Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Real Judicial Conservatives Attack [Dover ID opinion]
The UCSD Guardian ^ | 09 January 2005 | Hanna Camp

Posted on 01/09/2006 8:26:54 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 551-565 next last
To: connectthedots
Ignoring the clear language and intent of the drafters of the constitution, including the First Amendment is not 'pure conservatism'.

Keeping religion out of public schools IS the "clear language and intent of teh drafters of the Constitution".

151 posted on 01/09/2006 11:21:31 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

Comment #152 Removed by Moderator

To: kingu
"If teaching religion is forbidden in the classroom, why is my child taught in school about Mecca, the beliefs of Islam, and some of their practices? Why is the creation story of the Cheyenne taught in school, but the creation story of Christians forbidden? "

They're not taught those things in the science class and they're not taught those things are true. If they are mentioned, they are mentioned as a matter of cultural ed.

153 posted on 01/09/2006 11:21:56 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Sorry, but it is not the prerogative of any judge to aid in the establishment of atheistic principles. Weaselly disclaimers notwithstanding, those who do so should be considered "activist" judges, because the people of the United States have not given government the authority to establish and maintain only atheistic principles. By law judges are obligated to protect the free exercise of religion in public and in private. Science is not entitled to have its biases protected by law. If it wants wholly atheistic science to be taught, then it is free to establish its own private school system where atheistic principles are established and maintained.


154 posted on 01/09/2006 11:25:25 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
You knew I'd have to follow that link!
155 posted on 01/09/2006 11:27:58 AM PST by PatrickHenry (ID is to biology what "Brokeback Mountain" is to western movies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

Malicious troll alert!
156 posted on 01/09/2006 11:30:51 AM PST by PatrickHenry (ID is to biology what "Brokeback Mountain" is to western movies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots

You go first.


157 posted on 01/09/2006 11:31:40 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: wfallen
"Evolution is a fact. Not a theory.

Evolution occurs. It can be considered a fact, variation and natural selection is observed. The Theory of Evolution is a theory explaining the observations. It, as its name suggests, is a theory.

"The first cell came from simple chemicals, combining in random reactions.

The first cell did not come from random chemical reactions. The first pre-life, or proto-life was not a cell. Chemical reactions are not random but follow observed physical rules. Apply energy and they (atoms/molecules) will combine.

"But why can't anyone duplicate these chemical reactions in a lab?

Because we do not know which chemicals, of what quantities, in what sequence, in which environment, the first pre-life developed. It took the environment a minimum of 500 million years to accomplish what you feel we should accomplish in 50 years.

"Silence. Evolution is a fact. Not a theory.

Evolution is a fact and the ToE is a theory.

158 posted on 01/09/2006 11:32:48 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
You knew I'd have to follow that link!

Aaaaannnnnd what were you hoping to see?

159 posted on 01/09/2006 11:33:06 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

I don't take OT laws seriously any more but I'm sure I would have if I would have lived in those times. I also don't take prohibition laws seriously but I would have in the 20s.


160 posted on 01/09/2006 11:33:07 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"In later times, the citizens of the states freely and by their own votes ended these established churches. But there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent them from reestablishing a religion in any state in the unlikely event that they chose to do so."

The 14th Amend. extends the Bill of Rights to all jurisdictions. Establishment of religion is forbidden.

" The second issue is whether Darwinism has a monopoly on the truth, and should be enabled to demand that no competition will be permitted."

Evolution is science. There is no monopoly on truth in science. Religious claims are not science. Religious claims do not belong in the science classroom being taught as scientific truth.

161 posted on 01/09/2006 11:34:07 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
In his decision, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that not only is the theory of intelligent design religion poorly dressed in science language,

When will he order Global Warming out of the classroom?

162 posted on 01/09/2006 11:34:22 AM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
[And humans are still apes.]

If that is the case, let's see an experiment cross breeding an ape with a human.

Why? It does not follow that different members of the same higher-level taxon can necessarily interbreed. Gibbons and gorillas are both apes, but they can't interbreed either.

Heck, there are different species of fruitflies which can't interbreed.

Again, *please* learn some biology before you attempt to critique it.

163 posted on 01/09/2006 11:36:06 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; PatrickHenry

Just be thankful we haven't all been put on his 'Human-Ape hybrid' pinglist.


