Court Ruling: Intelligent Design Not Science

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

No, and it's irrelevant. SCOTUS is cracked up and makes whimsical interpretations of the bill of rights and the fourteenth amendment.

---

It is entirely relevant. You are basing your argument on this premise that religion can be specifically promoted by State/local bodies.

Quote:

---

First, the Establishment Clause neither gaurantees a privilege/right nor gives a legal immunity. And second, teaching a non-secular theory does not deny anyone equality under the law.

---

Sounds like another separate but equal argument. It's not gonna fly.

Quote:

---

Supporting something indirectly does not equate to respecting it. Congress would be respecting one religionif it gave special funding. If it gives funding regardless of what is being taught, it is not respecting one religion.

---

I disagree. Aren't religious schools denied funding on this very basis? Can't say I'm overly familiar with it so I could be incorrect. I don't think they can choose to say, "we deserve X% funding because only a portion of our instruction is teaching theology."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

We Shall Overcome:charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge:

---

Ironic that you would quote a civil rights slogan in this context...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

It is entirely relevant. You are basing your argument on this premise that religion can be specifically promoted by State/local bodies.

---

It is irrelevant, because SCOTUS has never been designated the final arbiter of the Constitution except by itself, and erroneosly so. Besides being irrelevant, it is incorrect. Even more basically: the fact that SCOTUS, if it were absolute, has not recognized that individual states can promote religions does not logically lead to the conclusion that states cannot promote religions. For example, when SCOTUS had never ruled in this area before, it was perfectly legal for states to teach aspects of religion in school, even though SCOTUS never recognized that they could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Sounds like another separate but equal argument.

---

How so? I'm not seeing a link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I disagree. Aren't religious schools denied funding on this very basis? Can't say I'm overly familiar with it so I could be incorrect.

---

Congress can give out funding as it wishes, as long as it doesn't give for the purpose of respecting that religion. They can deny to give funding whenever they want to. If they were motivated to deny them funding because of a ruling, their motivation is flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Care to point out in the Consitution where it states freedom of Religion means that the court decides if something is taught in the schools or not?

---

I was expecting that you'll not be satisfied with my post...Very well:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

---

A mistake that we made here, stablish an official religion. Take this quote and reflect on it...it should come easy for you, but just in case SPOIL AHEAD:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

By stablishing a thing nominally banned as science and schooling it in public schools, you're officializing a religion, I think that you've to agree at least in that this ID is religion and not science, you only have to look at their "proof" or even it's "method"

,

Quote:

---

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

---

This deserves the same explanation as well, by teaching religion as a science and a real view of this world you're forbiding the other fictionary vissions to be true (ie other religions). It also comes from the method of "faith" wich doesn't needs, or better said, refuses and repulses all manner of proof, for instance teaching it officially means that you're actually as Red Harvest sais: "push THEIR religious message down my kids' throats and over MY objection".

Quote:

---

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.

---

Well this final part has the same meaning regarding this case.

Through your Constitution there's a lot more of quotes that can be applied to the same principle. It doesn't has to be specifically written into the document, interpretation is always an important part of law.

What is really killing me about this thread is that those who are usually the ones complaining about "Islamo-fascism," and the fact that theocracies like the Taliban used their religion like a blunt instrument and forced it on people whether they wanted it or not (which they did, the complaint is valid), are now promoting the very same practice in their own country.

Good God people! Can you not see the duplicity in your own statements?

So, let me get this straight:

It's okay for the government to force religion on people, as long as that religion happens to be Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Ironic that you would quote a civil rights slogan in this context...

---

Takes tounge out of cheek:san_kiss:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

It is irrelevant, because SCOTUS has never been designated the final arbiter of the Constitution except by itself, and erroneosly so.

---

Now you are getting into the ridiculous. Let's just reinvent the whole system! Nobody else has been designated the final arbiter either, and the system we have adopted has worked for proper checks and balances. The court found its niche, and it is a natural choice. It provides moderation to the political whims that could otherwise endanger the nation. (Look to Athens for an example of why such moderation is necessary for survival.)

