Yawn.
You tell me I'm wrong on motivation being the central issue
No I don't. Try reading it again. Here it is with the parts you obviously didn't bother to actually read highlighted:
Second, the point wasn't the "motivations of the school board" as such. If they were, for example, religiously motivated to teach better science, that wouldn't have been an issue. The problem was that their motivation was TO INTRODUCE RELIGION into the classroom in a Trojan-Horse manner. In that respect, it most certainly *is* perfectly relevant and appropriate to examine their motivations.Are we clear now? Or are you going to dance around it some more and continue to misrepresent what I've actually written?
You were wong on the MANNER in which motivation is the issue. You were also wrong when you stated that the curricula itself wasn't also a "center" of the trial and lawsuit -- it most certainly was.
and then go on to tell why motivation is central to the issue. I must have missed the content once again.
Indeed you did miss it. Try reading my post again until you grasp it for a change. Or stop misrepresenting it in a disingenuous attempt to ridicule what I *actually* wrote (as opposed to your straw man version of it).
Then you claim that my statement is false concerning the Dover disclaimer.
Indeed.
Where's the "forced religion" in this statement Itchy?
The part where it's a Trojan-Horse attack on science in the service of a religion. The part where it twists the truth in the service of a religion. The part where it misrepresents science education in the service of a religion. The part where it is disingenuously crafted to make ID-creationism sound on par with evolutionary biology. The part where it pushes "Of Pandas and People", which lies about science in the service of a religion. The part where moneys were raised in churches with the express purpose of supporting religion via this change in the classroom. The part where the board members crafted it *as* support for their religion, *as* a way to advocate God to the students.
Try reading the actual trial transcripts if you want to come up to speed on this issue.
Nowhere, motivation is the central issue. Your claim to the contrary is silly.
You yet again misunderstand or are misrepresenting what I wrote. Cut it out. I said that *you* misunderstood the nature in which motivation is the issue. I said that motivation *is* the issue, just not in the way you have mispresented it. You have misrepresented the manner in which their motivation is at issue.
Deal with what I actually write, or go pester someone else with straw man attacks. I want to discuss the actual issues, not some twisted misrepresentation of them and of what I have actually written.
Couldn't be more clear.
When you write "Forcing religion into the public schools is a violation of the First Amendment (yes, even by original intent -- try reading some Madison and Jefferson on this topic)" you don't really mean that, you mean something else somehow hidden in the content.
When you reply to " The argument in the Dover lawsuit centers around the motivations of the school board, not the curricula." with " Wrong on two counts." you don't really mean wrong on two counts you mean something else.
And when I ask you to point out the "forced religion" in the disclaimer you reply with " The part where it's a Trojan-Horse attack on science in the service of a religion. The part where it twists the truth in the service of a religion. The part where it misrepresents science education in the service of a religion. The part where it is disingenuously crafted to make ID-creationism sound on par with evolutionary biology. The part where it pushes "Of Pandas and People", which lies about science in the service of a religion. The part where moneys were raised in churches with the express purpose of supporting religion via this change in the classroom. The part where the board members crafted it *as* support for their religion, *as* a way to advocate God to the students." which never addresses "forced religion" in the text. Your try to address that with a brief mention of "Of Pandas and People" but the text makes it clear that nobody is forcing anything at which point you go on to ascribe motivations which is what I claimed was the central issue in the first place.
The disclaimer may offend your sensibilities Ichy but there is no constitutional right not to be offended.
And thus my analogy to Lemaitre stands without you laying a glove on it.
But I do get a few chuckles when you go into the exasperated, condescending intellectual thing.