Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Somewhere , in a red state, the same case as was tried in Dover will happen. It could have happened in Kansas , or may still, considering how the state ed board teeter totters between IDers and Rationals. Were ID to win, and what with the stare decisis clearly setting in concrete(by virtue of over 9 Fed cases), , there would then have to be an appeal that would go to the USSC . Assuming that the USSC would take the case(They could just wimp out and refuse) That case would settle it once and for-all, save the fact that "teaching the controversy" and " Critical thinking" garbage are still rising, and untested banners on the horizon.
The fact that we have these jackoffs that spendi wishes to dignify as great thinkers, we could just be doomed to handling the entire issue school district by school district,And this will lead to an entire line of cases on appeal or on direct that will be waiting the Supremes sometime down the road.
Now with this new HB which denies damages and legal fees to the winners of a clearly "religious based " case (as per the "right to worship Act) it could get even more interesting.

Interestingly, The National Academy of Science has produced a set of national science education standards in which the teaching of evolution stands amidships. NAS has also defined the "religious based" pseudo sciences and has included Creationism, ID, and all the other subspecies of religious based biology.
However, as usual, this administrations policy on science ed is more like that of Andorra.Im certain that NAS's policy statement will never see the light of day beyond its web-site.
Like set said, most "leaders" test their polls before they have an original thought. So, we keep electing these morons, we deserve our own platskis.

I have to admit that ID /Cretinism as well as Pro-evolution have morphed themselves into very large business entities with publishing houses and outreaches and lecture bureaus. Im not happy about the present condition and feel as incensed about the NCSE's constant cry for cash as I am about the great "Cash Cow" the Discovery Institute and the legion of little suckling pigs its spawned like "The Institute of Complexity in Design" (Chaired by billy Dembski). All these would be unneeded were everyone to go back to square 1 and announce their aupport of "lets on;y teach science in science classes".

However, as long as the argument rages about what science includes, we will have these ed-board fights and state election ping pong matches until the Supreme Court says what it should. (That is of course, unless the ScaliaThomasRobertsAlito cabal decides to take us back a few centuries in time)

0 Replies

Farmerman,
You briefly referred to the proposed federal legislation (there is now a similar bill in the Senate). It led me to think that political processes such as local elections will dissuade politicians from forcing the teaching of ID.

Anyway, this was my most recent update:

wandeljw wrote:

U.S. CONGRESS UPDATE

I previously posted about H.R. 2679 (Public Expression of Religion Act) which has not yet been voted on by the House of Representatives. The Senate now has its own version of the proposed legislation:

Quote:
S.3696
Title: A bill to amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to prevent the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits such governments' constitutional actions under the first, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.
Sponsor: Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] (introduced 7/20/2006)
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2006 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.

Source: Library of Congress

0 Replies

Quote:

As set had commented , it appears that the "fullcircleness" of ID lying in Arkansa would be rather like "Ozymandias" neh?

Sorry guys, my writing is getting as goofy as spendi. I meant to state that the closure of the entire issue (its "fullcircleness") , from the Supreme Court stopping the banning of evolution in schools (Epperson v ARkansas)-all the way to stopping the teaching of ID as "science" would be" lying" (as in residing) in Arkansas.
Of course its Politics with a Big P
I knew I phucked up when Wolf had problems with my meaning. Spendi, Im not so much worried about since he speaks no recognized language except "Budweiserian".

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I meant Wolf that it ought to be on the politics thread. The lying in Arkansa(s).

Oh... Okay then. My mistake.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
spendi,

Do you and Mathos frequent the same pub?

I should be unsurprised were it to be the case the two not merely frequent but in fact inhabit the same physical abode, perhaps even the same corporeal entity.

I had pointed this irritating accusation out timberlandko, your barking mad to reiterate words of the uneducated. You could prove different to yourself.

And were are your ancestors from, Ireland?

0 Replies

wandel

Quote:

S.3696
Title: A bill to amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to prevent the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits such governments' constitutional actions under the first, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.

So, this , and the House Bill, the way I read it, states that if a State or local government adopts a "religious based" reg or ordinance, and its taken to court, The winner(if the ordinance falls in court) is not entitled to collect fees and damages.

