have been to Monticello) for his accomplishments (trivia quiz: what three accomplishments did Jefferson have placed on his tombstone?), however what he wrote he did so as a private citizen expressing his opinion. He is entitled to his opinion, just as I am to mine...but I would like it explained to me why his opinion ought to be given preference over anyone elses? Keep in mind that while he did draft, edit then write the Declaration of Independence, he really had nothing to do with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as this was more the doing of James Madison et al.
U.S. District Judge John Jones writes,
The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
If I had been a member of this school board I would have voted against such a waste of time and resources.
Do I believe there is a Culture War? Yes, I do. However, the best that can be done is to fight such fights elsewhere.
Orin
Orin, I wrote that line with a couple of newspaper articles in front of me, kind of paraphrasing from one then the other. It is rather sloppy wording, and I thought so at the time, but it gets to the heart of the matter. By "separation of church and state" we are usually referring to the Establishment Clause, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and the free exercise clause that says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." As government is prohibited from either establishing (or promoting) religion, or inhibiting its practice, we commonly say that there is a "separation between church and state." The phrase does not come from the Constitution, though, you're right.
And this case is a perfect example of the good sense behind such a legal monument.
Really, I don't think anybody cares if a Christmas song is sung in the school concert, or if somebody wishes somebody Merry Christmas on government property. But there is a very highly motivated proselytizing brand of religion that, once it gets started, wants to take over everything. So you have to stop them before they start.
JimK
Orin,
Answer to your quiz:
1. Author of the Declaration of Independence
2. Father of the University of Virginia
3. Author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
If I recall my history, it was this latter document that served as the basis for the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. You are correct that Jefferson was out of the country (he was ambassador to France) when the Bill of Rights was drafted. But the origins of the Bill of Rights were in his correspondence with Madison, who was his close ally and, in many respects, his surrogate politically while he was out of the country. I think it perfectly appropriate to consider Jefferson's views in this regard. Jefferson, Madison, George Mason, and the others who saw the necessity of the First Amendment were well aware that 1/3 of the population of Central Europe was slaughtered in the previous century over theological differences between Catholics and Protestants. They wanted to make darn sure that that sort of thing would never happen here.
David
David writes,
David S. Fishback said...
Orin,
Answer to your quiz:
1. Author of the Declaration of Independence
2. Father of the University of Virginia
3. Author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
YOU WIN!
Yes, I can remember looking at this grave obelisk and not seeing President of the United State of America and being struck by the fact that Jefferson apparently gave it lesser significance than most of us would.
"Proof by blatant assertion, which seems to be Anonymous' basic mode of attack, is no proof at all."
It's all your side has, David.
anonymous being a idiot once again.
snow white
"Anon- get some education- from a real college or university"
You mean one that will teach that species were created by helpful mutations (even though we rarely if ever see any of those) that gradually altered (although we haven't found any fossils of those transitional species) to adapt to the environment and, honestly, the fossil record isn't exactly gradual (complex beings burst on the scene relatively suddenly.)
Evidence, which is widely agreed to by virtually all scientists, show life and the universe to be finely tuned. Turns out something outside our universe can be proved by its interaction with our universe. Just like sight can establish that wind exists even though it's invisible. It's effects are visible.
This judge is someone who had a chance for public attention and simply regurgitated what he read in the Eastern liberal press.
Have you heard of the latest craze in the world of physics- string theory? It can never be proven- there is no way to test it- and yet no one objects to mentioning it in school.
"anonymous being a idiot once again"
see what I mean, david.
never an argument, only an epithet.
another fine product of public schoolin'.
This judge is someone who had a chance for public attention and simply regurgitated what he read in the Eastern liberal press.
Anonymous showing ignorance above
snow white
"anonymous the idiot will never understand logic Dana. Logic will part their hair as it goes over anonymous the idiot's small minded bigoted head"
can you explain the logic behind evolution?
also, if you inherit a disposition to gayness, will it then disappear a generation after it comes out of the closet?
see what I mean, david.
never an argument, only an epithet.
another fine product of public schoolin'.
anonymous being a idiot once again.
snow white
"But there is a very highly motivated proselytizing brand of religion that, once it gets started, wants to take over everything."
No, there isn't. That's your bigotry talking, Jim. The Christian church is the most tolerant and compassionate religion on Earth. That's why women and homosexuals are treated better in countries where there is a Christian heritage than anywhere else.
"Anonymous showing ignorance above
snow white"
here we see it again, david
here we see it again
Anonymous showing ignorance above over and over
snow white
"anonymous being a idiot once again.
snow white"
Kay just can't stop herself
"Anonymous showing ignorance above over and over
snow white"
see, david
Anonymous said...
"anonymous being a idiot once again.
snow white"
Kay just can't stop herself
Anonymous showing ignorance above over and over and over and over
snow white
"the others who saw the necessity of the First Amendment were well aware that 1/3 of the population of Central Europe was slaughtered in the previous century over theological differences between Catholics and Protestants."
and, yet, if that was his motive, it didn't work out too well when a few decades later, one of the bloodiest wars in history was fought in Jefferson's home state
turned out it wasn't religion that caused war- it was human nature
"Anonymous said...
