Posted on 01/08/2009 7:57:56 PM PST by Coyoteman
He didn't interject his own religious beliefs. He determined, based on the evidence, that ID was religion and that it was being dishonestly pushed into the science classrooms in violation of law.
The guy scandalized everybody in government who ever has to make decisions that skirt around questions of religion, and most particularly the validity or invalidity of any particular religious belief.
He didn't decide "the validity or invalidity of any particular religious belief." He determined that ID was inappropriate for a science class--not being science.
The whole issue here is that the Dover school board tried to force their narrow fundamentalist view of religion into the science classes and they got caught.
Hm?...Very interesting idea!
Conservatives have no desire to crush the freedom of conscience of another citizen. The last thing a conservative would want to do is be King of the Hill standing on the freedom of conscience of his neighbor.
Stating an axiom is not whining. It is stating a fact:
Axiom: It is impossible to have a religiously, culturally, and politically neutral education.
Corollary I: **ALL** government schools **establish** the religion, cultural, and political worldview of the most politically powerful. ( As a graduate of Cornell Law school you should recognize that there is a **fundamental** problem with the First Amendment there. )
Basically, you don't like the fact that the people in your county or state have made the legitimate decision, through the democratic process, to fund public schools.
Our Founding Fathers warned us about the democratic voting mob and advocated that we maintain as limited government as possible to contain the power of the mob.
You are a graduate of Cornell Law school. You should **know** that!
Yep! Our county police wear brown shirts. If the communists ever do gain control of our nation, I am not entirely certain they would line up with those of us who would defend the Constitution.
Yes he did. He nakedly purports to falsify a religious presupposition:
"...many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general..."
The judge's gratuitous assertion is based entirely on his own theological presuppositions, which are clearly antithetical to the theological doctrines of many Biblically oriented creationists whose doctrine it is that evolutionary theory is completely at odds with a belief in the existence of a supreme being.
It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the presuposition; the question is, where in the hell does a judge get authority to falsify a religious presupposition in the first place?
Cordially,
This morning I bought a 64 ounce diet Mountain Dew ( Love the stuff) at our local carry out. I use a refill cup that I bought from a gas station 3 states away. Isn't it amazing? I can take a lid from my carry-out and it fits my refill cup. The new straw is the perfect length too. Amazing! I all fits? The hand of the free market seamlessly regulates even the size and shape of lids for soda cups!
We would see the same thing in education. Parents are **not** stupid!!! They will demand that their child's school prepares them for life in the U.S. And...Their private school will accommodate them.
Now...Please remember that Islam is like a filafel. It's inside meat is political, social, and economic oppression. It's outer wrapping is a thin layer of religion.
If Islam is a problem here in the U.S. the solution is in controlling immigration!!!
We **KNOW** for a FACT that government schooling has done NOTHING to socialize the Muslims in Europe. I would be foolish indeed to think it would work here as well. Government schooling is like using a water pistol to fight a raging forest fire.
If government schooling isn't working with the Muslim population in Europe, why, on earth would you think it would work here????
Citzen Blade, do I have you confused with someone else. I think I remember you saying you were a Cornell Law School graduate.
Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Of course not. And since secular public schools do no such thing, what's the issue?
Stating an axiom is not whining. It is stating a fact:
I don't think that word means what you think it means. It doesn't mean "wintertime's opinion" it means "a self-evident truth that requires no proof."
Axiom wintertime's unsubstantiated opinion: It is impossible to have a religiously, culturally, and politically neutral education.
There, fixed it for you.
**ALL** government schools **establish** the religion, cultural, and political worldview of the most politically powerful
Again, just your opinion, with no real evidence to back it up.
( As a graduate of Cornell Law school you should recognize that there is a **fundamental** problem with the First Amendment there. )
I see no Constitutional violation in the existence of secular public schools.
Our Founding Fathers warned us about the democratic voting mob and advocated that we maintain as limited government as possible to contain the power of the mob.
