Intelligent Design Advocates Make Death Threats

LAWRENCE, Kan. - A judge who struck down a Dover, Penn., school board's decision to teach intelligent design in public schools said he was stunned by the reaction, which included death threats and a week of protection from federal marshals.

(The Raw Story, 2006)

Thanks to Tom for the link. Just when you thought those Christian-Right Hegemaniacs were a "love-thy-neighbor" bunch eh? Nope? You weren't fooled to begin with? Michael Griffin or one or more of the many Christian anti-abortion activists that have enacted murderous violence in their anti-secular campaigning, made your mind up for you on that long ago?

Heck, Australia has Peter James Knight; murderer of a security guard outside a Melbourne abortion clinic. You wonder why so many Australians harp on about the "Muslim Menace". What a crock. It's Christian-Right 1, Islamic Fundamentalism 0, in the domestic terrorism stakes down under.

It's a damn good thing that most followers of Christianity and of Sharia, have no problems reconciling their beliefs with secular democracy. A pity that George Pell, with his fascist "normative democracy" (i.e. believe what you want provided it agrees with the norms determined by the Church) doesn't share this virtue.

But I digress...

In a 139-page decision last year, Jones ruled that the Dover school board intended to promote religion when it instituted a policy requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. He ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

"And if you would have told me when I got on the bench four years ago that I would have death threats in a case like this as opposed to, for example, a crack cocaine case where I mete out a heavy sentence, I would have told you that you were crazy," he said. "But I did. And that's a sad statement."

(The Raw Story, 2006)

Something that Brendan Nelson, former minister for Science (cough) and Education (ahem) should have been told when he went out and supported the teaching of ID in public schools.

Relating ID proponents to crack dealers. I wouldn't have thought it, but still, it doesn't surprise me. I think the motives behind the ID-Death Squad are somewhat different than the sociopathy of crack dealers though. What does Jones think is at the root of the problem?

He said much of the criticism showed a lack of understanding about the role of judges, who he said should rule based on the Constitution and legal precedence - not on personal whims or political favors. Jones said many people expected him to rule differently because he is a longtime Republican and was appointed by President Bush. "These criticisms point at something in the way that both the pundits and the public tend to perceive judges," he said. "It is false, it is debilitating and if unchallenged, I believe it will ultimately tear at the fabric of our system of justice in the United States."

Poor Jones. Backed by Bush and incorporated fundamentalists, then persecuted as an "evilutionist" by the same fanatics because he did the right thing and stopped the state from endorsing a particular religion. Of course, the core problem is a disregard for secular constitution and the rule of law, the former disposition of the ID-Death squad brigade somewhat akin to the "normative democracy" of George Pell.

"As we spend time, as we did in the Dover case, debating what to put in the science curriculum in our schools, we had better start paying attention to the curriculum of civics and government, as well as history," he (Jones) said.

(The Raw Story, 2006)

In Australia, that gets covered under the SOSE curriculum, and in year 11 and 12 Legal Studies. With George Bush Jr's disregard for civics (e.g. illegal wire taps) and Howard's attack on values education (integral to civics education in SOSE), Jones' stated need for civics education should not be under emphasised.

Believe me, there are no sacred cows for the right-wing culture warriors. They will violate any institution in order to attain hegemony.

Update: Arthur points out that this kind of behevious is predictable, given the lynching of a professor critical of ID. We debate with words and evidence, not violence, ID proponents campaign with words and violence.