Posted on 05/24/2006 5:11:14 AM PDT by Nextrush
...........A federal judge who outlawed the teaching of "intelligent design" in Dover science classes told graduates at Dickinson College that the nation's founders saw religion as the result of personal inquiry, not church doctrine.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones gave the commencement address Sunday to 500 graduates at Dickinson College, his alma mater...............
"The founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry," said Jones, who was thrust into the national spotlight by last years court fight over the teaching of evolution in the Dover School District.
The founding fathers-from school namesake John Dickinson to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson-were products of the Enlightenment, Jones said.
"They possessed a great confidence in an individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason," he said.
"This core of beliefs led the founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."..............
In a 139-page opinion, Jones ruled that intelligent design was repackaged creationism, which courts had previously ruled should not be taught in science classes.............
Jones credited his liberal arts education at Dickinson, more than his law school years, for preparing him for what he calls his "Dover moment."
"It was my liberal arts education...that provided me with best ability to handle the rather monumental task of deciding the Dover case," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ydr.com ...
John Jones got to be a federal judge though his friendship with former Pennsylvania Governor and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Ridge appointed Jones to be head of the state liquor control board.
When President Bush needed to nominate a federal judge in this part of Pennyslvania, his friend Ridge came up with John Jones as the man.
What Jones said I offer up for your consideration. I have my opinion, but when you remember Tom Ridge for anything in the future, always remember John Jones.
Its sad to say this man was nominated by George W. Bush to be a federal judge.
And if you remember the Ray Stevens song "Along Came Jones" from around 35 years ago, I think this fits this man who is being portrayed by the local rag as some sort of hero.
outlawed the teaching of "intelligent design"
How does a man with no wisdom become a Judge?
"The founding fathers-from school namesake John Dickinson to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson-were products of the Enlightenment, Jones said."
A poor understanding of American History and the faith of the Founding Fathers gave birth to this quote. The qoute is to generalized. How about, a few were products of the Enlightenment, some were products of the Quakers, some were products of the Wesleyian Revival and the evangelical movement.
Mostly, politically though, the freedom of religion thing and the freedom from religion thing had to do with making of an official state church that interfered with the goings on of a functioning government (i.e., the Catholic church in most of Europe prior to the French Revolution, the Anglican Church in England, and the Orthodox Church in Russia at the time of the Czars). The founding fathers had a problem with a government persecuting a people for being a denomination other than the official state denomination. They also didn't want an OFFICIAL representative of a church in the government, because once that official invoked the name of God in the name of the OFFICIAL state church, then what the hell is the point of representation.
These federal judges amaze me withthe lack of understanding of history. Some issues are tough, this one isn't. Read the federalist papers, read Adams' letters, read Jefferson's notes, read Machiavelli's Prince, which was one of the greatest influences on the design of independence and the executive branch of our government. Find out what the founding fathers say of religion. See? Easy.
I thought the establishment clause was in the Constitution because the founders thought it was a local matter best left to the states.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Nope, unless they also believed the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and protest to be a local issues also. They didn't.
Before the decision was rendered I asked her several questions:
1. Who do you work for?
2. Does you employer, the Dover School Board, have the right to specify what is taught and the manner in which it gets taught?
3. Are you not 'free' to apply for a job in another school district if you cannot in good conscience perform you job.
4. What are you going to do if the judge upholds the School District on this?
5. School Boards can be voted out, and their rules can be changed by vote. Are you comfortable with a Federal District Judge sitting in Philadelphia, or DC making a decision that may have to live with for the next 50 years?
She's a relatively intelligent person, but I think I hardly made a dent in her postion. She obviously can't imagine herself on the wrong side of this court decision.
Thank you for the quotes. Over the years I've based my arguments on the words "CONGRESS shall make no law . . ." when the real problem is how the words "an establishment of religion" have been divorced from their historical context and twisted to mean anything vaguely religious, especially Christian.
Why did you insert "Man Created God" in the title? Nothing in the article, or the quotations from Judge Jones, supports that editorial comment.
Doesn't this speech suggest that the judge was not dispensing fair and impartial justice? It's one thing to be biased, but to accept a speaking engagement (I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he received no money for this speech.) in order to preach about the outcome of a particular case that has come before his bench has to be a violation of judicial ethics.
No. Why would it?
It's one thing to be biased, but to accept a speaking engagement (I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he received no money for this speech.) in order to preach about the outcome of a particular case that has come before his bench has to be a violation of judicial ethics.
Huh? There's nothing in the least unethical about a judge discussing a decision after it has been made.
It might suggest a lack of impartiality, but it doesn't prove it. The Left tried to get Scalia off a few cases by arguing such things. Judges have opinions, they're human. They are supposed to apply the law -- something that Leftist Judges don't really do.
In what way does it suggest a lack of impartiality?
First, wouldn't it stand to reason that similar issues might appear before his court in the future? I know that in hearings, Fed court nominees can discuss almost nothing for just that reason.
Second, it just smells. If a judge had struck down evolution being taught in the schools and went on a speaking tour saying how, say, "The only thing that hasn't evolved in 200 years is the nonsensical theory of evolution," that would stink, too.
I didn't say it 'proved it', only that it is one possibility.
"The founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry," said Jones . . .The founding fathers - from school namesake John Dickinson to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson - were products of the Enlightenment, Jones said.
"They possessed a great confidence in an individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason," he said.
"This core set of beliefs led the founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state." . . .
"It was my liberal arts education . . . that provided me with the best ability to handle the rather monumental task of deciding the Dover case," he said.
What in these comments during a commencement speech causes you to say "it just smells"? And what about these comments would even remotely suggest impartiality in his application of law to fact -- past, present, or future?
Furthermore, even if his comments had had some direct relation to the evidence and decisional process in the Dover case, your suggestion that he could not, hypothetically, have made them is rather odd. Nothing prevents him from discussing past decisions, whether his own or others from the enormous body of western law. After all, common law demands such case analysis in the decision making process.
It seems that, by your rather onerous standard, federal judges would have to take a vow of perfect silence for the duration of their tenure, and perhaps have their brains rinsed of all legal and factual knowledge after each decision.
I am simply asking -- in what way is impartiality suggested or a possibility?
Or, if you prefer -- what in his comments suggests or makes possible the existence of impartiality?
I would say (from a reading of current political thinking) that all of those statements would be opposed by the Religious Conservatives.
But the notion that these concepts are antithetical to "impartial" decision making takes conservatism into a whole new realm.
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.