This is another reason I am not a big proponent of ID. God is a perfect gentleman. He doesn't try to force anyone to believe in Him. Persuasion is His preferred method. Forcing schools to teach about an intelligent designer makes the real Designer appear unconvincing.
Don't know. JC as portrayed in the canonical gospels probably wouldn't, though I don't remember any particular strictures against lying under oath.
My scorecard is as follows. Buckingham lied on his deposition about how the money was raised for Of Pandas and People. He said he didn't know anything about it, when in fact he took up a collection at his church. He blamed his 'misspeaking' on addiction to Oxycontin. He was the one who said at a school board meeting “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?”, and his wife quoted several verses from Genesis, then asking “How can we allow anything else to be taught in our schools?”.
Bonsell lied in his deposition about not knowing where the money came from; he acknowledged in court that Buckingham had given it to him. He also denied creationism had been discussed at various school board meetings, though there was multiple testimony and written evidence that it had been. According to testimony, Bonsell also said there was a need "to bring prayer and faith back into the school".
Heather Geesey denied under oath the board had used the word creationism, even though she and Buckingham gave statements to the media using the word, and even though newspaper reporters and people taking notes at the meeting both said it was used.
So I ask you two questions: how much credibility does a moral compass have if the people promoting it seem not to use it? And why do the people who allegedly lack a moral compass seem to be the only ones who haven't lied through their teeth?