Speaker A

A man who had just arrived in hell spotted a lawyer and a beautiful woman having sex. The man complained to the devil exclaiming, hey, I have to roast for all eternity, but that lawyer gets to have sex with a gorgeous woman. The devil replied, who are you to question that woman’s punishment? • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Speaker B

Thank you. Welcome to the Cross examiner podcast, the Internet’s courtroom in the case of rationality versus religion. Here, our host uses his experience as both an attorney and an atheist to put religion on trial. We solemnly swear that it is the most informative, educational, and entertaining jury duty you will ever do. And, uh, now it’s time for the Cross examiner. • • • • • • • • • •

Speaker A

Welcome to the Cross examiner podcast. I am the cross examiner. I am an attorney. I am an atheist, and I am alarmed. I’m alarmed about the rise of Christian nationalism in the United States and the massive amount of misinformation that is powering that rise. I’ve started this podcast in an attempt to lend my viewpoint as an atheist and my expertise as an attorney to help provide you with the facts, the facts of what any particular lawsuit says, what any particular law that is passed will do, how the government works, what the Constitution actually says, and try to combat this misinformation. I hope to entertain and educate. And this is episode, uh, • • two. I suggest you go here episode one, if you haven’t in that episode, I try to find some common ground. I don’t discuss any religious matters at all. In this episode, I will be discussing a bill. And this bill, I believe you will agree, once we’ve gone through the history here and we read the bill, will harm Americans in the name of religion. But first, I’m going to try an exercise. I would like to have you put on your judge hats, your judge gowns. I would like you to, as we read this bill together, • • determine for yourself what it means, because it’s somewhat poorly written and somewhat confusingly written, but I think its operative sentences are fairly clear and have some pretty severe impact. • • • Now, I’m not going to throw you into your first day on the job as a judge without a little bit of training. So let’s do some training on how to interpret these statutes. If this bill becomes a statute, if it passes and the governor signs it, it will become a statute. This is called statutory interpretation. I know, shocking. Uh, it’s hard to figure out. So how do we go about statutory interpretation? The best way I could think of to hammer home how important this is and how tricky it can be, is by reviewing very, very high level the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it contains an example, the best example, the example my statutory interpretation professor started us off with of the problem the challenge of statutory interpretation. So let’s go into a very, very quick overview. If you’re not familiar with the Civil Rights Act. This is 1963. When it’s introduced about nine years earlier, we had Brown versus Board of Education. This was a Supreme Court case that found segregation of students, black students and white students in the south or anywhere unconstitutional. It’s a great opinion and you should go read it. It is a couple of pages long, unlike today’s opinions, which can be hundreds of pages long. And it is unanimous, which was a political master stroke • • • • nine years later because things aren’t moving. • • We’ve got Martin Luther King pushing President Kennedy to act and he can’t. He doesn’t have • • there isn’t enough sentiment, political sentiment on the side of civil rights in America. So King does a few things. He starts the Birmingham Campaign • • where • • • his people are protesting, they’re picketing, they’re boycotting, they’re doing sit ins, they’re doing weight ins, they’re doing kneel ins. And a judge issues an injunction against it all very unconstitutional. He prohibited, according to the AP quote, every imaginable form of demonstrations including boycotting, trespassing, parading, picketing, sit ins, kneelings, weight ins. And he prohibited the inciting or encouraging of those acts. Okay, so it’s, uh, extremely unconstitutional, but the local authorities use that to arrest Dr. King. On April 12, two days after that injunction is issued, they throw him in a dark cell, no mattress, no phone call. Again, more violations of the Constitution. • • And it is there. He writes his now famous letter from a Birmingham jail. • • • Kennedy, soon after, in June, gives a speech saying the time for waiting is done. The letter has been circulated. The images from Alabama from excuse me, Birmingham specifically are horrifying the nation people having fire hoses turned on them and dogs ripping flesh out of innocent people’s bodies. • • And the momentum is with them. So they introduce the bill to the House and the Senate at the same time. But they really start pursuing it in the House. A whole bunch of horse trading takes place. And that’s kind of my point about this. Importantly, when it comes out of committee, there’s a whole bunch of politics just in committee. But when it comes out of committee, it has to go through a, uh, rules committee, a separate rules committee. So the way that bills work in Congress, the federal level, is they’re introduced into one or both houses. This case, we’re talking about the House of Representatives the House leadership assigns that bill to a committee. That committee’s job, ostensibly, is to research the issue, educate themselves, • • • hear from witnesses as to the pros and cons of enacting this bill amend the bill and eventually let it die in committee because they think it’s no good or report it out of committee to the whole House so the House can debate and vote on it. When you report it out of committee, it has to go to a rules committee because every bill that’s argued or debated in the House has to have its own set of rules as to how the debate will work. And that committee was headed by somebody named Judge Smith, who was a long standing, racist, • • southern Confederate state person who will be damned if civil rights was going to pass. • • So he • • introduces an amendment where he adds to the list of protected classes. When it came to him, • • the bill protected said, you can’t discriminate against people based on race, color, • • • • religion, uh, • • and national origin. And Judge Smith adds sex to one of the titles, title Seven, which is the employment title. So he’s saying, I propose we make this even stronger. That no longer can you, uh, discriminate based on those four categories, but in employment matters, you also can’t discriminate against women. You can’t discriminate based on your sex. • • His thinking, of course, was, this is going to make it unpalatable for anybody. Like, okay, • • not discriminating against blacks is one thing, but if we ask the whole public to say you have to hire women, • • that’s going to make it untenable. This is the thinking of the time. Right? So it’s an example of somebody proposing an amendment, getting it added because they think it will defeat the bill. And that’s something I want you to remember. Interestingly, the five women from the north, republicans and Democrats, who rose in support of this bill called it, quote, a little crumb of equality that we will gladly accept, and told the worried senators, don’t worry. This little word, • • • sex, is nothing to worry about. It won’t harm this bill in any way. So that actually stays in. It passes the House, goes to the Senate. The Senate has the longest debate in Senate history over this bill to this day. It’s still the longest. • It was 534 hours. Let me check that. I think that’s correct. Yes. 534 hours of continuous debate spanning 58 days. Then President Johnson, keep in mind, Kennedy is assassinated during this year. This took a year from when it was, uh, submitted to the House and introduced into the House and the Senate to the time it signed was exactly a year. And during that time, Kennedy is assassinated, some people believe, because of his treatment of the civil rights issue. Certainly why Dr. King is also assassinated. So this is the passion that’s surrounding these issues. Johnson then calls in personal debts from senators from Nevada and Oklahoma who are going to be against it. They go to meet with him in the Oval Office, or as the musical Hamilton would call it, the room where it happened. And nobody knows what happened in the room where it happened, but they came out supporting the bill. So something happened. He called in some sort of personal debt. • • • Also, an earthquake hit Alaska on March 27 of 64. And, uh, Johnson moves immediately to make Air Force Two available to those senators so they can fly back and forth to attend to the needs of their state. He frees up over $77 million in aid for Alaska. The Alaska senators come out in