Replies

This particular case mat not be overtuned, but cases like it will.

We'll see. Anything's possible. Before the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, Iran wasn't a theocracy; so a country transforming itself into one isn't without precedent. I have bigger hopes for the USA, though...

The free excercise of religion extends to the secular realm.

This isn't a free exercise case; it's an establishment case.

There is no constitional prerogative to make legal rulings against the teaching that organized matter may be best explained in theory by a higher intelligence.

Still sticking with the "gay jeans" argument, eh?

The only reason you think the Dover ruling is "proper" is because it agrees with your opinion. It does not agree with the Constitution.

No. I know it's proper because I have legal training and experience, have studied Constitutional law, understand the issue, and understand the place and effect of precedent.

It is both a free exercise and an establishment case. Judge Jones acted as a government agent establishing and favoring only nontheistic principles in a public, academic setting. At the same time, he acted to prohibit the free exercise of those who, in the same setting, would like to present the reasonable view that organized matter may best be explained by the presence of an intelligent agent. According to the words of the Constitution federal judges do not have the prerogative of establishing nonthesistic principles on the one hand, and prohibiting the expression of theistic principles on the other, especially where public funding is concerned.

Now, if you want to start your own private school where only non-thesistic science is taught, and only non-theistic principles shape your theories, data, and the application of them, you are free to do so. But the minute you involve the tax money of those who espouse other shaping principles and theories, you forfeit the right for your own opinion and point of view to be presented.