from:"Ed Darrell"

Our best wishes, Vance.  I'm sure I speak for everybody on this list when I say I hope that science can do its best for you, especially to ease any pain -- and many of us will pray for other assistance for you, too.       Of course, I can't offer details on either part of that in a high school classroom, without raising eyebrows, at least.     Ed Darrell  Dallas"Vance R. Koven" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  As one who over the last few weeks has been made painfully--very painfully--aware of this design, it appears to point to the inescapable reality that there is no necessary correlation between intelligence and benevolence.Vance  On 12/21/05, Ed Darrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:No, urethra design is not beside the point at all.  Is there an intelligent design explanation for that design?  There is an evolutionary explanation (though not wholly satisfactory to many).  How could such a thing have happened, according to "intelligent design theory?"       The absence of any possible answer to that question points to the lack of science behind ID.  That is the whole issue.     Ed Darrell  DallasPerry Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Robert Lipkin wrote:>I would argue that Steve's inference from the facts of "disease, war,>violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features >(knees, elbows,>eyes)" to the conclusion that no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect>(lovin! g) deity exists is a perfectly legitimate inference. That is, >the facts>of evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of such a deity,>and this incompatibility must be explained away for anyone to >recognize these>facts but still insist on the deity's existence.To be fair to the intelligent design folks, their argument is not that the design of the universe IS intelligent, in the sense of optimal, or efficient, or morally good, or aesthetically pleasing, but rather that certain facts of the universe point to it having been designed BY!
  AN
 intelligence.This does not, of course, answer Robert's theological argument, but it does suggest that the usual anti-intelligent-design jokes about the proximity of the prostate gland to the urethra are really beside the point.Perry*** Perry DaneProfessor of LawRutg! ers UniversitySchool of Law -- Camden217 North Fifth StreetCamden, NJ 08102[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/Work: (856) 225-6004Fax: (856) 969-7924Home: (610) 896-5702 ***___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.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, o!
 r 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. -- Vance R. KovenBoston, MA USA[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___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

A great teacher would indeed tell about the many experiments Darwin ran, and about the specific observations of nature around the world he made that pointed him to discover evolution theory.       In a test-driven curriculum that does not test one's understanding of how science really works, there is little time for that.  In a curriculum that has been battered for 40 years to get those stories out of the texts because they make evolution too clear for Texas critics of evolution, it's swimming against the stream.       Good science education isn't made in the courtroom, and it's not made by school boards that micromanage, either.       Ed Darrell  Dallas     Steven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  so!
 mething
 can be true without being the full truth.2+2 = 4.  That is true.But it does a poor job of fully describing nature.  Or math.Setve  On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Perry Dane wrote:          This doesn't strike me as quite right.  It seems to me that real science should also not, in the public school setting, be taught as True with a capital T.  To do so would be to teach, not science, but scientism, which is something entirely different.&n!
 bsp;
 In fact, it seems to me that if a student asks a science teacher, "So is all this stuff that you're teaching us actually True," the teacher, qua teacher, should say (at a level suitable to high school students) something like: "Science is a form of methodologically-constrained inquiry built on certain assumptions such as naturalism.  That inquiry has proved itself to be incredibly useful, as well as insightful.  It is part of what, imperfectly but necessarily, we call secular knowledge.  But precisely because it is a constrained discourse, it cannot claim, within its own four corners, to give us a full picture of Truth."--   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/"The most precious things one gets in life are not those one gets for money."Albert Einstein___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

No, urethra design is not beside the point at all.  Is there an intelligent design explanation for that design?  There is an evolutionary explanation (though not wholly satisfactory to many).  How could such a thing have happened, according to "intelligent design theory?"       The absence of any possible answer to that question points to the lack of science behind ID.  That is the whole issue.     Ed Darrell  DallasPerry Dane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Robert Lipkin wrote:>I would argue that Steve's inference from the facts of "disease, war,>violence, inequity, inequality, stupidity of some design features >(knees, elbows,>eyes)" to the conclusion that no omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect>(lovin!
 g) deity
 exists is a perfectly legitimate inference. That is, >the facts>of evil and suffering are incompatible with the existence of such a deity,>and this incompatibility must be explained away for anyone to >recognize these>facts but still insist on the deity's existence.To be fair to the intelligent design folks, their argument is not that the design of the universe IS intelligent, in the sense of optimal, or efficient, or morally good, or aesthetically pleasing, but rather that certain facts of the universe point to it having been designed BY AN intelligence.This does not, of course, answer Robert's theological argument, but it does suggest that the usual anti-intelligent-design jokes about the proximity of the prostate gland to the urethra are really beside the point.Perry***Perry DaneProfessor of LawRutg!
 ers
 UniversitySchool of Law -- Camden217 North Fifth StreetCamden, NJ 08102[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/Work: (856) 225-6004Fax: (856) 969-7924Home: (610) 896-5702***___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 Intelligent-Design Case

A careful reading of the trial transcript would indicate, I think, that such charges had already been leveled at all courts, and especially any court dealing with the issue.     I see in the Dallas Morning News today that Judge Jones has been labeled an "activist," and that one of the old school board members is still questioning whether there should be any separation of church and state at all -- sometimes the parties make judges look like prophets.       He may as well have paraphrased Santayana, don't you think?  Those who don't read the decisions are condemned to repeat the cases, and outcomes.     Ed Darrell  Dallas     [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:In a message dated 12/21/2005 8:42:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  Interesting that you think that a judge's  job does not include being aware of the political impact of his or her decision! Am I correct in inferring, then, that you consider Brown v. Board wrongly decided on the merits and wrongly written in form and wrongly decided within the Court's processes since the external impact was certainly considered by the court?Just because a decision is defensible on its merits does not mean that one need not defend oneself.In such contentious ma!
 tters a
 court should give a full and candid accounting of its reasoning.This is a district court making findings of fact on a 6-week record in a highly visible, important case.  It is not a removed abstracted appellate decision.Steven,     Of course, a judge is aware of the temper of his times.  The difference between this judge on this score and other judges on this score is that this judge communicates his sensitivity to and awareness of likely coming criticism of his decision.  I think that is a difference with significance.  And I am not inclined to give judges a pass on this point.  Some might urge that his relative inexperience on the bench might call for lenience, but isn't that like the parricide throwing himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan?  After all, if the judge's showing slip must be ignored !
 for
 inexperience why must his reasoning on the merits be valued despite his inexperience.     By the way, and I don't offer this as puffery or braggadocio but I have worked on high profile, highly contentious, cases on occasion.  And in all those cases, of course, we had contact with trial judges, appellate judges and supreme judges.  And with two notable exceptions, Judge Jones' conduct is unmatched.  Those two instances were the appearance on Nightline of Judge Patrick Kelly, USDJ, in Wichita, Kansas, while he was sitting as judge in an Operation Rescue case, to discuss the case, the demonstrations, and his order; and, the late Judge Robert Ward, USDJ, in New York City, who casually let slip his awareness of the facts underlying a contempt proceeding garnered from extra-judicial sources.     Jim Henderson  Senior Counsel  ACLJ___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 Intelligent-Design Case

The appellate court in the Cobb County disclaimer case, from the news reports, appears to have not read the decision or the transcript from the lower court, at least not with the care it deserved.  Questions at oral arguments last week indicated, to some observers (including this one), that lower courts may need to flag testimony and claims with flashing neon.       It would be good if trial courts didn't need to spell out when witnesses lie egregiously; it is my experience that trial courts do need to be so explicit.  I'm biased.  I think a fraud on the court should be clear justification for reopening a case, for example, but the 9th Circuit ruled that such fraud (on the part of U.S. attorneys!) should be expected and detected at trial (See Bullock vs. U.S.).  If conduct is so egregious, I see little difficulty with the judge carefully labeling the shovels as shovels, trowels as trowels, and spades as spades!
 . 
 Judge Jones' carefully labeling a lie as a lie should leave no question, at least.     Ed Darrell  DallasBrad Pardee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  Perhaps.  If he had stopped at saying he believed they lied, that would be one thing.  When the judge throws in the accusation that they were breathtakingly inane, though, that doesn't sound like the words of a trier of fact.  That sounds like somebody with an axe to grind against the plaintiffs, and I guess the proximity of the charge of lying to this bit of overblown rhetoric caused me to respond to them together.     It's certainly beyond his job,
 though, to talk about how breathtakingly inane the plaintiffs were.  If he wants to talk about their veracity, fine.  Either they lied or they told the truth.  If he wants to talk about the merits of their arguments, fine.  Either they are right or they are wrong.  But this was over the top, and if that's restraint, then I'd hate to see what an unrestrained opinion says.     And if the lies were as plain and obvious as they have been portrayed here as being, then it would be a sad commentary on the appellate courts for them to need him to wax so poetic to tell them about it.     Brad----- Origi!
 nal
 Message -   From: Ed Darrell   To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics   Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:15 PM  Subject: Re: Dover Intelligent-Design CaseIs it not accurate that the trier of fact may make determinations as to the veracity of the witnesses?       I think that, if one reads the transcript, one might be astonished at the restraint Judge Jones used.  It's one thing to deny a contested statement, another to deny it after it's been reported separately by two newspapers and captured on videotape.      
 Judge Jones was probably wise to include this statement about the defendants' testimony, as a help for appellate courts.     Ed Darrell  DallasBrad M Pardee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  The judge wrote, "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifest! ly not an activist Court." Has there ever been a Court that admitted that it WAS activist?  Is there a decision somewhere that says, "This Court is proud to admit that it is an activist Court, and thank you for noticing"? Rick may be on to something when he says, "The Bard might have said: "The judge doth protest too much, methinks." !
 And maybe it's just my untrained eye, but when I see a judge referring to the defendandts as liars and breathtakingly inane, I find myself wondering how that is part of his job.  His job is to interpret the law, not to assess the moral fitness of people whose arguments he did not agree with.  If he thinks they're right, say so.  If he thinks they're wrong, say so.  (And if he truly believes they were lying and that this isn't just extreme rhetorical excess, can I assume perjury charges will be forthcoming?) The snippets posted by Ann make me seriously doubt the judge's impartiality and temperament, and I'm not sure I'd want him judging pecan pies at the County Fair, much less matters of serious Constitutional import. Brad___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, c!
 hange
 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.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

Re: Dover Intelligent-Design Case

My apologies for any offense -- I did not mean to imply you said Kuhn favored ID; in fact you appear to be on the right side of Kuhn.  I do weary of ID advocates who claim that, if we are to comply with the "rules" of Kuhn, we must allow ID to be taught.  Kuhn took exactly the opposite view.  Mr. Lipkin was right.     I do think that questioning the judge's capacity to decide the issues before the court is more problematic.  Where does he get the legal capacity?  From his appointment and confirmation.  Where does he get the intellectual capacity?  We hope he has a good education.  Where does he get the expertise?  He may (and should) rely on experts in the field.       It seems to me the alternative is to say judges may not decide many issues:  For example, what is an injury?  What is accepted medical practice?   There are some who argue that we sh!
 ould not
 be able to say at all what is science, but I'm too old fashioned to accept that.  There are standards about what is science and what is not, and those standards can be reduced to a writing that judges may use.  The decision is not so much what the judge intends as what the evidence says.     There was no jury in this case.  Facts need to be determined before the law is applied; in this case Judge Jones was the judge of fact.       I also regret that Mr. Lipkin considered my comments about philosophy gratuitous.  There are law review and other journal articles that argue that, philosophically, ID can be taught under existing law.  The Dover school board was told that directly, and thought it accurate.  It may be good philosophy, I don't pretend to know.  But it's bad law, and we shouldn't be reticent to say so.  ID doesn't meet the standards of science of any of the great relig!
 ious
 universities in this nation.  I think a lawyer is remiss if he or she fails to inform the client that it is an uphill battle to argue that ID is science and that teaching it complies with the establishment clause law on the topic.       As Judge Jones noted, such bad advice led to this case.  Consequently, I don't think the issue gratuitous at all.  I think Judge Jones' standing up for high standards on this issue is a good thing.     Ed Darrell  Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Unfortunately, Ed Darrell distorts my post.  I never said or implied that Kuhn's theory of science favors intelligent!
  design
 in any way at all. " What I said was "I do not see any likelihood of intelligent design providing the thrust for a paradigm shift concerning what is or what is not science." Further, I never said Judge Jones imposed  "his views over the experts in science who were called to testify." My point is directed at capacity, and the indefensible contention, in my view, that somehow a legal education provides the necessary ingredients for assessing expert testimony in a wide range of domains of human inquiry.       When it comes to science (if not everything else) the distinction between not deciding what is or is not science and "following accepted legal procedures in use of expert testimony" is, in my view unhelpful.  It is entirely circular to suppose that because there are "accepted legal procedures of expert testimony," that these procedu!
 res are
 anything more than "accepted." There is little more than hubris in the view that the fact that courts use these procedures means that these procedures count as legitimate evaluations of expert testimony.      What gives judges the requisite background to decide whether experts are correct about defining science as naturalistic, testable, and so forth?  In other words, what prepares judges to assess such abstract debates?     I agree with the experts (and the court) about what science is.  But my agreement is irrelevant to the question of whether judges have the ability to sift through conceptually difficult testimony about the nature of science, religion, and a host of other issues. What in a legal education (or in practicing law) provides the required background?   
    As for the gratuitous remark about philosophy, well I'll leave it at that.     BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___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.u

