This reader comment struck a chord with me:


Dr. Corbett, I read the court decision. They only said you were in violation of the establishment clause for the "Peloza" comment regarding creationism being "superstitious nonsense". Every other comment which Mr. Farnan objected was deemed permissible by the court. While I completely agree with you, the court made it obvious the issue was not your critique of creationism, but the way you stated it. By disparaging the religious belief as opposed to the "logic" behind it the case had merit (albeit not much).

davidnyc76
May 11, 2009 09:43 AM