Re: Text of Chaplain Klingenschmitt's speech outside the White House
Every blessing in your courageous fight from the UK. We have similar problems in the UK; The Times Lawyer of the Week http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-1904318,00.html . Paul - Original Message - From: Gordon James Klingenschmitt To: UCLA Law Class Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:33 PM Subject: Text of Chaplain Klingenschmitt's speech outside the White House The text of my speech outside the White House yesterday is pasted below...see also today's front-page story in the Washington Times: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051221-121224-6972r.htm God Bless, Chaplain K. -- CHAPLAIN KLINGENSCHMITT ANNOUNCES HUNGER STRIKE IN FRONT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, 20 Dec 2005. Text of Chaplain's speech delivered on national TV: "During these holidays people practice many diverse faiths, but it seems the war against Christmas has taken a turn for the worse, and now it's become a war against the name of Jesus himself. I am a Navy Chaplain that may soon be kicked out of the Navy because I pray publicly in Jesus name. Admirals from the Pentagon, claiming to speak for the President of the United States, have already stripped me of my uniform and forbid me to pray in Jesus name in public unless I'm wearing civilian clothes. The Chief of Navy Chaplains told me in writing that if I pray publicly "in Jesus name" that I'm denigrating other faiths. That same week he told the Washington Post "we never tell chaplains how to pray" because we don't want to violate their First Amendment rights. His public statements and private statements contradict. The Naval Chaplain School teaches mandatory lectures to all junior chaplains, prohibiting Muslim chaplains from praying publicly to Allah, Jewish chaplains can't pray in Hebrew to Adonai, Roman Catho! lic chaplains aren't allowed to pray "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and evangelicals can't pray "in Jesus name." Everybody is taught to pray only to God and say "Amen." Senior chaplain evaluators with clipboards criticize our prayers. Onboard my ship, I asked my Commanding officer's permission to take turns and "share the evening prayer" with many diverse faiths, allowing my Muslim Sailor to pray to Allah, my Jewish Sailor to pray in Hebrew to Adonai, my Roman Catholic Sailor to pray "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" and I'd just pray "in Jesus name" every fourth night. He said "No Chaps, I don't like that. You keep saying the prayer, but you pray Jewish prayers from now on." I obeyed him and prayed only from the Psalms for 8 months. But the Director of the Naval Chaplain school told my Commanding Officer I was an "immature chaplain" because I claime! d a right to pray "in Jesus name," so my CO wrote to a Navy board to end my career saying "Chaplain Klingenschmitt over-emphasized his own faith system" (i.e. in his sermons and prayers). Now unless a Navy judge intervenes, my active duty career will be terminated next month, my family will be evicted from military housing, I'll have NO retirement after 14 years of award-winning fitness reports, because I pray "in Jesus name." General George Washington prayed "in Jesus name." And since the American Revolution chaplains have been allowed to pray according to their civilian bishop's faith, not the government's faith. Since 1860, US Code Title 10 Section 6031 has mandated, "An officer in the Chaplain Corps may conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he is a member." But only in 1998 did the Navy establish a brand-new policy telling us if we must pray "in Jesus name" then we "ought to exclude ourselves from participation as the prayer-giver." 65 Navy Chaplains have been involved in a class-action lawsuit since 1999 because of things like this, but Navy IG found "nothing wrong" so Navy JAG spends millions of taxpayer dollars defending religious discrimination. As a Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, I'm directly appealing to my Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush, to sign an executive order enforcing the law that's been on the books since 1860. Now 160,000 Americans and 74 Congressmen have asked the President to sign an Executive order, not to establish new law, but just to enforce the law on the books since 1860, but the President has yet to lift his pen. I find it ironic that Franklin Graham was allowed to pray "in Jesus name" at the President's first inaugural, but now Admirals in the Pentagon who claim to represent the President are trying to take away my uniform for praying "in Jesus name." Even Senator Clinton supports me, and has written a letter of concern on my behalf. Recently the Air Force adopted similar
Dover Case Questions
Steve Jamar writes: Maybe they teach science differently now than when I went to school and when my boys (now ages 19 and 22) went to school, but science was inherently taught as conditional and subject to testing and change. There are things that are known facts, but there is a lot that is still unexplained -- the true nature of light, for example, and why gravity is such a weak force compared to the others, and a whole host of things in biology and geology. [snip] If the point is to teach the limits of our understanding, that can be and in my experience was and is taught. There are lots of questions still to which the answer is we don't know. There is an important difference between fallibility, contingency, and modesty _within_ scientific inquiry and modesty _about_ the scientific enterprise itself. All good scientists accept the former. Many, but far from all, accept the latter. Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God. Would it be constitutional for this sort of Dawkins/Dennett claim to be one of the propositions officially taught as a part of a science curriculum? I assume not. Would it be constitutional to tell students that there are no truths that are unamentable, in principle, to scientific study and verification? I assume not. (I'm not saying that these sorts of thing couldn't be discussed in public school classrooms.) All that some of us are arguing, then, is that it would be constitutional simply to advise students that the methodological naturalism built into scientific inquiry (and which properly excludes the teaching of intelligent design theory as a subject _within_ science) should not be taken for an official commitment to the ontological naturalism of folks like Dawkins and Dennett. Perry *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ 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.