Re: Dover Intelligent-Design Case

Is it not accurate that the trier of fact may make determinations as to the veracity of the witnesses?       I think that, if one reads the transcript, one might be astonished at the restraint Judge Jones used.  It's one thing to deny a contested statement, another to deny it after it's been reported separately by two newspapers and captured on videotape.       Judge Jones was probably wise to include this statement about the defendants' testimony, as a help for appellate courts.     Ed Darrell  DallasBrad M Pardee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  The judge wrote, "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifest!
 ly not an
 activist Court." Has there ever been a Court that admitted that it WAS activist?  Is there a decision somewhere that says, "This Court is proud to admit that it is an activist Court, and thank you for noticing"? Rick may be on to something when he says, "The Bard might have said: "The judge doth protest too much, methinks." And maybe it's just my untrained eye, but when I see a judge referring to the defendandts as liars and breathtakingly inane, I find myself wondering how that is part of his job.  His job is to interpret the law, not to assess the moral fitness of people whose arguments he did not agree with.  If he thinks they're right, say so.  If he thinks they're wrong, say so.  (And if he truly believes they were lying and that this isn't just extreme rhetorical excess, can I assume perjury charges will be forthcoming?)
 The snippets posted by Ann make me seriously doubt the judge's impartiality and temperament, and I'm not sure I'd want him judging pecan pies at the County Fair, much less matters of serious Constitutional import. Brad___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 Intelligent-Design Case

I don't see any point in Judge Jones' decision where he imposes his views over the experts in science who were called to testify.  I do not find this to be a case of a judge deciding what is or is not science, so much as a judge following accepted legal procedures in use of expert testimony.       For what it matters, Kuhn sided with evolution against intelligent design creationism, and he uses the slow triumph of evolution over intelligent design as an example of where it takes time for better science to displace old, disproven ideas.  I do not think it is accurate to paint intelligent design as favored by Kuhn's philosophy in any form.     Richard Feynman put it most succinctly, I think, when he said that science is what happens on the lab bench.  The Dover transcripts in deep detail go over what can be found on the lab benches right now.  There was no significant evidence of scientific pub!
 lication
 for intelligent design presented. There was no evidence of scientific research into intelligent design presented.  There was no hypothesis of intelligent design presented.  There was no evidence of any possibility of a positive contribution to science by ID presented.  Without making serious inquiry into the details of the science, it would be fair to say there was no evidence of ID as science presented.  This is not a case of a judge substituting his beliefs; it is a case of a judge paying careful attention to the evidence given at trial.      This is why I dislike discussions of philosophy in these issues.  Philosophically, Invisible Pink Unicorn Poofing could be taught as science in science classes, if there were science there to back up the idea.  These questions will always turn on what has actually been done on the lab benches.  After the 1987 Supreme Court decision, advocates of creationism had a choice to!
  go into
 the laboratory and into the field to do serious science to back up their claims of science, or try to subvert the legal machinery to get around the definitions of science.  As the evidence clearly showed in Dover, the creationist advocates chose to try to subvert the legal machinery rather than go into the lab.       Shakespeare was right about tangled webs.  In nature, of course, we don't find tangled webs.  Judge Jones saw that, and noted it accurately.  IMHO, of course.     Ed Darrell  Dallas  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  Although I do not disagree with the result in this case, I am trou!
 bled by
 the idea of judges deciding what is or what is not science.  As far as I can tell, a Kuhnian conception of scientific change in principle supports the possibility of intelligent design being understood as expanding the current notion of science. ( I say "in principle" for the reason that just because a particular conception theoretically can be advanced in a Kuhnian fashion does not mean that the change in paradigm will be successful). Hence, to say that intelligent design cannot be considered a science according to our current paradigm of science can be answered by intelligent designers with a strident "So what?"     Don't get me wrong.  According to my own understanding of the philosophy of science, I do not see any likelihood of intelligent design providing the thrust for a paradigm shift concerning what is or what is not science. That aside, what !
 justifies
 judicial determinations of this matter?  I suppose one reply is that the court is merely reflecting what its best understanding of the current scientific paradigm is.  Moreover, courts are forever involving in making judgments about complex factual and conceptual matters. Still, an opinion based solely on the EC might be more in line with the basis of a court's authority and expertise.      BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___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 li!
 st 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: Public schools and parents

2005-11-28 Thread Ed Darrell

You're right, Eugene, and I'd forgotten how they almost made it over the Constitutional hump on that label -- I think part of the difficulty is in the latter parts of the label that suggest, with no good research hook to hang the argument on, that there are alternatives in science to evolution theory.  Urging students to examine alternatives that exist only in religiously-based tracts is rather a give away.  
 
And that gets back to my original suspension of belief:  I don't think a disclaimer would pass most of these boards that didn't disparage evolution theory in some way, even if minor.  Physicist Jeremy Bernstein, writing about Einstein's 1905 papers and how a journal editor could tell Einstein wasn't a crackpot, notes the responsibility of the author to demonstrate an understanding of the accepted theory she or he is about to twist or overturn.  I think that a warning label less piquant but close to "This is science, get over it; if you have a contrary argument, show your original research," might pass muster.  The Louisiana misadventure notwithstanding, the Court approved a moment of silence in Georgia that avoided all mentions of faith after striking down Alabama's law.  If evolution critics want to make a label to avoid religious offense while withstanding judicial scrutiny, they need to compose a warning that avoids religious defense, too.&nb!
 sp;
 There's the rub.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas"Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I think that many schools would find that quite useful, butnote that a similar disclaimer was struck down on Establishment Clausegrounds in Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Bd. of Ed., 185 F.3d 337 (5thCir.1999) and, I think, Selman v. Cobb County School Dist., 2005 WL83829 (N.D.Ga.2005). Here's the Felier disclaimer: "It is herebyrecognized by the Tangipahoa Board of Education, that the lesson to bepresented, regarding the origin of life and matter, is known as theScientific Theory of Evolution and should be presented to informstudents of the scientific concept and not intended to influence ordissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept. It isfurther recognized by the Board of Education that it is the basic rightand privilege of each student to form his/her own opinion or maintainbeliefs taught by parents on!
  this
 very important matter of the origin oflife and matter. Students are urged to exercise critical thinking andgather all information possible and closely examine each alternativetoward forming an opinion."Eugene-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed DarrellSent: Monday, November 28, 2005 2:40 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Public schools and parentsMy experience is that anti-evolution parents have issues well beyondbiology classes that they can generally get their kids out of withlittle difficulty, and that the drive to insert other-than-evolutionmaterials is not simply to "balance" an issue. But for Eugene'shypothetical, let's assume that to be the case.In that case, would it not satisfy the religious objections of theparents to disclaim a religious endorsement, instead of
 disclaiming thescience? Would the parents in Cobb County who asked for the disclaimersbe satisfied with a disclaimer note that says "This biology book is notintended to dissuade any student from any religious belief" (or abetter-phrased sticker that makes it clear that there is no endorsementof any religious view in the teaching of the science)?If the complaint really is about a presumed religious view offered whenthe science is taught, why not simply disclaim that religious view andleave the science alone? Surely it would be within the law for agovernmental agency to note that it makes no religious endorsement in agiven case, in support of Constitutional principles.Ed DarrellDallas ___
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: Public schools and parents

2005-11-28 Thread Ed Darrell

My experience is that anti-evolution parents have issues well beyond biology classes that they can generally get their kids out of with little difficulty, and that the drive to insert other-than-evolution materials is not simply to "balance" an issue.  But for Eugene's hypothetical, let's assume that to be the case.
 
In that case, would it not satisfy the religious objections of the parents to disclaim a religious endorsement, instead of disclaiming the science?  Would the parents in Cobb County who asked for the disclaimers be satisfied with a disclaimer note that says "This biology book is not intended to dissuade any student from any religious belief" (or a better-phrased sticker that makes it clear that there is no endorsement of any religious view in the teaching of the science)?
 
If the complaint really is about a presumed religious view offered when the science is taught, why not simply disclaim that religious view and leave the science alone?  Surely it would be within the law for a governmental agency to note that it makes no religious endorsement in a given case, in support of Constitutional principles.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas 
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



One interesting side note to this argument I saw reported on Friday was the way Establishment Clause caselaw helped erode political support for the ousted school board members in Dover, Pennsylvania. As reported on PBS's NewsHour, many Intelligent Design advocates there were actually motivated by their religious beliefs, but, because of the legal requirements, they kept to secular arguments in their public statements. This inability to articulate the religious motivation behind ID actually eroded some of its natural support. Here is an excerpt of a transcript:
 
"FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Yet in court board members argues that the new curriculum and intelligent design were all about academics and science, and not religiously motivated. 
 
REV. ED ROWAND: Academic reasoning --
 
FRED DE SAM LAZARO: That decision to separate their religious beliefs from their legal arguments likely turned off some of their supporters, According to Dennis Hall, a pastor at Dover's Friendship Community Church. 
 
REV. DENNIS HALL: They should have said yes, we did it because this is what our faith beliefs -- believes in. But they said no, we did it because of science or whatever. 
 
FRED DE SAM LAZARO: That would have been a legally fatal thing to do, would it not?
 
REV. DENNIS HALL: Yes, certainly, I understand why they said that. But the reasoning behind it, the feeling behind it, I think, is because of their values, their religious values. 
 
SPOKESMAN: There are people that continue to misunderstand intelligent design, and those people who felt it was religious in nature felt, okay, school board members, we think this is religious in nature. You need to push this on a religious platform. So therefore there were people from religious standpoint that were angry." See this link/address: 
 
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec05/dover_11-25.html
 
The transcript is not entirely accurate, though the audio also available at that link presumably is accurate.
 
Allen Asch
 
 
In a message dated 11/28/2005 1:05:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  It seems to me that the evolution debate puts many publicschools in a difficult position:  Their teaching is alienating parents(and perhaps some children), which I suspect means more children pulledout of public school, more parents who are lukewarm about helping atschool, less public sympathy for bond measures and other fundingproposals, and the like.  This is one reason I'm skeptical of claimsthat various restrictions on the teaching of evolution, mandates ofteaching intelligent design, disclaimers, and the like are primarilymotivated by a desire to further a particular religious belief system.It seems to me just as plausible that many school officials aremotivated by a desire to maintain public support for schools, supportthat they see eroding because ma!
 ny
 parents perceive the school (whetherrightly or wrongly) as disapproving of the parents' religious beliefs.And while I agree that some officials may be motivated by genuine desireto promote a particular religious belief system, I have no reason tothink that this is the primary motivation.    Of course, once one shifts from a primary motivation focus to,say, an endorsement approach, one could argue that schools aren'tallowed to give such disclaimers even if the disclaimers are aimed atmaintaining parental support for the schools.  (I agree, for instance,that adding to all textbooks "Jesus Christ is Our Lord" would violatethe endorsement test even if it were solely aimed at getting Christianparents to like the schools.)  But where there is no facial endorsement,as seems to be the case, and the objection is "Why aren't they alsotalking about a geocentric u

Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist

2005-11-23 Thread Ed Darrell

Let the marketplace of ideas sort it out.  If ID has any validity in science, it will be in demand -- and if so, the private schools that teach it will have graduates in the forefront of that science who will be highly in demand.  The story of Semmelweiss might remind us that sometimes religious ideas can have practical applications, and when they do the practical applications will manifest themselves.
 
Isn't that the issue in the suit against the University of California system?  Government has not mandated that religious schools deny ID or any form of creationism, but science programs at the state universities have no need of that sort of information, and so they deny entrance to kids trained in those topics.  
 
Those companies and agencies who employ graduates of the biology programs of the California state universities (both UC and CS) also have no need of ID, which is one of the drivers of the requirement of the schools, I suspect.  Agricultural giants like ADM and pharmaceutical leaders like Genentech have little use for ideas that don't or can't produce marketable products, and they hire accordingly from the ranks of university graduates.  
 
Unless government steps in to shore up ID, ID will fade away if it is not workable science.  That is true of almost all science applications.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas
"Christopher C. Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't want to get into an argument defending ID. Others do it better. And I don't find ID persuasive. But I wonder what will happen to those who do. Let me ask people on the listserv this next question: Should the government force private religious schools to explicitly deny ID? (If it is like banning the phlogistonistic view of chemistry or teachings contrary to the germ theory of disease, should we even hesitate?)Chris___
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: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist

2005-11-22 Thread Ed Darrell

I don't see an establishment clause problem, or any other.  Yes, the university may teach that intelligent design is false, in an approved course.  As a pragmatic matter, colleges are not primary and secondary schools.   Content of college courses may cover a broader range of materials and opinions than high school courses may.  I don't recall the cases on the point.  But consider the havoc that would ensue a decision that state colleges could not teach the germ theory of disease, in order not to run afoul of Christian Scientist beliefs, and you begin to see the difficulty.  This is an upper-level course, I presume.
 