Im sorry , but if my interpretation is correct, we will have the beginnings of the US Christian Jihadist government. Any case that could be interpreted as religious based, and ID securely fits in there, would be a very prohibitively expensive case to win all the way up to the USSC.It redefines Pyrrhus's win.

Were the Public Expression of Religion Acts be made Law, then Dover could have been appealed by the School Board and even if the original finding were upheld, the case costs would be uncollectible by the Kitzmillers.
Thats total eyewash IMHO. Wheres the sponsorship for these Bills, these guys need to be seriously voted out, no matter what their parties.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

we deserve our own platskis.

One cannot help oneself thinking that there might be some wisdom buried deep in that remark.

I don't know what " platskis" actually is but from the phoneme and the morpheme point of view I would guess it is something it is reasonable to have grave reservations about approaching without a stainless-steel asbestos lined suit of body armour and a division of the Marine Corps going on ahead to check things out.

0 Replies

Mm... FM, your suggestion sounds very good. I've always wanted to try potato pancakes made with real potatoes.

http://www.virtualcities.com/ons/nc/a/ncac8011.htm

So I can't for the life of me see why electing morons would have such a nice reward...

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

I've always wanted to try potato pancakes made with real potatoes.

Wolf-

You oughtn't to. They can be addictive.

0 Replies

farmerman, quoting a Senate scam, wrote:

S.3696: Title: A bill to amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to prevent the use of the legal system in a manner that extorts money from State and local governments, and the Federal Government, and inhibits such governments' constitutional actions under the first, tenth, and fourteenth amendments.

Note the word "extort." This is not the sort of thing which has any other purpose than grandstanding in the season of the mid-term elections. Those on the Federal bench are not going to be taken in by something such as this, in awarding damages. It would turn on a definition of extortion, and were it not very specifically defined in legislation which can stand up to judicial review, the courts would be free to ignore it, and likely would do so. This is the sort of thing which those running for re-election trot out, like flag-burning amendment, to establish "credentials" with the constituency. It is a sad comment on human nature that it is an effective technique. It is a happy comment on human nature that it isn't necessary to actually pass legislative drivel such as this for the politicians to make points--they know it wouldn't fly, and that they are not actually obliged to pass such nonsense.

0 Replies

A further observation on the silliness referred to as Senate Bill 3696. It refers to the first amendment, which makes absolutely no reference to the powers of nor restrictions on state and local governments. It is concerned only with the protection of rights of the people, to wit: freedom of religion and from establishment of religion, freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of peaceful assembly. The tenth amendment reserves to the people and the Several States those powers not granted to the Federal government, and is generally recognized to have been made a dead letter by the American Civil War (the secessionist States used the tenth amendment their authority to secede and to seize Federal property and officers within their territory). The fourteenth amendment has five paragraphs--the first contains the crucial due process provisions--the second through fourth paragraphs deal with rights of citizenship both to assure the rights of all taxed male citizens (thereby excluding Indians) and to exclude those who have engaged in insurrection or other crimes against the nation (i.e., Confederates), and the last paragraph empowers the Congress to make such laws as will be necessary to put the provisions of the amendment into effect.

In short, these boys are talkin' through their collective hats.

0 Replies

Platskis, or platzeks, depending on the parish of origin, were a holiday celebratory food, similar to latkes, except without the onions sometimes. The Ukee churches always made the best ones for holidays and the ladies aleways did the bang up job of cooking "gourmet platskis'. So, if you didnt get to the church table, you had to eat your own platskis which were , always , the worst, because if the priests came over, they would demand traditional (without onions and cooked kinda bland) The church platzeks were latke -like and were superior.

Its a little bit of a homegrown saying but still used by Pennsylvanians.

I hate most ethnic foods of my heritage. I actually like lattkes because , mostly, someone else does all the work and Jewish cooking is far above subsistance. They use condiments with their lattkes. When I was a kid, KETCHUP was the most used condiment after salt.

0 Replies

set, This is the same bunch of dudes that gave us "The Patriot ACt', The Freedom to Farm Bill" and now, because there is some feeling that Industrial farmers sons are getting screwed because their daddy's investment in land has significantly appreciated, "The overturning of what they call "THE DEATH TAX". Im never calm until I see that such bills are either not reported out , or get defeated.

