Replies

Jones, in his decision, wrote that the concept of intelligent design ''cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,'' according to a Knight Ridder News Service report published Wednesday in The Miami Herald. [PH here: For a more reliable source than the Herald, here's the judge's opinion (big pdf file).]

Jones also wrote the following:

""Second, by directing students to their families to learn about the “Origins of Life,” the paragraph performs the exact same function as did the Freiler disclaimer: It “reminds school children that they can rightly maintain beliefs taught by their parents on the subject of the origin of life,”(what he is saying here is that the state declaring that students have a right to maintain beliefs taught by their parents is unconstitutional) thereby stifling the critical thinking that the class’s study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt, to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat."

Now it's bad enough that Judge Jones has found the free exercise clause unconstitutional because it stifles critical thinking but the support it gets from so called conservatives is, well, sickening.

He then goes on to say later in the opinion: "Plaintiffs believe that ID is an inherently religious concept and that its inclusion in the District’s science curriculum interferes with their rights to teach their children about religion."

And he held for those plaintiffs.

One can only conclude from this that the Plaintiffs have parental rights that do not stifle critical thinking while those siding with the board do not.

The guy is a loon and and those describing themselves as conservatives who are pushing this opinion as one wondrous to behold really should find a new ideology to align themselves with.

And that group includes you.

Now it's bad enough that Judge Jones has found the free exercise clause unconstitutional because it stifles critical thinking...

Jones is merely quoting from, and basing his opinion on Freiler in the section you cite. Insofar as Freiler was denied cert a mere four years ago, I do not think that Jones is overly presumptuous in considering Freiler to be reflective of the status quo. That being said, Judge Jones is not empowered to overturn the Fifth Circuit, nor is he empowered to visit (or revisit) cases in lieu of SCOTUS.

Your ire is a bit misplaced, my friend - Jones followed the law as it exists for the moment. He did nothing wrong in looking to Freiler to guide his decision - to do otherwise would have made him precisely the sort of lone-wolf activist we rightly decry. We may, of course, object to Freiler in and of itself, but it is not a decision Jones is empowered to make.