Topic: Ignorance strikes again (Read 4564 times)

David · « **on:** December 20, 2005, 11:28:21 AM »

Judge rules against

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 20, 2005, 11:55:07 AM »

Quote from: David

Judge rules against

David · « **Reply #2 on:** December 20, 2005, 12:25:50 PM »

Quote

know how disappointing this is to many of you, but it is a great relief to me. Since the voters repudiated the religious board members' actions anyway, this case will probably die at this level.

This case may die, but the movement will only grow stronger.
The more something is repressed the stronger it grows.

Quote

You misunderstood the ruling. It was not a repudiation of Intelligent Design. It was a repudiation of the argument that Intelligent Design is based on science rather than religion.

ID is based on science. The reason people talk about ID so much and why they are such big proponents of if is often religious, but that don't mean a thing.

Do you honestly think that Darwin and evolution took off so well because it was simply good science? No. People liked it because it justified atheism, just as ID justifies theism

Just because motives can be religious or anti-religious doesn't mean that some motives cannot be based on simply what people interpret as what the facts are leading them to believe.

I will come right out and say that the reason I like intelligent design is because it justifies theism, especially christianity.

You are committing fallacy when you judge science by someone's motives, though.

Just because christians love it does not make it less sound scientifically, which is how it should be judged.

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2005, 12:41:22 PM »

Quote from: David

Do you honestly think that Darwin and evolution took off so well because it was simply good science? No. People liked it because it justified atheism, just as ID justifies theism

I do think that it took off because it was good science. Worse yet, I also think that most Christians find no incompatibility between their religious beliefs and evolution theory. Indeed, even Behe and Demski have professed belief in its scientific validity. It is only creationists who see an incompatibility between evolution theory and their religious beliefs.

Quote

Just because motives can be religious or anti-religious doesn't mean that some motives cannot be based on simply what people interpret as what the facts are leading them to believe.

We agree on this.

Quote

I will come right out and say that the reason I like intelligent design is because it justifies theism, especially christianity.

That's your prerogative. That doesn't make ID a theory that needs to be taught in a biology class, though.

Quote

You are committing fallacy when you judge science by someone's motives, though.

Actually, the motives of ID proponents were paramount in this case. The judge had to rule on whether the motive for requiring ID was religious or secular. He looked at the facts and decided that it was religious. He had no choice but to rule against ID proponents in their drive to get their religious opinion endorsed by public schools.

Quote

Just because christians love it does not make it less sound scientifically, which is how it should be judged.

I certainly agree with you. The ruling wasn't based on the fact that some Christians are enthusiastic about it. It was based on the fact that religion was the sole reason that science teachers were being told to teach it in science classes.

David · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:05:54 PM »

Quote

I will come right out and say that the reason I like intelligent design is because it justifies theism, especially christianity.

That's your prerogative. That doesn't make ID a theory that needs to be taught in a biology class, though.

This, right here. This is the stupidity I am talking about.

Did I say that because I personally like it's implications it should be taught?

No, no, a thousand times no. And yet you incorrectly infer that.

It should be taught because it has scientific merit, regardless of the metaphysical consequences, just as evolution is taught.

Motives are totally irrelevant.

Copernicus · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:12:05 PM »

Quote from: David

It should be taught because it has scientific merit, regardless of the metaphysical consequences, just as evolution is taught.

Motives are totally irrelevant.

If motives are totally irrelevant, then why do you give us one for teaching it at all? Read the judge's decision. He had to determine the motive behind the action, and he determined that it was a religious motive. Calling people stupid and ignorant is not going to change the facts.

Here is a relevant portion of the decision:

Quote

To be sure, Darwin

matt · « **Reply #6 on:** December 20, 2005, 10:31:25 PM »

The Dover policy was overturned but the scientific status of ID is left unchallenged. However, members of the school board, through their actions, have conflated Intelligent Design with an apparent religious agenda. Intelligent Design is rapidly growing internationally and is breaking metaphysical and theological boundaries. Atleast students will know that their are in fact gaps in the evolutionary theory, and that students should keep an open mind when discussing the issue of the origin of life.