Further, since intelligent design advocates argue that ID is not a religious teaching, they cannot fairly claim religious discrimination if a professor claims it to be false.  Certainly if a few schools can tolerate courses that suggest intelligent design may not be false, other schools may present the other side.  There has been no action taken against any university-level ID course, especially on the basis of establishment, and we shouldn't expect there to be any action.
 
Don't let the mantle of "mythology" throw you.  In rhetoric there is a school of criticism called myth criticism, which analyzes all sorts of myths, especially the true and accurate ones.  In higher academia, "myth" means a story to which people grant credence and organize activities around.  (For example, at one time I subscribed to the myth that American Airlines has a flight leaving Dallas-Ft. Worth each morning at 7:00 a.m., give or take ten minutes depending on the season and other schedule concerns; arriving in Chicago two hours later, one could be downtown for a meeting by 9:30 a.m., or 10:00 a.m. very comfortably.  Adhering to that myth, I was late for a couple of meetings, but missed no meeting in more than 100 attempts.  It's a myth, but one that is subject to scientific and other testing.)
 
College is the place for such classes.  Philosophy departments and religious studies departments are especially suited for hosting such classes, with faculty specifically trained in such issues.  
 
The difficulty with the class is trying to figure out just exactly what "intelligent design" is, in substance.  I suspect there is not much more in the philosophy and religion journals than there is in biology journals describing intelligent design's modern holdings.
 
Another place intelligent design might be discussed is in history of science classes, studying especially the work of William Paley, whose book on divine design in nature, Natural Theology, provided a sort of research map for Charles Darwin between 1831 and 1836.
 
Do you know who is teaching the course, and whether there are any recommended texts?
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas"Christopher C. Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The University of Kansas is planning to teach a course on intelligent design next semester. But it's not a science class. It is a religious-studies class, and it's titled, "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." (The chairman of the department, in explaining the class, said this, "Creationism is mythology . . . Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.") It's the next step in the intelligent design/evolution fight.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_courseDoes anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause problem here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of Kansas cannot teach that intelligent design is false, right? Government cannot pass directly o!
 n the
 truth or falsity of religious teaching. The University's teaching of ID as "myth" seems to suggest that it will teach (or at least imply) that ID is false. (Surely, no one would miss the point if some professor taught a class entitled, "Special Topics in Religion: Christianity and other Religious Mythologies" or "Wicca: How Could It Be Something Other Than Mythology?") To the extent the class teaches ID is false, it is unconstitutional, no?The conclusion that this class is unconstitutional will surely be embraced by those who support intelligent design. And this the counterintuitive point: shouldn't it also be embraced by those who are earnest opponents of it? After all, opponents of ID object to it principally because they see it as inherently religious. It's therefore unconstitutional when taught by the government as true. But doesn't the same principle act to protect ID from being taught by the government as false? !
 (The
 obvious analogy is perhaps prayer - the government should have no power to encourage it, but also should have no power to discourage it.)Chris Lund___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lis

Re: Bronx Household of Faith v New York Schools

2005-11-21 Thread Ed Darrell

Some districts here in Texas have looked on these arrangements as good money makers.  The churches pay reasonable rent, plus fees to cover the overtime for custodial people and other building management; many of the hourly workers involved are happy for the hours and extra money.  Contracts, or licenses, for long term use often include clauses requiring the church to look for other sites if the school is scheduled for use for athletics playoffs, or band competitions, or other unscheduled-at-the-time-of-contract events.  (I hope no schools offer these agreements as leases, but I'm not privy to enough to be sure no one does.)
 
It's a public building, open for hire for other groups.  So long as it doesn't interfere with the educational work of the building, most people here appear to think, what's the problem?
 
Community planners, education policy wonks and others have worried for years over the large amounts of time that school buildings are idle, considering the massive investments made there.  One might make a Ben Franklinesque argument that allowing churches to meet in schools serves a larger purpose for the community, and a secular purpose at that.
 
I'm surprised, with Ed Brayton, that this case is still in the system.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Isn't the key question whether the public schools rent to groups 52 weeks/year for long periods of time?  Many of the church-planting initiatives involve using the school the entire weekend, or at least almost all of Sunday.  The use here looks a lot more intense than any other group that I can think of, but maybe I'm missing something
 
Marci
 
In a message dated 11/21/2005 6:21:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the government is making a building available for rent, why canât a church rent it for the same time and the same price as a secular renter? There is no state action in favor of any religion. The rental should not violate the EC. Except for the singing, most protestant worship services are not that different from secular meetings, assemblies, or classes. (If the service were to use incense, have baptisms with immersion, or Holy Communion with wine, there may be some violation of the normal rules of use for the building, but should not violate the EC.)Alan ArmstrongLaw Office of Alan Leigh ArmstrongHuntington Beach, California 

 ___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: Bronx Household of Faith v New York Schools

2005-11-21 Thread Ed Darrell

Why would a Rotary Club in Nebraska sing "Yellow Rose of Texas?"  
 
That song is considered part of the Texas religion down here, by the way.  
 
More seriously, Mr. Duncan points from the other side to a solution that I think is often available for religious speakers in secular settings.  There are secular "sermons," and I think any rabbi or other clergy who can't speak for five or ten minutes at a high school graduation and inspire the graduates without making a hard appeal to religion just is not inventive enough for the job.  
 
I regret the sidetrack, though I am interested in the Nebraskans singing Texas aspect,
 
Ed Darrell
DallasRick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I guess I don't understand the difference between "speech on a religious topic" and a "religious service." The "services" I attend most Sundays involve announcements (speech about upcoming events), singing (praise and worship songs), and a sermon (i.e. a lecture). The only difference between a typical Rotary Club meeting and my church service is the viewpoint of the speech--the Rotary members sing secular songs (Yellow Rose of Texas) and their sermons/lectures are on secular subjects.
 
But consider this. Here is where there might be an issue of speech vs. exercise--suppose a public school adopted a generally applicable rule that prohibited any food or drink at equal access meetings. Could this be used to forbid communion services (as well as snacks at Rotary meetings)? Or suppose the rule was that no group could reserve a room more than twice in one month? Wouldn't this rule prevent a church from locating its services permanently ! at the school?
 
These would be speech-neutral and religion-neutral rules that I suppose could be enforced across the board. No?
 
Rick Duncan
 
Alan Brownstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My answer to Eugene's question would probably depend on what makes thereligious sermon in his hypothetical a "sermon." If the only reason hecharacterizes something as a sermon is that it is a speech on areligious topic, I would view this as a speech clause issue. If it is asermon because it is part of a larger religious service, I wouldcharacterize it as the exercise of religion for constitutional purposes.My question for Eugene is this: If you characterize religious _expression_as both speech and religion, which constitutional provi! sions controlquestions about whether the government can promote the speech orregulate it. I take it that Eugene would agree that at some pointgovernment religious speech is not characterized as speech (which thegovernment is constitutionally permitted to express) but rather isrecognized to be!
  religion
 which the state can not endorse or establish.If the government proclaims, "Christianity is the only true faith"that's an establishment of religion, isn't it? That statement is notevaluated under the speech clause. The fact that it is speech is largelyirrelevant to the constitutional analysis. Similarly, if accommodationsof expressive religious activities such as worship services areevaluated under the speech clause, if a school allowed children to beexcused from school to go to religious services on a holy day, theschool would be constitutionally obligated to allow other children tohave an excused absence for any expressive act! ivity they attended orparticipated in. Similarly, Title VII requires the reasonableaccommodation of employee religious practices. If what is beingaccommodated is a ritual with an expressive dimension to it, does thatmean the employer has to similarly accommodate secular expressiveactivities? I
 recognize that there may be serious disagreements about where the lineshould be drawn between speech and the religion clauses, but the linehas to be drawn somewhere -- or else our current understanding of whatthe Establishment Clause means and the permissibility of religionspecific accommodations will have to be significantly altered. Alan BrownsteinUC Davis-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, EugeneSent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 1:19 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Bronx Household o! f Faith v New York SchoolsI appreciate Alan's points, though I think that the regulation ofpsychotherapy does raise some interesting First Amendment questions --say, for instance, that a psychotherapist licensing body forbadepsychotherapists from giving patients certain advice (e.g., advice tha!
 tsome
 might see as racist, sexist, religiously bigoted, or what haveyou).But let me approach this a slightly different way -- let's say thatthe government provided gave preferential access to some governmentproperty for religious *sermons* but not for other property. Would thatbe a constitutionally permissible preference for "worship," or animpermissible preference for "spee

Re: Cornell's Interim President addresses Intelligent Design

2005-10-22 Thread Ed Darrell

My apologies to the list.  Wrong Art.  Wrong list.  I need more coffee.
 
Ed DarrellEd Darrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

You graduated from Cornell, and moved to Kentucky?
 ___
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: Cornell's Interim President addresses Intelligent Design

2005-10-22 Thread Ed Darrell

You graduated from Cornell, and moved to Kentucky?
Cornell's student paper has had several ID pieces in the last year. Is it a bit of a campus controversy? Rawlings seems eminently rational on the issue. Watch for attacks from the ID camp.
And thanks for the URL.
Ed[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hunter R. Rawlings III, the former President of Cornell University who was recently called back to be its Interim President, devoted most of the annual "State of the University Address" today to the intelligent design controversy. I think the following excerpts capture his central message:I am convinced that the political movement seeking to inject religion into state policy and our schools is serious enough to require our collective time and attention. Cornellâs history, its intellectual scope, and its current commitments position us well to contribute to the national debate on religion and science. . . . This is an issue that should engage not simply our science faculty . . . but, in particular, o!
ur social
scientists and humanists. This is above all a cultural issue, not a scientific one. The controversy is about the tensions between science and belief, reason and faith, public policy and private religiosity.Modern research universities have become segmented. We have scientists over here, humanists and social scientists over there. Knowledge is divided into ever-smaller categories; our specialization becomes ever more narrow. I believe it is time to put the disparate parts of the modern research university back together. â¦ Humanists and social scientists, whose expertise lies in understanding cultures and ideas, can â and should -- move us beyond ridiculing or ignoring our opponents or claiming that, at some level, science is good and faith is bad. They can keep us from claiming too much in the sphere of relig!
ion or in
the sphere of science and give us the language we need to learn from each other.Consistent with Cornellâs land grant mission, I ask as well that humanists, social scientists, and scientists venture outside the campus to help the American public sort through these complex issues. I ask them to help a wide audience understand what kinds of theories, arguments, and conclusions deserve a place in the academy â and why it isnât always a good idea to âteach the controversies.â â¦ Cornellians who do will be acting in the great tradition of Cornellâs founders, Ezra Cornell and Andrew Dickson White.The full text can be found at:http://www.cornell.edu/president/announcement_2005_1021.cfmArt Spitzer(Cornell '71) ___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

RE: New lawsuit against U Cal Berkeley

2005-10-18 Thread Ed Darrell

Unfortunately for the contrary view, those are the majority viewpoints of the majority of sects in the U.S.  One might hope that the minority view in these faiths would be reported at the websites of the faiths themselves, but one would most likely be disappointed.  NCSE carries the words of the sects themselves, and they represent the majority of Christian congregations which represent the majority of Christians in America. 
 
The statement at the Berkeley site is factual, as Mr. Brayton noted.  Some may not like that facts, but that does not make a statement of the facts a religious bias.   There may be a few other sects now which have official statements against evolution.  But the Berkeley site understates the facts.  The site is not a public forum for debate.  Unless there is factual error, I don't think there is any requirement that a statement of history be "balanced" by views that take the opposite stance, is there?  If there were factual error, certainly Mr. Caldwell could have complained and provided information to correct the error.  
 
Mr. Caldwell claims not to be a creationist in other fora.  One wonders just what interest the Caldwells have in balancing a statement that is factual, and which does not offend them, either.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas
 
"Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, all the views noted on the site(http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7445_statements_from_religious_org_12_19_2002.asp#top) endorse the same family of religious positions-- Judaism and Christianity are consistent with evolution. Am I missingsome items on that page that express "the opposite points of view"? Mysense is that "the range of opinions" given on that page is a range from"Judaism is consistent with evolution" through "Protestantism isconsistent with evolution" to "Catholicism is consistent withevolution," not a range of opinions that really captures the "oppositepoints of view."EugeneEd Brayton wrote:> I think if the same website did not also acknowledge the > opposite points > of view, and do so in both cases in purely descriptive language, this > would be m!
 ore
 likely. But in fact it does describe multiple religious > points of view and does not endorse any of them, merely describes the > different viewpoints and which ones conflict with what we science has > found and which ones do not. If it did not also acknowledge > that there > are religious viewpoints that are not compatible, their case would be > much stronger.> > Bear in mind also that this is a website designed to help > teachers not > only teach evolution more effectively but also deal with > questions they > are likely to be asked by students (I am fortunate enough to > have seen > the website as it was being developed and know the folks who put it > together and it was conceived as a tool for training teachers; it has > since been expanded and made publicly accessible). If a student asks > whether evolution contradicts with religion, what possible !
 >
 answer could > a teacher give other than something like, "Opinions vary. > Some religious > views are incompatible with it and some are not, but the fact > that there > are thousands of devoutly religious scientists who also work in the > field of evolution clearly means they aren't inherently at > odds with one > another"? The link to the statements from various religious > organizations was put there for teachers to see what the range of > opinions are, not for them to give to students.> > Ed Brayton> > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message.> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/140 - Release > Date: 10/18/05 ___> 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.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.e

Re: "The Devil Went Down to Georgia"

2005-10-16 Thread Ed Darrell

Too much of the really good music is religiously related; what of Bach, for example, could not e said to have been written for religious reasons?  And, on the other hand, what of Bach's religiously-dedicated music is so overtly religious as to suggest any endorsement of religion?
 
