Often, cases revolve around courts (or society generally) grappling with policy decisions or the extent to which society may impose majoritarian values without oppressing fundamental rights of individuals. In the Scopes trial, was it true that he was teaching evolution, which the Tennessee legislature, in its infinite wisdom, deemed a crime? Yes, it was true. But is that the “truth” that Publicus is referring to?

I can infer from the posting that Publicus is referring to a greater truth, such as whether evolution is “true” or whether the teaching of evolution in a science class should be a crime punishable in a modern, democratic, and just society. But is that necessarily “truth”?

Or, is a more proper role for the courts, pursuant to the First Amendment, to ensure that courts neither permit nor enforce a law that defines “truth,” thus limiting the role of the courts and the law to that which is necessary for peaceful coexistence in a society?

Taken from that perspective, where is the truth in this case? I understood the moderator to be asking where people stood in the long-running debate over whether evolution and/or creationism (or intelligent design, if you would rather that euphemism) should be taught in public schools. The “truth” here likely depends on your perspective. The law’s place in this debate, then, is to ensure that each party is entitled to their own truth without impinging on the rights of the other to do the same.

Finally, from a more limited perspective - in a admittedly adversarial legal system, is the point of the courts still to seek truth? Or are the courts there to ensure some semblance of a level playing field for the parties to contest an issue? In such a contest, the law is surely a game that is played. Why not root for one side or the other?

Oh yeah, I would have rooted for the court to recognize the truth of evolution. Whether it did nor not wouldn’t change anything, of course. Evolution happens, as the expression goes, and religion doesn’t.