Intelligent Design, My ASS!
HARRISBURG, PA -- The Supreme Court stated in Edwards v. Aguillar, that "[f]amilies entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family."
Unfortunately, we live in a time when social conservatives and right-wing "christians" are becoming increasingly aggressive in their efforts to attempt to force their superstitions upon members of society who choose to have more rational beliefs.
As part of this aggressive promotion of religion, a majority of the Dover Area School District has chosen to use the code words "intelligent design" in order to promote the creationism superstition in the public schools under their control.
Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, in order to avoid a First Amendment violation, the school board must have acted with a secular purpose, in a way that does not promote (nor inhibit) religion, and the act must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. State action violates the establishment clause if it fails to satisfy any one of these factors.
Accordingly, despite what many anti-constitutionalists (yes, fuck you Elizabeth Dole) would like us to believe, the First Amendment both protects our freedom of religion AND our freedom *from* religion. For the right to choose to *not* believe is certainly as important and as fundamental as the right to choose *what* to believe.
With this as a legal backdrop, the Dover board has some problems in this case. The first problem I see is testimony that clearly demonstrates that the majority's motivation was to promote the christian superstition of creationism. Although there has been some attempt to characterize this as promoting intelligent design as a means of offering an alternative theory to Darwinism, I can't see a shred of honesty in this characterization.
The board members' comments, if they are true, clearly show that they wanted to not only promote the existence of a deity, but to promote the christian version of this deity.
If they truly wanted to offer alternatives to scientific theories, then why has the board only chosen to offer an alternative to Darwinism? If the school board had decided to simultaneously offer alchemy as part of their chemistry curriculum; phrenology as part of their biology curriculum; magic as an alternative to physics; and astrology as an alternative to astronomy, then their motives would at least seem more pure (but still suspect).
So, the first prong appears to be a slam-dunk by the plaintiffs -- there is no way that this school board acted with a secular purpose, and their reported comments make this abundantly clear.
The second prong, promotion of religion, is not as much of a slam dunk, but I think that the plaintiffs have won the point here too. Intelligent Design is nothing more than code for "creationism." Yes, there have been some nut-jobs who have said that the creator might have been aliens (or goblins, I guess), but ultimately, the purpose and effect is to indoctrinate children into the belief that "someone" or "something" created the universe. You don't need to be an atheist to find this repugnant. For example, Buddhism has no creationism myth. If a family is trying to raise their child as a Buddhist, and that child is indoctrinated to believe in an intelligent creator, then the school is forcing a superstition onto that child that tells them that their religion cannot be correct.
Now, the counterargument is that if you are trying to raise your child as a christian, that Darwinism is at odds with fundamental literal reading of the bible. Well, science is not a religion... and promotion of science that may call religion into question is not something that runs afoul of the First Amendment. Under the constitution, science is allowed to challenge your religious beliefs, but not vice versa. Promotion of ID, a religious superstition with absolutely zero scientific backing certainly has the effect of promoting one religion over others as well as over non-religion.
As far as the "excessive entanglement" prong goes, this is the weakest side for the plaintiffs. The Board isn't having priests teach ID, and isn't requiring religious attendance. And, from what I have seen, they have not added the bible to the reading curriculum in this district. I see the "excessive entanglement" prong as the highest hurdle, and I am not certain that I have seen or heard any evidence thus far that clears this hurdle.
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs seem to have a 2-1 lead, at the very least. More like a 2-0-1. If the ACLU loses this case, then either the lawyer threw the case on purpose, or the judge learned his ethics from Antonin Scalia.
Unfortunately, we live in a time when social conservatives and right-wing "christians" are becoming increasingly aggressive in their efforts to attempt to force their superstitions upon members of society who choose to have more rational beliefs.
As part of this aggressive promotion of religion, a majority of the Dover Area School District has chosen to use the code words "intelligent design" in order to promote the creationism superstition in the public schools under their control.
Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, in order to avoid a First Amendment violation, the school board must have acted with a secular purpose, in a way that does not promote (nor inhibit) religion, and the act must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion. State action violates the establishment clause if it fails to satisfy any one of these factors.
Accordingly, despite what many anti-constitutionalists (yes, fuck you Elizabeth Dole) would like us to believe, the First Amendment both protects our freedom of religion AND our freedom *from* religion. For the right to choose to *not* believe is certainly as important and as fundamental as the right to choose *what* to believe.
With this as a legal backdrop, the Dover board has some problems in this case. The first problem I see is testimony that clearly demonstrates that the majority's motivation was to promote the christian superstition of creationism. Although there has been some attempt to characterize this as promoting intelligent design as a means of offering an alternative theory to Darwinism, I can't see a shred of honesty in this characterization.
The board members' comments, if they are true, clearly show that they wanted to not only promote the existence of a deity, but to promote the christian version of this deity.
If they truly wanted to offer alternatives to scientific theories, then why has the board only chosen to offer an alternative to Darwinism? If the school board had decided to simultaneously offer alchemy as part of their chemistry curriculum; phrenology as part of their biology curriculum; magic as an alternative to physics; and astrology as an alternative to astronomy, then their motives would at least seem more pure (but still suspect).
So, the first prong appears to be a slam-dunk by the plaintiffs -- there is no way that this school board acted with a secular purpose, and their reported comments make this abundantly clear.
The second prong, promotion of religion, is not as much of a slam dunk, but I think that the plaintiffs have won the point here too. Intelligent Design is nothing more than code for "creationism." Yes, there have been some nut-jobs who have said that the creator might have been aliens (or goblins, I guess), but ultimately, the purpose and effect is to indoctrinate children into the belief that "someone" or "something" created the universe. You don't need to be an atheist to find this repugnant. For example, Buddhism has no creationism myth. If a family is trying to raise their child as a Buddhist, and that child is indoctrinated to believe in an intelligent creator, then the school is forcing a superstition onto that child that tells them that their religion cannot be correct.
Now, the counterargument is that if you are trying to raise your child as a christian, that Darwinism is at odds with fundamental literal reading of the bible. Well, science is not a religion... and promotion of science that may call religion into question is not something that runs afoul of the First Amendment. Under the constitution, science is allowed to challenge your religious beliefs, but not vice versa. Promotion of ID, a religious superstition with absolutely zero scientific backing certainly has the effect of promoting one religion over others as well as over non-religion.
As far as the "excessive entanglement" prong goes, this is the weakest side for the plaintiffs. The Board isn't having priests teach ID, and isn't requiring religious attendance. And, from what I have seen, they have not added the bible to the reading curriculum in this district. I see the "excessive entanglement" prong as the highest hurdle, and I am not certain that I have seen or heard any evidence thus far that clears this hurdle.
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs seem to have a 2-1 lead, at the very least. More like a 2-0-1. If the ACLU loses this case, then either the lawyer threw the case on purpose, or the judge learned his ethics from Antonin Scalia.
posted by Enrico Giamondi at 2:19 PM
1 Comments:
Hi, there. If there's anything good about this World, it's an antimoney concept all Us Buddhists must rely on, & thereby welcome to be taken seriously by anyone like us with a sense of what moral is (all about), so that I can more easily explain you my ideas & help you - & myself concentrate on what to become of & done about them, as you want them.
Greetings, J.A.,
jodyartie@yahoo.
dk.
Post a Comment
<< Home