At higher levels of competition, these band directors are highly skilled and extremely well-educated musicians.  They are familiar with a large array of musical styles.  Especially for instrumental music, what difference does it make?
 
I'm not certain Texas is typical, but in my experience here championship music competitions would be virtually impossible without Aaron Copland -- and what of his stuff is not "religious" to some degree?  Copland's use of a Shaker tune was brilliant musically, and I think if it was good enough for CBS and Edward R. Murrow, it can be done without infringing on anyone's religious freedoms.  
 
Without additional action to infer religious intent on the part of the band director, I think it would be difficult to maintain a case that a marching band's instrumental music violates the reasonable separation of church and state.  
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 10/16/2005 9:57:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most public school music instructors are probably not familiar with music traditions outside those common to the majority, nevertheless it is not the business of government, at any level, to establish religion of any kind. Because public schools are not churches, it would be constitutionally wiser for public school music programs to use music not related to any religion.

The problem of course is that it takes a while to develop a "tradition" in music or other arts.  Consequently, if you begin by emptying the field of permissibly taught sacred music (taught for its style, form, _expression_), then you severely limit the instructional choices.  Of course, I am sure that it can be done; but the issue is must it?
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___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: "The Devil Went Down to Georgia"

2005-10-15 Thread Ed Darrell

Great example of over-reaction with little basis, it seems to me. Someone mentioned the Duncanville case, which was about sports team prayers and not music, but it should be noted that Duncanville's wind ensemble, arguably the best high school band in the nation, regularly plays religious music without objection.
Duncanville's school lawyers may be more up on the law than other school lawyers.
Ed Darrell
Dallas (Duncanville ISD, by the way)"Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
An amusing little incident; thanks to Becky Dale for thepointer:http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN/MGArticle/WPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128767512952Until recently, the Charlie Daniels Band song "The Devil Went Downto Georgia" was in the [C.D. Hylton High School] marching band's line upof Georgia-themed music. . . .On Oct. 2, The Potomac News & Manassas Journal Messenger published aletter to the editor arguing that while no one objected to that songabout the devil, there would be objections if the band were to play asong about God or other spiritual beings.After that letter ran in the paper, [band director Dennis Brown]dropped the song from the marching band's program. . . .In the letter, [Robert] McLean wrote, "A high school band directorwould be fired for pla!
ying
'Amazing Grace' but no one bats an eye forthe playing of a song about the devil ... [H]ow can one mention thedevil, and not be able to mention a Christian God?"Brown said that the letter was the first objection he had heard tothe song. . . .Brown made the decision to drop the song to prevent any negativeattention the students or school might receive because of it, he said. .. .McLean said he did not intend his letter to be criticism of theschool or the song[:] "I like the song. . . . I just thought it was kindof ironic that they could play that song, but they wouldn't be allowedto play a song about God." . . .___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 priva!
te.
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

Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance

2005-10-08 Thread Ed Darrell

A hypothetical:  A soldier in General Washington's army suffers frostbite while camped at Valley Forge, and is ministered to by an Anglican priest.  The soldier asks the Anglican whether it is true that God is on the side of King George and that the cold is sent from God to punish the rebels.
 
What are the chances that religious freedom in America would be as it is today had the priest offered the Anglican church's official view on that question?
 
Military chaplains are there to serve the faith needs of the soldiers.  It's usually not a fine line, and it shouldn't be so difficult for clergy to tell if the line's been crossed.  There are plenty of other clergy available who can serve the soldiers' needs, I suspect.  The soldiers are there to protect the First Amendment, and in the soldiers' exercise of that law, the chaplains are there to protect the soldiers' rights, not exercise their own.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Jim, of course, has taken my points out of context.  When a recruit seeks out a chaplain for information about the chaplain's religion, that is entirely different from a chaplain engaging in proselytization on his or her own initiative.  As Doug so rightly pointed out, the chaplain corps exists for the comfort of the soldiers, not as a new opportunity for a member of the clergy to gain new recruits.  Those chaplains that cannot respect this distinction should not be military chaplains.  There are plenty of positions in the private sphere for that kind of activity.
 
Marci
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 10/8/2005 10:08:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


In a message dated 10/8/2005 8:22:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With respect to Brad's distinction between involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort, and persuade, it is one large linguistic stretch to argue that pressure, exhort, and persuade are voluntarily accepted.  They are means by which one person is trying to alter another person's views.  Chaplains have no business "informing" recruits that their religious faith is "wrong" from his perspective.  The members of the military are a captive audience in these circumstances, which makes the involuntary element in these circumstances more involuntary than usual.

Well, I would think that the First Amendment might give us briefest pause before categorical prohibitions are laid down.
 
To show why Marci cannot be right when she says, "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective," let's start with the following hypothetical:
 
Fr.. Morgan is credentialed by the Archdiocese of the Military to serve as a Roman Catholic chaplain and is commissioned as such in the U.S. Navy, and is detailed to serve as a chaplain to Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, in coastal North Carolina.  He is one of several chaplains aboard the base, which hosts, depending on deployments, between thirty and fifty thousand Marines.  He is one of three RC chaplains.  As part of his pastoral duties with the Catholic Chapel, he conducts an inquirers class once a week at the base's Catholic Chapel.  During his classes, he includes an open period for questions.  As it turns out, a class for inquiring into the Catholic faith attracts, among others, those who are on spiritual journeys and who are actively thinking about matters of faith and religion, in other words, people with questions.  Lance Corporal Jones, whose family is Baptist, has found himself attracted to the Catholic faith because !
 of the
 rich intellectual tradition that it has developed, together with its orthodoxy regarding things he believes are essential to Christian doctrine.  He has not decided to convert, though, but he is considering the consequences of such a decision, in part his considerations take place in the inquirers' class, where he learns more about RC and where, on a regular basis, he engages  Fr. Morgan in dialogues related to unique difference between RC and Baptist doctrine.  
 
When L.Cpl. Jones puts the questions directly to Fr. Morgan about RC distinctives (such as celibacy for priests, the seven sacraments, veneration of Mary and the Saints, the Papacy, transubstantiation), Fr. Morgan carefully explains the basis in the Magisterium of the Church, in Sacred Scripture, and in the traditions of the Church.  These areas are the ones about which L.Cpl. Jones entertains greatest doubt and trepidation over conversion.  In essence and, when pressed, in fact, Fr. Morgan tells L.Cpl. Jones that his faith tradition is wrong on these questions.
 
In this case, is it true that "Chaplains have no business 'informing' recruits that their religious faith is 'wrong' from his perspective?"  
 
Other examples abound.  
 
In a field hospital, a battle wounded evacuee asks to speak with a ch

Re: Public Schools, Intolerance & Christian Dancers

2005-10-07 Thread Ed Darrell

ADF is larger than ACLU now?  Amazing.
 
Ed Darrell
DallasRick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Here is an ADF press release concerning a victory in a public school censorship case:


On with the show: ADF secures student's right to dance to religious music Once-censored song back in play for high school performer Friday, October 07, 2005, 8:30 AM (MST)ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020






 











Comments 



 


 
TORRANCE, Calif. - Initially barred from using religious music to accompany a dance performance audition, a California student has regained the right to take the stage after receiving support from the Alliance Defense Fund. Lauren Stoudt, a West High School student, choreographed a piece to the music "In Your Presence" in anticipation of a Dance Team concert in January 2006. School officials, however, rejected her song choice based on its religious content. "We can all agree that the First Amendment applies to all Americans," said ADF litigation staff counsel Jeremy Tedesco.  "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that schools cannot discriminate against private student _expression_ simply because that _expression_ has religious content.  The First Amendment rights of religious students do not vanish once they step on campus." After Lauren's father contacted ADF, Tedesco sent a letter to TUSD Superintendent Dr. George Mannon, West Hig!
 ! h
 School Principal Tim Stowe and other officials warning legal action if they did not allow Lauren to perform.  Officials quickly changed their tune, and agreed to permit Lauren to audition her dance routine to "In Your Presence." "ADF commends the school district for doing the right thing," Tedesco said.  "We hope other schools follow this example and respect the free speech rights of religious students." ADF is America's largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. 
 
 
 
Any thoughts? 
 
Rick Duncan
 



 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


Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.___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: Garza?

2005-09-05 Thread Ed Darrell

How are we counting Cardozo?
 
Ed DarrellRick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Now that the President has nominated Roberts for CJ, any predictions on who will be nominated to fill O'C's seat?
 
Here is mine--Judge Emilio Garza of the 5th Circuit (New Orleans).
 
This is a political 3-base hit--Garza is conservative (the base will love him), he is Hispanic (the first Hispanic to serve on the Court), and he sits in New Orleans (and it will thus serve as a nice regional gesture).
 
Of corse, there are others I would prefer (McConnell, Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown), but Garza is a choice that just fits this opening.
 
Rick DuncanRick 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


Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.___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: CNN: Bush will nominate Roberts

2005-09-05 Thread Ed Darrell

But don't forget Roberts' time as clerk, and his Washington experience.  Plus, soon there will be another new justice, with less time on the Court than Roberts has.  There will be a shuffling of relationships, and a lot of new ties formed (and rather quickly, everyone hopes).  
 
The big question remains:  Who will be the other new justice?
 
Ed DarrellEd Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would agree that of all the potential "outsider" nominees, Roberts is about as good as one could hope for. I would also agree that personal leadership skills are probably more important than experience in the long run. I just think it would be better at this point to appoint someone from within. I fully expect that Roberts will in due time be an effective CJ. I think I'm most curious to see how Scalia will deal with him, to be honest.Ed BraytonBerg, Thomas C. wrote: 
On the other hand, Earl Warren by all accounts was immediately successful as
a leader coming in from the outside (see, e.g., Brown v. Board of Ed).  And
Harlan Fiske Stone, who'd been an associate justice for 15 years, was quite
unsuccessful as chief justice, letting conferences meander and overseeing
the Court sliding into some of its worst personal acrimony ever (as opposed
to now, when the justices don't get along badly even though they're closely
divided on issues).  Burger was just a difficult, arrogant personality, and
Rehnquist a very suitable one (combining businesslike habits with a light
touch and good sense of humor).  I think that it has more to do with
personal leadership skills -- of which Roberts appears to have many -- as
opposed to actual experience.  And even on the latter score, Roberts is as
knowledgable about the Court and these justices as it's possible to be
without having been a justice himself.  And they're quite familiar with him
too.
 
Tom Berg, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis)

  _  

From: Ed Brayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Mon 9/5/2005 9:38 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: CNN: Bush will nominate Roberts


[EMAIL PROTECTED]   wrote: 


CNN is announcing that at the top of the hour President Bush will nominate
Roberts to CJ position.


Probably not a bad move politically, since it looks like Roberts will sail
through the nomination process, but I think it's a bad idea in terms of the
internal workings of the court. Without time on the court, he doesn't have
the experience to know how to deal with each justice, how the justices
interact with each other, how to handle the egos involved, and so forth.
Rehnquist was effective as CJ - far more effective than his predecessor,
certainly - because he had been on the court for 14 years by the time he was
nominated. He knew what the job required, the balances one must sometimes
carefully strike, and he had seen many examples of what not to do. He also
commanded the respect of his fellow justices. It has nothing to do with
Roberts himself, who by all accounts is a highly capable judge. He may well
grow into the position and be just fine. But at a time when the court is
more divided than ever, I think it's a bad idea to bring someone in from the
outside to run things.

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.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/05
  No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/05___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: Every Idea is an Incitement

2005-09-04 Thread Ed Darrell

Most clergy I've known or know of could present a fine, inspirational message without turning it into an establishment clause violation.  Were they to do that, few would complain.  Under present law, it's not the religious view that is contrary to the Constitution; it's religious exercise.  There is no Constitutional right against being offended.  There is a Constitutional right not to have religion imposed, even one's own religion (see Lee v. Weisman, for example).  Religious views of students are even protected.  
 