The most important issue to me is that ID has still yet to be challenged successfully, and I am still waiting for a reply to my thread concerning irreducible complexity.

Copernicus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2005, 10:43:51 PM »

Quote from: matt

The Dover policy was overturned but the scientific status of ID is left unchallenged. However, members of the school board, through their actions, have conflated Intelligent Design with an apparent religious agenda. Intelligent Design is rapidly growing internationally and is breaking metaphysical and theological boundaries. Atleast students will know that their are in fact gaps in the evolutionary theory, and that students should keep an open mind when discussing the issue of the origin of life.

Read the Judge's opinion. He was very specific that ID is not a scientific theory, so your contention that it was "left unchallenged" is simply false.

Quote

The most important issue to me is that ID has still yet to be challenged successfully, and I am still waiting for a reply to my thread concerning irreducible complexity.

OK. I hadn't realized that there was anything left to reply to, but I'll revisit it when I get the chance.

matt · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2005, 11:22:38 PM »

Quote

Read the Judge's opinion. He was very specific that ID is not a scientific theory, so your contention that it was "left unchallenged" is simply false.

When is it the judge's position to make a statement such as, "ID is not left unchallenged"?

Show me where ID has been successfully challenged, and I would gladly discuss your propositions.

Consider the Discovery Institute's statement:

Quote

"A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can't remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics," added West "The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree."

David · « **Reply #9 on:** December 21, 2005, 11:03:10 AM »

Quote

If motives are totally irrelevant, then why do you give us one for teaching it at all? Read the judge's decision. He had to determine the motive behind the action, and he determined that it was a religious motive. Calling people stupid and ignorant is not going to change the facts.

I didn't call anyone stupid. I called your statement stupid, and I will stand by that. By motives I meant personal motives. If Bob likes theism/atheism and because of this he teaches evolution/ ID, then more power to him. The criticism should be leveled at the theories not the people who teach them.

Another point I would like to make is the astounding hypocrisy that many people have when dealing with evolution and ID.

Often people treat evolution as if it has no extreme metaphysical consesquences, that we have to go "where science leads us"

But these same people, when dealing with ID, are quick to point out the metaphysical consquences of it and call it "masked religion".

As soon as science points toward God, they get their panties in a bunch and instead of attacking the theory, they attack it's metaphysical consequences.

Hehehe, how the tables have turned.

Copernicus · « **Reply #10 on:** December 21, 2005, 07:48:12 PM »

Quote from: matt

Show me where ID has been successfully challenged, and I would gladly discuss your propositions.

Matt, I think that one of the problems with ID is that it is inherently incapable of being challenged. It makes no testable predictions. It is a theological position, not a scientific one.

Quote

Consider the Discovery Institute's statement:

Quote
"A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can't remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics," added West "The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree."

Straw man. The decision wasn't about those questions but about whether Intelligent Design was a religious opinion. Based on a very thorough review of the evidence and the arguments presented by ID's most prominent defenders, the judge ruled that it was a religious opinion. There is no question that the "intelligent designer" is a euphemism for God, and there is no question that the means by which organisms are supposed to get "designed" are supernatural. Science is about natural explanations, not supernatural ones.

Copernicus · « **Reply #11 on:** December 21, 2005, 08:18:32 PM »

Quote from: David

I didn't call anyone stupid. I called your statement stupid, and I will stand by that.

Actually, you said that you liked ID because it justified "theism, especially christianity". I had no problem with that, pointing out that that did not make it "a theory that needs to be taught in a biology class". I see nothing stupid about that statement. You replied "This, right here. This is the stupidity I am talking about." That doesn't come off like an attack on the statement. It comes off as a personal attack.

Quote

By motives I meant personal motives. If Bob likes theism/atheism and because of this he teaches evolution/ ID, then more power to him. The criticism should be leveled at the theories not the people who teach them.

