I wonder whether this analysis can be reconciled (even on the level of
"quite plausible") with Lynch and Pinette, and the
reasonable-observer-who-knows-a-fair-amount-of-the-context, etc., test
for endorsement. Or, is the test for endorsement more stringent when
the view endorsed is secularist as against religious?
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
My apologies to Ed Brayton, whose earlier posts I regrettably
failed to properly grasp; I quite erroneously focused solely on the
NCSEWeb site, to which the Berkeley site links, and failed to focus --
as he correctly points out we should focus -- on the context.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that even if we include the context,
there is still a viable (as I've said before, hardly open-and-shut, but
quite plausible) endorsement objection. Here's the material from the
Berkeley site:
Misconception:
"Evolution and religion are incompatible."
Response:
Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science,
only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while
religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
The misconception that one always has to choose between science and
religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly
contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it
was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no
conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In
fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper
understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the
scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly
religious and also accept evolution.
For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding
evolution, see Voices for Evolution on the NCSE Web site [linking to the
site on which various groups opine on the proper interpretation of
Christianity and Judaism, and conclude that this proper interpretation
is consistent with evolution].
It is indeed factually true that the view "that one always has
to choose between science and religion is incorrect" -- most claims that
include the word "always" are incorrect. Nonetheless, it seems to me
that in context a reasonable person could quite properly read these
paragraphs as not just demographic reports on religious attitudes but as
endorsement of one particular interpretation of Christianity and
Judaism. Note how the one provided example of a religious belief that
contradicts evolution is six-literal-day Creationism, an example that
I'm pretty sure most readers would see as a negative one. Nothing is
said of what I understand to be the much larger groups who disagree with
evolution on religious grounds but don't believe the world was created
in six literal days. The rest of the paragraphs is devoted to what I
suspect most reasonable readers would see as positive descriptions of
those religious groups that do see their religions as consistent with
evolution; and then there is a link that seems pretty clearly an
endorsement -- not just an objective "well, here's what some people say"
with no positive connotation -- of those religious beliefs.
There can surely be objective discussions of religious views on
evolution, which aren't likely to be seen as an endorsement of some such
views, and aren't likely to be intended as an endorsement of some such
views. But this doesn't seem to be it.
Finally, imagine a Web page maintained by a government-run
institution, and aimed at supporting some curriculum that teaches
students to oppose euthanasia (a view that of course public schools are
constitutionally free to teach, though I'm not sure that many indeed to
teach it; this page says:
"Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly tolerate euthanasia (e.g.,
the belief that there's nothing wrong with killing); however, most
religious groups do not support euthanasia. In fact, many religious
people, including theologians, feel that supporting a culture of life
actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the medical community there
are thousands of doctors who are devoutly religious and also reject
euthanasia.
For concise statements from many religious organizations regarding
euthanasia, see Voices for Life on the VFL Web site [linking to a site
on which various groups opine on the proper interpretation of
Christianity and Judaism, and conclude that this proper interpretation
rejects euthanasia]."
Is this an endorsement of a particular set of religious beliefs
(beliefs that Christianity and Judaism, as rightly interpreted, reject
euthanasia), or just a non-endorsing objective summary of facts about
religious belief?
Eugene
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
