Posted on 02/27/2006 3:56:55 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The Inquirer: Some have said your ruling wasn't about church and state but about whether intelligent design is science.
Jones: I think that the ruling followed precedent, both the Lemon test [a three-part test, based on Supreme Court rulings, of whether a government action violates the separation of church and state] and the establishment test [from the First Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids Congress from making any law "establishing religion"], and I'm reluctant to characterize what that "means." The controversial part of the ruling was whether intelligent design is in fact science. Lost in the post-decision debate was that both sides, plaintiffs and defense, asked me to rule on that issue. Clearly, that was resolved based on the scientific evidence presented at the trial. That portion of the opinion seems to have been scrutinized, and praised or criticized, more than the part of the decision grounded in the two tests.
Inquirer: There are a lot of people who are distressed by the ruling, who feel that it seems to be a ruling about the legitimacy of belief.
Jones: A case like this involves an issue that is highly charged and very emotional... . I understand that there is a debate in the United States about where you draw the line, about where the establishment clause comes into play to prohibit certain activities by government, in this case the school board. And there is a subjective element to that line-drawing. All I can say to the critics is that I assiduously tried to find the facts and apply the legal precedents to the facts as I found them... . And indeed, I didn't know until December 2004 what intelligent design was.
Inquirer: Where did you first learn of it?
Jones: I was driving home from Harrisburg one day in December 2004, and I heard on a radio show that a group of parents had filed suit in this particular case, and that it was in the middle district of Pennsylvania, and of course I wondered, because we have random assignments: Did I get the case? My curiosity thus piqued, I looked at my computer the next morning when I got to my chambers, and I saw the initials "J.E.J." after Kitzmiller v. Dover, knew that it was assigned to me, read the complaint, and that really - if I'd read about intelligent design before, I don't recall, and I certainly didn't understand what the term meant... . People have asked me, "Did you sort of make yourself an expert? Did you read up on things?" and the answer is no, I didn't... . I tell my jurors, "Don't read things outside the courtroom. Don't make yourself an expert. You get everything you need to decide the case inside the courtroom." We had marvelous presentations in this case, and I got everything I needed during the trial, and before and after the trial, in terms of the submissions, so I certainly have developed a good working knowledge of the issue.
Inquirer:Reading through the opinion, it was hard to evade the impression that you were surprised at the weakness of one side of the case. You used very strong language to characterize the case as a whole and the presentation.
Jones: I'll answer that question indirectly... . The opinion speaks for itself. There was something I said in the opinion that was grossly misunderstood... . I said that on the issue of whether intelligent design was science, that there wasn't a judge in the United States in a better position to decide that than I was. [Commentator Phyllis] Schlafly interpreted that as my saying that I am so brilliant and erudite that I could decide that better than anyone else could. What I meant was that no one else had sat through an intensive six weeks of largely scientific testimony, and in addition to the task at hand, which was to decide the case, I wanted the opinion to stand as a primer for people across the country... . I wanted it to stand as a primer so that folks on both sides of the issue could read it, understand the way the debate is framed, see the testimony in support and against the various positions... and what is heartening to me is that it's now evident that it's being used in that way... . We did some of the lifting in that trial. To my mind... it would be a dreadful waste of judicial resources, legal resources, taxpayer money... to replicate this trial someplace else. That's not to say it won't be, but I suspect it may not be... . And I purposefully allowed the trial to extend and a record to be made... the defendants could never say that they weren't given the opportunity to present their case. I didn't cut off anybody's testimony, I didn't cut off anybody's presentation, and I allowed the testimony to be put forth in the ways the parties wanted it to be presented.
Inquirer:So you were aware that this trial was a trail-blazer, a foundation-setter?
Jones: History... is written well after the fact, and I don't know how history is going to treat this... decision. Is it Scopes II? Is it something that people will ruminate about years from now? We can't know that. I certainly knew... from the moment I took the bench from the first day of the trial that there was a great spotlight on it.
[This introduction was at the start of the article:]
On Feb. 14, Judge John E. Jones 3d addressed a crowd at the Lutheran Theological Seminary, as part of the first lecture series at the new Mt. Airy School of Religion. Jones presided over the Dover, Pa., "intelligent design" trial, eventually ruling that the Dover school board could not order teachers to read a statement referring to intelligent design in classes discussing evolution. During his address, Jones, a Lutheran, said he diverged from those who insisted that either the Bible or the U.S. Constitution should be read literally. He spoke of the excitement and pride with which he conducted the trial: "Most federal judges will tell you they assume their positions to decide important cases." Before his talk, Jones spoke with The Inquirer about when he first heard of intelligent design, and what it was like to be a part of judicial history.
I've walked the walk (homeschooled kids). Have you?
There is nothing the slightest bit leftist about wanting to have other peoples' kids share my American values.
In an earlier thread I mentioned to you that I was still looking for a voucher type system that would work in practice. You never responded.
