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

*The simplest way of seeing this is by replacing ID with evolution and
> keeping everything else the same. According to David, the court would
> have had to rule as it did in the case of ID, rejecting evolution
> because of the legislative history of the board.*
*
*Now you're just misrepresenting my position. Go back and read what I said;
I said exactly the opposite.

*In addition, people may
> consider evolution contrary to their religious beliefs and thus hostile
> to religion. In other words, the effect of such a law may very well be
> an endorsement violation, if one fails to take into consideration the
> existence of a valid primary secular purpose.
*
Oh, goodness, now you're confusing the establishment and free exercise
clauses.

> Hope this clarifies.

No, it makes things worse. Are you doing this on purpose just to goad the
discussion?

On 1/9/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> > No one should base their opinion on my expertise. Read the precedents
> > for yourself and judge for yourself. My experience as a courtroom
> > lawyer, however, is valuable not as a source of authority, but as a
> > source of empirical data concerning how the courts actually work.
> > Specifically, my extensive experience rebuts your unsupported
> > assertion that the court was required to write a lengthy opinion
> > and/or to address every argument the parties raised.
>
> An I respectfully disagree with your opinion. While your experience may
> lead you to this conclusion, factual case law seems to grant little
> credibility. In addition, Judge Jones' own statement that the ruling was
> essential should be taken into consideration. While one may reject his
> statement, I argue that case law and logic inevitably lead the
> conclusion that one need to determine if stated primary secular purpose
> is a sham or not. In other words, if the board had made the exactly same
> arguments, and instead of ID they insisted on teaching evolution, then a
> primary secular purpose exists which may override any secondary
> purposes. In other words, the scientific nature of evolution is
> essential, the lack of a valid secular purpose, namely the teaching of
> ID as a valid science, is why the establishment clause violation is
> almost inevitable.
>
> > As to that data point, perhaps you think I'm lying, or perhaps you
> > think I'm wrong, but I haven't seen you present any emprical evidence
> > to the contrary (because there is none).
> >
> On the contrary, I have shown through case law, logic, Judge Jones' own
> statement, the arguments presented by the plaintiffs and defendants how
> the conclusion is all but inevitable. In addition, I feel supported by
> both Judge Jones statement and Michael Dorf's analysis, even before the
> judge ruled on the issue.
>
> > As to the atheism question, once again I've gone to the trouble of
> > providing you with some actual case law which shows why your position
> > fails, and once again you try to sidestep it with the "purpose" mantra
> > divorced from the rich context I've provided.
> >
>
> In fact, you have done nothing to support your position. According to
> David the court would have had to find against a board even if it raises
> a valid secular purpose.
>
> > /In fact, as David knows, the SC has been moving away from the idea of a
> > > subjective purpose towards 'objective purpose' ./
> >
> > No, the court has been moving away from subjective purpose of the
> > legislator to the subjective perception of the public. The
> > question now seems to be not so much what the legislator intended as
> > whether the public perceives an "endorsement" of religion. It's odd
> > how you bounce back and forth between "purpose" and "endorsement" like
> > a ping-pong ball.
> >
> And thus from a subjective to an objective purpose. Purpose and
> endorsement are intrivally linked. In fact the endorsement test
> incorporates much of the first two prongs of Lemon.
>
>
> > As I've said at least a half-dozen times now, the big, "objective"
> > question whether ID is "science" is irrelevant both to what the
> > legislators intended (purpose) and to what the public perceives
> > ("endorsement"). /
> > /
> >
>
> That is incorrect, if the legislator raises a valid secular purpose then
> intentions are secondary to what their statements were. And what the
> public perceives, need to be seen in context of the existence of a valid
> secular purpose. If ID had been shown to be a science, the ruling would
> have been much different. Case law, precedent all support this simple
> fact. In Edwards, the issue was whether or not Creation Science was
> science and thus had a valid secular purpose, since the legislative
> history showed that creation science was not scientific and strongly
> religious the Edwards court found it not hard to reject the claims. In
> the Kitzmiller case, legislative history says nothing about the nature
> of ID, whether it is primarily scientific. Note that the judge did not
> rule that ID is religious, this is irrelevant. Lacking a valid secular
> purpose makes an establishment clause violation almost inevitable.
> Read the various references I provided you on this topic.
>
> The simplest way of seeing this is by replacing ID with evolution and
> keeping everything else the same. According to David, the court would
> have had to rule as it did in the case of ID, rejecting evolution
> because of the legislative history of the board. In addition, people may
> consider evolution contrary to their religious beliefs and thus hostile
> to religion. In other words, the effect of such a law may very well be
> an endorsement violation, if one fails to take into consideration the
> existence of a valid primary secular purpose.
>
> Hope this clarifies.
>
Received on Mon Jan 9 22:52:16 2006