Ed Darrell
DallasSteven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Sep 2, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Brad M Pardee wrote:
It seems to me, though, that there are going to be people who object to the views of any commencement speaker who goes beyond Hallmark greeting card platitudes.  The person who strongly supports the war in Iraq isn't likely to appreciate a speaker along the lines of a Michael Moore.  The person who strongly opposes the war in Iraq isn't likely ot appreciate a speaker along the lines of President Bush.  Most commencement addresses that have any substance to them in addressing contemporary issues are going to go against the views of a measurable portion of those entitled to attend.  Why is it that only religious beliefs have to be censored to avoid objection and offense? 
Maybe its because of the special status of religion in the constitution -- i.e., the prohibition of establishment?

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/

"I care not what subject is taught if only it be taught well."

Thomas H. Huxley___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: Floodwaters and Undermined Walls

2005-09-02 Thread Ed Darrell

In a purely legal vein, I would note that the governor's call carries no penalty for noncompliance, nor any penalty for complying by praying differently, or to a different deity.  In short, it's not on all four squares with Judge Dement's decision (for which he won the Profiles in Courage award, if I recall correctly.)
 
On the other hand, that's about all New Orleans has.  The recommendations to rebuild the barrier islands were non-starters when proposed in the Reagan administration, nor have we had the Congressional will for it since then.  So government action that could have reduced, slowed and perhaps stopped the storm surges wasn't taken.  The plans by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to bolster the levees to prevent the breach from the Ponchartrain were defunded by the current administration, so that work has been on hold for at least three years (do you think the administration will agree to fund the project now?).  FEMA's concerns about water contamination after such disasters have been put on the back burner -- funding issues again.  The question about whether FCC should require the elevation of the platforms cell towers and processors rested on sorta got shuffled off the table by the FCC's preoccupation with other, more burning issues, like Janet Jack!
 son's
 breast.  So those platforms all sit at 11 feet above sea-level, too low to have withstood the flood waters.   Cell phone service is out.  NOAA's great job of weather forecasting came despite slowed funding, and in the face of calls to stop gathering weather information in great detail to save money (after all, the TV weather guys now have their own radar, right?).  And we all know that there is no government action to reduce human contributions to global warming, which increases the frequency and severity of such cyclonic storms.
 
So, with the present bunch in Washington, it seems all New Orleans has is a prayer.  It's not enough.
 
But I'd bet on a reversal of those policies in Washington, before I'd bet that anyone files suit against the governor of Louisiana.  Her call for prayer doesn't exhibit any of the problems Judge Dement noted in the earlier case.
 
Let's not get distracted by unlikely hypotheticals.  North Carolina, Florida, Texas, and other coastal areas can still be saved, with action.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


The wall is the central metaphor defining the meaning and work of the Establishment Clause for many commentators including on this list.  When the government "gets away" with some emblematic behavior tinged with religious connotations, the hue and cry of breach is predictable.
 
We are all watching with horror as the situation on the gulf coast goes from terrible to unimaginable.  And in the midst of it, suddenly, the breach of the levee walls made the unimaginable simply a stop on the road to the unthinkable.
 
But this list is for thinking.
 
As I have heard the cable news bulldogs talking about lack of sufficient preparation on the part of the federal government, I wondered, "Is that really the case?  Have all federal government officials really fallen down on the job?"
 
It took me a few minutes of thought to recall that at least one federal official, a judge, had looked ahead to this day.  Like the proverbial ant laboring through the summer's sunshine, he prepared for this eventually.  And, unlike so many "talkers," he actually did something.
 
You may be wondering about the identity of the judge in question.  I am wondering how you could forget a judge who would have the prescience, the forethought, to see the inevitability of a future disaster of, well, biblical proportions, and take action. 
 
I am, of course, referring to Judge Ira DeMent.  
 
After he concluded that the Alabama Prayer Statute was unconstitutional, he issued a permanent injunction that was, if I correctly recall, much debated and with heat on this list.  One key feature of his order, the one which demonstrates today his prescience then was his judicial ban on _expression_ of religious or devotional sentiments over school public address systems even in times of war, natural disaster, or serious community distress.  
 
This week, as Katrina has worn away at the levee walls in New Orleans, we have the news that another assault on the wall of separation took place yesterday, when Louisiana's Governor declared a Day of Prayer.  Governor Blanco urged Louisianans to pray to God and even told them how to pray and what things for which to pray.  You can read her declaration here. Or point your browser to http://www.gov.state.la.us/Press_Release_detail.asp?id=988.
 
I wonder whether anyone will be found to stand in this breach?  Will any forward thinking, DeMent-minded person or group will step forward to close it again, to push back the might rushing waters of government-encouraged, government-endorsed religious invocatio

Re: Floodwaters and Undermined Walls

2005-09-01 Thread Ed Darrell

Were there penalties in the past, they would have pre-dated the Establishment Clause, and so would not be relevant to EC litigation.  Washington's actions are noteworthy, perhaps:  Congress sent him (non-binding) resolutions calling for days of prayer or fasting; Washington carefully edited out references to Jesus or other specific deific mentions, and issued (non-binding) calls for days of thanks, etc.  
 
Washington also lived long before Keynes noted that governments need not sit idly by and watch disaster happen.  But Washington was rarely, if ever, accused of sitting on his hands.  As a behind-the-scenes instigator of the Constitutional convention, he rather clearly demonstrated his bias for action as far as humans can go, before, during and after resort to prayer.  And at his inaugural, once the official, government exercises were done, Washington and company adjourned to a church up the street, away from the government hall, for prayer and a sermon.  I think Judge Dement would have approved of that, too.   
 
Surely there should be no less separation after incorporation.  
 
We can learn a lot from history.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


In a message dated 9/1/2005 4:11:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a purely legal vein, I would note that the governor's call carries no penalty for noncompliance, nor any penalty for complying by praying differently, or to a different deity.
These define a standard by which adventures in Establishment Clause violations could be measured.  In fact, I suspect that a record of evidence could be mounted to show that, in the early history of our country, at least in the colonial period, that individual but public failure to honor days of fasting and prayer did, in fact, carry these kinds of penalties, and help to characterize and define the established nature of the respective colonial state churches. 
 
Of course, what happened in the colonial period, or in the States before Incorporation, for that matter, does not per se inform us of the meaning of the Establishment Clause but, as with the jailing of Baptist preachers, it can provide a persuasive backdrop against which to argue for Jefferson's or Madison's view of maximizing religious liberty.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___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: Military Distribution of Bibles

2005-08-31 Thread Ed Darrell

Here's part of the FAQ from the Gideon Society:
"Question: I understand that The Gideons International provides Bibles and New Testaments to military chaplains for placement and distribution to military personnel. What are the guidelines and how do I obtain them?
"Answer: Requests for military Scriptures must be received from the military chaplain."The Gideons will supply, free of charge, a small Testament to every member of the U.S. Armed Forces and to patients at U.S. Veterans Administration hospitals. The Testaments are to be presented by Gideons or by the Military Chaplain assigned to such units. Chaplains may order these Testaments either through the local Gideons or the Headquarters Office. No provision is made for presenting Testaments to families or dependents of service personnel or to Nationals in other countries."Bibles are available to Chaplains for placement in day rooms, libraries, and guardhouses on military bases and military chapels. The Gideons do not have a program to supply Bibles for quarters, barracks, Bachelor Officer's quarters (BOQ's) or military guesthouses."Hospital Testaments with Psalms are available for the bedside in base hospitals or in U.S. Veterans Administration ho!
spitals.
Testaments may also be distributed to medical personnel working at such hospitals. Whenever possible, these Testaments should be presented to the medical personnel by members of the Auxiliary of The Gideons International, although the presentation may be made by the Chaplain in charge, if necessary."
Here's their website: http://www.gideons.org/faq.html
Ed Darrell
DallasGordon James Klingenschmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

The mass distribution of Bibles to new recruits is generally done by Chaplains, in the chapel, which is optional attendance, and the funding comes from private sources like the Gideons. Campus Crusade for Christ raises alot of money to purchase and distribute New Testaments and gospel tracts to soldiers and sailors, but they do it through the Chaplains. And it's not forced upon them, it's only offered.
As a chaplain, I'd love to get government funding for the printing of God's word, like they authorized vastly in the 1800's, but alas, today it isn't so. If your student can show otherwise, let me know. I'd like to tap that government funding source, and get many more Bibles (smile)...
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Michael Besso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In a political science course on constitutional rights and liberties thatI teach, a student asked about the Armys practice of distributing theBible (perhaps the New Testament only) to new recruits during basictraining. She recalls this from her own relatively recent experience. (Iwent through the Armys basic training some years ago -- lets just saythat, at the time, it was Reagans America -- and I also received aBible, which I believe was the New Testament only, from the basic trainingcommand. To be clear: it was distributed to each soldier, and not merelysomething that I sought out and retained.)The news of developments regarding practices in the Air Force isinteresting, to say the least, but does any list member have insight intothis related issue, of the distribution of Bibles in the military? Doesthe practice conti!
! nue?
Has there been any policy or legal dispute aboutthe issue?Thank you,Michael Besso___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.
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___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

Re: UC system sued

2005-08-28 Thread Ed Darrell

Jim, do you mean like Mormons and Moslems who do not accept communism on religious reasons?  No, they don't get a pass on the parts of the history or economics exams that deal with communism.  
 
Are there other examples?
 
Ed Darrell
DallasJames Maule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Question 6 (followup). Does anyone know if any of the AP tests (or theSAT or ACT for that matter) make distinctions based on issues that havereligious flavor?___
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: UC system sued

2005-08-28 Thread Ed Darrell

1. & 2.  Yes, a university may rely on the AP tests.  Generally, AP tests are understood to be eligible for credit at some institutions.  Pragmatically, a school like Harvey Mudd requires a 5 on the AP calculus exam in order to get out of freshman calculus.  Other schools may excuse part of the math requirement for non-science majors.  The University of Texas at Dallas uses AP scores as one indicator of which level of math incoming freshman should have.  I suspect other schools that are not so science-oriented may grant a full pass on calculus to kids who score a 3 or higher on the exam.   To the extent that universities rely on the AP test scores, the university really doesn't care what preparation was used to get there -- but if the course is billed as "Advanced Placement (trademark registered)," then the College Board protects its reputation by checking out the curriculum of the school offering the course.&nb!
 sp; A
 school curriculum that does not measure up to AP standards may not carry the trademark "AP."  For AP biology, by the way, 9% of the exam is pure evolution, and about 30% of the exam requires a good, working knowledge of evolution.  Kids who don't know evolution are unlikely to score well on the AP biology exam.
 
3. & 4.  Better institutions have placement exams they use for kids who don't take the AP exam or otherwise have demonstrations of where they should be placed.  There used to be the College Level Entrance Placement exam (CLEP), which allowed astute students to test out of basic requirements.
 
5.  The AP exams in science are written on the basis of the state of the science.  To the extent intelligent design has experimentally demonstrated its viability, it is included on the exam as "correct," but no slack is cut for a topic because some people hope experiments might be done in the future.  My experience is that the AP exams are class-level-appropriate surveys of the current state of the science, in the various sciences.  Areas of ignorance are not rewarded.
 
6.  I don't know the answer; but I'm curious:  In what subject does any religious "flavor" depart from general reality?  The average annual rainfall in the Amazon Basin is the same for the Yanomano, the Catholic, the Moslem, the Jew.  Why shouldn't a religious kid have the same information everybody else has?  And if the religious kid chooses not to study a given subject, why should the consequences of not studying the subject be different for a religious kid than for anyone else who didn't study the subject?
 
 
Ed Darrell
DallasJames Maule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Fascinating discussion. I have several questions the answers to whichmight help me see the context.Questions 1 and 2. If a university's concern is whether an incomingstudent is prepared for advanced calculus, or biology 101, or whatever,doesn't it rely on the Advanced Placement tests? Unless the universityfinds that too few students do well enough on those tests, whatdifference does it make how the student prepares or what book is usedwhen the ultimate measure is the result of the AP test in that subject?Questions 3 and 4. For incoming students who do not take an AP test ina subject, are there comparable tests? If not, cannot the Universityadminister one or have one administered on its behalf?Question 5 (getting to the point). If the AP test for, say biology,grades as correct responses that reject intelligent design !
 (or
 somevariation or similar approach) and grades as incorrect responses to thecontrary, then is there a 1A issue when a state or state-supporteduniversity relies on such a test and its grading system?Question 6 (followup). Does anyone know if any of the AP tests (or theSAT or ACT for that matter) make distinctions based on issues that havereligious flavor?Jim MauleVillanova University School of Law>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/28/2005 9:03:55 AM >>>Hmmm. These additional facts help. Thanks, Jim.Certainly, a state University is entitled to a great deal of deferencein its admissions decisions. But the Free Speech Clause also contains astrong presumption against viewpoint suppression, and the letters Jimquotes sound like the U is admitting that it is engaged in suchsuppression.Moreover, it also appears that the U is targeting theologicallyconservative Christian schools for
 discrimination, again based upon theChristian perspective of the textbooks used. The burden on Fr Ex isgreat unlike in Davey (denial of admission to a tax-funded State U).There may even be EC problems with the U entangling itself in thecurriculum of religious schools to this extent. This is a very interesting 1A case. Discovery will be interesting--Iwonder if the emails posted among the powers that be at UC will revealthat the policy is not as much about academic rigor as suppression ofunpopular ideas and religious animus?If the question was is this a serious 1A c

Re: UC system sued

2005-08-27 Thread Ed Darrell

I've reviewed both of the biology books mentioned, and in the editions I saw, they were academically inadequate.  I'm not a practicing biologist any longer, but even I could see glaring errors of science in them, wholly apart from any "intelligent design" issue.  My recollection is that neither book covered intelligent design.
 
