Eagle Forum
EF Twitter
Alerts Nominations Architects vs. Activists Court Cases Courts & Culture Links
We the People Court College Curbing the Courts Court Comedy Law Library Resources

VOL. 7, NO. 15Dec. 23, 2005
"On Men and Monkeys: The Oldest Fight in the Culture War, III."
By Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D., National Chairman

Today we conclude our dissection of the U. S. Supreme Court's fatally flawed decision in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard. We look at three final examples of "Fact v. Fiction" in the Court's opinion.

Fact v. Fiction #3: The Aguillard majority concluded that the Louisiana Legislature enacted the dual model law for solely religious purposes — without a "secular purpose" as the Court has said the Constitution's Establishment Clause requires. The "secular purpose" test is one of three "Establishment Clause tests" which the Court created out of thin air in 1971. Even if the test were constitutionally and historically sound (which it is not), the Court is calling the Legislature a lair of liars. The Legislature specifically declared that the purpose of the act was to "assure academic freedom." And properly-functioning courts are supposed to accept the Legislature's assertions (unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, which there is not in Aguillard).

Fact v. Fiction #4: The courts have repeatedly held that the Establishment Clause prohibits government action that "inhibits," as well as "advances" religion. If creation-science is as "religious" as the Court claimed, then allowing a government to prohibit the teaching of creation-science is an unconstitutional inhibition of "religion" in violation of the Establishment Clause.

On the other hand, evolutionism is a central tenet of Humanism. And the Supreme Court has declared that Secular Humanism is a "religion" (Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961). For the Court to allow state teaching of evolution only is therefore an establishment of the Secular Humanist religion, in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause.

Humanists on and off the Court cannot have it both ways. Dual model laws resolve this conflict.

Fact v. Fiction #6: The Humanist Court argued that creationism was all religion and evolutionism was all science. Nothing is further from fact. In dissent, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia wrote the truth: "The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger. . . .Evolution, in turn, is misrepresented as an absolute truth."

The U. S. Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard is rife with fiction rather than fact. It is dangerous to the Constitution, the culture, and Christianity. It should therefore be much more widely publicized by us Constitutionalists and included in our war to revive the Constitution.

Federal District Judge John Jones has just committed these same errors in his recent decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Parroting the Supreme Court's Aguillard arguments, Jones threw out a statement which the Dover Area School Board had required to be read to ninth-grade biology students. The statement simply told students that Darwinistic evolution is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." The statement referred the students to library books offering "intelligent design" theory and other non-evolutionist theories as explanations of origins. One book mentioned in the Dover City statement was Of Pandas and People, published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics in Dallas. That organization is also being sued by the ACLU and will likely be damaged by the Jones decision.

At such a time as this, Americans need more than ever to remember the ringing words of the prophet Isaiah.: "The Lord will come in fire to render his anger in fury." "And the government shall be upon his shoulder." But those who acknowledge Him will "rejoice and be glad forever."

Court Watch Wishes You and Your Loved Ones 
A Blessed Christmas and New Year as You Acknowledge  
Him and Experience His Joy and Gladness!

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum
PurposesPrinciplesPrograms Personnel