There is nothing conservative about federal courts meedling in the affairs of local school boards. So you're not a conservative, you're not a libertarian and I guess you said you're phiosophy is not libertine.
No matter, whatever you're ideology is it includes using federal courts as a hammer to bludgeon your ideoligcal opponents based on your interpretation of their motivations.
Quite similar to the ACLU actually.
It seems a little like a tough sell to claim I am using the courts to "spread my gospel", because I continue to insist that it is proper only to teach science in science classes.
There is nothing conservative about federal courts meedling in the affairs of local school boards. So you're not a conservative, you're not a libertarian and I guess you said you're phiosophy is not libertine.
If I am green slime from jupiter, it still doesn't affect the question of whether or not I have an argument, although it does make for a keen distraction.
No matter, whatever you're ideology is it includes using federal courts as a hammer to bludgeon your ideoligcal opponents based on your interpretation of their motivations.
Good grief. The Dover schoolboard lied about ID as a viable science to students, lied about their reason for lying, and lied about being aided and abetted by their local church in doing so.
I'd say this is a palpable demonstration of why we have a high wall of separation. You couldn't trust religious zealouts with even the most minor of public offices unchecked by that wall in 1400, and things haven't changed much. Motivation matters very much, because it is pretty easy to cover up religious predation on the public domain with miles of verbiage and mis-direction--like in the Dover case, for example, if the court is willing to play 3-monkeys, and ignore painfully obvious predations on the constitution, because of some quixotic reluctance to acknowledge motivation.
If the catholics take over the state of massachusatts, and require all residents to pay 10 percent of their income to the local "civic improvement society", which happens to have nuns and priests for officers, crosses and confessionals for lobby decorations, and symposiums that seem suspiciously like sermons, is the supreme court supposed to continue to insist that motivation means nothing?
Quite similar to the ACLU actually.
As opposed to the outstandingly fair, open, and judicious track record of religious bodies like the inquisition, or the church that provided the "Panda" book in the Dover case, for example.