Re: Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dove...

*Sure, Dort is wrong, Judge Jones is wrong, I am wrong...*

You got it. The argument from authority is, of course, specious.

*

*
On 1/8/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> > /Of course it matters since religious purposes/effects may exist but if
a
> > > valid secular purpose can be found, and one can thus argue that the
> > > policy served a primary secular purpose, the court has to reject an
> > > establishment clause violation on these grounds./
> >
> > Sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this sentence.
>
>
> I am sorry to hear this. Even if religious purposes exist, if the
> primary purpose is secular, then the court has to address the secular
> purpose.
>
> >
> > /So far I have yet to see my hypothetical example addressed such as
> > > teaching evolution as a religion./
> >
> > I addressed it twice; read the thread.
>
>
> Not really, you argue that motives is what determines purpose. In case
> of the hypothetical example, the motives were the same as in Kitzmiller,
> only the issue of teaching evolution was not. In other words, there is
> more than just the simple idea that the subjective motives of the Dover
> board are sufficient to find a establishment clause violation
>
> >
> > /Michael Dorf, Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law at Columbia University
> > > School of Law, argues a very similar argument/
> >
> > Then Dorf also is wrong.
> >
> Sure, Dort is wrong, Judge Jones is wrong, I am wrong...
>
Received on Mon Jan 9 13:16:34 2006