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

David Opderbeck wrote:

> Yes, but it has little to do with the argument that it was "essential"
> for Judge Jones to make sweeping findings about whether ID is
> "science." As you note, Ted, ID could be considered "not science" and
> yet have a valid secular purpose, such as presenting philosophical
> arguments about evolution. The legal issue isn't whether ID meets some
> definition of "science." The issue is one of motive. As you've
> correctly noted, the motive here wasn't really to present
> philosophical arguments about evolution, it was to promote a
> particular religious viewpoint about creation.
>

But in this case the defendants did not raise this valid secular purpose
argument other than by arguing that since ID is science, teaching ID
satisfies the secular purpose requirement.
The legal issue is one of purpose, motives of the legislator may include
religious aspects and still not violate the establishment clause if
there is a valid secular purpose.
As such, the defense's claim that such a valid purpose overrides and
religious motives of the board needs to be addressed. Showing that the
claimed purpose is a sham, essentially settles the matter.

    Moreover, Justice O’Connor provided the fifth vote for the /Lynch/
    majority and her concurrence emphasized the point made implicitly in
    the majority opinion that a secular purpose must be serious to be
    sufficient. 465 U.S., at 691 (The purpose inquiry “is not satisfied
    … by the mere existence of some secular purpose, however dominated
    by religious purposes”).

McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETI- TIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF KENTUCKY et al
Received on Tue Jan 10 14:13:41 2006