You have more faith in Congress's collective wisdom. I do not.

Also, remember, theres a HB and an SB

0 Replies

Like Setanta mentioned, bills using words like "extort" are part of the political grandstanding going on for the November elections. The package of bills that Farmerman added are part of an "American Values" political strategy.

0 Replies

Why can't your elected representitives just say 'we are doing this' and that's all there is to it.

Did the Founding Fathers not trust their offsping. Wills which restrict the rights of beneficiaries unreasonably are generally declared invalid here I think.

I remember a case of a dentist leaving his secretary about £50 million in today's money providing she remained pure and unsullied for 12 months.

I had to learn to shin up drainpipes in the dark and you should have seen the party to celebrate his first anniversary as a corpse.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

set, This is the same bunch of dudes that gave us "The Patriot ACt', The Freedom to Farm Bill" and now, because there is some feeling that Industrial farmers sons are getting screwed because their daddy's investment in land has significantly appreciated, "The overturning of what they call "THE DEATH TAX". Im never calm until I see that such bills are either not reported out , or get defeated.

You have more faith in Congress's collective wisdom. I do not.

Also, remember, theres a HB and an SB

wandeljw wrote:

Like Setanta mentioned, bills using words like "extort" are part of the political grandstanding going on for the November elections. The package of bills that Farmerman added are part of an "American Values" political strategy.

Wandel understands what i'm getting at, FM. Something like the Patriot Act was a canny bit of policy on the part of the administration, and was easily rammed down the Congressional throat at a time when none dared speak out against any measure which could be characterized as protecting us from terrorists. As Wandel points out, the farm bill is a part of an ideological package. If you investigate those acts, you will find that they are carefully constructed to not only acheive the inteded end, but to avoid being overturned in the courts.

The bill which you have quoted, however, is vague (no mention is made of how the first, tenth and fourteenth amendments refer to "extortion" in litigation--which is understandable, given that they are not applicable) and intentionally ambiguous ("extort," without further descriptive and very specific definition is meaningless, and leaves it entirely to the bench reviewing a case to determine, and would likely be judicially ignored). This is the political silly season, and it is always important to look at to whom (in terms of a constituency) a bill might appeal when it is hurried into the public spotlight. The Patriot Act can be rammed through a Congress which has been emasculated by fear of terrorism; otherwise, legislative packages take many, many moths, and sometimes literally years, to construct in order not simply to pass, but to stand up to judicial review.

The bill you have quoted is just silly--so i don't worry about it because i have faith in Congress, i don't worry about because i have faith in the disingenuous character of politicians running for office. One third of the Senate is up for election in November--so you can expect to see more such nonsense in the months to come.

*****************************

Spurious, you are referring to legacies in fee entail, and they are not legal here either. As usual, your remarks are irrelevant, and demonstrate the extent to which you just don't get it. We expect no less of you.

0 Replies

oK, iLL GET back in my cage. Since you two had posted, I took the time to look up on the Thomas pages about SB 3696 and HR 2679. The House version is a bit less strident and longer(and perhaps more acceptable , whereas the SB is kinda goofy in its wording as you noted and is primarily concerned with the lawsuit issues for coverage about suits re: plaques and religious mottos on public buildings etc. Not exactly a big herd of supporters for the bill.
However, since it did not exclude lawsuits brought as class actions against an aggrieved class that included school and ed cases like ID, I assumed then, that these were included . The Bill does post a process for engagement which, if I can find in the HB (I only got an intro and a short summary in the Thomas pages)

Good points about the wording in the Senate Bill, wandel and set.

I suppose that "extort" in the intro of a Bill is a term that is rather extreme even for some senators from Iowa and Alabama.

Now, armed with this rather compelling reasonable analysis from you guys, Id like to , when Im back home, confront Ricky Santorum and see what his stand is on this.Itd be funny if he had a position paper , because hes such a shill for this kind of crap.
The SB sponsors are Coburn,Grassley,Vitter,Demint,and Sessions. I wonder what their re-election stati are? are they up this year?
Now the HR is 2005 and has a host of supporters. I needs to find out more about this one.

PS, I still think that we should pitch in and buy spendi a clue.