People do not teach evolution for religious reasons. They teach Intelligent Design for religious reasons. Therein lies your problem. That is why the Dover decision came down the way it did.

Quote

Another point I would like to make is the astounding hypocrisy that many people have when dealing with evolution and ID.

Often people treat evolution as if it has no extreme metaphysical consesquences, that we have to go "where science leads us"

Actually, that is not hypocrisy. The scientific method forces a naturalistic bias on researchers, and scientists are open about that. The bias is a methodological bias, not a personal bias. Many scientists are personally religious, and they do believe in miracles. They just cannot use such personal beliefs to justify scientific conclusions.

Quote

But these same people, when dealing with ID, are quick to point out the metaphysical consquences of it and call it "masked religion".

It is called "masked religion", because its proponents are coy about who the "intelligent designer" is. In fact, Intelligent Design is an outgrowth of creationism, and it is intended to circumvent the legal ban on teaching creationism in science classes. The book Of Pandas and People was promoted by the Dover School Board as an explanation of the "scientific theory" of Intelligent Design. The first draft of that book contained many references to "creationism". Almost every one of those references was systematically replaced by the word "Intelligent Design". This was one of the pieces of evidence the judge considered in arriving at his ruling.

Quote

As soon as science points toward God, they get their panties in a bunch and instead of attacking the theory, they attack it's metaphysical consequences.

Science and scientists do not attack God. It is quite the opposite. A segment of the religious community has gotten its panties in a bunch over a scientific theory, and it has been attacking science. The judge just removed their panties and handed them their a** on a platter.

Bdean · « **Reply #12 on:** December 22, 2005, 02:17:48 AM »

Quote

Science and scientists do not attack God.

Well, some scientists do (attack the concept of God), but I generally agree with this statement. Rather than attacking, the scientific worldview ignores or seeks to explain apart from God. There is a presupposition that the natural world is independent of outside influences. But isn't there still room for scientific findings that indicate the influence of an unknown force (perhaps unidentified forms of matter or something else)?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** December 22, 2005, 09:26:11 AM »

Actually, it's evolution that is unchallengeable. ID is testable. All attempts to explain this to you Cop fell on deaf ears. Just because you call cheese 'water' doesn't mean that the cheese is anything other then it is. Allow me to weigh in here, and then duck out.

I side with David in his assessment that this is stupidity, but let me give some of my own reasons why.

First of all, I find it highly ironic that a field that depends so much on arguments from authority, rejecting any factual assertion that does not come out of the narrow halls of evolutionary academics themselves, manages to find room for a Judge who's expertise is obviously the law, and not evolution. In doing so, the concession is made that non-biologists can make authoritative judgements about evolution, after all, even though that concession is not extended to literally any single person that disagrees with evolution. It's a classic example of going back on a principle because it suits one's purpose, which only goes to show how shallow the 'principle' is in the first place.

That sort of behavior is pretty common fare out of evolutionists, so as stupid as it is, it's not unexpected.

What is most stupid here is how the road to the Minority Report, 1984, A Brave New World, and that newest masterpiece, A Brave New World Realized, is being paved by such behavior.

Did the legislative process fail in Dover? Evolutionists chortle that those on the school board who had supported the measure were nearly all voted off the school board. That is indeed the case! So what the **** did it need to go to court for, in the first place? If you don't like the policies of your school board, vote the suckers out. That's clearly what we saw here, but instead of seeing local check and balances at work, we now have yet another court decision where the beliefs of 12 people- the 11 that filed the suit and the 1 judge who agreed with them- will now be imposed on the other 300 million Americans.

I would have hoped that before a measure affecting me and millions of others was adopted, I might have the opportunity also to defend my case. I see no reason why I should not have a voice, and Behe was not my designated representative, nor any of the others. But no, a minute portion of our country was allowed to supercede my own rights. And I'm not talking about my 'right' to have ID in the classroom. I'm talking about my right to have my voice heard at all.