Dover Case Questions
Steve Jamar writes: Maybe they teach science differently now than when I went to school and when my boys (now ages 19 and 22) went to school, but science was inherently taught as conditional and subject to testing and change. There are things that are known facts, but there is a lot that is still unexplained -- the true nature of light, for example, and why gravity is such a weak force compared to the others, and a whole host of things in biology and geology. [snip] If the point is to teach the limits of our understanding, that can be and in my experience was and is taught. There are lots of questions still to which the answer is we don't know. There is an important difference between fallibility, contingency, and modesty _within_ scientific inquiry and modesty _about_ the scientific enterprise itself. All good scientists accept the former. Many, but far from all, accept the latter. Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God. Would it be constitutional for this sort of Dawkins/Dennett claim to be one of the propositions officially taught as a part of a science curriculum? I assume not. Would it be constitutional to tell students that there are no truths that are unamentable, in principle, to scientific study and verification? I assume not. (I'm not saying that these sorts of thing couldn't be discussed in public school classrooms.) All that some of us are arguing, then, is that it would be constitutional simply to advise students that the methodological naturalism built into scientific inquiry (and which properly excludes the teaching of intelligent design theory as a subject _within_ science) should not be taken for an official commitment to the ontological naturalism of folks like Dawkins and Dennett. Perry *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ 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.
Re: Dover Case Questions
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Perry Dane wrote: Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God. Would it be constitutional for this sort of Dawkins/Dennett claim to be one of the propositions officially taught as a part of a science curriculum? I assume not. Would it be constitutional to tell students that there are no truths that are unamentable, in principle, to scientific study and verification? I assume not. (I'm not saying that these sorts of thing couldn't be discussed in public school classrooms.) All that some of us are arguing, then, is that it would be constitutional simply to advise students that the methodological naturalism built into scientific inquiry (and which properly excludes the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a subject _within_ science) should not be taken for an official commitment to the ontological naturalism of folks like Dawkins and Dennett. Wow! Your science teachers and students must be well ahead of the pack to understand the philosophy of science and concepts like methodological naturalism.But the problem with your disclaimer is that methodological naturalism isn't religion and so no disclaimer is appropriate. Indeed, it would be, within the current context, just another undermining of the science teaching and learning that is happening. And we don't need any more of that.I seriously doubt that HS science books make the entirely legitimate religious/philosophical argument that the conclusions of science point to the non-existence of god. I'll bet they avoid such stuff with great vigor.In my experience with HS students, they do not need to be told that science is not everything!Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on."Robert Frost ___ 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.
Re: Dover Case Questions
In a message dated 12/22/2005 9:06:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God. "God" or "a god"? I can't see how it can be the latter. That is, it's unclear how the conclusions of evolutionary theory can "shred any possible basis for belief" in a god. Make such a belief highly unlikely? Maybe. But impossible (logically? empirically?)? I think it unlikely that statements of unqualified "impossibility" are useful here. BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Dover Case Questions
Perry Dane wrote: Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God. Would it be constitutional for this sort of Dawkins/Dennett claim to be one of the propositions officially taught as a part of a science curriculum? I assume not. I believe it would be. An official government endorsement of atheism would be no less an establishment, in my view, than endorsement of Christianity or theism itself. I also believe that Dawkins and Dennett are wrong and that they should do a much better job of distinguishing between what science says and the theological or philosophical inferences that one draws from science. Scientific theories are often used to inform our non-scientific opinions, and that is well and good, but they can often do so in contradictory ways. For example, big bang cosmology. William Lane Craig argues that big bang cosmology supports Christian theism; Quentin Smith argues that big bang cosmology supports atheism. So is big bang cosmology theistic or atheistic? Neither, of course. Big bang cosmology is a discrete theory that explains a specific set of data and that is all it does. The arguments of Craig and Smith are philosophical arguments that draw opposing inferences from that explanation, neither of which is intrinsic to the theory itself. Schools should certainly teach the theory because it is incredibly well supported (i.e. it's true, within the boundaries of reasonable doubt), but they should not take a position on the theological or anti-theological inferences that others draw from those theories. Teach the science, leave the philosophy out. Would it be constitutional to tell students that there are no truths that are unamentable, in principle, to scientific study and verification? I assume not. (I'm not saying that these sorts of thing couldn't be discussed in public school classrooms.) All that some of us are arguing, then, is that it would be constitutional simply to advise students that the methodological naturalism built into scientific inquiry (and which properly excludes the teaching of intelligent design theory as a subject _within_ science) should not be taken for an official commitment to the ontological naturalism of folks like Dawkins and Dennett. I think it would not only be constitutional, I think it is necessary. We do a lousy job of teaching how science operates, by and large, and I think we absolutely ought to teach science beginning there. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
Re: Dover Case Questions
