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.
Do you think that your favored educational philosophy will always be the norm in the government schools?
We're not talking about "favored educational philosophy", we're talking about your bizarre complaint that your child will have to "forced to associate with other children who have been in Biology".
I don't know what you're so afraid of, that you so fear your child coming into contact with knowledge. I don't understand your paranoia.
I want my son to get the best education possible. He's going to need it in this world. I can't comprehend wanting to keep him out of science classes because those classes don't conform to a political ideology.
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.And if the parents are unhappy with the educational opportunities which the state makes available, they can exercise their rights as parents in the education and upbringing of their children to homeschool them or to put them in private school. Constitutionally, nothing more is required.
Government schools are a price-fixed monopoly, that creates a hostile business climate for the formation of private schools. Then government taxes parents to the point that both parents must work, and makes homeschooling impossible for many. It is NOT choice then when the government threatens parents with armed police, court, and foster care action if it does not use its government monopoly schools. Choice? Hardly! It is a monstrosity!Even so, it is not required constitutionally for the state to do anything more. If you wish to defund the public school system in your state and home town, run for office and see how many people vote for you. I'm sure people in other communities, who are competiting with yours for information-age jobs, will be very supportive of your efforts.
Evolution or ID has profound religious consequences for all the children in the school. If you can not see this then what can I say? Those who will thoughtfully examine this without prejudice with see that how the teaching of the origin of life is approached WILL have religious consequences.It will have consequences, as will any bit of secular knowledge that goes against someone's religious beliefs. So what? If they don't want to live in the real world, that is their problem. The government need not, and should not, fail to teach secular subjects because it'll hurt someone's religious sensibilities. If extracurricular religious training is insufficient to sooth these egg-shell fragile religious temperaments, then the parents have other options.
So...why are we allowing political bullies ( either ID or evolution) to FORCE children into an environment that WILL undermine cherished family values?We are requiring that children be given a well-rounded secular education. If someone has some freaky religious objection to that, that is their problem. Take the kid to Sunday school. If that's not enough, teach them at home or send them to a religious school.
This is NOT an issue that is open to the voting MOB to decide. If the government must not be in the business of establishing religious belief, it holds that government must NOT be in the business of FORCING children into an environment that will dis-establish or undermine their religion.This is where the error in this thinking comes from. It is a false equivocation. Just because teaching something to establish religion is illegal, it does not follow that teaching secular science that happens to threatens someone's religion is also illegal. In fact, it is quite clear that it is most definitely not.
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. On the one hand the government has trashed the parents right to direct the association of their children ( remember this is a First Amendment Right) but to rectify the problem the government would have to forbid the biology class children from discussing it ( a violation of free speech).This is just too silly for words. Afraid of "Biology cooties"??
Government schools are immoral, not only because of evolution or ID, but for HUNDREDS of curriculum and policy issues that establish or "disestablish" or undermine values that have RELIGIOUS, political, and cultural consequences.It may be immoral, but it's not illegal. (*And it's not really immoral, either. In fact, indoctrinating your kids into believing that Genesis is real is, in my mind, immoral, and should be actionable child-abuse.)
it does not follow that teaching secular science that happens to threatens someone's religion is also illegal
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
The Amish complained and won.
So...if teaching secular science threatened their religion why are other traditions that are far less freaky immune?
We're not talking about anybody's "educational philosophy." We're talking about your being offended by your child being exposed to scientific facts. Teaching children Biology is not indoctrinating them.
If you really can't see the difference between scientific fact and ideology, then I'm sorry.
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.