This is where the stupidity enters in: those who are satisfied with such court decisions, and rely on them, ignoring the legislative process, are paving the way for the inevitable court decision that does not go their way at all. And it might not go our way, either. There is tyranny down this road, and the evolutionists with stupid grins smile down every step of it. When at last tyranny has become the rule, they will express shock and dismay, and be surprised. That's stupidity.

It's a road that societies have gone down in various ways already, and paid terrible prices for it. It's stupid to deny the lessons of history and think that in this one case, when the decision is in their favor, the long term consequences will not follow as they always have. It perhaps is no surprise that these same have little respect for a 'historical fact' either, except evolution, 4.49 billion years of which must properly be understood as a 'historical fact.'

Copernicus · « **Reply #14 on:** December 22, 2005, 06:37:52 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Did the legislative process fail in Dover? Evolutionists chortle that those on the school board who had supported the measure were nearly all voted off the school board. That is indeed the case! So what the **** did it need to go to court for, in the first place? If you don't like the policies of your school board, vote the suckers out. That's clearly what we saw here, but instead of seeing local check and balances at work, we now have yet another court decision where the beliefs of 12 people- the 11 that filed the suit and the 1 judge who agreed with them- will now be imposed on the other 300 million Americans.

Sntjohnny, even you must realize that your wild exaggeratons are utter nonsense. If there were only 12 people imposing their will on everyone else, then the voters in the Dover school district would have retained their school board. They tossed them out for the same reason that the judge slammed the school board--a glaring example of incompetence. The judge was particularly angry at those board members who lied in the courtroom about the religious motivation for their act and then went out in public and bragged about their religious motivation. He considered that behavior somewhat ironical for professed Christians. And your attempt to co-opt the views of 300 million Americans is such baloney. They have not voted on the matter, and there is no reason to believe that they would vote differently than the Dover voters.

Quote

I would have hoped that before a measure affecting me and millions of others was adopted, I might have the opportunity also to defend my case. I see no reason why I should not have a voice, and Behe was not my designated representative, nor any of the others. But no, a minute portion of our country was allowed to supercede my own rights. And I'm not talking about my 'right' to have ID in the classroom. I'm talking about my right to have my voice heard at all.

This case was not about you. It was about the behavior of a school board in Pennsyvania. You are not the only person capable of feeling outrage. In a civilized society, these matters need to be decided by elected officials and the court system, not angry individuals such as yourself.

Quote

This is where the stupidity enters in: those who are satisfied with such court decisions, and rely on them, ignoring the legislative process, are paving the way for the inevitable court decision that does not go their way at all. And it might not go our way, either. There is tyranny down this road, and the evolutionists with stupid grins smile down every step of it. When at last tyranny has become the rule, they will express shock and dismay, and be surprised. That's stupidity.

Yes, your day will come. Why even now, your very own evangelical President is busily packing the courts with cronies and partisans who will spread your conservative Christian ideals to a population that so sorely misses them. Liberal activists like Judge John E. Jones III will get their comeuppance! Who appointed him, anyway? Was it Carter? Clinton? Why no. Looky here. It was President George W. Bush himself in 2002! And a Republican Senate confirmed him unanimously!

I really hate to gloat, sntjohnny, but us liberals don't get the opportunity all that often these days.

$\:D/$

$\:D/$

matt · « **Reply #15 on:** December 22, 2005, 07:37:35 PM »

Quote

Matt, I think that one of the problems with ID is that it is inherently incapable of being challenged. It makes no testable predictions. It is a theological position, not a scientific one.

Intelligent Design implys that life did not evolve through the mechanism, natural selection, but life was created by an intelligent designer.

I am afraid you and other Darwinists assume that ID is not predictable, because that is the only way out of answering the problems that arise in the evolutionary theory.

Intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory that holds there are certain features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause.

Quote

Straw man. The decision wasn't about those questions but about whether Intelligent Design was a religious opinion. Based on a very thorough review of the evidence and the arguments presented by ID's most prominent defenders, the judge ruled that it was a religious opinion. There is no question that the "intelligent designer" is a euphemism for God, and there is no question that the means by which organisms are supposed to get "designed" are supernatural. Science is about natural explanations, not supernatural ones.

