An Intelligent Ruling on Design
Of course, within the narrow context of the US Constitution, Judge John Jones’ ruling is correct. There can be no rational dispute about that. The US Constitution prohibits State advocacy of any religion, and "Intelligent Design" is repackaged religion.
Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover policy and
accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive,
which he said was to promote religion.A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence"
establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere
re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said Jones, a
Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years
ago.
I applaud Judge Jones on his objectivity.
In a wider context, children ought to be taught and instilled the values their parents would impart to them, at their own expense, of course, living with the full consequences of what they do (or don’t) teach them. But in our greater "wisdom," we have instead devised a system where everyone pays the cost of education for everyone but themselves; thus, no one owns it, no one has an absolute say in what’s taught, and no one is happy with the product or the result.
Rather than focusing on what we will learn, we focus instead on what we will "teach" to others. Our "wisdom" knows no bounds.
Join Over 5,000 Subscribers!
Get exclusive content sent directly to your inbox.
5 Comments
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
And, that's exactly what happened. You and your brothers education through 12th grade was paid for by your parents for private school education. At the same time however, we still had to pay for other parents children by way of taxes. Doesn't sound quite fair to me. Or, I guess I'm just a cheap skate.
Well, maybe so, John. Then again, they clearly didn't mean "freedom" and "equality" when they said and wrote those words either, did they? The practice of slavery tells us that.
So, what we have to fall back on is only the literal word.
'Course, that's not much good for anything, either.
"The US Constitution prohibits State advocacy of any religion…"
Actually it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…"
This was inteneded to, among other things, *protect* existing establishments of religion in three states which ratified it.
And the framers of course went on to provide for national days of prayer and dozens of other practices you'd construe as state advocay of religion. They clarly didn't mean what you mean.
No Bob, I did address it. I said:
"children ought to be taught and instilled the values their parents would impart to them, at their own expense, of course, living with the full consequences of what they do (or don't) teach them."
It's what I meant, and it's one reason kids are going to private school, at parent's expense.
You said "children ought to be taught and instilled the values their parents would impart to them, at their own expense, of course, living with the full consequences of what they do (or don't) teach them."
You fail to address the conflict that happens when schools teach values that are complete opposites of the values the parents find important and neccessary. No wonder more and more kids are attending private schools and being homeschooled.