Glenn: The Federal Judge is overruling the decision of a local school board to include Intelligent Design in their biology course.
A local board in control of something it should have no right to control, or any business administering, was overridden by an official of a different and higher government branch, which is also involved in something it has no business being involved in. Within the context of "public" education, there IS a peculiar logic to this, albeit an unfortunate one.
Glenn: The school board consisted of elected officials (who have since been voted out of office) and therefore can be considered to have represented the local community at the time of the decision. The Federal Judge, by his ruling, has said that a community cannot decide what they will include in the courses they teach in their classrooms.
Imagine a group of elected officials, representing a majority within their community, deciding that the black students in that community must go to “separate. but equal schools”. If someone within that community were to object, where should these cases be decided? Ah, but of course, the courts.
Since education has been elevated into a so-called “right”, and one which the state must provide and administer, and since all public schools are subsidized by federal (national) monies; no single individual or local community can possibly claim a right to decide to be the ultimate arbiter as to what will be taught in those schools. Just as in so many other issues that the governemnt should not be involved in at any level, the local government’s authority will always be subordinate to the Federal government’s authority. The degree of local autonomy, or lack of, of any local government institution which exist under the federal umbrella, will always be subject to judicial scrutiny.
It will always be the case within a society that has compromised its respect for individual rights, that government officials will be put in the position of making decisions that they should not be making at all. In the meantime, while we work towards eliminating that condition, we should applaud and appreciate those instances when a government official uses objective reasoning as his method of decision making. This is especially true when you consider that for the most part federal intervention tends to be for the worse.
You see Glenn, just as there should have been no public schools to desegregate in the first place, so too should there have been no public schools to decide creationism vs. science debates. So although related, this is a separate subject from the one at hand. Given the fact that the government is in the business of running schools, the desegregation decision was the rational decision. Within the mixed premised system in which we live, Judge Jones’s decision was also, the rational one.
This blow to those that wish to force feed disguised creationism onto America's children, is a welcome one.
(Edited by George W. Cordero on 12/21, 5:26pm)