|
« Quotable | Main | Quick Links » December 20, 2005
The Contradiction of (Most)* Public Activism for ID (and Religious Expression via Government )
Posted by Bill A key point from the judge's ruling in the Dover ID case: The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. Last month, Dorkafork mentioned similar natural incongruities between the stated scope of ID and the credentials of those advocating it: A post at Balloon Juice points out that the "totally-doesn't-have-a-connection-to-religion" and "isn't-religiously-based" Intelligent Design movement is being represented in the Dover Trial by the Thomas More Center, whose mission, according to its website, is to "be the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square." Oops! Looks like somebody didn't get the memo. Under that comment thread I responded to Russell Wardlow's scornful assertion that overt religious advocates pushing ID don't undermine the legal and social legitimacy of ID as a non-religious scientific theory: If a controversial scientific theory ostensibly has no premise in religion, and the public advocacy of said theory has largely expanded to a political and legal matter that's contingent upon having no theological derivation, then it is a fairly bad move to have said advocacy handled by "the sword and shield for people of faith, providing legal representation without charge to defend and protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square." See that? "Religious beliefs?" I think that my assertions about problematic associations have been borne out in the ruling of this case. A similar logical conflict can be found in the employment of "ceremonial deism" by overtly religious interests as a legal and argumentative hedge against the Pledge of Allegiance's possible violation of the Establishment Clause via the phrase "under God." Namely, since "ceremonial deism" apparently maintains the sanctity of the separation between church and state by stripping the Godly reference of pointed religious meaning, then why are some overtly religious advocates so bent on saving something that's ostensibly meaningless, by citing the argument that it's "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because [it's] lost through rote repetition any significant religious content[?]" In both issues, arguing for a greater role for religion in the public square via government expression is something that I strongly disagree with, but it's certainly an arguable point of view in an honest debate. That being said, arguing for public expression of religion while gaming the legal system with disingenuous definitions and statements of intent is a losing strategy, in my estimation. At least it proved to be in the Dover case ... The Politburo Diktat has more. (Ruling text via Pharyngula) * The word "most" has been bolded and asterisked in hopes that certain parties predisposed to argue against my position will note the intended qualifier this time around; a qualifier that intends to mitigate my overall argument about contradictions in ID and religious advocacy with the acknowledgment that not all parties engaging these positions exemplify this logical contradiction. Thank you. Upon reflection, "some" changed to "most." Posted by Bill at December 20, 2005 12:03 PM | TrackBack (6) Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsBill, There is not a single Creationist talking point that Judge Jones does not dismantle, at length and with specificity. Demolish. Destroy. Obliterate. No more need to refer to TalkOrigins. Jones says it all. :) Posted by: The Commissar at December 20, 2005 03:05 PM Yeah, but Judge Jones had an unfair advantage: He could force the IDists to actually answer the question! Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 20, 2005 10:34 PM |
Feed Me, Seymour
bill *at* indcjournal *dot* com
Support Our Advertisers
Search
Archives
June 2008May 2008 April 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004
Extras
PDARSD Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0
Credits
Our Blogroll
|