Religion should not demand the use of books that are just plain bad.  The Bob Jones books may have other difficulty under California law.  In addition to the books clear statement that science takes second place to theology in the books -- a statement of purpose which could make it difficult to defend the books in court as academically suitable, I can imagine -- the biology book takes potshots at Latter-day Saints, according to the material available on their website, according to other reports I've seen today.  
 
It seems to me the law is quite clear, and these cases turn on the specific analysis of the evidence presented.  It would be difficult to make a case that these books are suitable preparation for college biology, I think.
 
This site quotes from the Bob Jones biology book:  http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/08/more-on-california-creationist-lawsuit.html
 
Here's a link that allows one to view the first chapter of the book; the digression against Mormonism and Joseph Smith is on page 9:  http://www.bjup.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?parent_category_rn=279832&samplePage=21&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=1514951
 
If the other courses are based on books as bad in history as this one is in biology, it would be difficult to defend the course, I think.  
 
Courses that do not meet accepted standards, or state standards, should not be counted as courses that do.  In admitting freshmen and determining where to place them, many, if not most, good universities take into account the academic rigor of the high school from which the student graduated and the coursework the student actually completed.  At the University of Texas-Dallas, to pick one example, having taken Advanced Placement Calculus is not considered automatically as having understood the subject well enough to avoid taking it as the university teaches it.  A bad calculus book can sink a kid's hopes for advanced placement in calculus.  Why wouldn't a good university apply similar standards to other courses?
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 8/28/2005 12:56:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would argue that rejecting the pedagogical validity of such a textbook is not a "naked bias" but an exercise in educational responsibility. If the textbook said that science must take a backseat to interpretation of the Quran or the Vedic scriptures, it would be equally necessary to devalue such a course in preparing a student for college level science courses. 

Again, if the sources cited for the existence of this litigation are to be believed, the UC system is not focused on the ID/evolution question.  It is one source of disqualification of coursework.  But courses in history, literature and civics have also been put in jeopardy.  The focus is not ID.  You have banged the drum on the ID question and made clear how unscientific ID thinking is, but for the love of Pete, could you formulate a law and religion argument for why the university system is sending out form letters threatening invalidation of courses in history, literature and civics?
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___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: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

2005-08-23 Thread Ed Darrell

Didn't mean to kick off a different fight.  Yes, I know what Dini's website said originally -- quickly worded, and open to opportunistic misinterpretation by a publicity-seeking legal firm, but the fact remains that Dini asked only that kids explain the scientific version of evolution to indicate that they understood what the scientific consensus is.  The Justice Department backed off when Dini changed one word.
 
The kid had failed to even enroll in Dini's course, so he was ineligible on all criteria.  The Justice Department's intervention was unfortunate, I thought -- an attempt to use religion to get around a science requirement, tantamount to the circumstances in Settle v. Dickson.  
 
Dr. Dini, a faithful Catholic (and former priest), was vilified in religious media as some sort of faithless monster.  The accusation that he was antagonistic to religion was and remains patently false.  The fact of the matter was that the kid had made no demonstration of the academic horsepower required, and I suspect any suit would have been tossed for lack of standing.  There was no showing, nor even hint of a showing, that Dini would deny a recommendation to any student who had scored well academically, but believed in creationism -- so long as the student could explain the theory of evolution.  Dini was asking academic rigor only.  
 
I could really raise ire by putting it this way:  "This is the sort of abuse that scientists have to put up with:  If one demands a student demonstrate knowledge, the Justice Department comes down on one."
 
My original point stands:  The religious kid did not abandon science, but instead called in the Justice Department to keep him there. 
 
I suspect few ID advocates will agree with anything else I've said or could say about the situation.  I regret that.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas
 
Francis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Although I defend (and defended at the time) the professors academic freedom to be discretionary in writing letters of recommendation, I dont think that Eds depiction of what actually happened is completely accurate.   The TT professor (his name is Dini) would not write a letter of recommendation if a student persisted in believing in creation even if the student had scored 100% in his class and could explain with great articulation and insight neo-Darwinian evolution. In other words, the students performance and intellectual abilities were of no relevance if the student did not offer to his professor the proper confession. You can read Professor Dinis test for yourself: http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htmHere
 are stories about it (written from different perspectives):http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7385/354http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-31-2003-34696.asphttp://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/dini/http://www.boundless.org/2002_2003/features/a679.html?ResultsOnly=Christmasspendinghttp://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02695920.htmhttp://www.arn.org/docs2/news/fedsdropcase01042303.htmFrankOn 8/23/05 6:35 PM, "Ed Darrell"
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In 2003 the Justice Department investigated a report of religious discrimination at Texas Tech University, where a popular and tough biology professor required students to pass his classes in biology before he'd write them a recommendation to medical school.  He also required kids to explain evolution to him, to indicate that they understood the science.  The protesting student argued it was a religious burden to try to meet those qualifications. It would appear that religious students are not driven from science so much as they ask science to be changed to accommodate them, from anecdotal evidence. Ed DarrellDallasNewsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark, with due respect, I don't think that there is an equivalence here.The news reports about students being driven away from science rest onempirical data. There is no empirical data that the questioner at thebeginning of the NYT article was driven away from the natural sciences.-Original Message-From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:41 PMTo: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO ArticleUnfortunately, it seems likely that many students who are religious havebeen driven away from the sciences (in particular the biologicalsciences)by the anti-religious attitudes of some scientists. See, e.g., some ofthestatements quoted in today's NY Times athttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html. Mark S. ScarberryPepperdine University School of Law-Original Message-From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:51 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO ArticleThe facts are

RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

2005-08-23 Thread Ed Darrell

In 2003 the Justice Department investigated a report of religious discrimination at Texas Tech University, where a popular and tough biology professor required students to pass his classes in biology before he'd write them a recommendation to medical school. He also required kids to explain evolution to him, to indicate that they understood the science. The protesting student argued it was a religious burden to try to meet those qualifications.
It would appear that religious students are not driven from science so much as they ask science to be changed to accommodate them, from anecdotal evidence.
Ed Darrell
DallasNewsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark, with due respect, I don't think that there is an equivalence here.The news reports about students being driven away from science rest onempirical data. There is no empirical data that the questioner at thebeginning of the NYT article was driven away from the natural sciences.-Original Message-From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:41 PMTo: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO ArticleUnfortunately, it seems likely that many students who are religious havebeen driven away from the sciences (in particular the biologicalsciences)by the anti-religious attitudes of some scientists. See, e.g., some ofthestatements quoted in today's NY Times
athttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html. Mark S. ScarberryPepperdine University School of Law-Original Message-From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:51 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO ArticleThe facts are what they are. Many American students have been drivenaway from the natural sciences because of the overreaching of somereligionists.-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:01 PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO ArticleMichael,Ask Pascal about the role of faith in inspiring reason. Ask Newton. For that matter, ask Einstein.It is nothing but pap and drivel that can be found in the
mischaracterization that those who find design in nature are seeking to drive high school students away from the natural sciences. Now if you had said the unnatural ones, of course, that is another matter entirely.Jim HendersonSenior CounselACLJ-Original Message-From: Newsom Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:10:34 -0400Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO ArticleThere is no secular purpose here. ID is not science. It is a cover for the theology of a particular religious group. To say that one should teach religious objections of a particular religious group in science class clearly violates the EC. There can be no secular purpose behind this selectivity. The IDers are not asking that the views of those religious that are comfortable with evolution be taught. It *might*
be possible to construct a course on evolution and religion, or on science and religion (although I think that it would be exceedingly difficult to construct such a course for primary and elementary school students). But that is not what the IDers are asking for. They want special privileges for their religion, and their religion alone. Again, such special privileges would clearly violate the EC.They also want to drive American high school students away from the natural sciences, and there is, alas, some evidence that they are succeeding. News accounts have reported that in some school districts, peer pressure by overzealous religious students has caused other students to opt out of science courses. In a post-9/11 world, this is nothing short of a disaster. This doggedly persistent quest for special privileges for a particular religion or religious point of view poses great danger to our national security. The !
?values?
of the IDers will not keep terrorists and others at bay, but science might.But, this is nothing new or revolutionary. The country went through this in the period 1930 ? 1976 when science clearly trumped religion, largely for national security reasons. How quickly we forget, it seems.-Original Message-From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 12:22 AMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO ArticleWell, Ed, I think you are just misreading the decision. The case was decided based solely on the legislature's non-secular purpose. The Court did not hold that any particular book or curriculum was religion and not science. Indeed, no book or creation science curriculum was even part of the record in the case, which

Re: No Secular Purpose

First, it's the motivations of the government officials who order ID be taught in the absence of any valid secular purpose that the judges analyze.  Those motivations are revealed in any number of ways, but it's certainly fair to look at statements by ID advocates, especially people like Bill Dembski and Phillip Johnson, that their target is to change the religious tenor of the schools.  Those advocates are the "usual suspects" the ID-favoring legislators go to.  Were we to disqualify those who contrived the field, the statements of the legislators would probably be more effective to establish religious motive.  
 
Of course, the motive argument is only relevant when there is no solid science to back the claims of ID.  So ID advocates would still be better off to get to a lab, and why they've waited well over a decade is a delay I find wholly mysterious.
 
Second, you're looking at Madison and Jefferson through the wrong end of the microscope.  They're talking about what government can do -- establishment clause issues, instead of free exercise issues.  Neither Madison nor Jefferson ever regarded any education as punishment.  In point of fact, both were very active in pursuing arguments opposed to their philosophies.  It's a good model to follow.  Madison, Jefferson, Washington and Franklin were all quite astute as to what evidence was required to establish things material, and how fruitless it was to deny philosophically what was in evidence materially  (see for example Franklin's series of letters to British newspapers about why their churches were struck by lightning and burned, while the churches of American colonists were not).  The religious motives of the advocates are illegal when enacted into legislation, absent other valid, secular motives.  Certainly they will be
 scrutinized.
 
If a case is very good for a curriculum on secular grounds, the religious motivation is additional, and while it might be contested, valid secular purposes tend to carry the day.  The Jewish religious significance of handwashing and bathing has never been a factor arguing against teaching good hygiene to kids in public schools.  When things are quite concrete and clear, the religious arguments tend not to be a factor.
 
But bad curricula are taught, generally with religious motivation.  Dr. Chance's recent indictment of one particularly bad Bible studies curriculum is a good example.  Some of the problems in the curriculum produced howls of laughter from the Methodist and Jewish audiences I've seen -- and groans, too.  These are groups who prefer that scripture be taught, but they want it taught well.  That hasn't deterred some school officials who have defended the curriculum and say they plan to keep it.
 
Third, religious motives are exactly what Jefferson was aiming at, and appropriate areas for court inquiry, I think.  In his drive to get the Bible out of elementary and secondary schools, for example, Jefferson argued that use of the Bible was ineffective in its secular guise, as a reader, and wholly inappropriate as reading material for young minds, and in whatever guise, unconscionably sectarian.  Instead of the Bible, Jefferson said, kids could get instruction on morality.  He didn't disagree that kids need to learn moral behavior.  He disagreed that morals should be taught from any one religious view.
 
But of course, ID advocates ultimately can't have it both ways.  One of the arguments advanced in Cobb County, Georgia, was that banning the warning stickers was an affront to Christians.  Before lawyers told them the law, that was the argument of school board members in Pennsylvania, too.  As an active and practicing Christian, I have difficulty figuring out what these peole say is offensive in evolution.  That is evidence again that it's a sectarian issue, and not one of science.
 
Ed Darrell
DallasFrancis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ed:Its not clear to me why the beliefs of ID advocates should be the object of judicial assessment.  As I understand the Madisonian and Jeffersonian traditions on matters religious, the state has no right, and thus no legitimate power, to interfere with the religious consciences of individual citizens.  That is, to paraphrase Justice Black, citizens should not be rewarded or punished because of their beliefs or disbeliefs. What you seem to be suggesting, Ed (and perhaps I am reading you wrongly), is that the religious motives of ID advocates are sufficient to reject its teaching in the classroom. And then you say that even if the motives were non-religious, the lack of a good case for ID would be sufficient.  But what of the case in which a curriculum is supported by exclusively religious motives but the case for it is very good? &nb!
 sp;What
 happens in the case. I think what happens is that the stuff gets taught because it is good and the motives of its supporters play no part.  On the

RE: Religious Polygamy

Back to the evidence:  CDC studies show that condoms alone are at least 90% effective in preventing the spread of HIV when one partner is HIV positive.  The 90% was calculated on the basis of 9 out of 10 of the couples had no spread of the disease, not that 1 out of every 10 acts was infective.  There remain some areas where information and education are still our best tools against disease.
 
