Judge in Dover case still fighting

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 05 June 2006 | Amy Worden

[driftdiver]

I agree and support seperation of powers. Thats why I think the juducial branch should not be creating new laws nor ordering the legislative branch to create others.

[freedumb2003]

but it isn't true that the system should work that way or that we should openly root for such.

A constant frustration I have here in FR is just that -- "Good Judge" = "Judicial Activism in judgements we like"; "Bad Judge" = "Judicial Activism in judgements we DON'T like."

They Shaivo threads were one example, abortion is another. I am personally against abortion, but to me it is the Fed should stay the heck out of it and let the States decide.

I believe the 10th Amendment is perhaps the most important, yet it loses in every case to any other concept (not even a clash of Amendments).

[VadeRetro]

If you think about it, science is just the study of how Cthulhu did it.

Hmmm. If this thread gets switched to Religion, can I be banned for the above remark ex post facto?

[VadeRetro]

A constant frustration I have here in FR is just that -- "Good Judge" = "Judicial Activism in judgements we like"; "Bad Judge" = "Judicial Activism in judgements we DON'T like."

Amen! (I know where THIS thread is going.)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If he really wanted to enforce the Constitution, he'd declare the entire public school system unconstitutional."

Federally you would be correct; on a state level you are wrong. Most states (if not all, I have not checked) have constitutionally required government schools.

[freedumb2003]

Amen! (I know where THIS thread is going.)

Hey, that clearly violates FRs separation of Church and State ;)

[NinoFan]

Typical liberal judge. He's now surrounded by liberal sycophants. I expect him to issue more disgusting rulings soon. Gotta keep up his popularity at the cocktail parties somehow.

There is no wall separating church and state. There's a limited clause that sets limits on the outer edges of church-state interaction, but nothing more.

Of course, some who support evolution just love this ruling, regardless of its historical correctness. To such people, it doesn't matter how they keep other views away, just so long as they are the only ones who have the ears of the children of this nation.

The proper answer to the question of whether ID teaching violates the "establishment clause" is a simple, "No." The accuracy of the ID theory or any other theory shouldn't matter when it comes to the CONSTITUTIONAL analysis of the situation. It's not unconstitutional to teach that 2+2=5, after all.

[Right Wing Professor]

how long until this, too, gets smoked or frocked?

ROFL!

[Coyoteman]

Hmmm. If this thread gets switched to Religion, can I be banned for the above remark ex post facto?

If this gets switched to Religion, I want someone to explain to me how Noah missed this "kind":

[VadeRetro]

Not sure how you ride that but it would probably be fun.

[Fester Chugabrew]

". . . judges don't act according to bias or political agenda."

Har har. And neither do scientists. s/

The Constitution prohibits incursions upon the free expression of ideas in any context, whether it be science, public schools, or private academies. It certainly is not favorable toward prohibiting a discussion of intelligent design in connection with organized matter that performs specific functions. This is a judge who, like a politician, decided whom he would like to please and acted accordingly, beginning with himself. This is also a judge who does not have the capacity to distinguish between a theory and it's implications.

[VadeRetro]

Part of me says I want one of those. Then again, I hate it when the cat misses the litter box.

[Dimensio]

b) he broke new ground in judicial overreach in presuming to tell the litigants what science is, rather than just ruling on the case and shutting up.

You are neglecting to mention that the defendants in the case specifically requested a ruling to this effect.

[Dimensio]

It certainly is not favorable toward prohibiting a discussion of intelligent design in connection with organized matter that performs specific functions.

Given that there is no blanket prohibition on such a subject, your statement is a non-sequitur. Moreover, given that you are the only individual who defines "Intelligent Design" as "organized matter performing specific functions", your statement is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[King Prout]

probably due to absurd dietary requirements

[js1138]

Moreover, given that you are the only individual who defines "Intelligent Design" as "organized matter performing specific functions"...

I think there's a word for doing it solo.

[norton]

"(I know where THIS thread is going.)"

So do I,
and I really, really, regret the absolute tsunami of bile and arrogance that drives it.

If you can't dazzle 'em with (debate) then baffle them with (innuendo).

Oddly enough, I'm perfectly OK with someone disagreeing with me with a degree of respect - but tossing bombs is just SO islamist.

And, no, I neither know nor care what your side of the debate is, I am not directing comment toward your position or your self;
only toward the inevitable unraveling of anything FR is supposed to represent when crevo/evo links appear.
I'll respect either theory you put forth and I'll allow that you might be just as innocent of oiling the burning waters as I hope I am.

(My OPINION is that the Evo side simply cannot address dissent without a slathering of superiority complex mixed with knowledge that neither side can prove themselves "right" in terms of the dominant debate.
Evolution is observable, apparently sometimes reversible, and certainly logical.
It's the God versus convenient 'soup' thing that can't be proved, screws up the voltage, and [as I understand it] was only part of Darwin's contribution to evolution by osmosis from other contemporary and subsequent commentators.)

[wintertime]

"If a poll shows a majority of Americans think we should teach creationism in schools, we should just go with the flow?" he asked. "There's this messy thing called the Constitution we have to deal with."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Should students be exposed to evolution against their will? Should they be forced into an environment that is hostile to their religious beliefs and actively undermines their most cherished family traditions?

If it is unconstitutional to subject students to creationism then it is unconstitutional to FORCE evolution on children believing in creationism.

So what about the Constitution?

1) It is IMPOSSIBLE for any education of the young to be religiously, politically, or culturally neutral. IMPOSSIBLE! That should automatically rule out any government involvement in education of the young. No matter what the government chooses regarding curriculum and policies, the government school WILL be establishing, promoting, and upholding the religious beliefs of some while actively, deliberately, and possibly maliciously trashing the religious beliefs of others.

2) All schools MUST restrict free speech, free press, free expression of religion, and free assembly. If they didn't chaos would reign. When government schools FORCE children into their centers and then tell them to shut up, ban their publications, restrict their religious practices, and tell them with whom they may or may not assemble, then government schools are TRASHING our state and federal constitutions.

What are government schools?

They are politically, culturally, and religious NON-neutral. They can and do threaten parents and children with armed police, court, and foster care action if the parents and children do not cooperate with them. Government schools have the power to sell at sheriff's auction the home and/or business of those citizens who refuse to hand over money to pay for the non-neutral government political, cultural, and religious indoctrination of government schools.

[King Prout]

auto enthusiasm?

[PatrickHenry]

With deep respect for everyone's religious opinions, I ask you to please consider that this thread was not posted in the Religion Forum. It was intended for a discussion of the scientific, political, and legal issues in the lead article. If you want to discuss theology, which is certainly a worthy topic for discussion, then as a courtesy to those who prefer to discuss the secular issues, I urge you to start a new thread in the Religion Forum, which this website provides for that purpose. Thank you.