Reed A. Cartwright posted Entry 1772 on December 16, 2005 01:53 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1767

You may remember that yesterday a conservative judge in the Cobb County Disclaimer appeal accused the ACLU of lying. Specifically, Judge Carnes claimed that the ACLU had its timeline wrong about the case. The Judge was wrong as the AJC says this morning, “Appeals judges skeptical about Cobb ruling“.

In an interview after Thursday’s court hearing, Rogers, a self-avowed six-day biblical creationist, said she gave the petitions to the board before it decided to buy new science books with chapters on evolution.

“There wouldn’t have been any reason to give it to them in the fall,” she said. “They were done to try and persuade them not to buy the books.” One of the petition’s three options, she said, was for the board to put disclaimers in the new books.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Comment #63161

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 16, 2005 3:03 PM (e)

Whoah! An “honest” creationist!

As helpful as the nice lady’s confession is here, it also cries out for one of Lenny’s “can’t help but shoot themselves in the foot” comments…

Comment #63166

Posted by Bob O'H on December 16, 2005 3:20 PM (e)

Was the judge under oath?

Bob

Comment #63169

Posted by Steviepinhead on December 16, 2005 3:28 PM (e)

Queried Bob O’H:

Was the judge under oath?

Unfortunately, contempt of court is another one of those one-way phenomena: it flows down from the bench, not up to it, no matter how deeply the judge may be, um, wading in it.

Comment #63300

Posted by Mike on December 18, 2005 11:19 AM (e)

Does anyone else get the impression that the ground work is being laid to dispense with the Lemon test in this case? Looks like they’re trying to apply an Alito style test of the establishment clause, in which case religious agendas would be immaterial so long as there’s balance, sort of like Paul Gross’ assessment of evolution education. This could be the ideal case for creationists to take to the new Supreme Court.

Comment #63302

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 18, 2005 11:28 AM (e)

This could be the ideal case for creationists to take to the new Supreme Court.

Not really, since the decision wasn’t based on the “purpose” prong of the Lemon test.

As for their “balance” argument, I doubt they’ll like it very much once THEIR religious opinions begin to get “balanced” with OTHER religious opinions ….

What they want – ALL they want – if for THEIR religious opinions to be accomodated, but not anyone ELSE’S.

Comment #63308

Posted by Mike on December 18, 2005 1:21 PM (e)

Comment #63302
Posted by ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank on December 18, 2005

No, I think there’s a misunderstanding here. Courts don’t “have” to use the Lemon test. Currently, the Supreme Court’s last creationism case used the Lemon test, so courts that wanted to have their decisions upheld also used the Lemon test. There’s a very unfortunate probability that this is going to change. It sucks, but that’s it. Google on Alito, first amendment, and nativity. We have to find other ways of addressing the problem. The problem, afterall, isn’t separation of church and state, but bad science education.

Comment #63310

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 18, 2005 1:45 PM (e)

The problem, afterall, isn’t separation of church and state, but bad science education.

You are quite wrong — this issue isn’t about science or science education, and it won’t change through science or science education.

It is indeed a matter of church and state. More specifically, it is a matter of a tiny but politically-powerful lunatic fringe who are attempting to COMBINE church and state, so that the state is in the position of enforcing their religious opinions.

The Lemon test isn’t being fought by them because they want to change SCIENCE EDUCATION. They couldn’t care less about science. What they want is, precisely, to undo the separation of church and state.

Comment #63311

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 18, 2005 1:50 PM (e)

No, I think there’s a misunderstanding here. Courts don’t “have” to use the Lemon test. Currently, the Supreme Court’s last creationism case used the Lemon test, so courts that wanted to have their decisions upheld also used the Lemon test. There’s a very unfortunate probability that this is going to change.

Well, of course, before the Lemon case, there WAS no Lemon test —— and creationists still lost every court case they ever filed. (shrug)

The question here isn’t WHETHER the Lemon test will change — the question is WHAT IT WILL CHANGE TO.

If a different test is used to separate church and state, well, big deal —- that was the pre-Lemon situation and it didn’t help the fundies any. The real question is whether the Supreme Court will, in fact, continue to uphold the separation of church and state. If it does uphold the separation of church and state, then the fundies lose anyway, no matter what the “test” is. If it does NOT uphold the separation of church and state, though, then we in effect become a theocracy, and “science education” will become the LEAST of our problems.

And that that point, I think we are justified in using any methods we find necessary in order to restore democracy and the constituional rule of law.

Comment #63313

Posted by Baka on December 18, 2005 2:49 PM (e)

Oooh! “Justified in using any methods we find necessary in order to restore democracy and constitutional law” (quote from Lenny)? You’re sounding all revolutionary, now, Lenny. It’s a color you wear well. I must say, in all seriousness, that should such a nightmare scenario come to pass, I’ll be right alongside you. It burns me up every time I read some halfwit, Eloi drivel about how this country was meant to be ruled by Christian values (by which, of course, any writer means their Christian values). We spend a lot of time talking about how poor the science education is in this country, which it definitely is, but history and government classes are sorely lacking as well if ideas like this are held by large segments of our population.

Comment #63317

Posted by UnMark on December 18, 2005 5:25 PM (e)

After SCOTUS evicerated the Fifth Amendment a few months ago and the subsequent changes in personel, is there any doubt about what will happen when one of these cases gets to the Supreme Court? It will be a sad day in America.

Comment #63319

Posted by Registered User on December 18, 2005 6:02 PM (e)

Baka

“I must say, in all seriousness, that should such a nightmare scenario come to pass, I’ll be right alongside you.”

Count me in. I support the Second Amendment too.

Frankly, if the separation clause were eviscerated in a substantial way I believe it will be a classic case of “you should have been more careful what you wished for” from the perspective of the religious fanatics. They are already getting a taste of this from the legions of sane people they have ticked off.

This evangelical President they slime-trailed into the White House will leave a permanent stain in the Christian right’s diapers.

And let’s not forget: Supreme Court justices can be removed from the bench. They aren’t gods. Far from it. Clueless wankers like Judge Carnes can be forced to apologize and admit for their garbage. Judges get removed the bench all the time when they reveal themselves to be self-interested corrupt shills.

Comment #63322

Posted by UnMark on December 18, 2005 8:14 PM (e)

True, regarding removal of Judges. But that’s only if the Senate has the balls to impeach a judge. It should have happened many times in the past fwe decades, and especially after the Eminent Domain decision last summer. That it didn’t happen is just as telling as the SCOTUS decision, IMO.

When is the Cobb Co. appeal decision expected?

Comment #63327

Posted by Registered User on December 18, 2005 10:23 PM (e)

UnMark – the reason nothing happened following the “eminent domain” decision is that Constitutional scholars mostly agreed that the decision simply applied the existing precedent to a case that was well-argued by the victorious party. In that case, the proper solution is simply to amend the Constitution or (easier) pass legislation prohibiting the (allegedly) distasteful act in question.

But we digress.

Comment #63350

Posted by Nik on December 19, 2005 11:52 AM (e)

Sirs this already it was discussed recently in the friend blog.