Rick's question below proceeds from a false premise; public school classrooms are not the public square. None of the posts have suggested that ID should be banned from the public square; the first amendment pretty obviously would forbid that, and on that point I suspect we would all agree.
I see no evidence that anyone is seeking to suppress ID. What I have seen is a concerted effort to debunk ID's claim to be science. Were ID presented simply as a matter of religious faith, it would engender no controversy, but then no plausible argument could be made for including it as part of a science curriculum. The controversy over ID isn't about religious faith; it's about the introduction of poorly disguised religious doctrine into a science class. The place to teach the controversy is in a course that explores the role of the religion clauses in our system of government, not in a science class. Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University (954) 262-6151 (voice) Shepard Broad Law Center (954) 262-3835 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Rick Duncan wrote: > Mark and Sandy are just making my 1A point for me. They ridicule and > disparage ID in an attempt to marginalize it and keep it out of the > public square. Let me put the question this way for Sandy and Mark: Do > they really believe it would violate the EC for a public school to > assign, say, Behe's Darwin's Black Box for a high school science > class? Is this really the same thing as wanting to teach "malevolent > design" or "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in public school? > It just makes me all the more certain that the attempt to suppress ID > is merely a product of cultural power. Phil Johnson calls "scientific > naturalism" the new "established religious philosophy of America" and > goes on to say that "like the old [established] philosophy, the new > one is tolerant only up to a point, specifically the point where its > own right to rule the public square is threatened." He continues: "The > establishment of a particular religious philosophy does not imply that > competing philosophies are outlawed, but rather that they are > relegated to a marginal position in private life. The marginalization > is most effective when formal; government actions are supplemented by > a variety of intimadating acts by nongovernmental institutions such as > the news media." > > I think Phil is right. His book, Reason in the Balance, is still my > "must read" for college students thinking about law school. > > Cheers, Rick > > > > > > Rick Duncan > Welpton Professor of Law > University of Nebraska College of Law > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 > > "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or > Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle > > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or > numbered." --The Prisoner > > --------------------------------- > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