You may think it's somehow left-wing to be concerned about Islamist isolates, but I think you show signs of being a one-trick-pony seminar poster since your solution to everything is to eliminate "government" (read publically funded) schools. And then to name-call or ignore anyone who questions your solution.
And I will continue to evaluate the situation as new evidence comes to light. I'm a scientist, after all.
Well I glad to hear you say that because the people of Dover Pennsylvania got screwed by crooked politicians and they successfully sued. What's your beef?
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)"
Ayn Rand
I have explained my objections fully.
When I mentioned the prohibition against teaching about communism in CA in the 60's on another thread, someone posted to me with chapter and verse that it is still against the law in CA. I am not responsible for teaching you what you do not know. If you need to verify what I say, look it up, as you are the one who is lacking knowledge in this area.
You did not say "teaching," you said "mention."
Your statement. You back it up.
It is child abuse to force immature children into an environment were their most deeply held traditions ( with religious consequences) will be undermined by the teachers and the other students.
Don't ever let your kids leave your house, watch TV, listen to radio, or use the Internet. If you do, they will be almost certainly be exposed to an 'environment where their most deeply held traditions (may) be undermined'.
I am a practical person, not an ideologue. Elimination of public schools is not a realistic or practical option. And eliminating from public schools ALL that ANY parent does not want their child exposed to is impossible. I am open to a voucher system if a workable one could be devised.
In any event, it is the parents' responsibility to offset anything that is taught in public schools that they disagree with, along with any thing on TV, in popular music, in movies, on the Internet, etc.
And BTW, I agree with your characterization of many public schools as 'indoctrination centers' where political philosophy is concerned. Breaking the teachers union, which I am for, might help mitigate this problem.
I don't know what "fully" means to Clairsolt...but it does not seem to include completeness or clarity.
If this has something to do with why God is or isn't outside the scope of science, you certainly haven't made it clear how.
As for ID, it's bad theology dressed up to appear like science.
In the USSR, they had a constitution, but they ignored it. Here, the Dover board ignored the US Constitution and tried to illegally teach religion as science. Back in the USSR, indeed.
Just so you know who you're stealing it from
Then I thank you. Nice work.
It is child abuse to force immature children into an environment were their most deeply held traditions ( with religious consequences) will be undermined by the teachers and the other students.
If your religious convictions can be undermined by the merest mention of scientific facts, or by the presence of people who don't share them, then they aren't worth very much, are they?
My faith is somewhat stronger than that. My son's will be, too. We don't need to fear information.
If your religious convictions can be undermined by the merest mention of scientific facts, or by the presence of people who don't share them, then they aren't worth very much, are they?
My faith is somewhat stronger than that. My son's will be, too. We don't need to fear information.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Personally, "highball", I support evolution.
However,,,,unlike you,,,,I am not advocating the threat of armed police, court, and foster care action to FORCE it on other people's children.,,,,Nor,,,am I willing to use the threat of sheriff's auction of another citizen's home or business to fund it.
By the way,,,,there are real bullets in those guns on the hip.
My homeschooled kids were in college by the ages of 13, 12, and 13. This is hardly sheltered.
However....unlike YOU,,,I am not about to use the threat of armed police, court, and foster care action to FORCE my educational philosophy on other people's children.
That is what government schools are! The biggest political bully gets to control the government school agenda AND have at their disposal armed Polk, courts, and foster care workers to FORCE it on resistant parents and children.
I am a practical person, not an ideologue.
What I believe you are is a liberal who is posing as a fake conservative. I just love it when liberals say, "I voted for Bush,,,BUT,,," or in your case "I homeschooled,,,BUT,, can't see any way to implement choice in schooling".
Elimination of public schools is not a realistic or practical option. And eliminating from public schools ALL that ANY parent does not want their child exposed to is impossible. I am open to a voucher system if a workable one could be devised.
To All: Does the above sound like a liberal in conservative disguise?
In any event, it is the parents' responsibility to offset anything that is taught in public schools that they disagree with, along with any thing on TV, in popular music, in movies, on the Internet, etc.
A true conservative would NEVER state that is OK for the government to undermine a child's culture and religious beliefs so long as the parents undo the damage at home.
And BTW, I agree with your characterization of many public schools as 'indoctrination centers' where political philosophy is concerned. Breaking the teachers union, which I am for, might help mitigate this problem.
Yeah right! ( sarcasm)
When I was a girl, there was a common expression that went, "don't make a federal case out of it." In my mind, there are more important values which have been violated. Anyway, not every breach of law (this I think was a constitutional interpretation) is redressed in court. It is a matter of judgement, and those who have kept pestering me about this are, I think, some kind of irrational zealots who brush aside the larger considerations in favor of forcing their ideas on everyone else. I guess there has been a passionate fight about evolution in the classroom for almost 100 years, so maybe it is somewhat understandable. But this is just one more nail in the coffin of public education, something I liked pretty well. I doubt that there will be any public schools by 2100. Will you celebrate?
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.