Copernicus, you yourself are in fault with your own critical assumption. I believe Richard Dawkins said:

Quote

An atheist before Darwin said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6

Let's focus in on the last part of the last sentence ("...Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"). Now from that quote we can conclude that through the belief in evolutionary theory we can be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Believe it or not, atheism is a belief.

Now, evidentially let's discuss the issues that are implied by Intelligent Design. I have replied to your post on how organs can be used for other functions.

Copernicus · « **Reply #16 on:** December 22, 2005, 08:33:13 PM »

Quote from: matt

I am afraid you and other Darwinists assume that ID is not predictable, because that is the only way out of answering the problems that arise in the evolutionary theory.

The conclusion that ID makes no testable hypotheses is based on the observable lack of testable hypotheses, not the failure of alternative theory. Every scientific theory has yet-to-be-explained data. That does not license belief in supernatural causes.

Quote

Intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory that holds there are certain features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause.

I.e. God. The pretense that ID is not a religious doctrine has been exposed for the deliberate scam that it is. The whole point of calling it a scientific theory was to sneak religion in through the back door of the schoolhouse.

Quote

Quote from: Dawkins
An atheist before Darwin said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6

Let's focus in on the last part of the last sentence ("...Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"). Now from that quote we can conclude that through the belief in evolutionary theory we can be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Believe it or not, atheism is a belief.

Let's not get into the semantics of "belief" here, but you have completely misconstrued Dawkins. His argument was that Paley's Watchmaker argument was quite compelling before Darwin. It did seem that the environment was perfectly constructed to conform to the needs of its inhabitants. Darwin (and Wallace) showed beyond reasonable doubt that it was the other way around--that life forms were shaped by their environment. I think that Dawkins, himself a zoologist, tended to place too much emphasis on a biological perspective. Atheists had existed for centuries before the discovery of natural selection, and some ancient philosophers even seemed to grasp the principle of natural selection as a designing force in nature.

Dawkins did nothing to show that evolution was anti-religious. All he did was argue that it destroyed a very compelling argument in favor of religion. Just because there are bad arguments in favor of theism, that does not mean that atheism must be right.

Quote

Now, evidentially let's discuss the issues that are implied by Intelligent Design. I have replied to your post on how organs can be used for other functions.

Yes, but not in a very compelling manner. My point was that irreducible complexity was undermined as an explanatory principle by the fact that complexity could serve more than one function. I'll return to that subject in the appropriate thread.

matt · « **Reply #17 on:** December 25, 2005, 11:59:27 PM »

Opponents of intelligent design try to argue that because many of its proponents are religious believers who want to see intelligent design prosper as a way to cultural and scientific renewal, intelligent design is therefore religiously motivated and may not legitimately be taught in public schools.

According to the Lemon Test, which was first enunciated by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman and which specifies whether something is religious for purposes of the Establishment Clause, the curriculum of public schools must have a secular purpose. Intelligent design, by being religiously motivated, is said to have a religious purpose and must therefore be kept outside the public school science curriculum.

The problem with this argument is that it conflates motivation and purpose. The distinction between motivation and purpose is well understood in the criminal law context but typically gets lost in discussions about intelligent design. If you enter your mother's nursing home and smother her with a pillow, the law is not interested in your motive. Was it to gain your inheritance more quickly, to settle a long-standing grudge or to comply compassionately and tearfully with her request to put her out of her misery? The law doesn't care about such motives (atleast not principally). Whether you are convinced of murder depends on whether you had the purpose to end her life.

In this distinction, motivation refers to what moves us to act whereas purpose refers to how we channel or direct our actions in response to our motives. Purpose gives expression to motivation. It follows that there need be no correlation between the validity of motives and the validity of purposes. One might have good motives but be wicked at implementing them and thus have evil purposes. For instance, motivated by the desire to stop urban violence, someone might become a vigilante. On the other hand, one can have evil motives but attempt to realize them through purposes that (happily) produce more good than harm. For instance, motivated by hatred and fear of an ethnic minority coworker, one might arrange to have another firm hire the employee for a better paying and better suited job.