Ed Darrell
DallasRick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Does Sandy now agree with me that male on male anal sodomy is "victim-causing" behavior? If so, then the law could rationally go after this problem without going after other types of sexual behavior. Indeed, since this particular form of sexual intimacy is disproportionally associated with the spread of AIDs, as well as many other STDs, I assume it would be rational to single this behavior out for criminal liability.
 
Of course, Texas defended its sodomy laws on moral grounds alone and Lawrence merely holds that morality alone is an insufficient state interest to justify criminalizing consensual sexual conduct. Suppose Texas enacts a ban on homosexual anal sodomy and defends it as a health measure. Now the Court would have to decide whether there is a fundamental right of sexual autonomy, and whether it applies to all consensual sexual activities or only to some. It is not helpful to say it protects only "non-victim-causing" sexual conduct, because all sexual conduct has 3d party consequences--pregnancies, disease,etc. Indeed, sexual conduct is a kind of behavior that has some of the most profound effects on third parties and on society.
 
Cheers, RickSanford Levinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



I think that "consensual adultery" should indeed be protected.  But that is obviously a very tiny subset of the behavior subsumed under laws prohibiting adultery.
 
So is Rick defending the criminalization only of male-on-male anal sodomy, but not, say, the criminalization of fellatio or cunninlingus?  Actually, I assume he would defend the criminalization of all anal sodomy, including heterosexual (and between married couples, unless the married couples had passed HIV tests, but it that is enough to save heterosexual anal sodomy, then why wouldn't sodomy between men who were both HIV negative be equally all right).  
 
sandy


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rick DuncanSent: Sun 8/21/2005 12:41 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Religious Polygamy

Sandy: If W consents to H's adultery with X, exactly who is the victim? Doesn't Lawrence recognize the dignity of consenting adults to define their own intimate lives?
 
And isn't male on male anal sodomy "victim causing" in terms of AIDS and other STDs that are disproportiantely spread by this type of behavior?
 
Cheers, RickSanford Levinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Rick writes:
 
 



The only possible crime (assuming all parties are consenting adults) is adultery, and criminal adultery laws probably don't survive Lawrence (or do they?). 
 
I'm not sure why adultery laws wouldn't survive Recall that Blackmun, in his Bowers dissent, took care to indicate that his argument didn't extent to adultery or incest.  
 
Lawrence, at least as a matter of formal analysis, inasmuch as we it is certainly rational to view adultery as a victim-creating activity and a well-substantiated threat to marriage.   Those of us who support same-sex marriage (not to mention the far easier case of Lawrence) view the actions as creating no victims and, in fact, probably strengthening the institution of marriage.  (Ironically, the ban on incest, at least between adults, is probably harder to defend after Lawrence.)
 
sandy___To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]To 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.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 
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this l

Re: No Secular Purpose

We're back to the evidence.  Under the circumstances listed below, I don't think ID can qualify as science.  If  there is no research, no data, and no support, on what basis could it be called science?  What other reason would there be to teach it, then, other than religion?  We cannot expect courts, or pro-science client attorneys, to turn a blind eye to the many statements of ID advocates that the purpose of the ID movement is to put religion back in the schools.  But even absent those statements, it would be difficult for ID proponents to establish a non-religious purpose to what would be portrayed as junk science in the classroom.  It would be interesting to see a defense of ID as non-religious, but constitutionally-acceptable pseudo-science.  I doubt such a defense would be a winner.
 
Nor is there a science purpose to "exposing students to the controversy" that would be acceptable to ID advocates, I think.  A fair curriculum would of necessity expose the manifold errors of ID, and ID advocates would protest.  That's why high school biology texts take it so easy on creationism now.
 
Creationists need courses in evidence in civil procedure, not Constitutional law.
 
Ed Darrell
DallasRick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 
The EC bans religious endorsements, but so long as ID is not religion, it can be taught in science classes. Even if there are no ID labs, if ID consists of scientists like Behe discussing scientific data and scientific concepts like irreducible complexity, there should be no EC problem when it is taught for the purpose of exposing students to the controversy.
 
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]To 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

Yes, a scientific view could be religious -- and this is why it is so important that what is claimed as science be science.
 
Darwin was Christian when he discovered evolution.  He had no religious intent in publishing the theory.  As some wag noted, evolution allows atheists to be "intellectually fulfilled."  Imagine that:  A scientist with religious motivation, whose discovery could aid a much different view of theology.  
 
Teach the facts first.  The controversy should be dealt with in a philosophy course, later.  
 
Religious views cover a broad spectrum, and some of those views run headlong into what we know about our universe from science.  Most religious groups adapt.  Christian Scientists do not insist that the germ theory of disease not be taught.  Christian Scientists I know don't even ask that their kids be excused from such courses or course matter.  
 
Motive is important when there is no clear secular purpose.  
 
Mormons believe, as a matter of faith, that all knowledge glorifies God.  When the Utah legislature passes a compulsory attendance rule, or when they support education in any other way, should we seriously expect others to challenge it?
 
Some faiths believe it is a sin to lie.  Should we really expect challenges to perjury laws?
 
This is why Madison and Jefferson and Franklin and Washington -- three of them accomplished scientists -- favored a separation of government and church.  Let government stick by the science, and let the churches make adaptations as best they can.
 
Ed Darrell
DallasFrankie Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Could not a claim both be scientific and religious at the same time? Conceptually, I don't see any problem with that. But this raises an interesting problem. Suppose a particular scientific theory happens to lend support to a religious point of view in strong way, e.g., the Big Bang lends supports to first cause arguments. Suppose that a devout theist on a school board realizes this and suggests that an intro to science text book mention the Big Bang theory (Imagine, ironically, that its absence is a result of young earth creationists getting it removed because it is inconsistent with their view of the earth's age, which is, by the way, a view many of them hold.). Imagine further that it were discovered later that the inclusion of the Big Bang was motivated by religion, even though the purpose of the inclusion is secular because it is the better scientific theory and students!
  ought to
 learn the better scientif theory. This tells us two things: (1) motive and purpose are conceptually distinct, since the former is a belief held by minds and the latter, when it comes to statutes, is a property held by texts; and (2)clearly, the better scientific theory could be the more religious one in comparison to its rivals, but that seems like a less than good reason to prohibit teaching it in public schools.FrankOn Sunday, August 21, 2005, at 12:43PM, Ed Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>><>No virus found in this outgoing message.>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.>Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/05>>___>To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]>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.>--Francis J. Beckwith, MJS, PhDAssociate Professor of Church-State StudiesAssociate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies, Baylor University<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Rick Duncan wrote: 

Ed: I guess we just read the case differently. Because the law was not allowed to go into effect, there was no curriculum ever adopted in any school for the Court to make any finding about whatsoever.You have to read quotations in context!Of course you have to read quotations in context. But you've pointed out nothing in the context which changes the clear meaning that I spoke of. As I said, the fact that they don't even have a specific curriculum to strike down but still said that teaching "creation science" in any form, regardless of any specific curriculum, was unconstitutional, actually strengthens my position. And as Ed Darrell pointed out, the district court's decision was based strongly on McLean v. Arkansas, which ruled that creation science is explicitly religious in nature and not scientific and therefore could not be mandated without an EC problem.

  I guess I'll teach Edwards in my Con Law II class based upon my best reading (which I believe is correct) and Ed can teach it in his Con Law II class based upon his best reading.If I taught a con law cl

Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

The district court in Edwards issued summary judgment, based in large part on the decision in McLean.  It is worth remembering that in that case, in deposition, each of the creationists' experts was asked whether there was science backing creationism.  Under oath, each said there is no science behind it.  Each said creationism is based on scripture.
 
Understanding that point, we can see why the court in Louisiana cut to the chase so quickly.  Had the legislature offered any suggestion that there was new science in the ensuing five years that backed creationism?  No.  
 
The difficulty with all forms of creationism, including ID, is that there is no active research program, anywhere.  One cannot take a photo of an ID laboratory to introduce in court.  One cannot point to any research projects that offer to provide cures for cancer, new pharmaceuticals for any disease, new crops or better crops, or even new questions for research (as one could get from theoretical physics).  
 
An earnest wish from a legislature that there be science cannot substitute for science.  The ID advocates have been more careful in the past year to play down the religious foundations of ID, but it's difficult to jettison a history of more than a decade.
 
The Pythagorean theorem was, indeed, a fundamental part of the religion of Pythagoras.  But it's not a violation of the EC to teach it, because it's got a solid foundation in mathematics, which works the same for all people regardless their lack of faith or faithfulness, regardless the deity.  Religious intent becomes coincidental and not a disqualifier under the Lemon test, when there is science to back the material to be taught.  The Arkansas and Louisiana decisions provide a roadmap for how to get creationism into science classes:  Do the science.  For reasons I don't understand, advocates have instead undertaken more elaborate ways to mask religious intent.  
 
Unless and until there is a significant body of science behind intelligent design, with real results and a number of real laboratories doing real research, these cases will focus on the religious intent of the legislative body -- because, of course, no legislative body wants to face voters with the argument that they argue for pseudoscience "just to be fair."  "Teach the controversy" defenses tend to break down in court, I suspect, when it becomes clear that teaching the controversy frustrates teaching the facts that are necessary to understand the controversy.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas
 
Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Well, Ed, I think you are just misreading the decision. The case was decided based solely on the legislature's non-secular purpose. The Court did not hold that any particular book or curriculum was religion and not science. Indeed, no book or creation science curriculum was even part of the record in the case, which was a facial attack on a statute not a particular creation science program.
 
This is why it seems clear that a school board that required Behe's book to be taught in science class as part of the discussion of evolution would not violate the EC--provided they were careful to clearly articulate a secular purpose. Teaching the controversy (i.e. exposing students to the ID theory) is a secular purpose and Behe's book is not religion (and Behe is a scientist, not a theologian). Whether ID is good or bad science education is not an issue the Court can (or should) decide. It is an issue for school boards and/or state legislatures to decide. 
 
Cheers, Rick DuncanEd Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rick Duncan wrote: 

Edwards did not hold that "creation science" could not be taught in the govt schools. Nor did it hold that "creation science" was religion and not science. It held only that the particular law (the "Balanced Treatment Act") was invalid because it did not have a secular purpose. Even here, the Ct accomplished this only by misinterpreting the stated secular purpose--academic freedom for students--and saying that since the law did not advance academic freedom for teachers it was a sham. Scalia's dissent demolished the majority's reasoning on this point.I don't think this description squares with the decision itself. Here is the actual holding:-1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594.!
 ! (a) The
 Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." Forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught undermines the provision of a comprehensive scientific education. Moreover, requiring the teaching of creation science with e

Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

2005-08-20 Thread Ed Darrell

When read in conjunction with the decision in McLean v. Arkansas, which was used by the Louisiana district court, what Edwards says is that science, backed by data and corroborated by experiment, must be taught in science classes.  
 
The easiest way to get something into the science books would be to do some experiments that support one's hypothesis and publish them.  By the time of the trial in 1981, there was no body of research supporting creationism as current, valid science.  Proponents could produce no evidence of any such research.
 
Surveys done within the past six years have repeatedly found no new research in the area, either.  Nor is there any significant body of research supporting the intelligent design branch of creationism.
 
And that is why I keep saying this is an issue that will turn on the evidence.  If science can be shown, that science can be taught.  
 
Because there is no body of science supporting any form of creationism including intelligent design, legislative bodies including school boards are left with no valid, secular purpose to order instruction against evolution.  
 
Commentaries that claim it would be legal to teach intelligent design beg the question.  All such commentaries assume that science has been demonstrated, but that assumption has not been borne out in any court, and I don't think it can be.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas
 
Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Edwards did not hold that "creation science" could not be taught in the govt schools. Nor did it hold that "creation science" was religion and not science. It held only that the particular law (the "Balanced Treatment Act") was invalid because it did not have a secular purpose. Even here, the Ct accomplished this only by misinterpreting the stated secular purpose--academic freedom for students--and saying that since the law did not advance academic freedom for teachers it was a sham. Scalia's dissent demolished the majority's reasoning on this point.
 
