Tuesday, December 20, 2005

The unelected ones make the rules

It's official. School District Boards no longer have control over the curriculum in their schools. Although the Dover intelligent design debate was solved as it should have been (all of the pro-ID board members were promptly and overwhelmingly removed from their seats during the next election) the district court still ruled that the teaching of ID in a science class violates the Establishment Clause. That's right, the Establishment Clause.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

What? Teaching that there may be a "supernatural designer" to plug up a few of the many holes in evolution establishes religion? What about the "Congress" line? This is a state (city) institution - not a Congressional creation. The judge that wrote the opinion claimed that he is not an activist judge. I would beg to differ (without omitting the fact that the former board members were obviously activist, too).

How a district court can claim that a 15-second statement about an intelligent entity helping to shape the evolution of life can violate the Establishment Clause is well beyond me. Maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer. And maybe it's because I'm not an idiot.

3 comments:

burhocky said...

I'd been waiting to hear what you had to say about this all day. Absolutely ridiculous, isn't it? What sort of judge would even begin to think that they could dictate educational policy?

I agree that ID isn't the greatest alternative to evolutionist theory, but to attack it on constitutional terms instead of scientific terms is an incredible failure on the part of education. Like you stated before, the goal is academic freedom. Why limit students learning ability?

slowpitch said...

We posted on this before (http://radarblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/textbook-proponency-of-judicial.html), predicting the stakes.

It's important to note that the school board that implemented the 'intelligent design' clause was voted out by citizens in the lats election--the way it should wrok. The judge didn't even need to rule, but decided to issue a sweeping new rule anyway.

The fact that this issue has already been decided by voters probably negates any appeals to a higher court, but this ruling would surely be reversed. It's obscene and activist...if nothing else, Roe needs to be overturned to demonstrate that activism won't be tolerated.

Anonymous said...

I would question that Judge Jones is an activist judge. He was appointed by President Bush, and he received praise from both sides of the aisle. I'd say that someone who is supported by Rick Santorum and Tom Ridge is probably not a radical leftie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/national/18judge.html

The Captain

(I can't remember my password or username, darn it)