Playground politics:

Most Americans have heard of the Scopes Monkey trial in the state of Kansass, and many Americans are aware that the issue of evolution v. creationism as curricula has recently returned to the foreground of American educational politics.

The argument as it has more frequently been heard today claims that, because the theory of evolution is a mere theory and cannot explain everything without leaving a few questions unanswered, students should be taught alternative theories of life origin. Namely, creationism. Intelligent Design is another 'competing' explanation of the origin of life that argues evolution to be possible, but only as part of an intelligent design by a higher being, or a being of vastly superior knowledge. In other words, god.

My own sentiments and opinions on the issue of the genesis of life aside, I would like to discuss the following event and surrounding commentary relating to this debate in American society.

On December 20, 2005 Judge John Jones in the Middle District of Pennsylvania had this to say about the teaching of intelligent design (ID) in the Dover (PA) Area School District:

"[W]e hold that the ID Policy is unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."

The ruling has caused quite a stir (yeilding over 1,000 News hits from around the world), and elicited some interesting comments from its critics.

An article in the Washington Post caught my attention:

Some politically influential backers of intelligent design warned that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, who was appointed by President Bush, so overreached that his ruling will outrage and inflame millions of conservative and religiously observant Americans.

"This decision is a poster child for a half-century secularist reign of terror that's coming to a rapid end with Justice Roberts and soon-to-be Justice Alito," said Richard Land, who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and is a political ally of White House adviser Karl Rove. "This was an extremely injudicious judge who went way, way beyond his boundaries -- if he had any eyes on advancing up the judicial ladder, he just sawed off the bottom rung."

The fact that Mr. Land and his ilk (other like-minded, anti-progressive, (religious) conservatives) don't get it is amazing to me. Pardon me, but a 'secularist reign of terror'? Please. Such statements bely the radcialism that sits at the heart of such people and perspectives. A judicial opinion that denies them their triumph over rationality and scientific progress is labeled as overreaching hudicial authority; judges who do not conform to a religion-centered world-view are considered to be 'activist judges'; and proponents of science and reason are blasted as 'aetheist'.

This is precisely the sort of modus operandi used by Islamist propoganda organizations in the US, i.e. CAIR. That strategy is, quite simply, when you don't like what you hear, or don't get your way on an issue or court ruling, stomp your feet and call the other guy the dirtiest names you can think of that won't be so obviously juvenile as to effect a backlash against you. Then articulate your position as being victimzed by a long standing conspiratorial/hate filled cabal of people with a differing perspective, citing events and cases out of context and blowing minor infractions out of proportion.

For example, in the same Wasington Post article:

Still, few advocates of intelligent design tried to hide their dismay with the judge's decision. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, wrote that the judge has a "pernicious understanding of what intellectual and religious freedom in America means." Some acknowledged that the decision foreshadows a much longer and more complicated battle for public acceptance.

Again, this sort of nonsense vilification of any who oppose their way of thinking should be understood for what it is: simple bullying. To argue that a judge, in ruling that a thinly veiled attempt to introduce creationism into public school science curricula is unconstitutional, has a "pernicious understanding of what intellectual and religious freedom in America means" is a bully tactic. From the playground to politics, if you don't like what someone is doing, but recognize that they are justified in doing so, you attack them through efforts to smear them, beat them over the head with vicious language, or you call them names until they shut up.

That is, lacking any real or constructive objection beyond simply disagreeing, religious fanatics use insults and name calling to convince the mainstream that they (the fanatics) are being somehow targeted or victimised. Sorry ID proponents. Your ideas are welcome in the 'market place of ideas,' but your insults and slander are not. ID proponents and people who want prayer in schools are free to argue and to attempt to persuade, but when they launch a salvo of pure vitriol at their intellectual opponents, let's call it what it is. If they cannot convince the mainstream of the validity of their position, then perhaps their position is the one in need of rethinking.

To Judge Jones who rendered the decision, and to all who stand firm in the face of all forms of religious fanaticism refusing to cave to their incredible demands, I salute you. Stand strong, you are not alone.

~JDS