support of the civil rights bill. • • The democrats work on breaking up a traditional alliance between western states and southern states. Western states have a lot of desert and don’t have a lot of water, so they rely on water projects, and they like it when the federal government pays for them. So they had an alliance with the south, and it went like this. The southern states agreed to vote in favor of, uh, federal water projects for the western states if the western, uh, estates agreed to vote against any civil rights legislation. In other words, in order to get our water, we’re willing to side with the racists, right? • • So the dems offer them an olive branch and say, them being the western states, and say, you don’t have to associate with the racists anymore to get your water. We will support your water projects moving forward. Vote for the civil rights bill, and that wins the day. • • Other things happen. Lots of horse trading. But the point is, • • • that’s what the record looks like. You see speeches about we have to liberate black people from the oppression in the south. It should be illegal to discriminate against black people. We shouldn’t have whites only water fountains. We shouldn’t have whites only lunch counters. We shouldn’t be true that as Attorney General Robert Kennedy pointed out in one of his hearings, that • • • • there is one hotel in all of Montgomery, Alabama, that will host black people, but there are five hotels in Montgomery, Alabama, that will allow you to have a dog. That should not be true. • • • • • So it passes. • • Um, it’s a historic it’s signed into law, okay? So that’s the history. I tried to make that as quick as possible. There are entire books, there are entire documentaries on just how this law got passed. Please take it as true that it is very hard to go back and figure out why any individual senator voted in favor or against any amendment or this bill as a whole. People were trying to sabotage it by voting for it when it was strong. People were trying to weaken it. People only agreed to vote for it once they got their water bills or their, uh, political cover from their leadership. All sorts of confusion. So now you are a judge, and keep in mind, the bill says you cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. • • • • And you are hearing a lawsuit, and this is a hypothetical. The lawsuit is a group of native American Indians are suing a town saying we are firefighters or potential firefighters, and this town is giving us additional or different requirements to be hired as firefighters than anybody else. We believe they are doing this because of the color of our skin. And, uh, that is illegal under the civil rights act of 1964 that says you cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin. • • So, Judge, please issue an injunction to stop using different hiring criteria for Native Americans, uh, compared to everybody else. The city’s attorneys come back and say, Whoa, whoa, whoa. The entire history of the Civil Rights Movement and the bill and every debate was about black people. It wasn’t about Native Americans. The reason they included color is that’s the word we used for black people. That’s what this bill was about. If you want protection for Native Americans, go back to Congress and get them to pass a new act that adds or clarifies or defines color because they don’t define it in the bill. In the act, • • you can’t look up a section that says definitions. Color means this. • • • What do you do as a judge? Does the Civil Rights Act, when Congress voted on it and agreed to the phrase color, does that mean black people, as the term was used frequently in speeches and debates? They would call them colored people or people of color, • • • or does it apply more broadly to any racial discrimination? White, black, anything? What do you do? How do you do it? How do you go about this? So this is an example of very important • • statutory interpretation, and there’s lots of tools that judges will pull out of their statutory interpretation toolbox. • • On the conservative side, they will start off from approach that’s called textualism or originalism. • • • And textualism is • • • • • • they’re slightly different, originalism and intextualism, but they’re related. Textualism just says, I’m going to just read the words on the page in the act • • and presto, I’m going to know what the intent of Congress was. As if that’s even possible. We’ve already demonstrated through the history of the Civil Rights Act that there is no single intent of Congress. There’s this fiction that there’s this meeting of the mind. And at this moment, when we cast our votes, we all intend this one thing. Some people intended to get water projects and could care less about the effect on whether it was covered Native Americans or black people only. • • Some people just called in favors and are paying off the debts they owed to their president or were happy that they got Air Force Two. • • But textualism relies on this assumption that there’s this meeting of the mind, and we have to give effect to that meeting. Whatever they meant at that moment when they said color, that’s as a judge, my duty • to enact. I agree that that’s your duty. I just think that there’s a bit of realism that needs to come into play to say, it’s never that clear, and we can’t pretend. Hence, the use of the word presto is a common critique of textualism. I just read the words in presto. I know what they mean. Um, it’s never that easy. It’s always more complicated than that. That’s the real criticism of textualism. Originalism • • is the same concept, but it’s going to intent more than just saying, I’m going to read the words • • • originalism. My understanding, uh, the way I was taught is it’s a flavor of textualism that says, I’m going to try to find the original intent. Whether or not the intent amongst current congress members or the nation has changed doesn’t matter. And if the outcome is bad is hurting people, I don’t care. • • Congress voted and had an original intent, and under democratic principles, that’s the only thing that’s been voted on. And I am not, um, me. A single judge is not legally allowed to come in and change that intent. And again, I agree with that as a basic principle. And when that’s possible, absolutely do it. But when there’s confusion or doubt, I e. When congress doesn’t define the word color, • • we need more tools. We can’t just pretend and say, oh, I’m just looking at this, and obviously it means this, which really means this is what I want. Now, somebody like a scalia or a rehnquist would be a textualist. They’re the sort of the godfathers of textualism. They would pull out a dictionary, maybe, right? Rehnquist would pull out a dictionary from 1964. Scalia might pull out a dictionary from 2023 if he were still alive. That’s, uh, • sort of the difference between rehnquist and scalia. But they would both maybe pull out a dictionary, says, oh, color with respect to race. That means black people in 1964. So that’s all that matters. Whereas scalia might look up race related color or person of color in a dictionary today and say, oh, it means anybody. So, yes, I find in favor of the native Americans, where rehnquist might find against the native Americans. I’m just showing you via illustration that different tools can produce different conclusions. If you move to the other end of the spectrum, you have what we would call sort of living constitutionalism • • or goal oriented interpretation. • • And this view, this tool says, I need to dig deeper. I can’t just read the words on the page. I recognize things are messy. See, for example, • • the year long debate and politics that involved passing the Civil Rights Act, • • trading water for votes, right? • • So I recognize that as a judge. So I’m going to go read the debates. I’m going to read the legislative history. I’m going to read amendments that were voted for and voted against. I’m going to read the speeches saying, if this passes, then this will be true. And opponents saying, no, if this passes, that will be true. And I’ll find where they agree and find where they’re different. And I will try to come up with more than just • • the dictionary definition of color. And using that method, I might say, well, the debate was started based on discrimination against blacks, mostly in the southern racist confederate states. • • • But • • the speeches were all about how unfair it was that factors beyond a person’s control, biological factors like the color of your skin, • • the parents • • who gave birth to you, that these factors are being used against you. • • • That’s inherently unfair, and we want to prevent that. Under that interpretation, you might say, I find in favor of the • • • Native, uh, • American firefighters because • • this achieves the goal they were seeking back then. And I recognize as a practical matter, • • that you cannot have Congress come in and every year update every law to bring it current. They’re just too slow at that. If I take the textualist approach, I’m going to deny the rights to the Native Americans when I know that’s not the intent. And they’re going to have to take years, maybe decades, to get Congress to have enough political wheel to even bother issuing some sort of amendment to that act, right? • • Meanwhile, they will be suffering. On the other hand, I can use the democratic arguments that textualists usually use against them. The textualist will say, I’m going to interpret this law the way it is, and if Congress doesn’t like it, they can update the law, right? I’m going to keep it in 1964. And if they want to bring it current, they can pass something. And that’s democracy. And I agree with the principle. However, you can turn that around and say, I believe they intended for this word. They didn’t use a specific definition on purpose. They kept it vague. They knew that this word or this concept would evolve over time. And so I am going to interpret it as I think they intended. And if you don’t like it, Congress can pass a law. It’s two sides of the same coin. So when you hear somebody screaming about activist judges, • • keep in mind it’s a fiction that conservatives try to use to slam judges using a statutory interpretation tool that they don’t particularly like. Not because they don’t like it, because they will use those tools when it suits them. They only don’t like it when the outcome is something they don’t like. So you are the judge. Which way do you go? And I don’t have an answer. I personally would find that Native Americans are covered, • um, for that, for many reasons. • • • I tend to lean towards living constitutional sort of interpretations and results based interpretation, trying to find the results that Congress wanted. • • But also you can use some standing rules. Like one of the rules you always follow is if Congress lists a set of things, you must assume they are not being redundant. So when they say race comma color comma religion, you ask, why did they say race and color? Those are two different things in the eyes of Congress. Otherwise they would have just said race, or they just would have said color. The fact they say race comma color seems to indicate that it’s broader than just a race. And if you don’t consider Native Americans a race, and scientists today will tell you race is just a social construct anyway, it’s all a spectrum of attributes, • • • then consider color. If not race, then color. Because they’re both illegal. And the fact that they mentioned both, uh, • to me speaks that they intended this to be a broad coverage and that would reinforce your interpretation. So this all that you’ve learned now I need you to apply it to a modern case. Okay? So you now have your degree as a justice seeking to interpret statutes. You have your statutory interpretation degree. You understand the challenges, you understand sort of the spectrum of tools and you can come up with your own as well. And we’re going to look at a case out of Montana. This is a bill that was introduced a few months ago into the Montana state legislature. • • • The bill was introduced by a freshman senator, senator Daniel Emrich. He is a new senator. • And I’m just going to read this bill to you. You’re the judge. I want you to assume there’s a lawsuit involving this bill. This bill has, let’s imagine, been passed. As it stands, it’s currently in committee, but let’s assume it comes out of committee, it gets passed and is now the law of M. Montana. The title is an act establishing requirements for science, instruction in public schools and defining scientific fact. There’s more parts to the title, but they’re procedural. So we’re going to establish requirements for science instruction in private schools and we’re going to define, quote, scientific fact. • • Now, at the beginning of a bill you’re going to have things that are sort of the understanding that we want to come to a meeting of a mind on what is really going on and why we are passing this. And they will phrase it as Whereas. They’ll say whereas X is true and whereas Y is true. Therefore we’re going to do Z to stop X and Y or we’re going to do Z to promote X and Y. Right? So here are the Whereas parts whereas, the purpose of K through twelve education is to educate children in the facts of our world to better prepare them for their future and further education in their chosen field of study. And to that end, children must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. And two Whereas, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable. And if it does not meet those criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction. Those are the whereas. So that’s not the law, but that is what they intend to give judges that judges will read when they try to interpret the bill. And already we have a problem here, several problems. • • The media has actually started covering this case, but they’ve honed in on the attack of theory, • uh, as speculation, which obviously is the main problem. But they’ve missed a couple of other problems, and one of which is in this first part of the first Whereas clause where he says the purpose of K through twelve. Education is to educate children in the facts of our world. Is it? • • • You’re the judge. You’ve done statutory interpretation. We know that we assume that legislators choose their words very carefully. And he said, the purpose is to educate children in facts. Not a purpose, not the primary purpose or not one of many purposes, but the purpose is to educate children in facts. • • • I disagree with that vehemently. • That is not the purpose of education. It is a purpose of education • • • • • to demonstrate this in the simplest terms. There is this philosophical thought experiment that philosophers have used to try to discuss. Are there two types of things like facts and then something else that we can learn, or is there just facts? And I’m going to use it to illustrate my point. I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions of people who’ve used this model, but it makes a great point, and that is it’s in a thought experiment called Mary’s Room. • • Mary’s Room. Supposes that Mary has been raised her whole life in a black and white environment in a room that is painted black and white. She is black and white as far as her clothes and her color, and she is learning. She’s being taught through a TV that is just black and white. And she is taught all the facts of the world. She is taught that there are colors in the world, red and blue and green and all of these things. And she is taught that people will look at these colors and feel feelings, sometimes, right, of wonderment and sadness and things like that. • • • • And then one day so she knows everything, and she’s taught up to the graduate level, the PhD level, on everything to do with sight and colors. And then one day, she leaves the room and enters the world full of color, and she sees red and blue and green for the first time. The question is, at that moment where she experiences those things, • • she undergoes the experience of seeing color. Has she learned anything new? That’s the question of the Mary’s Room. • • Uh, hypothetical, the thought experiment, I think a lot of people would say, yes, she’s learned something new. Now, that new thing may be a fact that she just was unable to learn without experience. But that’s kind of my point, that school is not just about being taught facts, but school is also about experiencing things. This is what it feels like when I have my toy stolen in the sandbox. This is what it feels like if I steal somebody else’s toy and I get punished. This is what it feels like to sing a wonderful song, or to excel at physical education, or to read fiction through the eyes of another fictitious person and live another life. This is what it’s like to have to defend my position during a debate. • These are not facts. These are experiences. They may boil down to facts. • • I could instruct little Timmy and say, timmy, you will feel bad • • if you • • steal somebody else’s toy and you see that they are crying, you will feel guilty. And guilt is a feeling like you’ve done something bad and you need to make up for it. • • • But Timmy won’t actually know what guilt feels like until he experiences it. So I may be getting a little esoteric here, but I think it’s an extremely important point because that one premise that the purpose, the only purpose of education is to teach kids facts, is the worst • possible concept to come from a legislator about how we want to educate our fellow citizens. If we’re just educating facts, and we’re going to say one plus one equals two. The sky is blue, the grass is green, that’s a triangle, that’s a dog, go home. We’re going to have a crippled • • • citizenry within a matter of years, right? • • • We need to