"anonymous being a idiot once again.
snow white"
Kay just can't stop herself
Anonymous showing ignorance above over and over and over and over
snow white"
I think someone's got too much time and too little imagination on her hands.
I think someone's got too much time and too little imagination on her hands.
Anonymous showing ignorance above over and over and over and over and over
snow white
"As government is prohibited from either establishing (or promoting) religion, or inhibiting its practice, we commonly say that there is a "separation between church and state.""
The problem with all this is that, regardless of what the founding fathers thought or intended, what was not forseen at the time was that government would take over education and, thus, all education would become government policy.
Now kids can only learn truth if it's secular truth which leaves a lot of holes. It's time to get government out of the education business. Upper mobility is important but could be assured by a voucher system. I'm sure that the most schools would eventually be Judeo-Christian ones under this system but that speaks for itself. Most scientific discoveries have been made by those seeking to know God's design better and secular humanism has produced an increasingly scientifically illiterate American youth.
"Anon, you are inane,in addition to being personally insulting, hateful, malicious, contemptuous and downright ignorant of every topic you've chosen to discuss."
Could you elaborate? For the sake of posterity.
Anonymous said...
"the others who saw the necessity of the First Amendment were well aware that 1/3 of the population of Central Europe was slaughtered in the previous century over theological differences between Catholics and Protestants."
and, yet, if that was his motive, it didn't work out too well when a few decades later, one of the bloodiest wars in history was fought in Jefferson's home state
turned out it wasn't religion that caused war- it was human nature
***********************************
Jefferson knew full well that we were headed for a catastrophe due to slavery. In his Notes on Virginia, in discussing slavery, he wrote, “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”
The Founders were able to avoid the danger of intermingling church and state; they were able to avoid many other dangers, as well, by establishing federalism, separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. Sadly, they were unable to avoid the problem caused by the United States’ “original sin” – slavery.
Anonymous writes:
"The Christian church is the most tolerant and compassionate religion on Earth. That's why women and homosexuals are treated better in countries where there is a Christian heritage than anywhere else."
At its best, Christianity has led people to their better selves. I have no doubt that the Christian heritage of Great Britain, Spain, and the Netherlands, for example, has led to the milestone advances in human rights for homosexuals that we have seen in recent years. The Golden Rule is a pretty good guidepost.
"Jefferson knew full well that we were headed for a catastrophe due to slavery. In his Notes on Virginia, in discussing slavery, he wrote, “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”"
So he knew that war was coming not because we acknowledged God but because we ignored Him.
"At its best, Christianity has led people to their better selves. I have no doubt that the Christian heritage of Great Britain, Spain, and the Netherlands, for example, has led to the milestone advances in human rights for homosexuals that we have seen in recent years. The Golden Rule is a pretty good guidepost."
Thanks, David. Could you tell Dana?
Homosexuals have equal rights and protections in all western countries. Mostly because of our Protestant heritage and it's effect on our founding documents, we believe if it is sinful, it's between them and God. Whether to present a sanitized version in public schools, though, is another matter.
Countries that have changed the definition of marriage to help homosexuals live a fantasy are not helping them.
Homosexuals have equal rights and protections in all western countries
Really??????
How so...?????????
anonymous said, "Countries that have changed the definition of marriage to help homosexuals live a fantasy are not helping them."
What Tony Blair had to say On Elton John's ceremony from today's Post:
Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking to reporters at a news conference in London, congratulated the couple: "I wish him and David well, and all the other people exercising their rights under the civil partnerships law. I think it is a modern, progressive step forward for the country and I am proud we did it." The crowds clustered outside the town hall seemed in agreement; there were no protests.
"Homosexuals have equal rights and protections in all western countries
Really??????
How so...?????????"
How not is the always unanswered question.
"anonymous said, "Countries that have changed the definition of marriage to help homosexuals live a fantasy are not helping them."
What Tony Blair had to say On Elton John's ceremony from today's Post:
Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking to reporters at a news conference in London, congratulated the couple: "I wish him and David well, and all the other people exercising their rights under the civil partnerships law. I think it is a modern, progressive step forward for the country and I am proud we did it." The crowds clustered outside the town hall seemed in agreement; there were no protests."
They're not calling it marriage.
One can call it anything...as long as privileges that go with it are there as they should be for all committed couples even for gays and lesbians.
anonymous said, "How not is the always unanswered question. "
Read on anon:
Paradise Lost
By Michelle Boorstein, Page W14
After years of hiding their love, Barbara Kenny and Tibby Middleton found a place where they felt comfortable being a couple -- until Virginia's lawmakers chased them across the Potomac
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301549.html
"Paradise Lost
By Michelle Boorstein, Page W14
After years of hiding their love, Barbara Kenny and Tibby Middleton found a place where they felt comfortable being a couple -- until Virginia's lawmakers chased them across the Potomac"
I saw this. How were they "chased across the Potomac"?
Gays are free to get married. They just can't marry other guys. Just like me- we're all treated equally.
