NO KID GLOVES
I don’t care if he is only 17.
Rudy Takala, guest writer at the conservative/Christian TheRealityCheck.org needs to review his lessons in framing an argument. The former HEK is all up in arms about the Dover decision– it’s unconstitutional, anti-Christian, blah, blah, blah. All the typical right-wing/fundie talking points. And then he destroys his own argument:
The Constitution was conceived to protect all Americans against the agendas of any who would use the government in advancing their own personal interests or beliefs. Because humans tend to be alike in their penchant for exploiting power, the means to that end was a limitation on power. The solution was not suppressing particular groups in society.
Exactly. The Constitution was designed to protect from the tyranny of the majority. Like, say, a fundamentalist Christian school board dictating to biology teachers that they must read a statement in class that evolution was suspect and that the students, some of whom might not be fundamentalists/creationists, might want to consider the new and improved creationism, Intelligent Design. After all, 2000 years ago a man died on a cross. Can’t someone on the Dover school board take a stand for Him?
The issues in Kitzmiller are very simple. The Dover board was on public record wanting to teach creationism in the schools. They thought that ID was the way to do that. The Court said no. That’s the real reality check.
4 Responses to “NO KID GLOVES”
 Comment by Annette January 2nd, 2006 at 7:49 am |
Daryl, |
 Comment by Daryl Cobranchi January 2nd, 2006 at 8:15 am |
The teachers were told to read it, but they refused. The school principals then read the statement. But it’s irrelevant who read the statement. The fact of its existence and government endorsement of ID and Pandas is what created the unconstitutional situation. Jones found that ID and Pandas were religious and not scientific. He also found that the board’s motives were to teach creationism (in the guise of ID) in the schools. Those are two of the prongs of the Lemon test. They failed both. |
 Comment by Tad January 2nd, 2006 at 10:48 am |
Daryl, if you read the very next paragraph, he isn’t drawing the conclusion that the state should be forced to not teach ID. His conclusion is that the student cannot be forced by the state to study (or not study) evolution, ID or Creationism, because to do so exceeds the state’s constitutional mandate. His point, not explictly stated, is that the tax funded public school system is unconstitutional. I tend to agree with him. |
|
Comment by Daryl Cobranchi January 2nd, 2006 at 10:54 am |
Of course. But the very same argument negates everything he wrote up to that point. |