Of course. But, most state Constitutions, as enacted by the people of those states, grant those states the power to establish public schools. Which is the point of Federalism- individual states can govern themselves as they see fit, so long as they do not violate the COTUS.
Yep! Our county police wear brown shirts.
So what? Your insinuation here is sickening and shows a distrubing lack of understanding of history.
I see what you're trying to say. You are correct that the decision is not controlling authority- it could be overturned by the appeals court of that circuit and other circuits may come to different conclusions. But, barring a contrary decision either by the appelate court in that circuit or in another circuit, other courts will look at this case as persuasive authority when determining similar cases.
Citizen Blade, There are 3 ways to approach this and each one has PROFOUND religious consequence for the children. It seems you are having trouble getting a grip on that.
1) Evolution would be taught from a godless worldview perspective.
<2) The evolution in #1 would be taught within a God-center worldview reference. God's hand would be acknowledges when appropriate. I favored this worldview for my children along with a small reference to the areas in evolution which the theory does not well explain the events.
3) There are **small** groups of parents who would teach creationism. I don't agree with them, but, it's their right to do that. If the child really wants a career in science, their deficiency can be quick, inexpensively, and easily made up in the local community college.
Each one of these approaches has profoundly NON-nuertral religious consequences, and the content of the courses would vary between all three.
Do you object to the teaching of the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of infection?
I conclude that you are asking me this question to be belittling and snide.
But...Let's examine a group that does not teach the physics of gravity or the science of germ theory.
The Amish don't teach the physics of gravity or the science of germ theory, but they and their kids are thriving. Only about 50% of their children join the religion.
Amish children who do NOT join the religion do very well in the community. They own businesses and work in the professions and trades. Welfare, crime, and illegitimacy is nearly unknown. They do great in the community colleges and have NO problem whatsoever "socializing" or acculturation". Imaging that ! Not having been taught evolution and having an 8th grade education doesn't seem to hinder these kids at all.
No, I'm just not accepting the false dichotomies you enjoy creating. I don't accept your conclusion that teaching a scientific theory without reference to a divine being is "godlessness" any more than it is "godless" to teach kids the Periodic Table without reference to a divine being.
Do you object to the teaching of the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of infection?
I conclude that you are asking me this question to be belittling and snide.
I conclude that you are going to dodge the question.
The Amish don't teach the physics of gravity or the science of germ theory, but they and their kids are thriving.
And I was right- you did dodge the question, as usual.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Of course they do! No school can be religiously neutral.
So what? Your insinuation here is sickening and shows a distrubing lack of understanding of history.
We should all be on "Yellow Alert".
I watched army tanks burn down a farm with kids in it. I saw state and local police tear 400 screaming children away from their parents, and I saw a loaded machine gun aimed at Elian Gonzales by INS swat troops who defied an order of one of the highest ranking U.S. judges.
We now have a president who wants a civilian force that is equal to the military. OOOOkay! Really?....Well, I am not exactly certain that our local police force ( who happened to wear brown shirts) will line up on the side of the Constituting.
By the way, the INS people had a big party afterward to celebrate the kidnapping of Elian. ( Real nice guys, those folks! ) >
Well...If you did admit it, you would need to give up the idea of government k-12 schools.
So...now each side is down to a** YES IT IS !*** NO IT”S NOT!*** shouting match.
This is what I predict:
The privatization of government schooling is unstoppable!
1) There are voucher, tax credit, and charter schools throughout the nation. These programs are being expanded every year.
2) The waiting lists for vouchers, tax credits, and charters are **HUGELY** long!! The parents of these kids are well organized politically and marches on state capitols is fairly common. Politicians **are** responding to their cries.
3) Homeschooling continues its very steady and continuous growth. At the moment there are still no signs of it slowing down. Parents see the **outstanding** social and academic results and rightly decide that institutionalization is not the most ideal way to rear a child. My kids with their math degrees at 18 are **common**!
