Do you have anything to offer besides innuendo and character/motive attacks? None of this is relevant even if true.In the same interview with The New York Times, BEFORE HIS RULING, Judge Jones entertained the possibility that he might be a candidate for governor. Before the trial, Judge Jones publicly expressed his giddiness about presiding over the trial, remarking "even Charles Darwin's great grandson is going to be at the trial".
I notice once again, incidentally, that you simply expect to be believed, and feel no need to support your claims. Maybe we'd like to see the material upon which you are basing your judgments such as "giddiness." You'll forgive me if I reject your unsupported claims about the Judge given your obvious disapproval of his findings and your willingness to rebut his findings with material like this.
It seems that the essence of your rebuttal has been to impugn the Judge's motives, and quibble over my use of the words "unexpected" and "heroic," as if that mattered. What matters is the ruling - not if it was expected, not if it was heroic, not if large swatches of it were cut and pasted from material supplied by the prosecution, and not if you liked it or agreed with it. The trial was what it was - a fascinating, humorous and instructive drama that culminated in a landmark decision of great significance, one with which I and many others found sound, unexpected, and heroic.But to whom was it "unexpected" that Judge Jones would rule for the politically-correct side? And how was it "heroic" to copy errant factual evidence from an ACLU brief that was written before the trial began?
You don't have to agree. Most theists don't.