The reality to me appears that on average SCOTUS shifts its views to match the electorate over time, but in a very slow way, lagging by a decade or two compared to the House. Sometimes it merely allows a fever to break (preventing what would later be viewed as outrages if they let matters stand), sometimes it actually injects something novel that changes perception of how something should be interpreted, and other times it is just slower to adapt, as its composition changes over a longer time span. In the latter instances it often looks to me like majority of SCOTUS does no more than construct a justification for a pre-determined result that satisfies the political backgrounds of the justices. (That can take time.)

Quote:

---

Besides being irrelevant, it is incorrect. Even more basically: the fact that SCOTUS, if it were absolute, has not recognized that individual states can promote religions does not logically lead to the conclusion that states cannot promote religions.

---

With the previous comment, you shot down your argument as a practical matter.

Quote:

---

For example, when SCOTUS had never ruled in this area before, it was perfectly legal for states to teach aspects of religion in school, even though SCOTUS never recognized that they could.

---

That's like saying it was perfectly safe to ride around without safety belts until they were required.

It wasn't necessarily perfectly legal, it simply had not been addressed. Until there is a challenge, the legality of legislation is not really known.

Quote:

---

How so? I'm not seeing a link.

---

When one religion or sect of a religion is promoted over others it sets in motion the same sort of discriminatory machinery as has been used in the past. One group is favored over another. Inequality is the result.

Quote:

---

Congress can give out funding as it wishes, as long as it doesn't give for the purpose of respecting that religion. They can deny to give funding whenever they want to. If they were motivated to deny them funding because of a ruling, their motivation is flawed.

---

And SCOTUS can block it on a number of grounds as well. Checks and balances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

What is really killing me about this thread is that those who are usually the ones complaining about "Islamo-fascism," and the fact that theocracies like the Taliban used their religion like a blunt instrument and forced it on people whether they wanted it or not (which they did, the complaint is valid), are now promoting the very same practice in their own country.

Good God people! Can you not see the duplicity in your own statements?

So, let me get this straight:

It's okay for the government to force religion on people, as long as that religion happens to be Christianity.

---

That is exactly the problem. I am dumbfounded by the blindness of my fellow Christians. Many appear unable to look at anything from outside their own perspective. They cannot see the consequences of their own actions.

And as many on both sides of this have agreed: neither Darwinism nor Creation are mutually exclusive. However, Darwinism is a scientific description of what we see, while ID is a theological description rather than a scientific theory.

Quote:

---

For example, when SCOTUS had never ruled in this area before, it was perfectly legal for states to teach aspects of religion in school, even though SCOTUS never recognized that they could.

---

Actually SCOTUS at one time said they had to. They said that christianity and the bible must be taught in school. Its only recently that this notion thet ReD Harvest has of a seperation of church and state came into being. It was started by a former KKK SCOTUS judge who hated Catholics.

Quote:

---

Now you are getting into the ridiculous. Let's just reinvent the whole system!

---

Why not SCOTUS did . Besides you say

Quote:

---

The reality to me appears that on average SCOTUS shifts its views to match the electorate over time

---

Thats not what its supposed to do is it? Its supposed to rule on the constitutionality of a law. Its views should followw the constitution and the constitution doesnt change unless its amendened. Its not the job of SCOTUS to change it as they see fit.

Quote:

---

When one religion or sect of a religion is promoted over others it sets in motion the same sort of discriminatory machinery as has been used in the past. One group is favored over another. Inequality is the result.

---

What religion is being promoted in the 4 paragraphs? Again it seems only athiesm can now be promoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Thats not what its supposed to do is it? Its supposed to rule on the constitutionality of a law. Its views should followw the constitution and the constitution doesnt change unless its amendened. Its not the job of SCOTUS to change it as they see fit.

