"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."
The only thing tortured is the decision of a federal judge who either cannot or will not tell the difference between motive and purpose. A judge denouncing the motives of only one side in such a lawsuit and calling them liars based on nothing more than his divination of same, is unseemly in numerous ways, not the least of which is that motive is irrelevant to establishment of a secular purpose. If motive were relevant to justice in this case, then the motives of both sides in the controversy would have been called into question, and they were not. Notice that the judge takes into account the 'motives' of the ID proponents. Does he take into consideration any atheistic motivations of school board opponents? No. Further, does he take into consideration the motive of religious evolutionists? There is no reason that an atheist should not be able to advance a legal purpose based on motives of atheism, and no reason a religious person should not be able to do likewise base on religion motivation. In order to reach his decision he had to implicitly define religion, and in doing so betrays his bias.
The judgment also entails an assumption of power to define science and evolution, something scientists and philosphers of science have so far been unable to agree upon. I wonder which brand of evolution the judge prefers? Is he a Lamarckian, a Darwinist, or a neo-Darwinist, or a believer in some non-Darwian, law-like evolution?
You will say that it doesn't matter, but I think once a government decides it has jurisdiction over some subject matter, and gets its foot in the door it tends to never to go away. IMO that we should have a healthy fear of the federal government by fiat deciding what science is, and is not, and what religion is and is not, particularly for localities. Grant of such a power was never contemplated by the writers of the U.S. Constitution, and in fact I think the Constituion expressly forbids them from it.
Cordially,
A judge denouncing the motives of only one side in such a lawsuit and calling them liars based on nothing more than his divination of same,
Actually, he called them liars because they changed their story on the stand, and because they got caught telling different stories to different audiences.
Funny. I thought he pretty well nailed it.
A judge denouncing the motives of only one side in such a lawsuit and calling them liars based on nothing more than his divination of same, is unseemly in numerous ways, not the least of which is that motive is irrelevant to establishment of a secular purpose.
Where are you getting this nonsense? They were flat-out caught. If you have to hide behind your drug habit, you're busted.
You can write all the paragraphs you want about what color the sky is on your planet. It isn't going to matter when the facts on this planet are against you.