Mike Argento, a columnist for the York Daily Record, writes about the testimony of Barbara Forrest and it seems that he definitely got the point of the whole exercise, from the historical record she referenced to the shameful tactics of the TMLC attorneys. First, he writes of their attempts to impeach her testimony by questioning her about her association with humanist groups:
Along about the 658th hour of Dr. Barbara Forrest's stay on the witness stand, during Day Six of the Dover Panda Trial, I started looking for her horns.
Never did see them.
It was right about the time that defense lawyer Richard Thompson was repeatedly asking about her various memberships in such seditious, treasonous and just plain evil organizations as the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association and the ACLU that it occurred to me to look for her horns.
They weren't there....
"When did you become a card-carrying member of the ACLU?" Thompson asked in a tone that suggested that such membership put her in league with Satan and the forces of evil.
Not just a member. "A card-carrying member."
Forrest answered that she joined the organization in 1979 because she believes in the Constitution and the ACLU defends that vital document.
Thompson then asked whether she supports everything the ACLU does.
Forrest said she believes in defending the Constitution.
And then Thompson asked whether she knew whether the ACLU has defended child porn as protected speech under the First Amendment.
Before Forrest could answer, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Eric Rothschild, rose and objected on the grounds of relevance. In other words, his objection was, essentially, what does this have to do with anything?
The judge cut Thompson off.
Which was too bad because the way it was going, I figured Thompson's next question would be something on the order of, don't you and your friends get together to watch snuff films while snacking on aborted fetuses?
This is of course a pure ad hominem from the defense attorneys, attacking the person speaking rather than the arguments they've made. As I said yesterday, this is a very effective strategy if you're speaking to your average Baptist church, where even a whiff of that dreaded "humanism" - something most of them couldn't define at gunpoint - makes you an evil person. But in a court of law, it just isn't going to fly.
Argento then goes on to write about an interesting exchange between Forrest and one of the defense attorneys:
Forrest described the intelligent design movement's "wedge strategy," described in a document that the intelligent design people wrote, cleverly titled "The Wedge."
At one point, an attorney for the defense asked her whether she knew that that document was intended to raise money, that it was part of a fundraising plea. Forrest didn't know.
But by asking, was the defense saying that the intelligent design people had portrayed their theory as a religious idea just to get money out of people? Were they saying that they intended to prey upon people's faith to get them to open their checkbooks? Were they saying that it's OK to say anything when you're trying to wrest dollars from an unsuspecting public?
Yes, that is pretty much what they're saying. And it's simply a fact that the ID crowd has engaged in this duplicity, whereby they define intelligent design one way when speaking to the media, and an entirely different way when speaking to Christian audiences, from whom their money flows. That's why the Wedge Document, intended to open the checkbooks of the faithful, spoke so boldly of overthrowing the dangerous legacies of atheism and establishing a "theistic science" that places God not only at the center of all scientific inquiry but at the center of society itself. But if you quote this to them as evidence that intelligent design is really just a more vague form of creationism, they howl with outrage and accuse you of engaging in ad hominems while - cue the irony music - frantically pointing out that you're an evil humanist anyway. Argento, at least, did not allow their antics to obscure the point:
At the end of her direct testimony, it was clear how the so-called theory of intelligent design came about. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools was unconstitutional. The people who wanted to teach creationism in public schools -- people who believe teaching science in general and evolution in particular is responsible for all of society's ills -- had to come up with something else.
So they thought about it and rubbed a few brain cells together and came up with intelligent design.
Now, they admit, they have no theory and they don't really have anything in the way of science on their side.
Essentially, what they did was take their creationist literature and replace the word "creationism" with the phrase "intelligent design."
Indeed they did, and Forrest quoted from the early drafts of Of Pandas and People to prove it. Which is exactly why the attorneys were so desperate to discredit her. They know that her testimony, more than anything else, damages their case. It all reminds me of the movie Liar, Liar, where an attorney is hexed and cannot tell lies anymore, leading to this exchange in the courtroom:
Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!
That's what the TMLC attorneys would have to say if they couldn't lie anymore.
- Log in to post comments
From the YDR news report:
" He also attacked the research methodology for her writings, claiming she was selective. As an example, he said she failed to include a document by the Discovery Institute explaining the "wedge strategy."
Forrest, a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, says the wedge strategy is a long-term plan to replace materialism with Christian convictions. She has tracked what she calls the intelligent design movement for years to show its roots in creation science, according to testimony.
The institute, in a document called "The Wedge Document: So What?" says it does not support theocracy, is not attacking science and does not have a secret plan to influence science and culture."
So even though the Wedge Document, written by the DI, says the DI does support theocracy, is attacking society, and does have a secret plan to influence society and culture, we shouldn't pay attention because now they say don't? It's pretty obvious this case is over.
