Uncivil, Dismissive, Contemptuous Discourse
Albert Alschuler has this observation on the Kitzmiller opinion at the University of Chicago law school faculty blog:
Most of the Dover opinion says in effect to the proponents of intelligent design, “We know who you are. You’re Bible-thumpers.” The opinion begins, “The religious movement known as Fundamentalism began in nineteenth century America as a response to social changes, new religious thought, and Darwinism. Religiously motivated groups pushed state legislatures to adopt laws prohibiting public schools from teaching evolution, culminating in the Scopes ‘monkey trial’ of 1925.” When the Fundamentalists (the court often capitalizes the word) found themselves unable to ban Darwinism, they championed “balanced treatment,” then “creation science,” and finally “intelligent design.” According to the court, the agenda never changed. Dover is simply Scopes trial redux. The proponents of intelligent design are guilty by association, and today’s yahoos are merely yesterday’s reincarnated.
If fundamentalism still means what it meant in the early twentieth century, however -- accepting the Bible as literal truth -- the champions of intelligent design are not fundamentalists. They uniformly disclaim reliance on the Book and focus only on where the biological evidence leads. The court’s response – “well, that’s what they say, but we know what they mean” – is uncivil, an illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse. Once we know who you are, we need not listen. We’ve heard it all already.
The whole post is worth reading, and touches on many points I have made in the past. Judge Jones regularly uses ad hominem arguments to make his case, and this is simply shameful in a federal district court judge.
The purpose prong of the Lemon test is fatally flawed and will inevitably lead to unjust results.
This post compares the actual words of the Dover policy with the actual words of the First Amendment, which is the Constitutional basis for Judge Jones' opinion.
Hat tip to Jonathan Witt at the Evolution News blog.