You've not seen me defend anyonw who has lied; quite the opposite in this case.
The desires of some of the school board certainly factored into what some of them wanted the statement drafted; there is no denying that and I wouldn't even try to do so.
While some of them might want to teach creation, that is not what the sachool board statement stated. one should not lose sight of how the statement actually reads.
The plaintiff's own witnesses claimed that one can set aside their religious beliefs regarding evolution v. ID. They really had no choice but to admit that point since their own witnesses admitted their biases against Christianity and in favor of secular humanism.
Not only that, but they also claimed that some evolutionists are also Christians. If that is the case, one cannot summarily argue that ID is merely creation in disguise.
Are BOTH sides playing word games regarding their religious biases? Of course they are; and one cannot easily claim that the pro-evolutionists aren't doing the same thing as the pro-ID side.
"Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Thomas joins, As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening thelittle children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: our decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. ----, ---- (1992) (slip op., at 7), conspicuously avoided using the supposed "test" but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so. See, e. g., Weisman, supra, at ---- (slip op., at 14) (Scalia, J., joined by, inter alios, Thomas, J., dissenting); Allegheny County v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 655-657 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 346-349 (1987) (O'Connor, J., concurring); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 107-113 (1985) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); id., at 90-91 (White, J., dissenting); School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 400 (1985) (White, J., dissenting); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 282 (1981) (White, J., dissenting); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125, 134-135 (1977) (White, J., dissenting); Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 768 (1976) (White, J., concurring in judgment); Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 820 (1973) (White, J., dissenting)."
The desires of some of the school board certainly factored into what some of them wanted the statement drafted; there is no denying that and I wouldn't even try to do so.
While some of them might want to teach creation, that is not what the sachool board statement stated. one should not lose sight of how the statement actually reads.
What the statement actually says is only part of the issue. We don't expect crooks to always broadcast their illegal actions - we expect a certain amount of deception from them. Same with the liars in this case - their intent is what's important under Lemon (which is still the law of the land).
If their intent was not important, why did they feel it was necessary to hide that intent? Why all the lies? Answer: they knew what they were doing was un-Constitutional, and hiding their intent was the only plausible deniability they could cling to.
Not only that, but they also claimed that some evolutionists are also Christians. If that is the case, one cannot summarily argue that ID is merely creation in disguise.
Nonsense. The evolutionists just don't believe in trying to sneak their faith into schools by pretending that it's science. That doesn't make them any less Christian.
Are BOTH sides playing word games regarding their religious biases? Of course they are; and one cannot easily claim that the pro-evolutionists aren't doing the same thing as the pro-ID side.
Fine, then. If you're making that claim, back it up by showing us where the pro-science side has lied in this case. We've seen where the creationists lie (and lie, and lie, and lie - to the press, to the public and finally under oath). I'd love to see your proof that both sides are being dishonest.