learn about things like social interaction and thoughts of others and art and expression and physical education and all of those sorts of things. So right off the bat, that’s one area I don’t hear the rest of the press sort of harping on. But it’s important. It’s very important. • • • • Right off the bat. I just wanted to take note that from his very first sentence, he gets it utterly wrong. • • So let’s read the operative sections. We have, uh, a new section. They’re adding subjection one. Science instruction may not include subject matter. That is not scientific fact. Let’s read that again. Science instruction. So anytime you’re teaching science to kids in their school system, • • • you may not include subject matter in your instruction. That is not scientific fact. • • • I can already hear you thinking and putting on your judicial cap and saying, I sure hope he defined scientific fact • • because it got really hard when Congress didn’t define color. Well, don’t worry, he did define scientific fact. You scroll down to subsection six, • • as used in this section. Quote scientific fact, close quote, means • • an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon. So to be a fact, you must have, let’s see, five attributes. • • • • • Let’s break it down. Grammatically, as used in this section, scientific fact means an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon. So what is a scientific fact? It is an observation. What kind of observation? It must be repeatable and it must be indisputable • • and it must be of a natural phenomenon. So what do all those words mean? What does indisputable mean? What does repeatable mean? What is an observation, what is natural and what is a phenomenon? You as a judge, need to understand that he doesn’t define those words. He just says a scientific fact is an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon. And that is the only thing that may be taught in science class throughout Montana, two K through twelve. • • • So I’m going to ask you a question. What does indisputable mean? • • • • • That’s the core of. The problem. I mean, the core of the problem is this is a thinly veiled religious attack on teaching the theory of evolution. Let’s be clear. They want to teach evolution in schools in Montana. The science teachers and religious zealots who believe that the Earth was 10,000 years old want to teach creationism. And they have tried this and tried this, and they have been smacked down time and again. The latest big case was Dover. There’s a Dover case where the Dover school board was trying to teach crenationism under the guise of intelligent design, quote, unquote, in a science class. And a Reagan, um, appointed conservative judge agreed that that was religious instruction, that it was not science, that these people were deceiving • the community by trying to call it intelligent design as a scientific theory when it is not a scientific theory. And that’s very important. So this right here, this Montana bill today is another attempt • to say, well, if we can’t teach our intelligent design in class and try to trick kids that way, I don’t want evolution being taught in school. And, uh, evolution is just a theory, quote, unquote. That’s the phrase you may be familiar with. So I’m going to introduce a bill that will ban the teaching of theories and only allow the teaching of facts. The problem is, as you may have picked up, I don’t think Mr. Emrich understands what a scientific fact or scientific theory is. But let’s ignore that for a moment. We’ll get to that. I return to the question, what does indisputable mean? • • I’m going to look it up in a dictionary. I’m going to be a textualist for a moment. • • • Uh, let’s query the internet. And the first hit is Miriam Webster dictionary says indisputable means not disputable. Okay, • • • • • that’s not that helpful, but it says colon unquestionable. • • All right, so just to be thorough, let’s look up disputable. • • • • Disputable. • • To engage in argument is to dispute, to call into question or cast doubt upon. So this is what I think they’re talking about. You must not be able to call into question or cast any doubt upon something for it to be a fact. • • • • Are there any scientific facts in the world that are indisputable? • • • • If you’re a textualist, if you’re a conservative judge the way that this voter uh, • • excuse me, this, uh, legislature • obviously wants you to be, is there any fact in the world that is indisputable? I will introduce into evidence tens of thousands of videos online telling us that the earth is, in fact, not a globe, • but is indeed flat. I will introduce hundreds of thousands of memes and videos online that deny • the germ theory of disease by saying that vaccines are ineffective. • • • • • I will introduce people who don’t believe gravity exists. I will introduce people videos where people will say there’s nothing but the electrical force and every other theory is wrong. I will introduce videos of people showing that they don’t even believe that we’re living in a real universe and that this is all a computer simulation and that the laws of physics are just subject to the great programmer. You can dispute anything. • • So if you’re a textualist and you’re looking at the word indisputable, I think the interpretation is • • • anything in the world. So if you read the bill using that definition, using the conservative approach, you end up with the conclusion that nothing, • • absolutely nothing, can be taught in science class in K through twelve classes throughout Montana. I’ll read it again. • • • Scientific fact means an indisputable and repeatable observation • • of a natural phenomenon. • • • Anything in the world is disputable, therefore nothing can be a scientific fact. And subsection one says, science instruction may not include subject matter. That is not scientific fact. This bill will ban science instruction in Montana. I’m going to go further than other analysts who said, oh, this is an attack on teaching theory. I disagree. That’s their goal. They don’t want theories taught, and they’re willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater by banning the teaching of the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease and the globe theory of the earth. If they can say that you can’t teach the, uh, theory of evolution, I agree that’s their goal. But I think strictly read by a conservative judge, • • • • there’s not much question about what indisputable means. Now, I need to pause and teach you one more thing about statutory interpretation. As I said, there’s lots of sort of standing rules. If, if Congress lists a series of things, they, they, we must assume they weren’t being redundant. Therefore, color and race are different. • Um, • • • but there’s another rule that is, congress would never intend an absurd result. And you may argue that shutting down all science class in Montana because you can only teach things that are indisputable is an absurd result. And some people might accept that. Some judges might say, yeah, that’s absurd. He couldn’t have meant that. He couldn’t have literally meant indisputable. So I’m going to assume he’s incompetent at writing legislation, and I’m going to try to figure out what else he might have meant. And again, • • • that’s shifting. Even if you’re a textualist and you say, well, the literal reading of this word is an absurd result, I need to go to more sources. Well then you go where, you go to the whereas clauses. Oh, okay. He’s talking about theory versus fact. That’s what he’s talking about. He’s talking about theory versus • • facts. Uh, • • • so he intends to ban the teaching of theory. Now I understand. Right. So, • • um, I just wanted to insert that as an observation before we move on, that yes, that could be an absurd result. Now, on the other hand, there’s a large number of people in the country who think that we shouldn’t have public schools at all. So is it really an absurd result to say, well, if we have public schools, we shouldn’t get into the realm of science. There is a very large movement • • that homeschools kids because they don’t want science taught in public schools. They don’t want sex ed, they don’t want evolution. They don’t want a lot of things. Right. So is it an absurd result? That’s a pretty strong finding, and I think that an opposing party at trial could introduce evidence that says, no, that’s an intended result, and it’s not absurd. So please enforce the literal reading of this word. • • That’s the risk that he takes by using this verbiage. Now, if you’re a goal centered judge, you might go back into the legislative history and look for speeches • and, uh, moments where people tried to explain what they think this bill means. And I’ve done that. I found a speech that Senator Emrich gave when he introduced this bill to the Senate. Let’s hear what he has to say, and I’m going to comment on this.

