Included in yet another even-handed (cough, cough) New York Times article on evolution, religion and Intelligent Design was this interesting exchange between an attorney and a former member of the Dover (Pa.) School Board:
Under cross-examination by Patrick Gillen, a soft-spoken defense lawyer, Mrs. Brown was asked whether she recalled visiting the home of a board member and admiring a carving of the Last Supper.
"The Lord's Last Supper, yes sir," Mrs. Brown said. "I had never seen such a beautiful carving."
But she said she did not feel comfortable when the board member asked her if she was a born-again Christian. She also said she felt disturbed when another board member, who was among those most insistent about teaching creationism, drove her home from a meeting and asked the same question.
Suddenly, his manner changing, Mr. Gillen pounced: these were Mrs. Brown's friends, she was in their homes, in their cars, and she found it offensive to be asked about religion?
"Yes, I do, and I still do, sir," she said.
A bite in his voice, Mr. Gillen asked if she thought religion should not be discussed at all.
"I wouldn't presume to discuss religion within normal circumstances," she said, "except within my own family."
Mrs. Brown and her husband quit the board the night members voted 6 to 3 for intelligent design.
Okaaay. Talk about driving religion from the public sphere. Apparently some believe it should largely be driven from the private sphere as well. As those who support Intelligent Design in schools are continually portrayed as extremist kooks, we need to take note there is at the very least another form of kookery in opposition to all things religious.