A Constitutionally illiterate (and Bush appointed, by the way) U. S. District Judge recently ruled against a Pennsylvania school district, overturning the mandated “teaching” of Intelligent Design (ID) in the science classroom. This was a victory for the science worshiping know-nothings, and a defeat for the young impressionable minds of the Dover school district who will now be denied the chance to hear the whole truth because of an ignorant judge and the few fearful parents who filed suit. You see, the parent’s couldn’t have their religious faith in blind evolution challenged, so they sought redress through the courts at the expense of the children.
On close inspection, the issue at hand was really “much ado about nothing.” ID was not even going to be “taught.” A statement that an alternative explanation to blind evolution exists was simply going to be read, disclaimer like, at the beginning of class. But even this innocuous gesture to full disclosure was hysterically rejected by the evolutionary fundamentalists.
Of course, as I explained in my article on Original Intent, the Constitutional issue could not be simpler. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law…” Since no law passed by Congress was at issue (it was a School Board decision), the teaching of ID was patently not a violation of the First Amendment. Makes you wonder what Constitution Judge John E. Jones III was reading or if he even bothered to read any Constitution at all. Or maybe Judge Jones feels the Constitution is a product of chance instead of design, a belief that is much more plausible than highly complex life being the product of chance. Or more likely the judge feels that his understanding of the law has “evolved” beyond that of those unenlightened, knuckle-dragging Founding Fathers. Therefore, he must protect the ignorant masses from the Founder’s oversights, like not applying the Bill of Rights to the States. (For those who object that the 14th Amendment applied the 1st Amendment to the States, please read my whole “Original Intent” article. There I make it clear why the 14th Amendment is both invalid and irrelevant to this discussion.)
Prior to the court decision, the people of the Dover school district unwisely voted out the ID supporters. This is unfortunate and hard to explain. Polls show that the majority of Americans reject blind evolution. I suspect that they were not rejecting the teaching of ID but were reacting to the massive publicity and the cost of the trial. Also, it is likely that due to the small numbers that generally vote in school board elections, the anti-ID crowd was just better organized and motivated, a sad indictment if true. But I am not making excuses for the Dover voters. Their rejection of the ID supporting school board members was tragic and a blow to truth, fairness, and toleration.
That said, Dover, which is a rural town in south-central Pennsylvania, always seemed like an unlikely battleground for Scopes II. I would have imagined somewhere in the heart of the Bible Belt South a more likely place for a showdown of this sort. I am almost certain that the good people in the South would have enthusiastically re-elected the school board members.
So where does this errant court decision leave us? What are parents who are tired of having evolutionary dogma shoved down their children’s throats at taxpayers’ expense supposed to do? (Of course the obvious question this begs is, “Why are there any taxpayer supported schools to begin with?” This whole fiasco is also ample reason why good God-fearing parents ought to withdraw their children from these government indoctrination camps and either enroll them in private Christian schools or home-school them. But these are larger issues deserving of their own essay.) Well the Founders did leave us with an avenue of redress when federal courts or the Feds in general run roughshod over the Constitution. That avenue is State activism in the form of interposition and nullification.
Here is what I propose. States all across the God-fearing South as well as Christian and conservative States in that other country that lies to the north of Dixie should pass laws mandating the teaching of creation in public schools, in blatant defiance of the brain-dead court. But the laws should contain additional wording something like this:
“We, the legislature of Alabama/Georgia/South Carolina/Mississippi etc. have carefully considered the constitutionality of this proposal. The 1st Amendment which states ‘Congress shall make no law’ clearly applies only to Congress and laws passed by Congress. Therefore, it is not possible that this law is in violation of the 1st Amendment. Therefore we will consider any decision by a federal court that finds this law in violation of the 1st Amendment to be null and void. We authorize the use of State law enforcement to arrest and transport to the State border, any federal agent attempting to enforce such a decision. We also do not authorize any money be paid out of the State treasury for any fines or court fees incurred by a judicial challenge to this law. Any State official who attempts to take money from the State treasury for the purpose of paying any fines or court costs may be arrested for theft. The State National Guard may not be ‘federalized’ for the purpose of enforcing a court order.”
Of course it would need to be written in more precise legalese, and after some thought I am sure there are other scenarios that need to be foreseen and accounted for, but I suspect you get the point. Also, a similar thing could be done at the local level if the State was dragging its feet.
The beauty of my proposal is that it would simultaneously attack Darwinism, judicial supremacy and the mistaken interpretation and application of the 1st Amendment, three pillars of modern secular liberalism. It might also shake some good conservative Christians from their misguided fidelity to President Bush. Pass something like this and I dare, I double dog dare, Christian “my favorite philosopher is Christ” Bush to send in the troops to enforce a court order and throw creationism out of the classroom.
P.S. I received an equal number of pro and con e-mail responses to my last ID column. I welcome feedback from my “fans,” but if you are going to e-mail me and tell me I am ignorant and scientifically illiterate (wonder how I ever got that medical degree) and dogmatically stomp your feet that evolution is a proven “fact,” would you mind at least attempting to address the probability issue? As this article points out in easily understood lay terms, the probability issue is insurmountable. But give it a go, why don’t you? Maybe you can come up with an explanation that has eluded the best and the brightest scientists.
Related article:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN: – FOOLISH DARWINIANS
Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”