Speaker C

My name is Daniel Emrich. Senate District Eleven. Um, that’s from great, uh, • • Falls, Montana. • • Um, you have before you today Senate, uh, • • Bill 235. • • • • This, um, • • bill is an act establishing requirements for scientific instruction in public schools, defining scientific fact. • • • Um, • • and I just like to go over what • • a scientific fact is defined as in this.

Speaker A

Okay, let’s stop there. Pay attention to what he’s about to say. He’s going to tell • • the body he’s speaking to what the definition of scientific fact is in this bill. Let’s listen to what he says. •

Speaker C

Um, a scientific fact. Um, if you go down to. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Speaker A

I am not elongating this. He’s literally looking for the definition. There’s six sections, six sentences, basically maybe seven in this bill, and he can’t find the definition. So, um, let’s listen as he continues. I’ll post a copy of this video of this speech on my website@thecrossexaminer.net so you can go look for yourselves. • • •

Speaker C

Section • • • • one, uh, • • • subsection six, as used in this section, scientific facts means an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon.

Speaker A

Okay, he found it and he read it. Did that sound like somebody who knew his bill? • • Just, uh, as an aside, • • • • • I don’t even know if he wrote this. It’s tiny. I put a link to the bill up on my website as well, for this episode. Uh, I don’t think he wrote this. I don’t think he understands what’s going on here. But I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and just assume he did write it. He’s just really incompetent. So let’s listen to how he explains what those words, those plain words that he just read meant. • •

Speaker C

Now, there’s been some confusion on this bill as to what this bill is actually • • allowing and what it is, uh, not allowing.

Speaker A

Actually, I don’t think there’s been any confusion at all. I think what you mean is people have read the bill, interpreted it for what it is. That you cannot teach scientific theory in class, only facts. And facts are only things that are indisputable and have pointed that out. That’s what has gone on since this entered, uh, into the committee. Right? That’s what’s been going on. And he’s characterizing that as confusion. Are you confused about the meaning of the words on that page? You’re the judge. That wasn’t very confusing. Right. We had to look up what indisputable meant. But the only way to think that he doesn’t mean to ban scientific theory or that he doesn’t want only indisputable observations introduced is to think that he wrote the opposite of what he actually intended in the bill. And you don’t do that as a judge. You don’t say that yes means no. Now, sometimes you do say and means or. That’s an interesting question. We can give examples of that later. But, um, here • • • • • • he’s trying to say, you caught me. • • • So you are confused. Let me explain it to you. Let’s listen what he’s going to say.

Speaker C

Um, so based on the Whereas section, um, this says that, uh, the purpose of K through twelve education • • is to educate children the facts of our world, to better prepare them for the future and further education in their chosen field of study. And to that end must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. • • Whereas a scientific fact is an observable and repeatable and does not meet • • and if it does not meet this criteria, it is a theory and is defined as speculation. As for higher education due to explore, debate, test, and ultimately reach a scientific • conclusion, fact or fiction. • • Um, so this bill, um, will likely have quite a bit of debate. Um, I’d just like to state what this bill does not do.

Speaker A

So I think he’s beating around the bush here. He’s just read what we just read. He’s not explaining anything. I don’t know, but it doesn’t sound like he’s that familiar with it. I’ve been researching this issue for a couple of days. I could probably recite the operative sentences here by heart. He supposedly felt passionate enough about this to tell the voters of Montana that he should be elected, that he will go to their capitol and work diligently at crafting carefully put together legislation to achieve well tailored means • • • to achieve their goals. And he I don’t know. Again, I don’t think he knows what he’s doing. He’s just reading this and he can’t even pronounce some of the words. • • • But again, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he’s just nervous. He is a freshman. He’s a little baby’s freshman senator. Um, so here we go. Hopefully he’ll get to the point and explain what he actually means if his words on his page don’t mean what he wanted them to mean. • • •