---

Don't be naive. That's exactly what presidents do by packing the court. They choose people who have the desired reading. Despite overly facile approaches to the Constitution, it is far from clear in many matters. The terminology is general. If it were not, the interpretations would not be so varied. That's why intent is debated so heavily. If it was simple stop/go, yes/no then interpretation would be unnecessary. This is not 2+2 = ? Another natural assumption is that no document can be written that accounts for all possibilities, hence, the need to re-interpret as time passes.

Afterall anyone who thinks a BJ related private case perjury is a "high crime and misdemeanor" obviously needs their head examined (especially when you examine the Founding Father's debate on the matter.) Yet some do still make that laughable claim. And of course, the ball started rolling SCOTUS when it ruled that a civil case would not place undue burden on the presidency--quite possibly one of the most inept decisions in its history although certainly not one of its most important.

Quote:

---

What religion is being promoted in the 4 paragraphs? Again it seems only athiesm can now be promoted.

---

Christian creationism. ID is based on that. Atheism is not promoted, science is. Unfortunately you seem to interpret science as being atheism. It is not.

Do you also consider your doctor an atheist because he doesn't suggest faith healing instead of medicine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Sounds like another separate but equal argument.

---

How so? I'm not seeing a link.

---

Psst, it's called 'guilt by association' where he attempts to discredit you argument, not on it's merits, but instead by linking it to something "bad" ':san_wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

What is really killing me about this thread is that those who are usually the ones complaining about "Islamo-fascism," and the fact that theocracies like the Taliban used their religion like a blunt instrument and forced it on people whether they wanted it or not (which they did, the complaint is valid), are now promoting the very same practice in their own country.

Good God people! Can you not see the duplicity in your own statements?

So, let me get this straight:

It's okay for the government to force religion on people, as long as that religion happens to be Christianity.

---

So a school wanting to add a ID disclaimer to its science class is comparable to some Islamo-facist thug in Afghanistan who would beat women with a stick if their veil fell off in public? I see.

Ya know, I'm not too young to remember when public schools used to allow students to pray before classes and put on Christmas pageants, ect. We should all be glad that we've moved away from such oppressive times and are allowed to bask in our new freedom- I never realized how terrible it used to be. :san_grin:

Quote:

---

Ya know, I'm not too old to remember when public schools used to allow students to pray before classes and put on Christmas pageants, ect. We should all be glad that we've moved away from such oppressive times and are allowed to bask in our new freedom- I never realized how terrible it used to be

---

Well Im that old and I remember it well. Can you believe they made me learn Hanakah songs and even the reason For hanakah? How disgusting. I was really offended. We had a prayer at the start of the day just like congress does. How is it they still get away with this? We even all said the pledge of allegance and no one complained about it stating one nation under god. You must be able to see how much taking these things out of school and replacing them with liberal ideas and federal control has improved our education system.

well.. i've been "away" for awhile. but if there's one thing i learned from this thread, it's that i probably wasn't gone long enough.

i also learned that somebody has been working overtime on teh smilies!!!

:captain: :hippie: :ballchain: :spider: :2cents: :elephant: :flybye: :san_kiss:


friggen' sweeeet!





p.s. well done PA. congrats. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Go read the ruling again, it will explain the legal aspects far better than I can. My take is that this IS govt. estalbishment of religion, plain and simple. Yes, it is a small thing, but a first step by a local school board. It is a constitutional issue and appropriate for Federal courts. If you don't nip it, then you will see more pushing of the envelope. This was an attempt to subvert existing rulings.

---

Oh I read the ruling - he explains the legal postion well - but again where is the constitutionality of the issue. The voters took care of the constitutional issue very well - they voted the bums out of office.

Quote:

---

This is precisely why we have a constitution, to prevent state and local govts. from creating inequitable systems. The Civil Rights movement and Jim Crow Laws are the best modern example of how utterly corrupt state and local majority rule can be.

---

Again the legal measure ignores that the voters took care of the constitutional issue. I am still unsure why the issue made it to the Federal Courts after the election was completed.