0 Replies

Now, having said all that, I still feel that such crap legislation must be watched lest it be repackaged and submittedas happened with the "Freedom to Farm" which also contained riders that werent vetoed by Clinton. Heres a letter , just a snippet cause its long. The ACLU had taken time to practice vigilance and let the Senate know what this SB really means

Quote:

ACLU Letter to the Senate Urging Opposition of (S. 3696) the Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006 (8/2/2006)

U.S. Senate
Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights
Washington, DC 20515
Re: THE VETERANS MEMORIALS, BOY SCOUTS, PUBLIC SEALS AND OTHER PUBLIC EXPRESSIONS OF RELIGION PROTECTION ACT of 2006 (s. 3696)

Dear Senator:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and its hundreds of thousands of members, activists, and fifty-three affiliates nationwide, we urge you to oppose S. 3696, The Veterans? Memorials, Boy Scouts, Public Seals, and Other Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act of 2006. This bill would bar damages and awards of attorney?s fees to prevailing parties asserting their fundamental constitutional rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] S. 3696 would limit the longstanding remedies available in cases brought under the Establishment Clause under 42 U.S.C. 1988, which provides for attorneys? fees and costs in all successful cases involving constitutional and civil rights violations.

S. 3696 Shuts the Courthouse Doors.
If this bill were to become law, Congress would, for the first time, single out one area protected by the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement. The only remedy available to plaintiffs bringing Establishment Clause lawsuits would be injunctive relief. This prohibition would apply even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school students or blatant discrimination against particular religions.

Congress long ago determined that attorneys? fee awards in civil rights and constitutional cases, including Establishment Clause cases, are necessary to help prevailing parties vindicate their civil rights, and to enable vigorous enforcement of these protections. The Senate Judiciary Committee has found these fees to be ?an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain . . . compliance.?[2] The Senate emphasized that ?f the cost of private enforcement actions becomes too great, there will be no private enforcement. If our civil rights laws are not to become mere hollow pronouncements which the average citizen cannot enforce, we must maintain the traditionally effective remedy of fee shifting in these cases.?[3]

Unfortunately, S. 3696 would turn the Establishment Clause into a hollow pronouncement. Indeed, the very purpose of this bill is to make it more difficult for citizens to challenge violations of the Establishment Clause, raising serious constitutional concerns. The bill would require plaintiffs who have successfully proven that the government has violated their constitutional rights to pay their legal fees -- often totaling tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Few citizens can afford to do so, but more importantly, citizens should not be required to do so where there is a finding that our government has engaged in unconstitutional behavior.

The above was my very point when Wandel fisrt brought up the HB and SB a few weeks ago.

I spent a very large part of last spring helping to fight a "tax relief resolution" in Pa that would have shifted the burden of school taxes from the local property tax to broader sales tax that included some usery. The tax "relief"plan , was to tax the hell out of consulting businesses (financial, medical, research, engineering etc ---everything EXCEPT legal) . This would have driven the entire industry out of PA because we would have had to charge our clients and additional 7% on top of their invoices. Well, this was in and out of committee and reworded and finally stuck on the back of a medical; benefits bill that allowed state employees to ahve their own private medical "bank accounts"
That Bill was like 8 pages long. When the conference committee got done, it added the TAx "relief" rider and the new Bill was over 250 pages and nobody read it.
Oh ye who think that our legislatures and our Congress is made of honorable and smart men, I have for ye a bridge that, on low tide may even be stood upon.
The Pa Bill is still kicking around seeking a new home because the opposition (Senators whose districts were along the PA borders where businesses could easily depart and move to other states) defeated it in a showdown in early June 2006. Ive gotten e-mail that its been resurrected and is waiting for the new term to begin.

Ill feel better about the SB and maybe the HB, just pardon me if Im not as definitively overjoyed and certain of our Senators honor and smarts.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

I'm never calm until I see that such bills are either not reported out , or get defeated.

Seemingly we are not as objective as we have a right to expect on a thread like this one. Shouldn't you be posting on the Oliver Twist thread or the Begging Bowl thread?

It makes one wonder what pockets the other anti-IDers are talking out of.

0 Replies

spendi, I always wonder how well you can see and hear , what with your head so far up your ass.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know