Speaker C

Um, • this bill does not in any way prohibit the teaching of any theories. • •

Speaker A

What? • • • • Excuse me. • • All right, Your Honor, dear listener, you’ve read the bill. • • • • Does this prohibit theories? The bill spends its entire verbiage, differentiating fact from theory erroneously, by the way. If we go and look up those definitions, which we’ll do later. The bill from its very Whereas clauses says students must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. Subsection one says instruction may only include facts. What kind of down the rabbit hole retcon • • 1984 double speak does he think we’re going to fall for? To think that this literally does not ban the instruction on theories? • • • • • When I heard this, I burst out laughing. I have recorded about seven different versions of this episode, and every time, either my discussion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was too long, or I felt like, oh, I don’t quite know enough about this or that. And I kept researching. And when I finally found this and I heard that sentence, I literally burst out laughing so hard that my wife was alarmed and came to me. It’s like, what’s going on? Uh, and then I bored her with all of this and she told me to stop talking to her. Um, so, • • um, yes, let’s listen to that one more time. First I’m going to read the bill. Let’s read the bill again, and then we’re going to play that clip again. All right? So • • • • • I’m going to read the whereas and the operative sentences so we understand what this guy is trying to pull over on the people of Montana. Whereas the purpose of K through twelve education is to educate children in the facts of our world. • • And to that end, children must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. • • • And whereas a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet those criteria, it is a theory. So if you are not a scientific fact, you are a theory. • And that is defined as speculation. And it is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction. Again, in the warehouses which he cites, a, uh, scientific fact is observable, repeatable, and if it’s not, then it’s a theory. Okay, • • section subsection one. This is the actual law he’s proposing. Science instruction may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact. • • • Subsection six, • • as used in this section, scientific fact means an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon. Wow. • • • • • • • • • • • • • I don’t know what he’s thinking. Let’s listen to his clip again. You’ve heard this many times now. What did he say? • • • •

Speaker C

Um, • this bill does not in any way prohibit the teaching of any theories. • •

Speaker A

That’s not true. It’s on its face not true. We’ve established that he is lying. • He’s either incompetent or he’s lying, and it’s got to be a lie. • • Either that or he I mean, I can’t imagine somebody being so incompetent as to actually think what he’s thinking. I’ve got to think that this is a lie. • • • What do you think? • • • • Let’s listen to what he says next. It gets better.

Speaker C

Um, based on the Whereas clause, that does not get codified into law, and therefore this cannot prohibit the teaching of any theories.

Speaker A

AHA, uh • • • oh, okay, I see. • • You spend your entire Whereas clauses explaining the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory, and then you don’t use the word theory in the actual clauses, the actual sections that would become law. And your understanding is a judge would never use the whereas clauses to interpret what you said • • • in the actual code. • • • • I hope now that you understand • • • • why I went through the 1964 Civil Rights Act history to understand why, yes. Judges often have to go to things like your Whereas clauses and the legislative history and this speech that you’re giving to try to figure out what the entire body of politicians meant when they put these words to paper. And they only tend to do that when the words in the section are unclear. So let’s do him a favor. Let’s read these sentences • • without • • • pretending, uh, • • we’ve never heard the Whereas clauses. We know you’ve gone through class, you know judges are going to go read that, but let’s pretend like he’s right, that because the whereas clauses are just window dressing and it’s just stuff that he wants to stand by, but he knows he can’t stand by. So I’m just going to put him up in the Whereas clauses. I’m not going to have the guts to actually make it part of my code. I’m going to try to deceive people into thinking that this is okay. Let’s just read it under that light and see what it sounds like. So here’s the bill again, without the Whereas clauses. Subsection one, science instruction may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact. • • • • • • • • Subsection six, as used in this section, scientific fact means an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon. Period. • • • Let’s use some algebraic reading, and by that I mean we’re going to use variables. • Um, we have a variable that is the phrase scientific fact, and it’s defined later on, right? • • So what we’ll do is we’ll reread the one sentence that matters and substitute the definition of scientific fact for the phrase scientific fact in that first section. Here we go. • • Science instruction may not include subject matter that is not an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon. • • • • Okay, m, • so we’re back to that. It doesn’t say theory, he’s right. But it says you can’t teach anything that’s not an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon. So the question for the court is, is a scientific theory an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon? • I’m going to suggest no, based on my layman’s experience. But you’re the judge, put on the hat. What would you do • • • first? You’d probably read the warehouse clauses, right? To see what despite what he’s trying to tell the citizens of Montana, you would go read those to see what they’re talking about here. Then you might, if you’re a textualist pull out the dictionary. So let’s pull out the dictionary. I am going to Google • • • the definition scientific theory. Okay, the first hit is dictionary. Dictionary. • • It uses different dictionaries, if I recall correctly. • Uh, this definition is from Random House unabridged dictionary. Noun scientific theory. A coherent group of propositions. Not observations, not facts. A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation. It is not a fact. It is not an indisputable repeated observation. It is a group of propositions designed to explain those things. We make repeated observations, we develop scientific facts, and then we need something that ties them all together and explains them, or • • models how they relate to each other. That’s the best definition of scientific theory that I just said. Model. It is a model. It is not a fact. In fact, look just below it. It has a little Q and A. What is scientific theory? A scientific theory is a well tested, broad explanation of a natural phenomenon. Again, not an observation of a natural phenomenon. In everyday life, we often use the word theory to mean a hypothesis or educated guess. But a theory in the context of science is not simply a guess. It is an explanation based on extensive and repeated experimentation. • • • • And here this is the point. And it is not the job of theories to become facts. I, uh, e. They are not facts, and they are not going to become facts. They use, quote, they use available facts to make sense of a broad concept. So this man’s just a liar, right? • • Maybe he explains it later on. Let’s get back to his, uh, speech. Trying to say that his bill doesn’t do what his bill obviously does. Here we go.

Speaker C

What this does do is it establishes a definition for scientific fact • • as the definition that is used by the scientific community and has been used by the scientific community, • • um, for, well, ever, as far as I know. Um, I could be wrong on that, but it seems like it’s a very simple definition and I believe it should be applied.

Speaker A

Um, okay, he’s just wrong here. • • We just read this. Nothing in science says that a fact is an indisputable observation. He is, again, lying or incompetent, and I’m starting to be persuaded that he’s just lying also. He’s lying when he says it just defines a fact. It does more than that. You read it. It prohibits the teaching of anything that he doesn’t define as fact.