There is only a difference between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism if we are open to the possibility that there may be other methods of inquiry (besides naturalism) that could potentially lead to truth. Take Dane's disclaimer -- that science because it is a constrained discourse, it cannot claim, within its own four corners, to give us a full picture of Truth. If this is indeed inappropriate (does Professor Jamar mean unconstitutional?), then we really have crossed over into ontological naturalism. Chris From: Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Dover Case Questions Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:31:10 -0500 On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Perry Dane wrote: Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for belief in God. Would it be constitutional for this sort of Dawkins/Dennett claim to be one of the propositions officially taught as a part of a science curriculum? I assume not. Would it be constitutional to tell students that there are no truths that are unamentable, in principle, to scientific study and verification? I assume not. (I'm not saying that these sorts of thing couldn't be discussed in public school classrooms.) All that some of us are arguing, then, is that it would be constitutional simply to advise students that the methodological naturalism built into scientific inquiry (and which properly excludes the teaching of intelligent design theory as a subject _within_ science) should not be taken for an official commitment to the ontological naturalism of folks like Dawkins and Dennett. Wow! Your science teachers and students must be well ahead of the pack to understand the philosophy of science and concepts like methodological naturalism. But the problem with your disclaimer is that methodological naturalism isn't religion and so no disclaimer is appropriate. Indeed, it would be, within the current context, just another undermining of the science teaching and learning that is happening. And we don't need any more of that. I seriously doubt that HS science books make the entirely legitimate religious/philosophical argument that the conclusions of science point to the non-existence of god. I'll bet they avoid such stuff with great vigor. In my experience with HS students, they do not need to be told that science is not everything! Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on. Robert Frost ___ 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.
Re: Dover Case Questions
On Dec 22, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Christopher C. Lund wrote:Take Dane's disclaimer -- that science "because it is a constrained discourse, it cannot claim, within its own four corners, to give us a full picture of Truth." If this is indeed inappropriate (does Professor Jamar mean unconstitutional?), then we really have crossed over into ontological naturalism.ChrisNo. I meant inappropriate for the reason stated. And no, saying that such a disclaimer is inappropriate does not push us over to ontological naturalism. It just says it is inappropriate to require such a disclaimer for science. It is also inappropriate to require one for any other subject.2 + 2 = 4 is true. But neither it, nor all of the math yet invented, is the whole truth of existence. The map is never the thing itself. The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"It is by education I learn to do by choice, what other men do by the constraint of fear."Aristotle ___ 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.
RE: Dover Case Questions
Title: Dover Case Questions Perry Dane writes: All that some of us are arguing, then, is that it would be constitutional simply to advisestudents that the methodological naturalism built into scientificinquiry (and which properly excludes the teaching of "intelligentdesign theory" as a subject _within_ science) should not be taken foran official commitment to the ontological naturalism of folks likeDawkins and Dennett. Perry Thisshould definitely be part of the science curriculum -- because it is true, because it is part of explaining the meaning and boundaries of science and the scientific method, and because it addresses a very widespread misunderstanding that fuels resistance to central parts of the science curriculum. If this simple point could ever be established in the public mind, it would defuse the whole controversy. That degree of success is of course quite unlikely, but the point is important and needs to be emphasized at every opportunity. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax) ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
RE: Dover Case Questions
Title: Dover Case Questions Marc and I do not disagree on the reality. I am inclined tothink that the points he makes show that the boundary between science and religion cannot be established in the public mind; he appears to think that even if the point were established, the fight would go on. I don't think that anything turns on this difference in characterization. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc SternSent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:24 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Dover Case Questions I think Perry is right that the schools can, and should teach something along the lines he is suggesting- though I fit is not part of the high stakes test ,no one will pay attention,- but I cannot agree with Doug that such a statement if established in the public mind would defuse the whole controversy I think experience has shown that moderate middle ground solutions do not defuse controversy; they seem to encourage true believers of right ort left to try harder to achieve total victory. Look at the recent discussion on this list over whether the Equal Access Act is unconstitutional for not providing enough access for religious speakers from outside the school or the controversy over teaching the Bible; there now is a constitutional text available, and school boards, such as that of Odessa Texas seem willing to insist on an unconstitutional sectarian text Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas LaycockSent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:12 AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: RE: Dover Case Questions Perry Dane writes: All that some of us are arguing, then, is that it would be constitutional simply to advisestudents that the methodological naturalism built into scientificinquiry (and which properly excludes the teaching of "intelligentdesign theory" as a subject _within_ science) should not be taken foran official commitment to the ontological naturalism of folks likeDawkins and Dennett. Perry Thisshould definitely be part of the science curriculum -- because it is true, because it is part of explaining the meaning and boundaries of science and the scientific method, and because it addresses a very widespread misunderstanding that fuels resistance to central parts of the science curriculum. If this simple point could ever be established in the public mind, it would defuse the whole controversy. That degree of success is of course quite unlikely, but the point is important and needs to be emphasized at every opportunity. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax) ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