Quote:

---

The constitution provideds defense against the tyranny of the majority. That is why I find this States Rights/Local Rights approach so amusing. The real push is to use them to create an inequitable system. States rights are popular, because they are tools to be manipulated by local majorities everywhere to get a leg up on the minorities in the states (I mean that in the political sense, not racial, etc.)

---

Agreed - but again this does not pass the constitutionality question - the constitution does not stipulate freedom from religion.

Quote:

---

If the school board had not been voted out, then by your reasoning it would have been acceptable. Wrong. It is not. It is an unreasonable endorsement of theology in place of science in a science class. Beyond that it is inequitable as it lifts one theology above others.

---

Not at all - if the board had not been voted out - then the courts might have needed to review the measure, if someone could show that the class was being forced onto those who did not want the course because of the religious nature behind that course.

The voters of the county solved the issue on their own. Why should the courts solve the simple matters when the voting public solved it for issue?


Edit: I could be use a strawman arguement here - next because certain history subjects contain religion those subjects will not be allowed taught in our public schools - same with philosophy classes. But its a reach.

I went to a Catholic Highschool, and they were adamently against the use of intelligent design being taught in Science Class. I remember some parents or something were upset at the school for not teaching it, and the school board told them something along the lines that "Intelligent Design is no more a valid explanation of science, than teaching everyone in theology that the bible is fact, and not debateable" Which is why I liked my Catholic School, their entire theory on sciences was "god works in mysterious ways, we evolve for a reason, we have DNA for a reason, and we can manipulate those things for a reason and that of course is to survive or in some cases destroy. God sets the stage, it's our job to move the pieces." Thats basically how he explained the theory of evolution, and genetics. My Theology teacher (also a Deacon) once explained to us "Religion is a matter of interpretation, its incredulous to think that modern christianity has rooted itself more with greek mythology, like everyone on earth is born with a fate, instead of everyone is born with a free will, as the bible dictates. Intelligent Design is like saying 'God controls everything for a reason' if that were true, I doubt Christianity would have survived as long as it has, during the Medieval Period and Renaissance, the Catholic Church Doctrine preached similarly to Intelligent Design, and we all know how well that turned out?" Things like this have always stuck to my core beliefs, I do believe that something is out there in the afterlife, but trying to interpret religious tomes as scientific fact is madness, and it follows a road of Death, and Domination. If the US were to adopt Intelligent Design as public school practrice, it would be one more stepping stone to turning the US into the next Iran, and the implications of that would be dire indeed.

Quote:

---

If the US were to adopt Intelligent Design as public school practrice, it would be one more stepping stone to turning the US into the next Iran, and the implications of that would be dire indeed.

---

Oh no not another one. So telling kids that god may have made them will turn the US into the next Iran. Are you serious? The rason this whole thing is ridiculous and would over turnredd is when you get down to it this judge has ruled that the mere inferrence that there is a god in school constitutes the establihment of a religion. Its totally off the wall. Again there was to be no class on ID nor was it to be drumbed into the little tikes heads. Four paragraphs saying there might be another explantaion at the start of class. Again what are you all afraid of?

[Sigh]

Its all set out here far better than I could hope to put it Big G. Please read it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/featu...559743,00.html

Stork theory! Haha, awesome.

ID should be taught, but not in a Biology or any other science class. It just isn't the right place for it.

Edit: As far as i know, ID is the belief that God created evoultion. It's not science, it's a religuos belief.

Also, just becuase other people follow it, dosen't mean that it's a Valid theory and thus should me mentioned.

Your article like many people here makes the false claim that those who believe in ID oppose evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. You also totally fail to address any of my points.

To be honest, i don't know what it means. Liberals tell me that it's "Creationism in a clown suit" And others tell me that it's the belief that God guided evolution. which side is lying?