Speaker C

Let’s continue in the purpose of actually applying it through K, through twelve education, it was raised me, the Advanced Placement courses, • • uh, in any of the high schools around the state. And that could be a potential conflict with this bill. Um, and it may need to be tailored down to actually address that fact, um, • • for limiting it so it doesn’t go into the high schools and affect them, um, as more of a transition, um, to the college environment.

Speaker A

Wait a second. Didn’t you just say that all this bill does is create a definition for scientific fact? • • You literally just said that. Here it is again.

Speaker C

What this does do is it establishes a definition for scientific fact.

Speaker A

And now here you are saying that somebody • • mentioned to you, oh, by the way, we teach AP courses in high school, something that this man didn’t even consider. We’ll get into that in a second. And all of a sudden you’re saying, oh, well, maybe that changes things. • • Why, if all your bill does is establish a definition of scientific fact, • • then the fact that we teach higher level classes shouldn’t matter at all. But you know that what you said earlier is a lie. You know that this bill does more than just introduce a definition. It bans anything that doesn’t meet your definition. It’s an inaccurate definition. You are lying about that when you’re talking, and now you’re lying as to this history of this fake conversation that you’re talking about. Oh, well, yeah, • • I might reconsider that because of AP. So let’s talk about this. You literally didn’t know that they taught AP in high school when you wrote this bill. You didn’t think that. You didn’t consider it. You were elected to help the people of Montana, and you are regulating, um, an activity education that you have no idea how it works. Somebody else had to tell you. Did you consider the fact that we teach, like, really tough classes in high school? Nope, he didn’t. • • So here he is, trying to squirm his way out of that, and he gives sort of a, uh, gibberish answer that directly conflicts with what he just told us. He told us, all I do is define something. And now he’s saying, because we teach smart kids, maybe I have to change my bill. If it just is a definition, you wouldn’t have to change your bill. You, sir, are a liar.

Speaker C

But he continues, um, my purpose behind this bill, um, is to • • • • better • • • • help kids understand what a scientific fact is.

Speaker A

I think we’ve established at this point that this man is in no position to tell other people the definition of a scientific fact or a scientific theory. He either doesn’t know himself or he is lying to everybody.

Speaker C

So that way, when they advance into, • • • • uh, actual scientific testing in the latter years of education, that they can actually apply critical thinking, • um, to make sure that they’re asking the right questions, • • • um, on these, uh, scientific theories. Scientific, um, • • theories are a very useful scientific tool for the advancement of scientific knowledge and should remain as such. • • I, um, think that, ah, • • when you are looking at a scientific question, • • um, you have to make sure you’re asking the right question. • • •

Speaker A

This is all just meaningless double talk, um, • • and a bit of a lie. I don’t think he believes that scientific theories are useful. I think that he really thinks that they’re just guesses, or he knows what they are, but he wants to ban them because they go against his own personally held the beliefs. That’s what’s going on here. Let’s see what his great finish is.

Speaker C

And if we operate on the assumption that a theory is fact, • • unfortunately, it leads us to asking questions that may be potentially based on false assumptions. • • •