Rick DuncanEd Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As a further note on the connection between this and EC jurisprudence, there is a major lawsuit going on right now in Pennsylvania over this and the central question will be whether ID is a scientific theory or merely old-fashioned creationism dressed up in vaguely scientific-sounding language. If it is the latter, then the Edwards precedent applies. And so far, the evidence is strongly on the side of the first conclusion, not the second. The criticisms of evolution offered by the ID crowd - and that is all ID actually is at this point, a set of criticisms of evolutionary theory, there is no ID theory or model - are the same criticisms that were found in creation science that was ruled out of public school science classrooms in 1987. In fact, I have just today been reading the deposition of the publisher of the textbook, Of Pand!
 ! as and
 People, that the Dover school board put into science classrooms there. His name is Jon Buell. In that deposition he makes the very damaging admission that they used the exact same definition in the book of "creation science" as they used for "intelligent design". In fact, the original draft of the book used the terms "creation", "creationism" and "creation science" and they were later simply replaced with the phrase "intelligent design" with no change in the definition or the positions attributed to them as distinct ideas at all. And this is from the first (and only) "intelligent design" textbook ever produced, the very book that coined the phrase. This is likely to be very compelling in court.Ed Brayton-- No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/05___!
 ! 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.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
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,

Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

2005-08-20 Thread Ed Darrell

No, I'm not saying high schools are more sophisticated -- the opposite, actually.  In college classes discussions may be had in state-sponsored schools on topics and proposals that would be impermissible in high schools for establishment clause violations.  I don't think there's a lot of litigation in the area, but generally college professors, especially with tenure, have a lot more leeway.  There is rarely a firmly established set of guidelines or teaching objectives.  In college we look a lot more to the results, rather than the processes.
 
For example, college courses have been teaching the Bible as literature and history for a long time -- that's where we get the better books in Bible studies.  Has anyone ever complained about these?  
 
In my biology courses professors would frequently use Darwin's methods, setting a question, such as "evolution of the eye seems, at first glance, absurd" -- and then they'd proceed to lay out the evidence and make it clear that what seems absurd at first glance is solidly evidenced at second and subsequent looks.  If creationist kids are bothered by those courses, they can find another major.  
 
The MCATS do not test on high school biology, except perhaps as Advanced Placement Biology courses get closer to the college stuff.  The AP Biology exam is 30% based on understanding evolution.  I'd expect a college biology major not narrowly dedicated to molecular or botany to have a solid understanding of phylogeny and ontogeny, and be able to answer a question like, "Relate what you know about the common understanding that 'phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny -- or is it the other way around?"  So I think it's not reasonable to suggest that one line reveals any high school curriculu, when that one line is found in an outline to prepare college students who are assumed to be close to a bachelor's degree and who are aiming for a career in medicine.
 
Especially evolution is important to medicine, and it's probably best if medical doctors understand the errors of evolution history as well as the basic theory.    Health and public health are rife with stories of goofs that led to evolution of newer and hardier breeds of germs and the insects and vermin who carry them.  Keeping to the old Hippocratic Oath standard of, "First, do no harm," becomes more difficult the more we know and the tougher diseases become.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 8/20/2005 8:31:03 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, in any case, it's a college level exam.  There is no way this outline could be presented as evidence of what high school texts and curricula say.

You seem to be suggesting that the level of biological sciences education is more sophisticated and update in the high schools than in the colleges.  Perhaps.  I don't know.  I do know that evolutionary sources are quick to dispel concerns that they still proceed on a recapitulationist model such as suggested by Haeckel.  But if that recapitulationism is rejected, why not say something different than the discredited old saw.  Otherwise it gets, despite its decrepitude, an undeserved intellectual nod.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___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: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

2005-08-20 Thread Ed Darrell

Great question. I was unsure from the outline presented that just what it was suggested that students were asked to know. Generally a med student needs to know the development of mammalian embryoes; it looked to me as if the MCAT wanted students to know the phrase, and I would guess they want students to know the development that caused the phrase to be invented, and, therefore, the reasons the phrase is false.
Similarly, a test in advanced astronomy may ask about "sunrise" or "sunset," but no one would suggest that astronomers believe it's the Sun that orbits the Earth.
And, in any case, it's a college level exam. There is no way this outline could be presented as evidence of what high school texts and curricula say.
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:48:40 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, the notion that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has long been discredited.

And the reason it is a test subject on the MCAT would be . . . . . ?
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___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

RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

Right!  The decision in Lee v. Weisberg is unnecessary if the rabbi (or preacher in the next case, or physician in this hypo) has enough grace and wit to say something inspirational or comforting without having to explicitly resort to religious exhorting.  Imagination and consideration for the audience might make a lot of these cases go away.
 
Ed Darrell
DallasSanford Levinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 
Jim writes:




I believe you have a heart.  I suggested nothing to the contrary.  I think a physician who believes his competence is confined to the clinical observation that brain and heart function has irreversibly ceased is not aware of all of his competencies, and doesn't reflect the great tradition in medicine.
 
 
We surely agree on this.  A doctor who simply says, "You're son has died.  Face up to it" is a lout.  And it is also fair to say that medical education (and thus the notion of the "practice of medicine" should include some attention to empathy and the _expression_ of basic human concern.  (One might say much the same thing about legal training, incidentally.)  But I was responding to a specific example about what might be called religious solace.  Can we compromise on something like this:  If a parent says, "I'm sure that Tom is in heaven right now," my kind of doctor should say, "I certainly hope so."  (I have no reason not to hope that the statement is true; I simply have no reason to think it is.)  
 
sandy___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: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

Yes, the blood clotting example is testable in field observations.  It turns out that some mammals lack some of the things Dr. Behe termed critical, or "irreducibly complex," and yet their blood coagulates just the same (some dolphins, for example).  Deeper investigation reveals several different ways by which creatures can staunch bleeding, and these things were known by 1990.  
 
So, I'd be happy to put up Dr. Behe's claim that the cascade is irreducibly complex, a claim which he has never put forward in any science forum -- and contrast it with what is known and what is published on blood coagulation by scientists who do publish their findings.  One AP biology book has a page that debunks several such claims.  ID advocates complained that the book should not be used in any biology class, as I recall.
 
Dr. Ken Miller demonstrated that mousetraps are not irreducibly complex on Bill Buckley's old Firing Line!, in a debate.  I'd be happy to show that video in biology classes, too.  
 
The evidence, if analyzed, supports evolution.  It is my impression that critics of evolution do not really want a critical analysis of the evidence on either side, but instead want a statement to the effect that Darwin was wrong.  
 
We have a multi-faith, ecumenical group here in Dallas that analyzed biology books for the last go 'round in Texas.  Some of the reviewers follow Islam, and one of those people summarized the issue quite succinctly:  They would not favor any textbook that says biology shows there is no God, or no role for God to play in evolution.  The testimony of the Dallas Textbook Coalition was made with their blessing, after careful analysis of the books.
 
But that is not enough for some people.  It's not enough that the door be left open for God; they demand that the door be shut on Darwin.  The evidence in the books (and in the field, and in the lab) leaves lots of room for God, but doesn't say Darwin got it wrong.  Those are the books that are complained about in Cobb County, Georgia, in Darby, Montana, in Ohio, in Kansas, and in Dover, Pennsylvania.  
 
These are evidence issues, I think.  In a fair fight, the evidence is solidly in back of Darwinian ideas. 
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 8/19/2005 6:02:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What I have seenis a concerted effort to debunk ID's claim to be science.

I wonder.
 
In Darwin's Black Box, a description is offered of the cascade of proteins and hormones that are released when the integrity of the epidermis is disrupted (when the skin is cut).  The proposition is offered that were conditions wrong, the clotting begun as a result of this cascade would continue until the blood system was entirely clotted, or no clotting would begin and eventually the blood would run entirely out.
 
Is this a testable hypothesis?  Are there measurable phenomenon?  It seems to me that a discussion prompted by that illustration belongs in a science class.  Moreover, it seems to me that an inquiry prompted by it belongs in a lab.
 
I thought about the mouse trap example in Darwin's Black Box while walking through my local big box bargain grocery.  The store had a "dollar days" display, everything in it, item by item, only a dollar.  One of the items was a three pack of mouse traps, three mousetraps for a dollar.  I have set a fair number of mouse traps, rat traps, and small animal traps in my life; first doing field ecology studies in college, then in ridding myself of the critters while living in the country.  The mousetraps offered 3 for a dollar were obviously an evolutionary predecessor of those that I had used.  The materials and workmanship were of a less functional, less efficient and less effective class.  The oddity, of course, is that these evolutionary ancestors of the modern mousetrap were "living" not three aisles over from a colony of their descendents.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___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: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

But of course, the issue here is whether that's exactly so.  In Texas, a group of biologists argued with publishers to get rid of ancient drawings.  What was substituted was actual photographs that some would argue show that.  It's not that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny -- but it is that embryonic development very clearly demonstrates some of the evolutionary links.  Critics of evolution don't want the links shown, accurately or inaccurately.  
 
The relationship of the brachial arches in different mammals, for example, demonstrates evolutionary heritage.  Critics complain it's inaccurate to call them gill slits.  Well, yeah -- they only develop into gills in gilled animals.  But the heritage relationship is shown whether they are labeled correctly or not.  
 
So, you can holler all you want to about ontogeny and phylogeny.  The facts are that the brachial arches demonstrate that giraffes and all other mammals share a heritage with sharks and fishes (especially with regard to the vagus nerve and the aorta).  That heritage relationship is what the critics don't want shown, under any name, accurate or not.
 
No textbook in the past decade, and maybe in the past 40 years, that I have found, claims ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.  It's a red herring (there are those fish again!) to claim that is an issue in evolution classes.  It's not.
 
Good criticism would stop claiming a hopeful monster where we're instead talking about the vagus nerve, which is quite real in all mammals, and sharks, and fishes.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 8/19/2005 5:50:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We have methods for determining good science from bad, or current science from disproven science.  

Here we agree and disagree.  Utter silence from that side of the aisle when I mentioned the long-discredited ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny nonsense.  Good science doesn't look to the hopeful monster.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___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: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

It's a test of whether it's real science with real, practical applications.  
 
Diabetics are kept alive through practical applications of evolution theory that ID advocates claim do not work.  Some people have a real stake in this debate.  Those who apply evolution to treat diabetes are rewarded with solid and rising stock prices, other things being equal.  To my knowledge, no one has ever proposed a practical use for any idea coming out of intelligent design, nor is there expectation of any such proposal in the near future.   I note the NYSE because the stock market, over time, tends to smoke out charlatans and frauds.  Stock brokers are willing to risk their retirement money on evolution.  That's a powerful indicator to a free marketeer like me.  It also tends to sway judges, but not school boards.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



In a message dated 8/19/2005 5:50:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are companies traded on the NYSE whose sole raison d'etre is evolution.

This observation, is, frankly, strange to me.  The meaning of the EC is derived from placing one's future public trading availability in the hands of an organization that pays its departing Chair exorbitant severance packages.  Things have certainly evolved.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___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: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

This is, of course, exactly the issue: Should we allow the normal operations of science to pass judgment on scientific hypotheses, and especially should we allow the normal operations of science to pass judgment on a lack of scientific hypotheses?
 
Those who argue against evolution and who want criticisms of evolution introduced ask that only specific criticisms be allowed, and they tend to flinch away when it is proposed to offer similar scrutiny to any other, alternative ideas.  This is why, many of us suspect, the chief proponent of intelligent design, the Discovery Institute, now frantically asks that school boards not ask that ID be taught in schools.  It's not ready for class time.
 
And since it is not ready for class time, ID advocates who understand the law are nervous about any contest over whether ID has enough science content to overcome its religious bias for the purposes of a local federal court's analysis under the Lemon test.  
 
Who decides what is science, scientists or legislators?  That's the contest.  Scientists ask that science processes get to make the decision (which is always fuzzy and always subject to reversal if new evidence warrants it); ID advocates ask that legislators get to make the decision.
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas   Sanford Levinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I don't think the Establishment Clause requires that labelling; I think that respect for science requires it.  Indeed, I think it might violate the EC to force teachers who reject ID to present it as "serious science" instead of theology masking as science.
 
I have no objection at all to teaching the history of Christianity in the public schools.  Indeed, I think that students need to be more aware than they are of the history of theological possibilities, as part of their general education.  But I would object very strongly to presenting a book that presupposes that Jesus is the Messiah, instead of someone who is thought by millions of people to be the Messiah.
 
I commend, incidentally, the New Republic article for which Michael Masinter gave the link.  It's a superb, and I believe devastating, review.  
 
sandy


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Friday, August 19, 2005 3:21 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article

Sandy reads the EC as requiring a book, that could lawfully be taught in the public schools, to be labelled "pseudo science" before being assigned. This view of Sandy's about the EC strikes me as "pseudo law."  
 
Cheers, Rick DuncanSanford Levinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


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?  
 
I would have no objection at all to assigning the Behe book in a section on "pseudo science," perhaps together with a phrenology text or an astrological one.  But I presume this is not the kind of response that Rick wants.  (Similarly, I would certainly consider assigning the Protocols in a course on 20th century intellectual history in a unit on "vicious propaganda.")  The debate really isn't about the abstract possibility of assigning just about anything under the sun.  It's about the "purpose" of assignment. I see no reason at all to require biology teachers to "teach" a book that, presumably, most of them disdain.  It would be the equivalent of forcing me to teach Lynn Cheney's view of American history without being able to portray it as the very exemplar of biased, tendentious, ideological history.
 
sandy___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.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 


Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, cha

RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article