Posted on 09/27/2005 9:21:27 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
You can't read, you don't understand the establishment clause or that that particular clause is the only issue before the court.
As for ID, I'm not an ID'er, I'm a Catholic who believes that God created it all.
For future reference, what is the accurate calculation?
That's about the same odds of a shuffled deck of cards coming up in the order they do.
There is none, its impossible to calculate something like that.
Very good Narby, you have a good grasp of the issue before the court.
Members of the school board are on record saying precisely that their motivation *is* to insert religion into public schools. And the textbook they recommended was originally written in support of the explicitly religious "creationism" viewpoint, and the text was changed only to replace the word "creationism" with the words "Intelligent Design".
Now, you're falling down on the law. Motivation is not justiciable by federal courts, only actions are. The 1A prohibits the feds or states from "establishing religion". The Dover School Board has established no religion nor favored any religion over any other. And plain reading of the 1A would make the case farcical and it would be thrown out of court. Any conservative should question why this case is in federal court, it is a local issue to be decided by locals absent aby coecion that violates the Constitution.
The Discovery Institute, which is almost solely devoted to the ID issue has bailed out of this one. I'm sure they can see a defeat coming, and don't want to be tainted by it.
I don't attend mass at the DI, I attend mass at St James in Danielson, Ct.
You guys are going to lose this one. Badly.
Maybe, maybe not but if the court rules for the statists here, we all lose.
Impossible? Why?
Improbability is not equal to impossibility.
A dangerous thing to do. We should encourage more study of the scientific process, not less. We are falling behind many other parts of the world.
I'm still porting data in from the older database, but for all intents and purposes, yes.
Nice try but not everyone believes life "happened" in the manner you do. Thus, your comment is based on a rather shaky premise.
That said, continue . . .
PH, this is just a rant. Biology is science, while evolution is merely academic opinion based largely on philosophy. An attack on biology might be an attack on science in general, but an attack on a philosophy that is being inserted into a science class is not an attack on science. Biology continues regardless of what the origin of any species is, whether one be creationist, or evolutionist, biology remains the same.
As for ID, I'm not an ID'er, I'm a Catholic who believes that God created it all.
I can read, I do understand the establishment clause as it is currently applied, and I am aware that it is the only issue before this court. Oh, and I never specifically accused you of being an ID'er.
ID is an attempt to insert religious beliefs into science classrooms. The policy being challenged requires a mandatory statement to be presented in a mandatory class to students who are required by law to attend school. Now, to repeat myself in the context of all this: ID proponents are lying by claiming that ID is not based on religion. They are doing so to deliberately try to circumvent the religious rights of the students to not have religion imposed upon them. I cannot fathom someone thinking that such deception is virtuous, and I certainly cannot approve of someone wishing to reward their lies by granting them their desire to force their beliefs on others without the recipients having a choice in the matter.
You say you are not an ID'er, and I believe you. But do you stand in support of those who practice deception in the name of God?
14'th Amendment. "Should" is another question, but that's why.
...absent aby coecion...
Looks like someone picked the wrong week to switch to decaf ;)
The implication made is that the chances that it happened are small. This has no bearing on whether it actually did or didn't happen, as either way it has already occurred. So my claim that it is useless to use statistics to predict the past stands. In other words, how likely it is that something happened is not proof that it didn't happen.
Thanks for the ping!
I agree, retroactively. See my awesome post on another thread:
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.