onlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric J Segall
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 4:05 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Hostility vs. feeling that certain people shouldn't marry each
other
I'm not sure it is that easy Doug because often the differe
I'm not sure it is that easy Doug because often the difference between a
disparate impact and disparate treatment case turns on the motives/intent of
the decision-makers.
Mark, it is true that many of us feel that, in the context of the current
debates over SSM, hostility to allowing gay
Academics
mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>>
Subject: Re: Hostility vs. feeling that certain people shouldn't marry each
other
I am not sure I understand your Equal Protection point. There is a huge
difference (according to the Court) between a state adopting a veterans
preference program
_
From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 11:31 AM
Subject: Hostility vs. feeling that certain people shouldn't marry each other
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Well, both the Equal Protection Clause jurispru
I am not sure I understand your Equal Protection point. There is a huge
difference (according to the Court) between a state adopting a veterans
preference program in the 1970's knowing 99% of the benefits will go to men and
doing it because of hostility to women in the military. One is
zen's
discriminatory actions were "at bottom" based on "hostility" or rather based on
"no objection to [people's identity]" but rather a "feel[ing]" that people of
certain identities shouldn't do something. And I think we basically don't do
tha
for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Religious Hostility--Folding Jesus Under
Ed; When you say the courts usually protect student religious speech, even when it is part of the curriculum, what cases do you have in mind?
RickEd Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Flashback to the year
AcademicsSubject: RE: Religious Hostility--Folding Jesus
Under
Ed; When you say the courts usually protect student religious speech,
even when it is part of the curriculum, what cases do you have in mind?
RickEd Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Flashback
to the y
aw Academics'
Subject: RE: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility
to Religious Expression
The Ninth Circuit has the impression that the Supreme Court's precedents
require discrimination against the religious speech of students. In Doe v.
Madison School District (for which
Ed; When you say the courts usually protect student religious speech, even when it is part of the curriculum, what cases do you have in mind?
RickEd Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Flashback to the year 2000. Antonio Peck, a kindergarten student in theBaldwinsville, N.Y., school district, hand
Flashback to the year 2000. Antonio Peck, a kindergarten student in the
Baldwinsville, N.Y., school district, handed in a poster about "saving the
environment" that included an image of Jesus. The principal decided that the
school would hang the poster - but fold Jesus under so he couldn't be seen.
Here is another great example, from Charles Haynes and the First Amendment Center, about religious hostility in the public schools:
"I did not make this up. Truth really is stranger than fiction especially when the story involves religion and public schools.
Flashback to the year
erest
justifying what would otherwise be a violation of the Free Speech Clause
(rather than that compliance with the Free Speech Clause is an adequate
justification for what would otherwise be a violation of the
Establishment Clause).
My guess is that if Alito did say that the Court's
Marci wrote:
It's a great time to have a debate about
whether this is a country that believes in inclusion and respect for all
beliefs or the imposition on all of a particular religious group's views.
If Alito's nomination spurs that kind of debate, it's good for everyone.
Marci,
The only proble
s an America in which nativity scenes are permitted in public parks and schoolchildren are permitted to pledge allegiance to one Nation under God."
If the argument against Alito is "Bah, humbug," Alito wins.
Cheers, Rick Duncan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem with this d
Title: Message
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Francis BeckwithSent: Friday, November 04, 2005 9:21 AMTo:
Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS
Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Relig
Title: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression
Touche’ Steve. I guess “not to be nitpicky” is like “with all due respect.” :-)
Take care,
Frank
On 11/4/05 8:50 AM, "Steven Jamar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For not wanting t
The problem with this debate is that those arguing for "hostility to religion," mean "hostiltity toward their religion, Christianity." O'Connor's endorsement test is sensitive to those who are religious (or not) and are not in the favored majority. So her test in f
Whatever the constitutional cognoscenti believe about the Court's EC jurisprudence and religious hostility, many ordinary citizens reasonably view this body of law (including O'C's endorsement test) as hostile toward religion. I don't think Alito's opponents want to fi
different to create a different impression.But Alito is, it seems to me, more likely to be simply trying to avoid accusing the sitting justices of subjective hostility while conveying the message that he thinks their decisions have been wrong and have had a hostile effect. A position touted on this list
Title: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression
I don’t want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying “impression of hostility,” not necessarily “hostility.” So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says “impression,” and Marty
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04confirm.html
Alito believes that the Court's doctrine "really gives the impression
of hostility to religious speech and religious _expression_" and that "the court
had erred by going too far in prohibiting go
stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 8/28/2005 4:58 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
I understand Rick's commitment to vouchers and appreciate the fact that
some Christian teachers will find teaching more fulfilling if they are
employed by a pr
Well, I thought I was actually avoiding the political problem you address here.