Speaker A

I’m tired of saying what? All right, so here he is at the very end, after spending this entire speech trying to prove that this bill does not • • differentiate between scientific fact and scientific theory, and therefore ban the teaching of theory in classrooms. He concludes by saying, we can’t assume we don’t want kids to assume that theories are facts. • • • Wow. • • And of course, he also says, we want kids to question theories. Right. We want kids to question their teachers. And that really is the whole purpose, isn’t it? There’s a long standing tactic that evolutionary, uh, deniers evolution. Deniers use to try to disrupt science classrooms. They will teach their children. • • When you have any discussion in biology about evolution, ask the following questions the questions are utter nonsense, and they are just come from a place of ignorance. You’ve seen • • TikTok videos and Facebook memes like atheists, or they say atheists. It’s scientists. People who are educated can’t answer these ten questions about evolution, and then you have a scientist who answers them in 10 seconds. Right. • • It’s ridiculous. But what he just said that we got to make sure that kids know the difference between theory and fact. Because when you’re working with theory, you got to ask the right questions. We don’t want to be working on assumptions. In other words, kids don’t trust anything when they say theory. Ask questions to display your ignorance, slow the class down, and try to raise doubt amongst your fellow students, even though you’re at the stage where you’re just being instructed what the state of the art is in science. And a theory is just an assumption. It’s just speculation, as he says in his bill. Right. So • • • • • I don’t know what to tell you. This is an example • • • of what is happening in every school board around the country. It’s not getting the national news. This one is because sometimes the attempts are a lot more sophisticated than this. They’re more competent at drafting this. Again, • • I think he’s a liar. He may just be incompetent. I think, uh, • • if if he’s just incompetent, I i really feel bad for this guy. I can imagine the type of life that would lead you to become • • somewhat competent or desirous of seeking public office. And then you have to start doing the actual work and crafting legislation. And you’ve never gone to law school, I’m assuming? He hasn’t gone to law school. I got I hope he hasn’t gone to law school. And you’ve never worked as a page or a staffer for another legislator. So you have no idea how to draft legislation. You have no idea what we talked about. The whole what is a judge going to do with this act once it’s enacted? How does statutory interpretation worked? • • • • • You have no idea what you’re doing. And so you now have to be the grown up in the room and start explaining these ideas. And as you heard in a speech, you then start contradicting yourself. You have to look for 30 seconds to find the definition of science in your own bill. And you sound like you are suddenly questioning the sanity of what you are saying because you say one thing and then immediately contradict it in your next sentence. And this is his defense of his bill. This is his moment. • • • Not a great moment in my opinion. So what I thought I’d end on is I try to lighten the mood a little bit here. I do think this is serious. I do think that this demands attention and that this person needs to be called out and we need to keep an eye on this guy. I did look him up on social media. I looked at his campaign. I looked at his legislative history. He has been very busy. He’s basically a baby Trumper. He has introduced legislation to stop vaccinations. He has attacked abortion. I saw on his Facebook page he went to a courthouse with a group of people to file a lawsuit alleging human rights violations where um, vaccines are required. I didn’t even click on the link because, uh, at that point, you know who you’re dealing with, right? This man is utterly incompetent. And somebody in Montana thought this is the man to determine the future of my children. This man is going to lead to a better life for all Montanans. So • • I thought, why not write to him? • • Um, I want to be a good podcaster and give him a chance to respond to my critiques. So I put him on notice that I was going to be doing this episode. But I knew that there is a very little chance he would respond to my email. So instead of a quick two liner saying, hey, I’m doing an episode, here it is. I love your comment. I instead decided to write a letter, an open letter that I’m going to read that you can listen in on. I’m trying to be a little humorous here, but I’m trying to make my point through humor. So I’m going to end on this. This is my open letter to Senator Emrich of Montana. • • I am a licensed attorney and a podcaster. I know, I know two of the worst things in America. Am I right? • • Anywho, I will be publishing an episode criticizing Montana Senate bill number 253. The episode will be mediocre at best. Since I’m new at podcasting, but I hope to make some good points here and there. Some of. The points I will make are as follows one this bill is a thinly veiled religious attack on the schoolchildren of Montana. • • Note I am willing to admit that the veil is in fact so thin and so weak as to not actually constitute a veil at all, but an outright attack. But in case you’re proud of the deception you are trying to perpetrate on the people of Montana, I wanted to give you an easy win to get you comfortable before I turn up the heat. I read an article about interviews that told me to do that. Two it is so poorly written, or cleverly written, depending on your point of view, as to force the end of all science instruction in schools, not just instruction, discussing scientific theories. And finally, three. In introducing this bill that contains such a massive amount of misinformation and demonstrates so much misunderstanding of the basic concepts of the scientific method it must be the case that Senator Emrich is excuse me. Emrich is either a utterly incompetent at his job as a lawmaker or b a lying religious zealot willing to put the future of all children in Montana at risk over his fanatical beliefs in his religion. Beliefs which by the way would not be taught in any science class, not even the religiously neutered science classes he fantasizes about. Because his religious beliefs are neither fact nor have they become the most demonstrated and accurate models we have in science theories. • • • • I may have been a bit harsh in that last critique. Allow me to explain. • • I would very much like to give Senator Emrich the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is just spectacularly incompetent, that he was raised in a sheltered, ultra religious house, was homeschooled, and has never cracked a real science textbook his whole life and has zero critical thinking or research skills. I just find it hard to believe that a person could be so ignorant as to not know the basics of science and at the same time • • so unconcerned about doing any sort of research to educate himself before impacting the children of Montana. • • To learn more about his agenda, I did a quick review of his legislative record so far and it appears he has been a busy little beaver. In his case, it’s a beaver that is frantically gnawing at the support beams holding up the Constitution so he can turn them into a Christian cross that forms the first letter of the name Trump. • • But he has been busy. • • • In his handful of months in office, Senator Emrich has sponsored legislation which includes, among other things, election conspiracy legislation, attacks on abortion, using unsurprisingly, unscientific definitions of person and baby, religious base, antivaxx legislation, and perhaps worst of all, eliminating jail time for repeat litterers. See Montana Senate Bill 91 entitled in the applicable part, eliminating jail penalties for littering. • So my ten main lines of questioning are as follows one, settle the debate once and for all. Is Senator Emrich lying or is he just utterly incompetent? I am not being sarcastic. I really can’t tell. So I thought I would just come out and ask. Two more specifically does Senator Emrich really, truly, honestly, pinky swear believe that a scientific theory is, quote, speculation as he states in his bill? Has Senator Emrich seriously never spent 60 seconds on Google to educate himself about the term of art scientific theory and how it differs from the everyday usage of the word theory? • • Does Senator Emrich have Internet service either at home or at work? • • • Three does he realize that his ham fisted and not so subtle attempt to prevent evolution being taught in schools will prevent Montana children from learning about other theories? • • Theories like the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the globe theory of the Earth, the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Note heliocentric may be a big word for Senator Emrich. It basically means with the sun at the center. Don’t just trust me, though. He can look it up once he gets Internet • • • • cell theory, atomic theory, kinetic theory of gases, quantum field theory, plate tectonic theory, big bang theory. • • • Four • • does he realize that by only allowing science classes to discuss things that are, quote, indisputable, as is required by his bill, absolutely nothing can be taught in science class because there is ample evidence of people disputing everything under the sun, from physics to chemistry to biology. There is literally nothing in the world that is quote indisputable, except maybe the fact that Senator Emrich is very bad at his job. But that’s not really a science class topic, is it? • Five • • which scientific educational experts did Senator Emrich consult when drafting this legislation? • • • Just kidding. We all know he didn’t do that. • • • Six • now that he has been put on notice about his mistake, will he retract his bill? And why won’t he? • • • • Seven what is Senator Emrich’s message to potential employers thinking about using your state as a workforce, but are now nervous that your citizens will not get vaccinated, think that the earth is flat and are at risk of floating away because they were not taught about the theory of gravity? Eight where in the Holy Bible are Christians instructed to seek power by lying to their fellow humans? And how does Senator Emrich balance that against the admonition in the 8th commandment to not bear false witness against his neighbor? Surely lying about what every serious scientist says about the definition of the term scientific theory is bearing false witness against them? No. Or is there some sort of biblical loophole he’s using? How can I get in on that action? • Nine. How often does Senator Emrich litter? • • • • Ten • • does Senator Emrich wear clothing woven of two kinds of materials? • • • Uh, all right, you may be on to me at this point with that. One, as you may know, leviticus 1919 prohibits him from wearing clothing of different fabrics. But we all know he doesn’t care about that law, only the laws that make him feel good. • • • This is what we call a gotcha question. That article I read told me to end with a gotcha question. Thank you for your time. I look forward to your comments and would welcome Mr. Emrich to appear on my podcast at his convenience. Although let’s be honest, he won’t. That said, I must warn you that should you consider not replying, you should know that my podcast reaches literally dozens of listeners. • Sincerely, the cross examiner. And for you, dear listener, I appreciate you listening to this episode. I’d like to end with two quotes relating to schools by one of my favorite writers, Mark Twain. • • • In the first place, God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made school boards. M. The second quote is more applicable to the current situation. • • • • • • Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you gain at one end, you lose at the other. It’s like feeding a dog on its own tail. It won’t fatten the dog. • • • We have religious organizations trying to stop schools • • that will end badly. • • Thank you very much for joining me. This has been the cross examiner podcast. I hope you join us for the next episode. • • • • • • • • • •

Speaker B

This has been the cross examiner podcast. The Internet’s courtroom in the case of rationality versus religion. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider subscribing. See you soon.