Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Friday, August 19, 2005

Twisting legalities like they were the Bible

archy quotes an interesting attempt at a law:

SB 6500 Finds that the teaching of the theory of evolution in the common schools of the state of Washington is repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and thereby unconstitutional and unlawful. Provides that all textbooks and curriculum that teach the theory of evolution shall be removed from the public schools forthwith and replaced with textbooks and curriculum that teach the self-evident truth of creation.

Gee, and here I thought the Constitution was the foundation for our law, and that the Declaration was a rationale for rebellion. So can we also use Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli—"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"—to get the religious tax exemption revoked?

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2762/ORyeQyhZ/

Comments:
#36449: — 08/19  at  01:01 PM
Like I said earlier (Fred H. thread): Why do the wingnuts focus on the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution? We often see this played out during education standards fights and in the political arena. So far no one has given me a good reason for wingers preferring the rather radical Declaration over the the (also radical but less obviously so) Constitution.



#36460: — 08/19  at  02:03 PM
As I understand the article, it is Washington State law that requires all teachings to be compatible with the Declaration and the Constitution and not the Federal law.



#36465: — 08/19  at  02:25 PM
Bob, If I recall right, I think it was an old McCarthy era amendment to the state constitution that made teaching anything contrary to the Declaration or Constitution illegal. It's the sort of not-thought-out legislation that happens during times of paniced patriotism. Could the people who passed such an amendment have actually have read the Declaration. After all, it's a statement of the right to rebel. Did they really intend to say it's against the law to say you can't overthrow the government? It's only right that an old foolish law should be revived for a new foolish purpose.



#36566: — 08/20  at  07:16 AM
So far no one has given me a good reason for wingers preferring the rather radical Declaration over the the (also radical but less obviously so) Constitution.

The Declaration refers to a "Creator"; the Constitution is wholly godless.

That's their reason - whether it's a "good" one depends on one's political theology.



Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: Oh, no—it's the anti-Mooney!

Previous entry: Anencephaly and right-wing moralizers

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college