Comments on: Leveraging Dover Against Iowa State University

By: Tenure and Intelligent Design | As the Worm Turns

Tenure and Intelligent Design | As the Worm Turns — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:40:18 +0000

[...] But what’s not reasonable is to try to protect tenure by keeping people out arbitrarily, by denying tenure for political reasons. As a strategy it’s great and perfectly understandable Ã¢â‚¬â€ but it also undercuts the very reasons tenure is important. [...]

By: russ

russ — Sun, 20 May 2007 19:16:53 +0000

I’m trying to blockquote

By: mgarelick

mgarelick — Sun, 20 May 2007 17:57:26 +0000

It seems to me that this would be sufficient for Gonzalez not to prevail: assuming that he was denied tenure because of his views on ID, it was because he believes (or has expressed and argued the belief) that ID is science. Whether or not ID is actually religion is a side issue.

By: Janice

Janice — Sun, 20 May 2007 10:23:55 +0000

Thank you very much Apollos. Haven’t used javascript for years so, going from memory, I can only say that memory doesn’t always serve.

By: Larry Fafarman

Larry Fafarman — Sun, 20 May 2007 08:52:32 +0000

In their lawsuit against UC, Christian schools are essentially claiming that they teach religion as science so that they can argue that UC is violating the Constitution’s free exercise clause — see

http://im-from-missouri.blogsp.....ies-v.html

Judge Jones handed us a lemon when he ruled that ID was religion. Someone once told me Ã¢â‚¬Å“If God gives you lemons, make lemonade!Ã¢â‚¬Â

Judge Jones used the “Lemon test,” so the version I like is, “if life gives you Lemon tests, make Lemonade!”

By: Apollos

Apollos — Sun, 20 May 2007 08:38:46 +0000

Hi Janice, I think you may need to put semicolons after your < and > (< > = <>)

The browser-side preview javascript doesn’t work exactly the same as the server side parsing code, which can lead to frustrating disparity between previewed and posted comments.

Hope this helps

By: Janice

Janice — Sun, 20 May 2007 07:57:02 +0000

russ, use <blockquote>your quote goes here</blockquote>. That isn’t showing up as a quote because I’ve used escapes and therefore the tags aren’t functioning as tags.

And surely all Gonzalez would have to do would be something like the following.

Defense Lawyer: So you believe that you were denied tenure because of your scientific opinions, not your religious opinions, is that correct?

GG: No, that is not correct. I was denied tenure because the tenure committee members (sotto voce, “ignorant dolts that they are”) believe that ID is religion and, therefore, that my scientific opinions are religious opinions.

By: Mung

Mung — Sun, 20 May 2007 06:37:15 +0000

One court ruling ID is religion amd one ruling ID is not religion is the thing higher court decisions are made of .

Would he appeal the decision that ID is not religion?

By: tribune7

tribune7 — Sun, 20 May 2007 03:02:39 +0000

GG: That is correct. I have not been the victim of religious discrimination.

Defense Lawyer: Then how is it that you are suing for religious discrimination when you agree with us that religious discrimination never occured?

GG: Because according to the federal courts I.D. is a religion, and if the federal courts are right my rights have been violated regardless of my opinion. So what is it?

Dave Scott is right. The point isn’t to collect damages but to illustrate absurdity. It would a great victory for another fed judget to rule it is not a religion.

By: russ

russ — Sat, 19 May 2007 22:54:38 +0000

To recap, the government does not recognize ID as religion. Judge Jones’ decision is not case law. It is not binding legal precedent for anything. It may have had an effect on public opinion, but not the law.