H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
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.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an
activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.
Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants toliability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costsincurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that
Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined
from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area
School District.
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the
Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified
statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement.
Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to
the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.
s/John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
Judge John E. Jones III commenced his service as a United States District Judge on August 2, 2002. He is the 21st judge to sit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Jones was appointed to his current position by President George W. Bush in February, 2002, and was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on July 30, 2002.
shuamort said:Mod Note.
Merged your thread into mine.
/Mod Note
Yeah, really. That judge tore the ID guys a new one, even preemptively responding to the inevitable cries of him being an "activist judge". Kudos to him for saying frankly what all reasonable Americans have been saying the whole time.shuamort said:I beat ya by an hour. I'm still a bit shocked by how direct his ruling was and how he didn't tiptoe around words. It was amazing. It was the kind of ruling that I wanna smoke a cigarette after and bask in the glow.
shuamort said:I beat ya by an hour. I'm still a bit shocked by how direct his ruling was and how he didn't tiptoe around words. It was amazing. It was the kind of ruling that I wanna smoke a cigarette after and bask in the glow.
Dude..what are we talking about a slow comfortable screw on the beach or taking a nice heelthy steaming crap? :wink3:shuamort said:I beat ya by an hour. I'm still a bit shocked by how direct his ruling was and how he didn't tiptoe around words. It was amazing. It was the kind of ruling that I wanna smoke a cigarette after and bask in the glow.
I'm thinking a nice steaming crap on the school board's desk. Although, I don't think it's as needed after this judge's decision.YNKYH8R said:Dude..what are we talking about a slow comfortable screw on the beach or taking a nice heelthy steaming crap? :wink3:
shuamort said:I beat ya by an hour. I'm still a bit shocked by how direct his ruling was and how he didn't tiptoe around words. It was amazing. It was the kind of ruling that I wanna smoke a cigarette after and bask in the glow.
It's much more welcomed than you may imagine.kal-el said:Superstition ... overstayed it's welcome.
Simon W. Moon said:It's much more welcomed than you may imagine.
I expect you'll find that the sample is actually much larger than the subset of humanity you have cited.kal-el said:Yea, by fellow bible-thumpers that can twist themselves through a corkscrew, and check all logical and rational thought at the door.
Simon W. Moon said:I expect you'll find that the sample is actually much larger than the subset of humanity you have cited.
The same bush who thought that teaching ID was a fine and dandy idea. :rofl Oh, the irony. the ID liars are stuck where it hurts, in their dishonesty.shuamort said:By the way, before this goes nuts, let it be known that Judge Jones was appointed by George W Bush.
Most of the school board members who pushed this insanity were booted in the last election anyway. The local paper has been following this extensively since its onset:shuamort said:I'm thinking a nice steaming crap on the school board's desk. Although, I don't think it's as needed after this judge's decision.
GarzaUK said:Did you hear what Pat Robertson said about Dover?
Dover's residents should no longer turn to God, even in "a natural disaster" because they have "relegated him from the city".
Yeah very christain indeed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?