Again really...?????????
Anonymous said...
"Jefferson knew full well that we were headed for a catastrophe due to slavery. In his Notes on Virginia, in discussing slavery, he wrote, “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”"
So he knew that war was coming not because we acknowledged God but because we ignored Him.
********************************
Jefferson trembled because he knew slavery was wrong. It had nothing to do with particular theology; indeed, Jefferson was basically a Deist. This is the same Thomas Jefferson who put together his own Bible, keeping the teachings of Jesus Christ as to how we should relate to each other as human beings, and omitting all the theology.
See http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/jeffintr.html
What you're obscuring, Dave, is that the Establishment clause had nothing to do with preventing war. It derived from Protestant principles of freedom of conscience. Ideas evolve like biological beings do. You can draw a line from Martin Luther to Thomas Jefferson.
Wars happen despite the restraint of Judeo-Christian religion and might increase if it disappeared.
The Golden Rule is not original to Protestants- it came from Judaism.
"The Golden Rule is not original to Protestants- it came from Judaism."
Didn't say that- did I, Andrea? I said that the principle of freedom of conscience derives from the Protestant reformation.
True, it was actually a restoration of original scriptural principles but until Luther, they were becoming lost.
Actually, there were many useful moral principles that were at grave risk of being lost in Europe during the Dark Ages, but were protected by monks scattered about and by Jewish and Muslim communities living elsewhere. But of course many on this blog would not know that, thinking their religion is the be all and end all of existence.
but to conclude this conversation, the Establishment clause was not for the purpose of preventing war but to protect freedom of conscience- right, Dana?
I'll let David respond with The Federalist Papers. He's more up on them than I am. But I have no doubt that the writers of the Bill of Rights very clearly had in their minds the religious wars of the 17th century and wanted to preclude a repeat. It was a common theme during the Enlightenment in Europe.
We have no idea what would happen without the "restraint" of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christians have never had any problem slaughtering each other as well as others. Jews were pretty good at it 3000 years ago as well. The non-monotheistic world seems to be capable of similar brutalities. So it doesn't seem as if monotheism prevents very much bloodshed, but it sure is used as an excuse for it often enough.
"I'll let David respond with The Federalist Papers."
We'll await your response, David.
"He's more up on them than I am."
Just in time for the holidays, the understatement of the year.
"But I have no doubt that the writers of the Bill of Rights very clearly had in their minds the religious wars of the 17th century and wanted to preclude a repeat."
When you have no doubt about something that denigrates others and you have no basis, that's bigotry.
Anon said, "When you have no doubt about something that denigrates others and you have no basis, that's bigotry."
And if the "basis" that gives you no doubt about denigrating others is your faith, that's still bigotry.
Dana Beyer, M.D. said...
I'll let David respond with The Federalist Papers. He's more up on them than I am. But I have no doubt that the writers of the Bill of Rights very clearly had in their minds the religious wars of the 17th century and wanted to preclude a repeat. It was a common theme during the Enlightenment in Europe
************************
Actually, The Federalist Papers probably would not shed light on First Amendment questions, because they were written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay in support of ratification of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) came a couple of year later.
With respect to Anonymous' assertion that the Establishment Clause exists solely because of a Protestant sense of freedom of conscience, I would simply note the following:
The earliest Protestant in New England – the Puritans – did not want separation of church and state; rather, they wanted a state that supported their church. That is why Roger Williams had to flee to what now is Rhode Island, where the concept of real religious toleration in North America emerged.
Maryland had an early toleration approach, sort of. Established, in part, as a haven for English Catholics, there was full toleration for Christians. Toleration for everyone else took a little longer.
Some of Jefferson’s pre-Constitution, pre-Bill of Rights observations on the state and religion in his 1784 Notes On Virginia, Query XVII, which may be found at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm
The Founders – particularly Jefferson and his circle – were exceptionally well-educated people, with a keen sense of history. American “exceptionalism” in the 18th Century had a huge amount to do with avoiding the mistakes that European Civilization had made. The intermingling of theology with governance was one of those biggest mistakes. Just review the history of Europe from, say, 1500 through the time of the American Revolution.
Which brings to mind a wonderful story, probably not apochryphal, about Gandhi. Asked by an English reporter was he thought of European Civilization, Gandhi replied , “It would be nice.”
Thank you, David.
It would be nice, wouldn't it?
Yes, thanks David. You didn't say anything to support the notion that the founding fathers wrote the establishment clause to prevent war. Yeah, they knew history so they must interpret just like David and Dana. That's all you can say to support your preposterous idea.
There's no statement from the even hinting anything about preventing war and lots about protecting individual conscience. You may remember they thought war was necessary to protect freedom. India, by the way, hasn't exactly been a haven of tranquility since Gandhi.
ID is a religious view; it is not science. Judge Jones own words say it best (excerpted from the Washington Post Christmas Day editorial which you'll find here):
"A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is "exquisitely important" in the scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to study, testing, and criticism. In fact, defense expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must "publish or perish..."
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed...
Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID...
We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
Christine
Post a Comment
<< Home