That "card carrying member" phrase is a not-so-subtle echo of McCarthy's phraseology in the 1950s. That the phrase still persists in right-wing rhetoric is a nice example of an invidious meme's ability to infect minds.
There are many things wrong with our public education system; the one that seems to me to keep popping up in these sorts of attempts to sway public opinion is the failure to teach philosophy to our children. If we truly wanted children to engage in a careful process to "assess the validity of those theories and to formulate arguments for or against those theories," we might want them to understand the rudiments of careful philosophical inquiry. But i suppose again that such curricula might be too "humanistic?"
I don't know how Dr. Forrest would have answered the question, and it wasn't before a jury that could be prejudiced, so perhaps it's a bit moot.
But were I asked if I were aware "that the ACLU has defended child porn" I would pause to wait for silence, and then I would offer a lecture on the First Amendment along these lines: The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and nothing else. It is the only organization on Earth that stands for the Bill of Rights come hell or high water. When the counsel for the Dover board fuzzes the lines, and leaves the impression to an educated person that the Constitution is child pornography, it is time to stop that counsel in his tracks and ask him whether he would prefer that the Bill of Rights not be there. It's a rhetorical question, of course -- and the counsel doesn't get the chance to answer. Would the counsel suspend the Bill of Rights in an effort to get the Devil? And if so, behind what would the good counsel stand behind when the Devil turned?
But let us be clear: If we must choose between a Bill of Rights that, unfortunately, defends child pornography, and no Bill of Rights, then history tells us we are better off with the Bill of Rights.
And so I resent the counsel's suggestion that he would do any differently. Counsel has sworn an oath to defend the laws of this nation, and by his question he suggests that perhaps he cannot fulfill that oath.
Under the circumstances, the court might be better off to find another attorney. If this clown will not defend the Constitution as he has sworn to do, what other transgressions of law and procedure will he authorize in his smear campaign?
I'm sure no judge would let a witness get that far, but I'd pay to see it.
It's true, you know. Dr. Forrest has smoked out not only the true history of ID creationism, but also the anti-Bill of Rights views of the Thomas More folks.
Wait a minute -- wasn't it Thomas More who is reputed to have wondered about suspending the laws of England in pursuit of the Devil?
Does the defense counsel know who Thomas More was?
Let's hear from the voice of reason, Bill O'Reilly....Bill?
"They won't even tell you in the statement what intelligent design entails. They won't mention a creator, a deity, a God. You know why? Because the ACLU then can haul them into court and cost them $100,000 to defend themselves. Fascism, fascism, fascism. Okay? Ah, drive me nuts! Hitler would be a card-carrying ACLU member. So would Stalin. Castro probably is. And so would Mao Zedong."
Thanks Bill.
Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200501210003
That "card carrying member" phrase is a not-so-subtle echo of McCarthy's phraseology in the 1950s. That the phrase still persists in right-wing rhetoric is a nice example of an invidious meme's ability to infect minds.
A neat aticle about the power of this kind of labelling was written by William Levin for the Bridgewater Review.
What's in a Name, You Pinko?
http://www.bridgew.edu/NewsEvnt/BridRev/Archives/01Jun/cultural-2.htm
I'd mention that Helen Gahagan Douglas did get Nixon back sort of. It was she who coined the nickname "Tricky Dick", which followed him to the end.
It needs to be pointed out that this is simply spin from the DI, and certainly not an established fact by any stretch. They merely claim that it was a fund-rasing letter, which is somehow supposed to reduce its relevance, but we have no evidence of this beyond their say-so.
The problem is, the Wedge Document doesn't read like a fund-raising letter at all. For one thing, fund-raising letters usually ask for donations which the Wedge Document doesn't do. What it does do is present a manifesto, a list of 5-year and 10-year goals, and an activist plan. In other words, it reads just like an internal organizational document rather than something meant to solicit donations. And the fact that it was leaked against their will and never released to the public makes this all the more likely.
There is probably a small grain of truth to the "fund-raising document" excuse, which is that it was probably shown to handful of wealthy benefactors (e.g. Howard Ahmanson Jr. and lackies of Rev. Moon) in order to ply money from them. But this doesn't mean it was conceived primarily as a fund-raising document, and it definitely doesn't reduce its relevance as a means of understanding the DI's motives.
Ed:
I wouldn't say that at all, I would just point out that the ACLU has never defended child porn. What they're probably referring to is a case where the ACLU opposed a law banning depictions which might represent children (more commonly adolescents) but that didn't actually use children. For example, actresses who were 18 but looked younger, or cartoons. Since no actual children are being used, there's no real victim.
Here's what I found on the ACLU's website with a quick search:
From here:
http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=10268&c=31
Really Ed, you don't want to give an answer like the one you suggested because child porn isn't protected by the 1st amendment and shouldn't be. Porn using adults however, as well as paintings, cartoons, etc. are protected. The TMLC goofballs, true to form, simply lied about the case.