It is an attempt by some Christians to square the theory of evolution with their faith. Darwin's theory, with its basis in scientific observation and analysis, should be taught in science class. Intelligent design, with its basis in faith, should be taught - if at all - in religious education class (or the equivalent). Unfortunately, as I understand it, the ID theory is not accepted doctrine for any major religion and so may have to fight for class time. Further more, while the explanation of ID requires a knowledge of the ToE (it is a response to it, by those who feel threatened) the teaching of ToE does not require reference to ID. It is rather depressing that this argument has flared up again. I thought that it was done and dusted over a century ago with "well, I'll be a monkey's uncle" being the main result.

I don't care whether it is a constitutional issue or not, nor do I have the depth of knowledge required, not being American. I suspect though that while federal funds go to the school then they run the risk of coming under federal juristriction. However as has been said the local people have already, and sensibly, voted out the errant board members so I would have thought that would have covered it in this instance.

PS

Although many proponents of ID claim, maybe rightfully, that ToE is taught as fact not theory I believe that their own arguments will not stop this. In fact, by tieing it to religious dogma maybe the reverse is true.

First paragraph from the Guardian article posted by EA:

Quote:

---

It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing, everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators like ourselves.

---

:san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh:

Sorry for the OT post, but that one was just too funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

ID should be taught, but not in a Biology or any other science class. It just isn't the right place for it.

---

As long as it's not teached as a science I couldn't care less...In fact I don't care because it's not in my country.:san_laugh:

I hate to say this...well not really, I enjoy saying this...this people are either lacking of faith or feeling that their faith was punched in their faces, so now they need to stand up and make crazy things to sustain an unprobable "theory" just for the sake of self conformity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh I read the ruling - he explains the legal postion well - but again where is the constitutionality of the issue. The voters took care of the constitutional issue very well - they voted the bums out of office.

---

Simply irrelevant, the action in question had already occurred. The issue had been raised and brought to the court's attention. The parties chose to continue it (or at least it appears so.)

Quote:

---

Again the legal measure ignores that the voters took care of the constitutional issue. I am still unsure why the issue made it to the Federal Courts after the election was completed.

---

Same as above...and it was a constitutional issue.

Quote:

---

Agreed - but again this does not pass the constitutionality question - the constitution does not stipulate freedom from religion.

---

Nor does it stipulate that one must have or endorse a religion. You can't slice this any other way than a set of officials attempting to use public entities to endorse their own religious views.

Quote:

---

Not at all - if the board had not been voted out - then the courts might have needed to review the measure, if someone could show that the class was being forced onto those who did not want the course because of the religious nature behind that course.

The voters of the county solved the issue on their own. Why should the courts solve the simple matters when the voting public solved it for issue?

---

Because it wasn't going away...and because it was a constitutional arguement involving the use of federal funds.

As far as I know the actual policy was NOT changed until AFTER the ruling (I was a bit surprised when I saw that.) That might have been done intentionally to let the matter be resolved in the courts. That would mean it wasn't dead just because of the election--unless you expect the court to anticipate the vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Psst, it's called 'guilt by association' where he attempts to discredit you argument, not on it's merits, but instead by linking it to something "bad" ':san_wink:

---

Hate to disappoint you and ruin your pity party, but that was a basis in the ruling (or a similar one, I've slept since then.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

As far as I know the actual policy was NOT changed until AFTER the ruling (I was a bit surprised when I saw that.) That might have been done intentionally to let the matter be resolved in the courts. That would mean it wasn't dead just because of the election--unless you expect the court to anticipate the vote.

---

Then my mistake - I thought the new school board had meet and reversed the previous decision before the hearing, but I did not read it anywhere. If they did not then the matter should of went to the courts of the state to resolve the state constitutional issues before it made its way to the Federal Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Nor does it stipulate that one must have or endorse a religion. You can't slice this any other way than a set of officials attempting to use public entities to endorse their own religious views.

---

That is why it is not a United States Constitutional issue. The matter should of been resolved in the State Court if the School board did not meet and correct the previous bad decision.