164 posted on 01/09/2006 11:36:47 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
"unfortunately, few people seem to get this (not so complicated) nuance of Constitutional law...and the federal courts now have 60 years of illegitimate rulings behind them which they can cite as some kind of authority for interjecting themselves in every local issue state-religion issue"

The 14th Amend., extending the Bill of Rights to all jurisdictions is post civil war. In case you missed it, States were violating civil rights.

165 posted on 01/09/2006 11:38:35 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

By the way, Prof, I should have mentioned that the link I provided to you earlier (below) is to material written by the author of an upcoming book on John Bingham:


http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm#e


166 posted on 01/09/2006 11:39:57 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

"I don't take OT laws seriously any more but I'm sure I would have if I would have lived in those times. I also don't take prohibition laws seriously but I would have in the 20s."


Exactly why the story of Creation shouldn't be taken seriously. It was written for the people living in those times.


167 posted on 01/09/2006 11:41:26 AM PST by Blzbba (Sub sole nihil novi est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

My father was a Mulatto, his father a Negro, and his father a monkey. My ancestry begins where yours ends!" -- Alexandre Dumas
168 posted on 01/09/2006 11:41:31 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

####The 14th Amend., extending the Bill of Rights to all jurisdictions is post civil war.####


No, it didn't extend the Bill of Rights to all jurisdictions:

http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm#e


169 posted on 01/09/2006 11:41:41 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
You can't counter the evidence for evolution so you attack the proponents of evolution. Hmmm.

Do you really believe this is a valid argument?
170 posted on 01/09/2006 11:41:56 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

#####When will he order Global Warming out of the classroom?#####


Not until it becomes un-PC.


171 posted on 01/09/2006 11:43:08 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
"Maybe - but more people believe "God did it" than believe evolution.

Argument by appeal to popularity. Yup, that aughta work.

172 posted on 01/09/2006 11:43:36 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Quote mining opportunity!
173 posted on 01/09/2006 11:43:39 AM PST by PatrickHenry (ID is to biology what "Brokeback Mountain" is to western movies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba

Some beliefs are more Fundamental than others.


174 posted on 01/09/2006 11:44:37 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Artful Dodger and pending "Abandon Thread!" alert.


175 posted on 01/09/2006 11:45:57 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Aaaaannnnnd what were you hoping to see?

This, maybe?

176 posted on 01/09/2006 11:46:14 AM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; mlc9852

I'm afraid she is more interested in playing her own little games than in learning anything.


177 posted on 01/09/2006 11:46:23 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
In vivo?

In vivo?

In the Wild?

On a Cabaret stage?
178 posted on 01/09/2006 11:46:53 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Looks like a tortured argument to me, based on the thesis that when Bingham referred to the first 8 amendments, he wasn't actually referring to the amendments, but to some part of the amendments. I prefer to take the man at his word.

In any case, I consider the establishment clause a fundamental liberty; it recognizes my right not to be subjected to a state religion.

179 posted on 01/09/2006 11:48:17 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
If that is the case, let's see an experiment cross breeding an ape with a human.

A sick one you are!

180 posted on 01/09/2006 11:49:05 AM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852; Ichneumon
We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.We didn't come from apes.

Well if that isn't proof we didn't come from apes I don't know what is.

181 posted on 01/09/2006 11:50:56 AM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: puroresu; spunkets
No, it didn't extend the Bill of Rights to all jurisdictions:

That's right...what it did was constitutionalize and provide authority for the 1866 Civil Rights act...which enumerated the civil rights it protected...specifically the right "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
1866 Civil Rights Act

But those are positive rights...not natural rights or fundamental rights and they're not the Bill of Rights

182 posted on 01/09/2006 11:51:17 AM PST by Irontank (Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Looks like a tortured argument to me, based on the thesis that when Bingham referred to the first 8 amendments, he wasn't actually referring to the amendments, but to some part of the amendments. I prefer to take the man at his word.

In any case, I consider the establishment clause a fundamental liberty; it recognizes my right not to be subjected to a state religion.

Evidently, to some people interpretation is only activism if they personally disagree with it.

183 posted on 01/09/2006 11:53:47 AM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

Everybody's favorite Dr. Mengele did such experiments with Jews. After all, they weren't supposed to be human anyway. IIRC the experiments were a failure, but that didn't keep him from trying. I doubt Nazi "ethics" had a problem with it.


