I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, November 05, 2007

John E. "true religion" Jones III the activist judge

I posted the following comment on the Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Stewart said,

Perhaps we're conflating two different activities with the term Judicial Activism -- going beyond and opposing the text of the law. Intentionalists may not feel the former is in fact Activism. Is this where the uncertainty over the meaning of the term comes in?

Exactly. Judge John E. Jones III asserted in his written opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover intelligent design case that he was not an activist judge, but he said in a Dickinson College commencement speech that his Kitzmiller decision was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. He said,

. . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry." At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things," to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."

So the Kitzmiller decision was obviously an "activist" decision because Jones crossed the line from neutrality towards religion -- the establishment clause's position -- into hostility towards religion. Regardless of whether or not intelligent design is religion, this hostility towards organized religions meant that he was prejudiced against the defendants. But because he thought that he was following the intentions of the Founders, he did not see himself as an activist judge.

The above comment has been posted for a day under a recent article on Volokh Conspiracy, a very popular blog averaging about 20,000 visits per day, yet so far no one has attempted to rebut it. No one has spoken up in defense of Judge Jones.

This post will now generate a torrent of abuse from the trolls on this blog.



Anonymous Torrent of Abuse said...

*Sigh* WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah has once again cast a murky beam on the fault lines at the intersection of religion, science, and politics, showing us just how poorly they can mix and why "separation" is necessary.

Let me first be clear that I think man-made "global warming" is a crock of perverted science. So does Farah, but his objection is not based on science, but on the Bible. To quote, "... the Bible explicitly states: 'While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.'" He obviously is as ignorant of astronomy as he is of biology.

I may have to give up citing WND with these various "stupidity grenades" landing there and straining their credibility.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007 1:34:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home