Judge John Jones' ruling in the Dover, PA school board case a couple of weeks ago was dead-nuts perfect. Every case about ID...every case...will eventually include Jones' 139-page conclusion and decision, and in each case opponents of the separation of church and state will lose.
A federal judge barred a Pennsylvania school district yesterday from mentioning "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolutionary theory in a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members for lying under oath and for their "breathtaking inanity" in trying to inject religion into science classes.
Breathtaking inanity. I absolutely love it!
...(the Judge) explicitly sought to vanquish intelligent design, the argument that aspects of life are so complex as to require the hand, subtle or not, of a supernatural creator. This theory, he said, relies on the unprovable existence of a Christian God and therefore is not science.
And some sanity injected into the discussion by this judge. I love that, too!
Wow!
Bottom line, I begrudge no one for their personal and private beliefs. Private...as in don't push it into a public school. I am simply of the opinion (and Judge Jones is as well) that the existence of the christian god is unprovable...the existence of any supreme being is unprovable at this point.
Does that mean I can prove that there isn't a god? Of course not, no one can do that either. Do I hope there's a heaven the way it's described by christians? Abso-freakin'-lutely I do. I'm just open minded enough that I'll take a wait-and-see attitude on it.
7 comments:
You're just open-minded enough not to tolerate a differing point of view to be available to youngsters in order for them to make a determination.
That's the trademark of the left - flood the arena with one single perspective, while silencing any other(s).
Personally, I do not have a "horse" in this intelligent design debate. I just think its interesting how the left, whenever it disagrees with a particular philosophy, aims to silence that philosophy rather than engage in a discussion of it.
The left likes to spout off about freedom of speech, but only when it serves their particular agenda. When someone else wishes to exercise that freedom they celebrate when the other side is muzzled.
Shameful!
You've got all the freedom you want to teach ID in church, in private religious schools, in your home.
Not in a public school. Why is that so hard to understand? I wouldn't expect to be able to come into Peoria Notre Dame and teach a course on agnosticism...or Islam for that matter.
Ofcourse, it's perfectly acceptable to the left to teach courses (in public schools) about homosexuality or how to use a condom.
The libs never get it. The Constituion says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The libs are always looking for ways to prohibit the free exercise of religion. Teaching ID in public schools would certainly not be the equivalent of Congress passing a law that establishes a specific religion. But over time the libs have twisted this around to mean no religion may be exercised.
That's not what the Constitution says.
Keep spouting about "the left". And then read the main post again. The judge who wrote the ruling was a conservative republican, appointed by Bush. It's not just "the left" that carries this opinion.
I'd rather respond to someone who will put their name next to a post, but I'll just finish my part of the discussion with this from the AP:
"Jones is a lifelong Republican who ran for Congress and narrowly lost more than a decade ago. He has described his mentor as Tom Ridge, the former Pennsylvania governor who served as homeland security secretary. Bush appointed Jones to the bench in 2002."
Also, how come it is that anytime a Republican does something the extreme right doesn't like, they become a "RINO"? I thought you guys were the party of "inclusion for everyone". Guess not.
You (BJ) and Rob Berry. Ugh.
Post a Comment