Victory for Science: McCreary Ruling
This article over at The Panda’s Thumb is an insightful analysis of the application of the recent McCreary SCOTUS ruling to the separation of church and state, particularly as it applies to the evolution/intelligent-design (non)debate. The McCreary case, one of the two cases regarding the public display of the Ten Commandments recently decided by the court, upheld the Lemon test for deciding establishment clause issues.
Lemon calls for a three-fold test: Purpose (the law must have a clear non-religious purpose), effect (it must neither advance nor inhibit religion), and entanglement (it must not needlessly entangle church and state). The plaintiffs in McCreary attempted to remove or weaken the purpose prong, arguing that it was impossible for a court to rightly ascertain the mind of the legislature when making the law. That argument was struck down for being incredibly stupid.
The application of this decision to the ID problem is clear: Despite the Discovery Institute’s best efforts, ID proponents keep reminding the world that ID is essentially creationism in a lab coat. In particular, the infamous “Wedge Document”, authored by members of another ID advocacy group, the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, makes it obvious that ID is an attempt to overthrow essentially the basis of science and replace it with Biblical-literalist bullshit. Well, thanks to the Lemon decision, we can be reasonably confident that this won’t fly in court - the purpose of ID is pretty clear.
6 Responses to “Victory for Science: McCreary Ruling”
Leave a Reply
Please keep comments civil, rational, reasonably on-topic, and in something tangential to standard written English. Comments that display a reckless disregard for civilized discourse will be moderated.
June 27th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Cool. While I agree there should be a purpose test, I don’t really understand the mechanism for applying this test. Is it basicly just find a record of public statements made by proponents? That seems a little fuzzy to me, but then again, all law does.
June 27th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
Essentially, yes. The court, applying the Lemon test, would look at things like records of debate on the legislation, NGO involvement, the public record on the legislation, etc.
June 27th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
Kwazy. Legal systems boggle my mind.
June 28th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Iirc, it is actually fairly common for the justices to examine things such as the record of congressional debate over the bill giving birth to whatever law is in question, on pretty much any decision. Particularly if the law doesn’t cleanly lay out its purpose in something like an introductory section.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:33 am
There were two rulings, both 5-4 splits. The second ruling allowed a 6 foot granite statue
of the 10 commandments to remain on the lawn of the capital building in Texas. The
McCreary ruling only effected two courthouses with framed 10c hanging in the building which
must be removed. Notably, the SC ruled that such cases must all be considered separately
even as they pondered the frieze of Moses holding the 10c hanging in their own court. Irony
meters around the country recorded near record levels.
This begs a question. If they ruled, on split decisions, that some 10 commandments may
be displayed by gov’t how might they rule on Cobb county’s placing of a sticker that doesn’t
even mention God in biology textbooks. I wouldn’t be complacent about it. If they’ll let
something that says “thou shalt have no other Gods before Me” stand in some places it
seems pretty likely they’ll let something that doesn’t even mention God or religion stand
in a biology textbook.
June 28th, 2005 at 10:53 am
Yes, but where the two rulings differed was precisely on the purpose prong of the Lemon test. In the Texas case, the monument was chiefly historical in nature, while the Kentucky displays were, in their supporters’ own words, religious in purpose. Similarly, the Cobb County stickers fail the purpose prong: the public conduct and discourse of their supporters paint an obvious picture of a non-secular ideal.
It is possible to argue that the Kentucky monuments also failed to pass muster under the entanglement prong, given that at least some of the support for them came directly from the judges’ bench, but I don’t think that was a deciding factor in either case and, not being a lawyer nor playing one on TV, I’m hesitent to speculate in that regard.