Yesterday, from AP:
The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.
“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID [Intelligent Design] Policy,” Jones wrote.
…
“We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom,” he wrote in his 139-page opinion.
The Dover policy required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement said Charles Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps.” It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” for more information.
…
Said the judge: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”
We should also note that the smart voters of Dover, removed all of the board members responsible for this idiocy from their jobs in last November’s election.
"We should also note that the smart voters of Dover, removed all of the board members responsible for this idiocy from their jobs in last November’s election."
It’s good to see that there are elections that can still be won the good old fashioned way…legally.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
A Quote from the Memorandum Opinion from Judge Jones.
Does this mean us Pastafarians can’t teach about the
Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the world
through the touch of her noodly appendages?
Yaaaa Darwin
#3 Being a Pastafarian is great! You can call me father Rigatoni! Praisa the pasta!
And the great Spaghetti monster swooped down into the darkness and filled it with sauce and meatballs and on the 7th day he added the pasta, and it was good.
"Chef Boyardi 10:33"
If I were intelligent I do not think I would design many things the way they are.
It reminds me of the time I was boating up the Alexander Archepelego with an assistant Professor at Berkeley (long, long ago).
We harbored and I bought some salmon from the local fishermen, and prepared it with heat, sauces, and the like. It was soooooo good.
Then I threw the bones and skin overboard. All of a sudden he yelled at me not to pollute.
I said, "David, we are the most evolved, we are the human, we are the apex of evolution, by definition David, we cannot pollute. We are the most adapted to our environment and therefore by definition what we do is best for the environment, the ecosystem, the reality."
Well, that proved that like Saturday Nite Live, or the Daily Show, I leave nothing out when exercising criticism or sarcasm.
That is because in my theory of humility, none of us nor our ideas are exempt from criticism nor the logic of the future or of the past.
The fact that he wrote a 139 page opinion on what should have been a very simple legal analysis tells me the judge is a pompous windbag. Very poor jurisprudence, if you ask me. Not an activist? Right.
Wow, Kevin — based on your comment (#7), I am guessing that you haven’t read the opinion, you weren’t present in the courtroom, and yet you are certain the decision must be "poor jurisprudence"…. and on top of that you imply that the judge himself is one of those dreaded "activist judges"! Where have you been hiding your mind-reading talents all these years?
I must admit I can’t take cedit for everthing.
Kevin Mark Smith’s idol is obviously Bill Frist.
Judge Jones made the right decision. But I don’t think the world will come to an end if a teacher in Dover, PA. were to say, "Some religions follow the biblical version of creation…" and then explain why we have a seven-day week, mention Adam and Eve, etc.
There’s a difference, I think, between a public school MENTIONING religion and ENDORSING it. If we say, "A teacher may not introduce any religious matter into the school curriculum," then the word Christmas becomes verboten, all prophets lose their historical standing, Moses can’t have existed, and if a kid asks, "Why is this year 2005?" the teacher has to answer, "It’s a religious matter, and I’m not allowed to discuss it with you."
The danger is that in close-knit communities where a particular religion is dominant, teachers will feel pressured to bring the school curriculum into line with the Sunday school’s. So Judge Jones made the safe and correct ruling.
"We should also note that the smart voters of Dover, removed all of the board members responsible for this idiocy from their jobs in last November’s election."
The margin in ech of those races was all too thin. If memory serves–100 to 200 votes.
The history of much of the world is intimately bound up with religion, as are art, music, architecture and literature, to name just a few. However, we are programmed in this society to see something as "religious" only if it concerns Christianity, even though a statue of Buddha or Zeus, for example, was just as religious an item to the person who made it as is a crucifix to us. We manage to discuss other people’s religions without feeling as though we are establishing a state religion, but many people, both religious and not, seem to think that we cannot do the same for Christianity (and perhaps Judaism and Islam).
I grew up an agnostic on the fringes of the Bible Belt. The biggest club by far at my high school was the Fellowship of Christian Students, and at least one person quit talking to me when he found out I wasn’t a Christian. Nonetheless, my senior year English class included reading the entire Bible as literature, and our church-going Christian teacher was quite able to keep the discussion on that basis. I took college classes in which we read parts of the Bible and the writings of Martin Luther completely without proselytizing. It’s possible.
It’s also educational. Try to understand medieval art or the art of the Renaissance without a passing acquaintance (or more) with the stories of Christianity. Can we look at Indian art and not mention Siva, Vishnu or Ganesh? The examples are endless. I am firmly convinced that the First Amendment was not intended to keep knowledge of all religions out of the public sphere. Rather it was intended to permit all people of whatever religious or nonreligious persuasion to feel welcome.
CambridgeKnitter (#13)… you are exactly right. history, art and literature are inextricably intertwined with religion the world over.
the question here, however, is whether the Bible should be taught in science class, as science.
i have no objection to teaching the Bible, but i do have a problem with passing it off as science in a science class, when it is not science, the study of the natural world, as diametrically opposed to the study of the Bible. Intelligent Design, as noted in the judge’s opinion, is thinly-veiled Bible instruction under a different name.
if the Bible is going to be taught in public schools and labeled as something other than what it is, or if Genesis is going to be weighed as equal to the scientific method, that is not acceptable.
we will deserve to lose our supremacy in technological advancement and scientific exploration if we continue to confuse science and religion. as our childrens’ science and math scores continue to drop, our economic growth as a nation will be stunted while other countries (China and India come to mind) take the lead and determine the course of the world’s development. we could become very much like Britain, remembering past glories but finding ourselves followers rather than leaders.
there is no shortage of religious instruction in this country. there is a shortage of real scientific instruction, which is an issue of national security.
otherwise, we might as well chuck it all and go back to the dark ages, when scientific inquiry that differed from religious doctrine was punishable by death.
i learned that in history class, of course.
by the way, the evidence that I.D. is thinly-veiled Bible instruction is based not only on the judge’s written opinion, but also from the remarks of Pat Robertson, who famously said that Dover had "just voted God out of their city".
note that he did not say Intelligent Design. If this were really about teaching another scientific theory, why would he have brought God into it at all? his statement gives the lie to the claim that this is NOT about teaching religion.
Too often we castigate judges for being, "activists." Let us consider a few things:
1. No judge ever asks that a certain case be brought into his court.
2. The judge is assigned a case based on the, "luck of the draw."
3. Any civil case is a matter of two parties who could not settle their differences and now go running into court and say, "Here, judge, you decide."
4. When the judge decides in one party’s favor, the losing side inevitibly accuses the judge of being "activist."
In Judge Jone’s case, he did his job. Someone accused him of puffery because he wrote 139 pages. Rather than puffery (and I have read every word) it looks to me like he left no stone unturned. He went to great lengths to make sure that there was no misunderstanding how he arrived at his decision. Pompous windbag, my foot. If he had only taken a page or two, someone would have been bitching about that, too. Judge Jones got the case dumped in his lap, he adjudicated it and now he’s accused of being a pompous, activist windbag for his trouble. The next time you have a dispute, keep it out of the courts and settle it yourself. Quit blaming the judiciary for your own failings!
One more point about Judge Jones: he is a Republican, and was appointed by none other than…G.W. Bush. Yeah, a real "activist judge".
The comments by Kevin Mark Smith are so typical of blowhard conservatives: I did not read the opinion (which by the way was brilliant, and actually specifically addressed potential accusations of "activism" by this staunch REPUBLICAN judge), but I am sure he must have been a "librul activist judge" cause he did not agree with me. Give me a break.
You lost. Get over it! (How’s that feel when its pointed at you, fool?)