184 posted on 01/09/2006 11:58:00 AM PST by furball4paws (The new elixir of life - dehydrated toad urine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

It seems like a pretty well-reasoned article to me. Quite "Scaliaesque"!


185 posted on 01/09/2006 11:59:01 AM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
>No, it didn't extend the Bill of Rights to all jurisdictions:

That's right...what it did was constitutionalize and provide authority for the 1866 Civil Rights act...which enumerated the civil rights it protected...specifically the right "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
1866 Civil Rights Act

But those are positive rights...not natural rights or fundamental rights and they're not the Bill of Rights

Then why didn't they specifically write the 14th amendment to say that? Isn't that the arguement you used about it not mentioning the Bill of Rights directly?

186 posted on 01/09/2006 11:59:48 AM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; mlc9852
A sick one you are!

I am not the one who claimed that a human is an ape. If humans are apes, why would an evolutionist have any qualms about the prospect of breeding with an ape?

If man is simply another animal, why would such a thought be repulsive to you? The only other alternative is that man was, in some way, created differently from the animal world.

How is it, if evolution is true, that man has a moral conscience and a sense of right and wrong? Where did that come from?

187 posted on 01/09/2006 12:01:08 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

####Evidently, to some people interpretation is only activism if they personally disagree with it.####


Why didn't the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause give women the vote?


188 posted on 01/09/2006 12:01:13 PM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: wfallen

You are confusing evolution for abiogenesis. Only creationists consider them to be the same.


189 posted on 01/09/2006 12:01:49 PM PST by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
So why no protests when the football players thank Jesus for a touchdown? Although I do admit to being perplexed that they don't seem to blame Jesus for turnovers and drive-killing holding calls.

I also think He was having a little fun with Jay Feely in the Seattle game.

190 posted on 01/09/2006 12:02:34 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
Evidently, to some people interpretation is only activism if they personally disagree with it

That's about it. Slaughterhouse is maybe the single most egregious piece of judicial activism in the USSC's history. The USSC decided that they didn't like how the 14th amendment had altered the Constitution, so they simply decided to ignore part of it. But a lot of theocratic conservatives love Slaughterhouse, because it allows them to pretend the first amendment binds only Congress and not the states.

191 posted on 01/09/2006 12:03:55 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Do you believe in astrology? What is your point?

Science isn't about what I "believe" or what "feels good" to fundamentalists.

Its about what the preponderance of evidence says.

192 posted on 01/09/2006 12:04:39 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Do you ever post to any threads other than those relating to evolution? Or is that your only reason for being on FR?


193 posted on 01/09/2006 12:04:56 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
If man is simply another animal, why would such a thought be repulsive to you?

If the thought doesn't repulse you then by all means try it and let us know your results.

How is it, if evolution is true, that man has a moral conscience and a sense of right and wrong? Where did that come from?

From mama and papa.

194 posted on 01/09/2006 12:05:25 PM PST by shuckmaster (An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Do you ever post to any threads other than those relating to evolution? Or is that your only reason for being on FR?

Yes, of course I do. And if I didn't, what business would it be of yours?

195 posted on 01/09/2006 12:05:47 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
mlc9852 is wrong *again*, but I suppose he must be getting used to that by now.

Lower batting average than a stopped clock.

196 posted on 01/09/2006 12:06:31 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Antonello

####Then why didn't they specifically write the 14th amendment to say that?####


They did. The provisions of the 1866 Civil Rights Act are what were understood at the time to be "privileges & immunities" issues and due process issues. Never in their wildest dreams did the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment think they were making the 1st Amendment applicable against the states.


197 posted on 01/09/2006 12:07:10 PM PST by puroresu (Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
It does not follow that different members of the same higher-level taxon can necessarily interbreed. Gibbons and gorillas are both apes, but they can't interbreed either.

Assuming this to be true, then maybe you can tell us just what 'ape' is the ancestor of man? Maybe you can also explain why there are no transitional forms between this particular ape and man? Why are none of them still living?

198 posted on 01/09/2006 12:08:17 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
If the thought doesn't repulse you then by all means try it and let us know your results.

I'm not an evolutionist, so such a thought is obviously repulsive to me. What's your excuse?

199 posted on 01/09/2006 12:10:43 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Why didn't the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause give women the vote?

It is my personal opinion that it should have.

200 posted on 01/09/2006 12:11:14 PM PST by Antonello (Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 551-565 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson