Judge in Dover case still fighting

John E. Jones III is using the intelligent-design debate to answer his critics and talk about judicial independence.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III could have taken the safe route and retreated to the privacy of the courthouse after issuing his landmark ruling in December against intelligent design. Most judges are loath to go public about their cases at all, let alone respond to their critics.

But Jones - angered by accusations that he had betrayed the conservative cause with his ruling, and disturbed by the growing number of politically motivated attacks on judges in general - came out from his chambers swinging.

"I didn't check my First Amendment rights at the door when I became a judge," Jones said in a recent interview.

While keeping his normal caseload, Jones has embarked on a low-key crusade to educate the public about the importance of judicial independence. He has been flooded with more invitations than he can accept to speak to organizations and schools about issues that arose from the Dover, Pa., case on intelligent design and other emotionally charged cases.

Edward Madeira, a senior partner with Pepper Hamilton L.L.P., which represented Dover plaintiffs, described Jones as the perfect ambassador for a more visible judiciary.

"God bless him," said Madeira, who serves with Jones on a state panel on judicial independence. "He came out of the case with a real concern about the lack of understanding of the role of the judiciary and has become a person who spends time very effectively talking about it."

So far, Jones has delivered his message on at least 10 occasions, speaking to high schools and colleges, mostly in Pennsylvania. In February, he addressed the national conference of the Anti-Defamation League in Florida.

Jones had anticipated he would be targeted by hard-line conservatives after concluding that teaching intelligent design in public schools as an alternative to evolution was unconstitutional.

But he was surprised by how ignorant some of his critics were, in his view, about the Constitution and the separation of powers among the three branches of government.

Jones said he had no agenda regarding intelligent design but, rather, was taking advantage of the worldwide interest in the case to talk about constitutional issues important to him.

"I've found a message that resonates," he said. "It's a bit of a civics lesson, but it's a point that needs to be made: that judges don't act according to bias or political agenda."

One particularly strident commentary piece by conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly, published a week after the ruling, really set Jones off.

Schlafly wrote that Jones, a career Republican appointed to the federal bench by President Bush in 2002, wouldn't be a judge if not for the "millions of evangelical Christians" who supported Bush in 2000. His ruling, she wrote, "stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

"The implication was that I should throw one for the home team," Jones said. "There were people who said during trial they could not accept, and did not anticipate, that a Republican judge appointed by a Republican president could do anything other than rule in the favor of the defendants."

Jones, 50, who is based in Williamsport, Pa., was finishing his second year on the court when he was assigned the Dover case.

Looking beyond that trial now, Jones said he was concerned about the growing number of politically motivated threats against judges, including himself, that demonstrate "a lack of respect and a lack of understanding of what we do."

He rattled off a string of incidents that occurred last year: The murder of a Chicago judge's husband and mother by a disgruntled litigant. The oral attacks - led by congressional Republicans - against a Florida judge who ruled that Terri Schiavo could be removed from her feeding tube. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter's suggestion that U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens should be given "rat poison" for voting to uphold Roe v. Wade. (Coulter later added it was only a joke.)

And an e-mail death threat that Jones received shortly after the Dover ruling caused him to seek U.S. Marshal's Service protection for the first time.

"Judges are really unnerved by this," Jones said. "My wife couldn't walk the dog without a marshal walking beside her in the days after case was decided."

He wants to remind audiences, he said, that the judicial branch was not designed to react to public opinion as the executive and legislative branches were.

"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."

Since his Dover ruling, Jones has returned to the routine on the federal bench. He stayed the execution of a murderer, sent a sex offender to prison to "ratchet down his libido," and is preparing for a white-collar criminal case that is sure to thrust him back into the national spotlight this fall.

Jones is scheduled to preside over what may be the largest tax-fraud case in U.S. history when Adelphia Communications founder John Rigas and his son Timothy - already convicted in a separate fraud case - appear before him to face charges they evaded $300 million in taxes.

Should students be exposed to evolution against their will?

You're on to something.

When I was in school they exposed me to uncounted attrocitys (against my will).

There was History, English, Math, Science, Latin. Spending all my time chasing girls is a cherished family tradition don'tyaknow.

The bible is not a science text, get over it.

just so long as they are the only ones who have the ears of the children of this nation.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The solution is to begin the process of completely privatizing universal K-12 education.

Remember any government powerful enough to force creationism or ID into the ears of other people's children is powerful enough to force evolution into the ears of your children.

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

For a bit there, I thought you were apologizing for the anti-evolution crowd. But you seem to be regretting one side.

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.

There's an issue about what goes into science classes. I'm always dismayed that some discount science as an arbiter of this content. There's another question about what the role of conservatism is in this issue.

Evolution is observable, apparently sometimes reversible, and certainly logical.

Excellent! And the only place I want it is in science class. Nobody has to preach it in their church.

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.

Darwin's published works do not speculate on the origin of life.

By the way, I also agree that judge Jones has a dog in the fight - right now he seems the most 'politicized' character on the stage.

"I've found a message that resonates,"
Yes, he has & he seems happy to have found a spotlight to act in. Not the role I want a justice of any sort to engage in (Judge Roy Bean excepted - but he was clearly nuts).

Conversely,
"...Phyllis Schlafly...really set Jones off.(with)"(Jones) wouldn't be a judge if not for the "millions of evangelical Christians"
Any presumption that a judge "stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance" is absurd and presumptive, oh, and dumb.
But Schlafly is an advocate, not an arbiter of laws, she has the right to sound dumb whenever she might chose to do so.

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.

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

State constitutions uphold First Amendment Rights, yet they also call for government schools. This is an internal conflict within their documents since government schools violate ALL First Amendment Rights every minute of every school day.

First Amendment Rights are human rights and take precedence over government schools. This is especially true when government funding in the form of vouchers and tax credits can be provided to the child for use in private schools without the government owning or operating religiously non-neutral government schools.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter9.htm

Reckon you're entitled to urge any mention of God's scientific work into some corner while you and your cheerleaders spout your own philosophical, political, and scientific predilections ad nauseam. Surely there ought to be laws - federal, state, local, and on this forum - to allow your ideas to go unchallenged under any circumstances.

The bible is not a science text, get over it.

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

Dinsdale,

I am a supporter of evolution.

However...I am not willing to advocate FORCING other people's children into government indoctrination centers so that my educational philosophy regarding science be FORCED upon them against their will and the wills of their parents.

I am NOT willing to use the threat of armed police to FORCE a teaching that would and will undermine their religious beliefs.

I am not willing to threaten my fellow citizen with the sheriff's auction of their home or business to pay for evolution, creationism, or ID.

But....please think about this. Evolution, creationism, and ID is only one of hundreds of hot button issues that favor the religious worldview of some while undermining the religious worldview of others.

The solution is to begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education.

Blah Blah Blah. Your obsession shows it's ugly head again. Government schools are not going away anytime soon. They are constitutionally legal when run by states, even if they are immoral. I don't like them, but there it is.

If you ever have a different argument, please let us know. Otherwise...

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.

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

Patrick,

This article is about Judge Jones' opinion about evolution in a SCHOOL. The reason it is such a hot button topic is that evolution and intelligent design have profound religious, political, and cultural consequences for all students who would be FORCED to be exposed to it.

To suggest that intelligent design may be a good explanation in cases where organized matter performs specific functions is not to "define" intelligent design. It is to suggest what it says on the face of it, and it is not inherently religious, sectarian, or unscientific to do so. Your opposition to the idea is not scientific, but emotional.

I am far from alone in deducing as much on the basis of evidence and all that science has to work with.

To sum up the CRIDer's response:

Judge Jones is a smart man. So it won't take him long to figure out he's beating his head against a brick wall of willful ignorance and fear. How long did that British biologist Stephen Jones try to reason and debate with evolution critics before he realized they aren't interested in even trying to consider the evidence of evolutionary theory?

Judge Jones is trying to educate people about the Constitution, the roles and powers of the different branches of government, but it is all the same to the Ignorantratti. Anyone or anything that they even think represents a challenge to a word for word literal interpretation of the Bible (AND the shot they had at getting Christianity backdoored into the schools through ID) must be demonized, slandered and threatened.

I think I finally figured it out. Creation Science isn't about God, Christ or being a 'Bible-believin' Christian, it's about Bible idolatry. And ID is just a respectable sounding cloak for CS to wear.

If he really wanted to enforce the Constitution, he'd declare the entire public school system unconstitutional. You just can't provide government run education without violating someone's Constitutional rights.

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

Absolutely correct!

It is IMPOSSIBLE for any government school to be religiously, politically, or culturally neutral. The government schools WILL promote the religious beliefs of some while trashing those of others.

Government schools MUST trash the First Amendment human rights to free speech, press, and assembly, and expression of religion. If government schools didn't do this chaos would reign.

This article is about Judge Jones' opinion about evolution in a SCHOOL. The reason it is such a hot button topic is that evolution and intelligent design have profound religious, political, and cultural consequences for all students who would be FORCED to be exposed to it.

Science is neutral. It follows where the data leads.

But apparently some folks object to some of the results of scientific investigations.

It must be sad to fear reading the paper in the morning, or watching the science channels on TV, lest one see the new discoveries that have been made.

Maybe that's why some of the posters here have such an impermeable armor of willful and sullen disbelief when it comes to science, and do their best to avoid any exposure to it.

Nobody can force them to believe it.

But I've got no problem with making them pass a test on it or failing them.

Letting someone's 'religious worldview' determine what they study is a recepe for disaster. Science education is already in bad shape in most school systems. Just pleasing the YECs will require removal of all astrophysics, much physics, geology, chemistry etc etc.

If their faith is so weak that leaning some science will break it then it is better broken sooner then later. It will give them more time to develop an adult understanding of faith grounded in more then memorizing and regurgitating.

To suggest that intelligent design may be a good explanation in cases where organized matter performs specific functions is not to "define" intelligent design.

Your definition of "Intelligent Design" is not the definition used by proponents in public school districts. Your continued denials do not change this fact.

Your opposition to the idea is not scientific, but emotional.

You have yet to demonstrate that your claims are scientific.

( re: evolution)And the only place I want it is in science class. Nobody has to preach it in their church.

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

So why should the government have the power to herd children into it building and FORCE evolution on them against their will and that of their parents? Why does the government have the arrogance to actively undermine the religious belief of children?

If it would be wrong for the government to FORCE citizens into to churches, then it is equally wrong for government to actively, and deliberately destroy the religious values of children.

The real problem here isn't evolution or ID. The problem is the existence of government schools. We should begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Let parents, teachers, and principals privately settle the matter of evolution, or ID and hundreds of other political, cultural, and religious land mines.

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.