Evolution and the Courts

Just a brief note on Kevin Drum's post on evolution and the constitution. He writes:

I myself would not argue that Darwinism in biology classes is protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Rather, I would argue more narrowly that everything else is forbidden. If a school district decides not to teach biology at all, that's fine. But if they do teach it, they aren't allowed to include religious proselytizing in the curriculum.

The merits of that stance view, the relevant issue here is the establishment clause. Without advancing a view of the legal issue here, I think it's politically undesirable to have courts prevent school boards from implementing creationist curricula. It leaves the religious right permanently mobilized to engage in electoral politics while secular people sit around hoping the lawyers will bail them out if anything ever goes seriously wrong. When Kansas, not exactly a hotbed of blue state liberalism, took the constitutionally permissable, but substantively wrongheaded, step of simply stripping evolution from the curriculum and replacing it with nothing, evolution advocates mobilized, won seats at the next election, and got the rule reversed. That not only restored decent policy on the question at hand, but also got some serious wingnuts out of office.

To me, this is the main issue here. Dependence on the courts makes liberals fat and lazy. Important political fights are won on the airwaves, on the op-ed pages, in the streets, and at the ballot box. The "culture wars" fights are largely winnable, but only if you play the game and learn to play it well. Thus I find myself in strong sympathy with Nathan Newman's last point on the subject (more mixed feelings about his other arguments).