4) There are millions of totally pi**ed property tax payers who are screaming, “ENOUGH!” They aren't stupid. They know that half of their tax paid to the state and county goes to government schools.
5) People do not like the NEA.
6) Legislators and governors see the teacher union pensions and health benefits working its way down the budget like a boa constrictor digesting a rat. These guys already **know** that they save LOTS of money with vouchers, tax credits, and charters.
All of the above **vote** and politicians **know** that.
Once voucher, charter, and tax credit schools become widely available, I suspect that the politicians will gradually expect the more wealthy parents to pay “fees”.
The politicians will then expect the better off to pay part of the tuition, and then all of it. (They will have some euphemism for this so that it conform to their state constitutions.)
Gradually, the only group of people getting education “stamps” ( AKA education “food” stamps) will be the poor.
That's that trajectory, as I see it. I am 62. I fully expect to live to see it.
I believe you are well aware that I hold a doctorate in one of the **most** competitive health professions. My husband had a Ph.D. in biochemistry, has 6 patents for his inventions, lectured worldwide, and has had many paper published in the leading journals of his field.
I believe you know that my kids entered college at the ages of 13, 12, and 13. All three finished Calculus III and all general college requirements by age 15. Two were awarded B.S. degrees in mathematics at 18. One earned a masters in math at 20. The youngest having completed a B.S. degree in math is pursing a chemical engineering degree.
Well...I is **possible** that you missed all that. And, it is **possible** that your question is not for snide or belittling reasons...so...I will answer this.
No, I do not object to the teaching of gravity or germ theory.
.........BUT........
Unlike government school defenders I **object** to using the threat of armed police action to force it on my sweet neighbors or make them pay for it!!! ( REAL bullets in those guns on the hip!)
And the 'science books' were written by creationists.
believe you know that my kids entered college at the ages of 13, 12, and 13.
Of course I know these things. You never tire of posting these details over and over and over again
Unlike government school defenders I **object** to using the threat of armed police action to force it on my sweet neighbors or make them pay for it
Is this your costumed identity?
If you know these things why would you ever ask me about gravity or germ theory? Of course I taught my children these things.
As for armed police and schools:
Unless a parent can afford an alternative their children must attend the government facility. If they don't truant officers are sent out. Sometime is the armed police that come first.
If a tax payer objects to the religious worldview of the government schools ( which is currently godless) and refuses to support them, there will soon be courts orders issued against them. Eventually, **armed** sheriffs will supervise the auction of that person's home and/or business.
What would happen if a person would be so foolish as to resist this armed power? Well,...The armed police would attempt to overpower and arrest him. He would be imprisoned for two reasons: One is resiting arrest, the other for the refusing to send their child to school or refusing to attend.
If a person were to be sooooooo foolish as to seriously resist the police, he seriously risks being killed by the police.
Please remember that behind every government law stands and armed policeman ready and willing to enforce it. That's what **all** laws are! Laws are the threat of armed police to make that law happen.
This is why it is a conservative principle to have as limited a government as possible. The less opportunity for there is for armed police to have power over our lives, the better it is for freedom.
So....Just exactly where is the hyperbole in anything I wrote above?
I believe a “Captain Obvious” photo would be appropriate here.
There IS NO case to overturn. If there is no circuit court decision, there is no precedent. It's really that simple. The only parties baffected by this case are the parties involved in its litigation, and even then, there is a real question as to whether a future school board is bound by it since the case was never appealed.
But, barring a contrary decision either by the appelate court in that circuit or in another circuit, other courts will look at this case as persuasive authority when determining similar cases.
Not true. Other courts could simply say that judge's reasoning is B.S. and ignore it completely.
And where will their fairy tales be any different from your fairy tales?
You can keep your “fairies,” thanks. I don’t subscribe to moral relativism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.