Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Dover...was: Chris Heges vs. Dominionism

Expand Messages
  • PIASAN@aol.com
    In a message dated 2/1/2007 1:45:08 AM Central Standard Time, randytoad@yahoo.com writes: After all, the whole point of the Judge Jones Dover decision was to
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 1, 2007
      In a message dated 2/1/2007 1:45:08 AM Central Standard Time,
      randytoad@... writes:

      After all, the whole point of the Judge Jones' Dover decision was to
      say that the only reason for requiring the teaching of intelligent
      design in the Dover schools was a religious one, and was therefore not
      permissible under the constitution. And this was in spite of the fact
      that the Dover school board claimed that promotion of religion was not
      their aim.


      *******
      Pi:
      The problem for the Dover school board was that they lied.... and got caught
      at it.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Randy Raymond
      ... to ... not ... fact ... not ... got caught ... ******************************************************************** Randy: Good point. Though if I follow
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 1, 2007
        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote:
        >
        >
        > In a message dated 2/1/2007 1:45:08 AM Central Standard Time,
        > randytoad@... writes:
        >
        > After all, the whole point of the Judge Jones' Dover decision was
        to
        > say that the only reason for requiring the teaching of intelligent
        > design in the Dover schools was a religious one, and was therefore
        not
        > permissible under the constitution. And this was in spite of the
        fact
        > that the Dover school board claimed that promotion of religion was
        not
        > their aim.
        >
        >
        > *******
        > Pi:
        > The problem for the Dover school board was that they lied.... and
        got caught
        > at it.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        ********************************************************************
        Randy:
        Good point. Though if I follow Craig's argument, I think their real
        problem may have simply been that they left a paper trail of lies.
        Using the argument that Craig presented, had there not been
        documentary evidence of the real religious purpose of their course,
        they should have been allowed to proceed. The Dover school board
        could have made an argument exactly parallel to my hypothetical
        jewish legislature (we're just doing this because we believe pork,
        shellfish etc. are unhealthful) or the actual Texas legislature
        (whatever their non-religious argument was for forbidding the sale of
        nails but not hammers). In all three cases you have a transparent
        attempt to impose the religious views of a portion of the population
        on the whole population. I suppose you could say that previous court
        rulings (e.g. Edwards V. Aguilard) had provided a precedent for the
        Dover case and not for blue laws. But that just begs the question of
        why there haven't been such precedents for blue laws.
      • norman2520005
        ... was ... intelligent ... therefore ... the why teach anything in school evolution then u gone againt christian it said u not do that in constitution so u
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 1, 2007
          --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Raymond"
          <randytoad@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@ wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > In a message dated 2/1/2007 1:45:08 AM Central Standard Time,
          > > randytoad@ writes:
          > >
          > > After all, the whole point of the Judge Jones' Dover decision
          was
          > to
          > > say that the only reason for requiring the teaching of
          intelligent
          > > design in the Dover schools was a religious one, and was
          therefore
          > not
          > > permissible under the constitution. And this was in spite of
          the why teach anything in school evolution then u gone againt
          christian it said u not do that in constitution so u gone againt it
          > fact
          > > that the Dover school board claimed that promotion of religion
          was
          > not
          > > their aim.
          > >
          > >
          > > *******
          > > Pi:
          > > The problem for the Dover school board was that they lied.... and
          > got caught
          > > at it.
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          > ********************************************************************
          > Randy:
          > Good point. Though if I follow Craig's argument, I think their real
          > problem may have simply been that they left a paper trail of lies.
          > Using the argument that Craig presented, had there not been
          > documentary evidence of the real religious purpose of their course,
          > they should have been allowed to proceed. The Dover school board
          > could have made an argument exactly parallel to my hypothetical
          > jewish legislature (we're just doing this because we believe pork,
          > shellfish etc. are unhealthful) or the actual Texas legislature
          > (whatever their non-religious argument was for forbidding the sale
          of
          > nails but not hammers). In all three cases you have a transparent
          > attempt to impose the religious views of a portion of the
          population
          > on the whole population. I suppose you could say that previous
          court
          > rulings (e.g. Edwards V. Aguilard) had provided a precedent for the
          > Dover case and not for blue laws. But that just begs the question
          of
          > why there haven't been such precedents for blue laws.
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.