One more interjection:

Copernicus, I believe your purpose is to annoy me.

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%252C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

That is your intent and motive, is it not?

I'll have my lawyer get in touch with your lawyer to see if we can work out terms of a settlement.

The site links to all of the relevant legislation.  Welcome to the slippery slope.  Enjoy the ride.

What made it religious, apparently, was the intent and motive of the people who made the change to the curriculum.  The merits of its status as 'science' was determined largely by trying to assess WHY the information was inserted by the school board.

What if I alleged that the reason why people want evolution in the school board was because they were atheists.  Pretend for a moment that it was in fact true that this was the reason.

For that reason, should they abstain from having evolution in a science class?  Because those who want it in there are trying to push their agenda and philosophy?

Or shouldn't it more properly depend on whether or not evolution really deserves inclusion on its status as 'science'?

Obviously, its the latter.  Yet the courtesy ought to work both ways.  Nonetheless, little attention was paid to that issue (can ID be legitimately considered science) and much was paid to the motives in which it was presented.

Once you start evaluating whether or not any particular deed ('x') is legal or illegal because of 'motives,' you open the door to a nasty road.  Indeed, the door is already open, but its not too late to turn back and close it.

"That's correct. If the purpose of the change of curriculum was to promote religion, then that would violate the law. That is why the court ruled it illegal."

You're trying to have it both ways again, as usual.  Here you are affirming that the motive is what make it illegal.  "that's why.'

"If atheism were the motive for including evolution in the curriculum, then it would have to be removed. Perhaps you should file a lawsuit. "

I might.

"If promotion of atheism were the reason for its inclusion in the curriculum, then it would be illegal."

So, playing this game, we could find that nothing is legal, because everyone may be acting on religious motives.  Perhaps we ought to shut down schools altogether?

Here's where you're trying to have it the other way.  It is, you say, because it is 'science' that it gets inclusion into the curricula, but if it was because it was PROMOTED because of an atheist agenda, then it would be illegal.  But it would not cease to be science, right, just because it was religiously motivated?  Right?

"Actually, most of trial was devoted to the question of whether ID could legitimately be considered science. The conclusion was that it could not."

Actually, the conclusion was that it was religiously motivated, not that it could not be considered science.  I admit that I only read excerpts from the judge's opinion, but what I read indicated that the judge emphasized the motives, and not the question of science.

Incidentally, what makes a judge qualified to decide what is 'science' or not?

"Life is messy, but it is sometimes the case that you can prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. That is what happened in the Dover trial."

You miss the point.  Even assuming beyond a reasonable doubt that their intent was to promote religion, the question of whether or not it was 'science' is separate and distinct.

There are serious ramifications involved in criminalizing 'intent.'  Don't be so closed minded and hard-headed in your victorious glee that you fail to see the danger to everyone, including yourself, by 'winning' on terms such as these.  You are in danger of cutting off your nose to spite your face- only because cutting off your nose isn't imminent, and may be years down the road, or even decades, you pretend that the knife isn't actually in the hand.

The only thing worse than you trying to have things both ways is your inability to recognize it when you do.

You would think from all of my objections to all of the cases that we have discussed that you would be able to begin to discern that my set of objections are not motivated by an attempt to push either a creationism or ID agenda.  That would require you to be able to make distinctions.

"Unfortunately, we have little choice than to criminalize intent for some crimes. For example, intent to kill distinguishes murder from manslaughter. Intent to deceive distinguishes fraud from fair representation. You aren't going to get anywhere with this line of argument."

Ok, here are your examples.  'Intent to kill' distinguishes murder from manslaughter.  You are right in that.  And the net result is that the consequence that follows is affected by whether or not there was an intent.  However, intent or not, is it not true that the killing itself is illegal?

In otherwords, the object of the event, the 'killing of someone,' is what is illegal, while the intent is what helps us create a just response.  It is the object, 'x', that is illegal.

Let's say we allowed that we 'criminalized intent' so that we punished a person for 'intending to kill.'  That is murky ground, but I understand it, and at the very least, 'killing' is still actually an illegal act, regardless of one's intent or the nature of the intent.  The deed is illegal.

However, voting to have curriculum used is not illegal.  In the killing case, 'x' is illegal already, quite apart from intent.  But in this case, the deed ('x') is not illegal at all.  It is a perfectly legal act.  As such, since it is a legal act, one's intent relating to it ought not matter.

If 'voting to have curriculum' is legal in one case only because of the intent of the school board but illegal in another because of the intent of the school board, you have done something very different then in the case of 'killing someone,' because as we explored 'intent' in that case, it nonetheless was such that the event itself was always illegal, regardless of intent.

Whether 'x' itself becomes legal or illegal based on the intent that one brings to it opens a door for nothing less than tyranny.

Your other example is the same:

"Intent to deceive distinguishes fraud from fair representation."

But fraud is illegal, is it not?

I will reiterate what I have often re-iterated:  today, the courts are on your side. Tomorrow they might not be.  Next week we may all be powerless to withstand the 'legal' onslaught, but it won't be my fault.  It will be yours.  I forgive you in advance.

I mentioned elsewhere a real example of this type of thing having potential to turn dirty, fast.  Dan Barker represented folks in my area who objected to the 10 Commandments on public property.  The city solved the problem by simply selling the property that the commandments were on.  Barker et. al sued, and initially won, because the 'intent' had been to hoodwink, or it was religiously motivated, or whatever slander they brought to bear.  Unfortunately, the sale of property is an otherwise legal thing to do, and there wasn't anything at all illegal about the transfer, EXCEPT, allegedly, that it was generated, according to Barker, from callous insensitivity to his clients.

If this success would have held, nothing less then the transfer of property between entities would have been threatened.  Before long, we could very well have seen an encroachment on personal rights the likes we can only imagine, and the Kilo case hardly hints at.  The death of America-

All because a bunch of crybaby atheists are offended by a tablet with 10 Commandments on it.

Don't tell me I'm exaggerating- this is the very talk that surrounded the whole event.  Wake up, man.  While you can.  This isn't about religion- this is about freedom.