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 had a hunch I was wasting my time responding to you. I should have paid attention to it.
I hope so.
something I liked pretty well.
Oh no! Not another government school defender.
I doubt that there will be any public schools by 2100. Will you celebrate
I hope it comes sooner than that so I can be alive to celebrate.
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.
Kindly point out where I "advocated" any of that.
Silly hyperbole doesn't exactly give your case credibility.
And, in any case, you have it backwards. It was the corrupt school board members who lied, conspired and abused their positions to push their agenda on an unwilling public (who then resoundingly rejected it). So spare me your lofty gunbelt rhetoric - you waste it in the service of a bankrupt ideology when you try to defend ID.
But, when you became an adult and saw an opportunity to "make a federal case out of it" for your own personal gain at the expense of the taxpayers, you jumped all over it. Enough of your two faced hypocrisy!
Wrong! You are making accusations that are wrong and you know nothing about!
I imagine that you are from the crowd that considers itself possessed of nuance. Yet, your ad hominem attacks on me are about as nuanced as a club wielding Neanderthal. Not only that, they have nothing to do with the subject we have been discussing. So, they add nothing to the debate. However, I will say that my motive for suing the city of Omaha was similar to why I have not ignored your inconsequential rudeness. One needs to push back against mean bullies. So, also, did I go to court to divorce. The charge of hypocrisy is so liberally and carelessly made these days that it seems commonplace. Maybe the real hypocrits are the ones who make these accusations without any committment to virtue themselves.
Same to ya hypocrite! You know absolutely nothing about the Dover case but, yet here you are with a nonstop barrage of your ignorant, biased, and quite hypocritical accusations and assumptions.
Biology is an elective. No one is forced to take it. ID is a bizarre charlatan religious dogma. It's illegal and immoral to force bizarre charlatan religious dogma on students who expect legitimate science when they chose to take a class in biology at a public school.
Further, neither "worldview" nor "ethics" is the same thing as "religion." And absolutely nothing requires schools to be neutral on anything but religion.
If a secular subject "offends" someone's religious sensibilities, they are free to take their children out of school and home school them or put them in religious schools if they like..
This is false. There is no excuse for not learning what science says and the facts and methodology that support these results. No excuse.
I don't care if you're a Christian Scientist. You still have to learn the germ theory of disease and the reasons to wash your hands before preparing food. Do you want to live with the consequences of having a person who doesn't subscribe to the germ theory of disease, and who feels free to ignore it, running a restaurant? Or a hospital cleaning crew?
I don't care if you're a Jehovah's Witness. You are still required to learn blood typing, the universal donors and receptors, etc. Even if your religious views prohibit you from taking advantage of them.
I don't care if you're a Mormon. You are still required to learn about the native Indians, and the fact that their known history and also their myths and legends contradict Mormon ideology is of no concern to me.
... as it is to FORCE ID on other resistant children.
Forcing ID on children as though it were science is at the very least fraud, and at worst (nonsexual) child abuse. Using it as a case study in pseudo science, or as part of the history of science, or as a case of speculative philosophy is not problematic.
The bottom line here is that we have a basic disagreement.
You seem to think that religious views have some sort of veto power over everything else. I, OTOH, don't.
You don't like the "religious implications" of some scientific facts or theories? Fine. Talk with your rabbi/minister/imam/priest/shaman/whatever, about it.
That does not excuse you from the requirement to learn the orders of mammals, the sequence of geologic ages, the genetic evidence for the primate family tree, or any other fact or theory of elementary science.
"Human right violation?" Science? Are you sure you're on the right board?
Please remember that the voting mob does NOT have the right to crush freedom of conscience.
It's not "freedom of conscience" you're talking about. It's "freedom from reality."
If you think your religious faith is threatened by information, that's your right. But to try and limit the information given to all children because you're threatened by some of it is hardly conservative.
I have posted a link to an excellent essay outlining the Supreme Court rulings that emphatically state that it is PARENTS who are to direct a child's education and upbring.
That doesn't mean some parents get to re-define words for their own political purposes, does it?
Let's be clear- that's what this case was really about. Lies and deceit in pursuit of a political agenda. Either you support such tactics, or you do not. Either you think the school board was right to do what they did, or you do not.
So which is it?
Oh, the horror!
"Even if parents do not enroll a child in formal Biology courses in high school, the child is forced to associate with other children who have been in Biology."
Oh, the horror!
Bizarre, isn't it?
I've never understood why some people are so threatened by education. It's very sad for their kids.
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.