Thus, whenever the National Center for Science Education, the American Civil Liberties Union and other such organizations assert that intelligent design is religiously motivated and therefore doesnt deserve the same respect as other ideas that may legitimately be discussed in the academy, we need to distinguish clearly between motivation and purpose. So long as intelligent design has a demonstrable secular purpose-advancing science, enriching the science curriculum, preventing viewpoint discrimination, promoting academic freedom- it's motivation, even if religious, is legally irrelevant. (Dembski, pg. 56)

Copernicus · « **Reply #18 on:** December 27, 2005, 01:07:35 PM »

Quote from: matt

Opponents of intelligent design try to argue that because many of its proponents are religious believers who want to see intelligent design prosper as a way to cultural and scientific renewal, intelligent design is therefore religiously motivated and may not legitimately be taught in public schools.

It is irrelevant that they happen to be religious and they support intelligent design. There are plenty of people who are religious and still don't want it taught in science classes. What is relevant is that they want ID taught as science because of their religious beliefs.

Quote

According to the Lemon Test...Intelligent design, by being religiously motivated, is said to have a religious purpose and must therefore be kept outside the public school science curriculum.

Exactly so.

Quote

The problem with this argument is that it conflates motivation and purpose. The distinction between motivation and purpose is well understood in the criminal law context but typically gets lost in discussions about intelligent design. If you enter your mother's nursing home and smother her with a pillow, the law is not interested in your motive. Was it to gain your inheritance more quickly, to settle a long-standing grudge or to comply compassionately and tearfully with her request to put her out of her misery? The law doesn't care about such motives (atleast not principally). Whether you are convinced of murder depends on whether you had the purpose to end her life.

So, by your lights, there is no difference between an intentional murder and manslaughter in the eyes of the law, eh? You are going to extreme lengths to make an irrelevant point. Regardless of their motivation, the purpose of putting ID in the curriculum was to insert a religiously motivated subject in the science curriculum, i.e. to promote religion. You're hair-splitting would make a mockery of the Establishment Clause.

Quote

Thus, whenever the National Center for Science Education, the American Civil Liberties Union and other such organizations assert that intelligent design is religiously motivated and therefore doesnt deserve the same respect as other ideas that may legitimately be discussed in the academy, we need to distinguish clearly between motivation and purpose. So long as intelligent design has a demonstrable secular purpose-advancing science, enriching the science curriculum, preventing viewpoint discrimination, promoting academic freedom- it's motivation, even if religious, is legally irrelevant. (Dembski, pg. 56)

But the purpose of ID is not to advance science, but to propose a supernatural force behind a natural phenomenon. So, even if you allow the hair-splitting, ID still fails to meet the criterion that he wants.

matt · « **Reply #19 on:** December 31, 2005, 08:51:48 AM »

Quote

What is relevant is that they want ID taught as science because of their religious beliefs.

Intelligent design proponents want ID to be taught as science not because of their religious beliefs, but because they want to enrich the science curriculum.

The evolutionary theory has major gaps in it that cannot explain the origin of life, and the best probable explanation for these complex molecular machines is design.

Quote

So, by your lights, there is no difference between an intentional murder and manslaughter in the eyes of the law, eh?

No, that is not what is being said in this statement. The statement is showing an anology that relates motivation and purpose. It is saying that whether you are convinced of murder or not depends on your purpose. (Note the: atleast not principally) It is not your motive that convinces you of murder but if you had the purpose to end her life.

Motivation refers to what moves us to act whereas purpose refers to how we channel or direct our actions in response to our motives. Purpose gives expression to motivation.

Like I said before, so long as intelligent design has a demonstrable secular purpose-advancing science, enriching the science curriculum, preventing viewpoint discrimination, promoting academic freedom- it's motivation, even if religious, is legally irrelevant.

Author Topic: Ignorance strikes again (Read 4564 times)

David

David

David

David