Friday, December 15, 2017

On US Constitution and Creationism

Can a judge be disbarred for advocating blatantly unconstitutional positions, such as exclusively teaching the Christian theory of creationism instead of evolution in public schools?

This question previously had details. They are now in a comment.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
Answered 3m ago
"Can a judge be disbarred for advocating blatantly unconstitutional positions,"

I am not sure. With freedom of speech there is a right to advocate against current law, current constitution (you can perhaps shut someone up if he tries to use arms to become Emperor of US, you can however not shut him up if he says US would be better off under a monarch).

To what extent this freedom applies to judges whle they are judges would depend on to what exact extent they had for instance an obligation of "upholding constitution of US". If he had propagated for changing the presidential term for lifelong, the elective system for hereditary, renaming President Emperor and requiring him to be a Confucian, testable by burning incense before portraits of his ancestors as well as before Confucius all the time in the Oval Office, under office hours, perhaps he should be considered as having broken such an oath, if he had given it.

I wonder exactly how many judges were in that manner foresworn (also supposing there was such a clause in the oath of office) by sharing Woodrow Wilson's attitude to Constitution as a "Darwinian organism" and deploring the "Newtonian" view of it.

Also, there is a difference between a measure which goes against the direct text of the constitution, and a measure which simply is against the currently perceived "meaning" in some looser sense.

I'll be getting back to this.

"such as exclusively teaching the Christian theory of creationism instead of evolution in public schools?"

OK, this is supposed to be unconstitutional how?

Judges have upheld a similarily unconstitutional (if so) monopoly in Kitzmiller vs. Dover case (in which a "Catholic" took the devil's side and testified to "Catholicism" not seeing any meaning in Creationism). (Yes, I mean Ken Miller, wrote four articles[1][2][3][4] in refutation of his "Finding Darwin's God" including some correspondence with him which I published - as in the interest of the public to know : AronRa had referred to him as "Traditional Catholic" which he is certainly not in any current meaning of the phrase : he's a practising Catholic because his bishop favours his apostasy).

But the judges in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case have not been disbarred despite not just advocating an unconstitutional measure, but enacting it by gross abuse of power.

Or would there be any even semblance in violating establishment clause in upholding a tenet common to the different religions present among the founding fathers, and similar?


[1] Responding to Miller, Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 1

[2] Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 2

[3] Staying with Father Murphy's God, part 3 - Correspondence with Ken Miller

[4] Correspondence with Ken Miller (part 4 of Staying with Father Murphy's God)

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1m ago
Found the comment:

“Specifically for comments made outside of the courtroom made in an attempt to influence public policy, and potentially jeopardizing the judge's impartiality.”

Impartiality and constitutionality are not the same thing, but if they were, I wonder how judges in Kitzmiller vs Dover case would fare …

No comments: