![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
neadodsPhyllis Schlafly has had her say about the Dover Decision now. Just like the last time I did this the madly-spinning propaganda will be bolded, while the rebuttal from the actual text of the decision is italic. My commentary will be plain text.
Judge John E. Jones III could still be chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board if millions of evangelical Christians had not pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2000. Yet this federal judge, who owes his position entirely to those voters and the president who appointed him, stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Because justice is a fluid thing that should be bought by majority vote, and have dickall to do with the law, don'tchaknow.
By the way, Ms. Schlafly, if the voice of all those evangelicals was so strong and clear, how come the actual election came down to a few hundred hotly contested votes in Bush's brother's state and a Supreme Court fiat?
He accused parents and school board members of "breathtaking inanity" for wanting their children to learn that "intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Charles Darwin's view."
The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. [138]
Her second quote is from the contested statement to be read. I'm not going to repeat all 139 pages of why said statement is not scientific, accurate, or Constitutional. I will throw in this tidbit from page 41: It is indeed telling that even defense expert Professor Fuller agreed ... by stating that in his own expert opinion the disclaimer is misleading
Contrary to most media coverage, the Dover case was not about whether Darwin's theory of evolution, as set forth in "The Origin of the Species," or the theory of "intelligent design" is correct or should be taught. The Dover school board did not propose to say intelligent design is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution.
Dr. Alters, the District's own science teachers, and Plaintiffs... all made it abundantly clear by their testimony that an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching... the disclaimer is a "mini-lecture" providing substantive misconceptions [46]
Bonsell wanted to have creationism share equal time with evolution in the curriculum [96]
Buckingham said that the Board Curriculum Committee would look for a book that presented a balance between creationism and evolution... Bonsell said that there were only two theories that could be taught, creationism and evolution, and as long as both were taught as theories there would be no problems. [102]
Pages 101 to 125 detail how the Board members insisted on having creationist texts for the biology class and how they refused to buy a badly-needed updated scientific text until they were promised that they could also get the creationist Of Pandas and People also on the curriculum. Page 109 introduces the section specifically titled "Buckingham and Other Board Members Tried to Prevent Purchase of Standard Biology Textbook."
Jones exhibited his bias for judicial activism with public remarks that should have caused his recusal. Signaling that he would exploit the dispute, Jones boasted, "It certainly is one of the most significant cases in United States history. ... Even Charles Darwin's great grandson is attending the trial."
Cite, Ms. Schafly? Not that I'm accusing you of making sensational quotes up out of thin air... except for the part where the only sources for that quote I can find on google are you and the Discovery Institute.
Playing up to the New York Times in an article published days before his opinion was released, Jones made the silly boast that he reads five newspapers a day.
What's so silly about being literate? Except when it leads a person to make decisions that you don't agree with?
The New York Times reported that Jones was awe-struck that his case appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone, and that he even bragged to his wife about it before buying a copy.
Because nobody would be amused to see their rather obscure school board science case ended up on Rolling Stone? As if he wouldn't have been there regardless of whether he ruled in your "favor" or not?
Jones' pursuit of the spotlight illustrates what is wrong with our judiciary today
1) Despite what you said, he didn't "pursue" the spotlight, he ruled on the evidence in his courtroom. Very little of the ongoing case was reported in the papers outside the local district until he ruled. Except for the part where Professor Behe admitted that his redefinition of science would mean that astrology was a science that could be taught in schools.
2) What, afraid attention might be taken away from YOUR spotlight?
He smeared "fundamentalists," impugned the integrity of those who disagree with him by accusing them of lying and issued an unnecessary permanent injunction.
It is essential to our analysis that we now provide a more expansive account of the extensive and complicated federal jusiprudential legal landscape concerning opposition to teaching evolution... such opposition grew out of a religious tradition, Christian Fundamentalism [20] Discussion of background isn't "smearing."
It is notable, and in fact incredible, that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendant's opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest [97]
The record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions
He's not bashing their religion, he's calling them out on their perjury - which included denying their own opening statement as read in court!
Using guilt-by-association reasoning, he implied that books published by religious groups, or by people motivated by religious convictions, can and should be banned from public school.
Pages 7 through 14 list the legal precedents - none of them decided by Judge Jones - which show that mandating religious materials in a public school violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Page 14 starts the discussion of these precedents to this particular policy in Dover.
He lashed out at witnesses who expressed religious views different from his own, displaying a prejudice unworthy of our judiciary. He denigrated several officials because they "staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public."
It's not wise to misquote what's becoming one of the most famous lines of the decision. Which, when quoted in full, does not make a judgement about religious belief per se. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy [137]
The atheist evolutionists would not have made such a big case out of the four innocuous paragraphs ordered by the Dover school board unless they were pursuing an ideological cause. They converted the trial into a grand inquisition of religious beliefs instead of addressing science or the statement to be read to students.
The plaintiffs in the case were science teachers being forced to violate their conscience (or does the conscience clause only work for denying birth control?) and parents of children either in or to be in the Dover High School. Their careers and families were going to be affected by the ID Policy, so they had every right to make their objections heard.
As for the grand inquisition... it was the Discovery Institute which started to make this into a trial of ID, although they've backpedaled since their side lost. They filed briefs in support of the Board's ID policy (page 7) and providing legal advice to the Board (page 100 and following). (This doesn't even touch the Wedge Document, which outlines how to supplant evolutionary science, and takes up a fair amount of the decision.)
And science was addressed. Science was addressed exhaustively, starting with section 4 - Whether ID is Science [64]. That section runs to page 90, and includes such fun quotes as:
Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not and cannot be considered as such [69]; Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientificy community [70].
Furthermore, the "scientific" testimony of the ID supporters was smashed into its component atoms - so badly so *that even ID's supporters had to admit it!* Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point concede by defense expert Professor Minnich [72]. Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity [73] On cross-examination, [Behe and Minnich] admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design. [82] Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships... a distortion which Professor Behe, a "critical reviewer" of Pandas, who wrote a section within the book, affirmed. [86]
As the reader of five newspapers, Jones was surely aware that the Dover school board had already changed hands, indicating it would be dropping mention of intelligent design. Rather than admit that the case was largely moot, as a judge should, he resorted to judicial activism to make the case a cause celebre.
Skipping Jones' own statement of his non-activism (page 137), once the case was brought to court, it had to go through court unless both parties agreed to drop it. It is as much the IDers fault that it was not dropped.
In an era of judicial supremacy, Judge Jones' biased and religiously bigoted decision is way over the top. His decision will ultimately hurt the evolutionist cause because it shows that the evolutionists cannot defend their beliefs on the merits; they can only survive by censoring alternate views.
The irony here is that Jones himself said that ID should be continue to be studied, debated, and discussed [137], which hardly serves as proof of censorship. He just pointed out, through 139 clearly written pages about the merits that forcing it upon students of a public school is both bad science and a violation of the clearly defined limits of the Establishment Clause.
But I guess that it's a "silly boast" to read 139 pages of judicial material...
Judge John E. Jones III could still be chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board if millions of evangelical Christians had not pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2000. Yet this federal judge, who owes his position entirely to those voters and the president who appointed him, stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Because justice is a fluid thing that should be bought by majority vote, and have dickall to do with the law, don'tchaknow.
By the way, Ms. Schlafly, if the voice of all those evangelicals was so strong and clear, how come the actual election came down to a few hundred hotly contested votes in Bush's brother's state and a Supreme Court fiat?
He accused parents and school board members of "breathtaking inanity" for wanting their children to learn that "intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Charles Darwin's view."
The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. [138]
Her second quote is from the contested statement to be read. I'm not going to repeat all 139 pages of why said statement is not scientific, accurate, or Constitutional. I will throw in this tidbit from page 41: It is indeed telling that even defense expert Professor Fuller agreed ... by stating that in his own expert opinion the disclaimer is misleading
Contrary to most media coverage, the Dover case was not about whether Darwin's theory of evolution, as set forth in "The Origin of the Species," or the theory of "intelligent design" is correct or should be taught. The Dover school board did not propose to say intelligent design is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution.
Dr. Alters, the District's own science teachers, and Plaintiffs... all made it abundantly clear by their testimony that an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching... the disclaimer is a "mini-lecture" providing substantive misconceptions [46]
Bonsell wanted to have creationism share equal time with evolution in the curriculum [96]
Buckingham said that the Board Curriculum Committee would look for a book that presented a balance between creationism and evolution... Bonsell said that there were only two theories that could be taught, creationism and evolution, and as long as both were taught as theories there would be no problems. [102]
Pages 101 to 125 detail how the Board members insisted on having creationist texts for the biology class and how they refused to buy a badly-needed updated scientific text until they were promised that they could also get the creationist Of Pandas and People also on the curriculum. Page 109 introduces the section specifically titled "Buckingham and Other Board Members Tried to Prevent Purchase of Standard Biology Textbook."
Jones exhibited his bias for judicial activism with public remarks that should have caused his recusal. Signaling that he would exploit the dispute, Jones boasted, "It certainly is one of the most significant cases in United States history. ... Even Charles Darwin's great grandson is attending the trial."
Cite, Ms. Schafly? Not that I'm accusing you of making sensational quotes up out of thin air... except for the part where the only sources for that quote I can find on google are you and the Discovery Institute.
Playing up to the New York Times in an article published days before his opinion was released, Jones made the silly boast that he reads five newspapers a day.
What's so silly about being literate? Except when it leads a person to make decisions that you don't agree with?
The New York Times reported that Jones was awe-struck that his case appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone, and that he even bragged to his wife about it before buying a copy.
Because nobody would be amused to see their rather obscure school board science case ended up on Rolling Stone? As if he wouldn't have been there regardless of whether he ruled in your "favor" or not?
Jones' pursuit of the spotlight illustrates what is wrong with our judiciary today
1) Despite what you said, he didn't "pursue" the spotlight, he ruled on the evidence in his courtroom. Very little of the ongoing case was reported in the papers outside the local district until he ruled. Except for the part where Professor Behe admitted that his redefinition of science would mean that astrology was a science that could be taught in schools.
2) What, afraid attention might be taken away from YOUR spotlight?
He smeared "fundamentalists," impugned the integrity of those who disagree with him by accusing them of lying and issued an unnecessary permanent injunction.
It is essential to our analysis that we now provide a more expansive account of the extensive and complicated federal jusiprudential legal landscape concerning opposition to teaching evolution... such opposition grew out of a religious tradition, Christian Fundamentalism [20] Discussion of background isn't "smearing."
It is notable, and in fact incredible, that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendant's opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest [97]
The record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions
He's not bashing their religion, he's calling them out on their perjury - which included denying their own opening statement as read in court!
Using guilt-by-association reasoning, he implied that books published by religious groups, or by people motivated by religious convictions, can and should be banned from public school.
Pages 7 through 14 list the legal precedents - none of them decided by Judge Jones - which show that mandating religious materials in a public school violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Page 14 starts the discussion of these precedents to this particular policy in Dover.
He lashed out at witnesses who expressed religious views different from his own, displaying a prejudice unworthy of our judiciary. He denigrated several officials because they "staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public."
It's not wise to misquote what's becoming one of the most famous lines of the decision. Which, when quoted in full, does not make a judgement about religious belief per se. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy [137]
The atheist evolutionists would not have made such a big case out of the four innocuous paragraphs ordered by the Dover school board unless they were pursuing an ideological cause. They converted the trial into a grand inquisition of religious beliefs instead of addressing science or the statement to be read to students.
The plaintiffs in the case were science teachers being forced to violate their conscience (or does the conscience clause only work for denying birth control?) and parents of children either in or to be in the Dover High School. Their careers and families were going to be affected by the ID Policy, so they had every right to make their objections heard.
As for the grand inquisition... it was the Discovery Institute which started to make this into a trial of ID, although they've backpedaled since their side lost. They filed briefs in support of the Board's ID policy (page 7) and providing legal advice to the Board (page 100 and following). (This doesn't even touch the Wedge Document, which outlines how to supplant evolutionary science, and takes up a fair amount of the decision.)
And science was addressed. Science was addressed exhaustively, starting with section 4 - Whether ID is Science [64]. That section runs to page 90, and includes such fun quotes as:
Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not and cannot be considered as such [69]; Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientificy community [70].
Furthermore, the "scientific" testimony of the ID supporters was smashed into its component atoms - so badly so *that even ID's supporters had to admit it!* Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point concede by defense expert Professor Minnich [72]. Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity [73] On cross-examination, [Behe and Minnich] admitted that there is no quantitative criteria for determining the degree of complexity or number of parts that bespeak design. [82] Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships... a distortion which Professor Behe, a "critical reviewer" of Pandas, who wrote a section within the book, affirmed. [86]
As the reader of five newspapers, Jones was surely aware that the Dover school board had already changed hands, indicating it would be dropping mention of intelligent design. Rather than admit that the case was largely moot, as a judge should, he resorted to judicial activism to make the case a cause celebre.
Skipping Jones' own statement of his non-activism (page 137), once the case was brought to court, it had to go through court unless both parties agreed to drop it. It is as much the IDers fault that it was not dropped.
In an era of judicial supremacy, Judge Jones' biased and religiously bigoted decision is way over the top. His decision will ultimately hurt the evolutionist cause because it shows that the evolutionists cannot defend their beliefs on the merits; they can only survive by censoring alternate views.
The irony here is that Jones himself said that ID should be continue to be studied, debated, and discussed [137], which hardly serves as proof of censorship. He just pointed out, through 139 clearly written pages about the merits that forcing it upon students of a public school is both bad science and a violation of the clearly defined limits of the Establishment Clause.
But I guess that it's a "silly boast" to read 139 pages of judicial material...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-04 12:00 am (UTC)in a criminal case, mutual agreement to drop the case is required. the reason is for the accused's record. a simple "drop the charges" may not be enough to clear the record of the no-longer-accused. he may wish to complete the case to be sure that the judge finds for a full acquittal which can used to justify all records of the case and the arrest, be deleted. the prosecution in these cases can agree to this as well, making these decisions fast, but legally necessary.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-04 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-04 01:32 pm (UTC)Which they now have... and I noticed a tiny little article buried in today's Post that only *yesterday* did the Dover School Board officially vote to drop the reading of the ID Policy statement.
Bottom line is still that Schafly's argument that the point was moot is wrong; without a hard decision from the judiciary the issue would keep coming up, and until the decision was made, the students and the new Board apparently kept to the previous Board's policy.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-04 01:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-04 01:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-04 01:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-04 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-05 01:43 am (UTC)Kudos!
Date: 2006-01-04 07:45 pm (UTC)Nea, I am as ever in awe of your point by point analysis of Schafly's
Bullsh*targument.I would have just made a fist of rage and a few inarticulate sputterings of people's stupidity and "RTFR (Read the Frikkin Ruling!)"
Thanks so much for pointing this out and giving it the treatment it deserved. I finally waded through the 139 pages of the Dover ruling and was actually cheering in spots. Good to see some measure of common sense still exists in this country.
:Goes back to making fun of Bill O' Reilly in her Journal:
Re: Kudos!
Date: 2006-01-05 01:46 am (UTC)