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

David Opderbeck wrote:

> /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.

Why? If the issue of ID/Evolution being scientific is not relevant how
come that you advocate reaching two different conclusions based on the
same behavior and legislative history? Do you see the contradiction here?

>
>
> /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.
>
Sigh... Just making such claims are hardly convincing David. I may very
well say the same of you. See how easy it is to 'rebut'?

Let's get back to a valid and primary secular purpose. Would the
existence or absence of such a purpose make any difference to the
ruling? Both as to the purpose prong as well as to the endorsement test.
It's time to confront the example I presented.

Replace ID with evolution, accept the same legislative history where the
board is either shown to endorse a particular religious proposition or
shows hostility to a religion. The only difference is that they require
evolution to be taught.

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

Sigh... I notice you still avoid dealing with the obvious. Logic, case
law all contradict your claims.
I am still trying to understand your position which I find logically
flawed and legally unsupported.
Received on Mon Jan 9 23:20:59 2006