Evolutionry/religious nonsense

"Public schools" fought since the early 1900's to be able to teach objective evidence based science on a number of topics (like anthroplogy , agronomy, early medicine and cosmology) but laws like "Butler Laws" would NOT allow evolution to even be taught until the 1950's. To this day, the Creationists and IDer s act like thyeve been unfairly treated when its rally the other way around.
I for one do not want to return to the days when science was a sub-discipline of religion. Places like the Discovery Intitute and parochial schools can teach whatever they wish, I dont think one case was ever brought where science teachers have tried to infiltrate a parochial school system. In actuality though, most parochial schools have , by themselves, decided to accept what science has discovered and , like the Catholic schools in PA, they probably offer some of the best segments on genetics and evolution and earth sciences.

Thomas Jefferson, a stanch advocate of decentralized power, recognized that a federal government empowered to judge the extent of its own authority was one that would never remain limited in size or scope. Because of this, the power of the federal judiciary was always of great concern to him. The following is a small, but representative, sample of a number of Jefferson’s views on the power of the judicial branch of the federal government.

He said judicial tyranny made the Constitution “a thing of wax.”

If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

Jefferson was plainly alarmed by the possibility of judicial tyranny.

You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

Jefferson plainly had an answer against judicial tyranny.

This case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

He saw where judicial tyranny was leading.

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. —Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821

He saw judicial tyranny as an undermining of the Constitution.

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm … — Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

Jefferson saw judicial tyranny as an all-out assault on the Constitution.

I fear, dear Sir, we are now in such another crisis [as when the Alien and Sedition Laws were enacted], with this difference only, that the judiciary branch is alone and single-handed in the present assaults on the Constitution. But its assaults are more sure and deadly, as from an agent seemingly passive and unassuming. — Letter to Mr. Nicholas, Dec. 1821

He saw judicial tyranny as the greatest danger to the nation.

… there is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, instrumentality of the Supreme Court. — Letter to William Johnson, Mar. 1823

For judges to usurp the powers of the legislature is unconstitutional judicial tyranny.

… One single object … will entitle you to the endless gratitude of society; that of restraining judges from usurping legislation. — Letter to Edward Livingston, Mar. 1825

After 350 years Vatican says Galileo was right. (1992) At that rate the fundamentalists should accept Darwin by the year 2200.

Intelligent design is based on religious' belief. "Intelligence" must be sourced to something or god(s); there's nothing else to explain it. There is no god who designed this universe; no intelligent designer. It's the product of nature.

A stray rock from deep space could wipe out this planet in most any given year. Intelligence?

You can't give the universe human purpose and call it god

Inteligent Design is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion new age Paganism Hindu, Buddhaism, Catholicism, Lutheraninsm, Islam, etc. . . they are philosophical views.

. We have the freedom "of and from religion" and you , by being religious, are not in charge of the public schools, ie those that are supported by the states, no more than I can superimpose "methodological naturalism" onto your parochial schools and whatever they may use as an understanding of the basis of biology.

The very thing (you think) that Jefferson would be for has never failed us, (which is the simple genius of our system). It took over 200 years for the interlocking understanding of the clauses within the 1st amendment.

Id think that the TEnth Amendment Center would be all for keeping religious controls out of our lives, our public lives, and our business. However, I dont wanna try to spend any time with their mantras since many of those guys are also folks with some extreme beliefs.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions..

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)[1] was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.[2] In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory, and that Of Pandas and People, a textbook advocating intelligent design, was to be used as a reference book.[3] The prominence of this textbook during the trial was such that the case is sometimes referred to as the Dover Panda Trial,[4][5] a name which recalls the popular name of the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, 80 years earlier. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN--in its own title , submits to "higher authority" and is therefore, (in my eyes) religion based. SO far, all the courts since the 1950s, in pursuing their charge of providing "judicial review", hqve agreed with me, and have soundly refuted the assertions of a "science base" for ID(and its father "Scientific Creationism")

Your point of view is (religion) "by law" must be religiously taught in parochial schools too.

I have to pay good money to a parochial school and pay taxes to the public school so that my children can get an unbiased education at a parochial school that is open to all points of view

I think the people that wrote it understood it. They were brilliant people

We have building codes and health codes and moral codes and laws that we religiously follow everyday. They make our society civil and safe so we can live secure and free within reasonable parameters. The basic freedoms of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness endowed by our creator cannot be experienced without these religious beliefs being followed by most everyone.

xcept these “rights” were limited to white male property owners of the “correct” Christian religion

view is on the other side of a few bigoted judges now?

Bigoted? really? should the schools have just bent over and left the church of ID take over and lead education down the road back to Reconstruction where they taught that only white people were fully human??