My suggestion was not that the government provide subsidies to religious
schools; that is the voucher system I was not talking about, and am not really
in favor of. If by subsidy you mean not compelling parents to
In a message dated 8/29/2005 6:46:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How does
government subsidy of religious schools that discriminate in hiring and
indoctrinate students in particular religious beliefs avoid 1A
issues?
Because taxpayer funding of schools necessa
Why should anyone be exempt from paying for public education? If Christians don't need to pay for it, why should people without school-age children? Why not just get rid of public education and mandatory schooling entirely? Isn't that the libertarian position you are really advocating Richard?Ho
Alan:
I understand amd appreciate your frustration on this issue. I'm not sure,
though, if you are expressing concern about a constitutional point or a public
policy point, or both. Many believers, of course, think that they are being
excluded from public schools because of their own religiou
I understand Rick's commitment to vouchers and appreciate the fact that
some Christian teachers will find teaching more fulfilling if they are
employed by a private religious school. But I am disappointed and
frustrated by his suggestion that a voucher program pursuant to which half
of all fami
gt; >private-school vouchers.> >> >My sense is that t!
here
isn't empirical evidence to support these warnings.> >But I'd be interested to know of any.> >> >Tom Berg> >University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis)> >> >>
, 2005
1:19 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
Michael Newsom wrote:
The relevant question is whether students at religious
schools that proselytize socialize less well than others. Inner city
Catholic schools do not proselytize their non-Catholic stud
gt;
>My sense is that there isn't empirical evidence to support these warnings.
>But I'd be interested to know of any.
>
>Tom Berg
>University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis)
>
>
> _
>
>From: Newsom Mich! ael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: W
25, 2005 3:02 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
It'll take me a while to respond to some of these points, but let me
quickly
pick up on the last one. I do think that it is unfortunate that many
people
-- even some judges -- tend to view Religion Clause
those efforts, obviously, but I expect it will reduce them.
Tom Berg
_
From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 8/25/2005 12:04 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
I think "religious apartheid" and "religious f
ools in the public system rather than>private-school vouchers.>>My sense is that there isn't empirical evidence to support these warnings.>But I'd be interested to know of any.>>Tom Berg>University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis)>>> _>>From
IL PROTECTED]
[
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Berg,
Thomas C.
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:22 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
Is the "religious apartheid"
worry (or "fragmentation" as Alan calls it) based on any
empirical
Michael Newsom wrote:
The relevant question is whether
students at religious schools that proselytize socialize less well than
others. Inner city Catholic schools do not proselytize their non-Catholic
students. The fact of racial and religious tension in all too many
public schools is a given.
gs.
But I'd be interested to know of any.
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis)
_
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 8/24/2005 6:28 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
See my comments interlineated be
Title: RE: Hostility
See my
comments interlineated below.
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berg, Thomas C.
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005
8:22 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hosti
Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 8/23/2005 5:09 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
I appreciate the power of Tom's argument (and his caveat at the end.)
I offer three modest responses. First, I recognize that schools taught the
"cons
Tom and others: If we had real school choice I don't know for sure how many people of faith would choose private schools, but I suspect a lot would. Let me tell you a true story.
A few years ago I was asked to speak to a "young parents" Sunday School class at one of the largest evangelical church
isn't empirical evidence to support these warnings.
But I'd be interested to know of any.
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minneapolis)
_
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 8/24/2005 6:28 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Aca
Title: RE: Hostility
See my comments interlineated below.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Berg, Thomas C.
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005
3:18 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
gt;>We can argue over whether addressing this through school choice comes
at too
>>high a social price, but it seems to me that to deny there is a problem
>>reflects just a lack of sympathy with those pervasively religious
people, in
>>the moral philosophy sense of putting
_
From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 8/23/2005 5:09 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
I appreciate the power of Tom's argument (and his caveat at the end.)
I offer three modest responses. First, I recognize that schools taught t
want to join.
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
_
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 8/24/2005 12:54 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
The "common ground" necessary to maintain the American
Church-State Studies, Baylor University
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://francisbeckwith.com>
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Example: Evolution should not be
taught because Genesis (at least in the view of some, certainly not including
me) teac
-
From: Berg, Thomas C. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 12:32 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
This is an interesting and effective response to my challenge. But I
wonder:
1. Whether a golden age as short as the one to whi
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Example: Evolution should not be
taught because Genesis (at least in the view of some, certainly not including
me) teaches otherwise. (Alternatively, students should be discouraged
from learning about evolution
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
What would be an example of “values” trumping science? Now, I’ve read articles and books in which authors offer arguments as to why certain scientific experiments and research are unethical. Because of these suggested
: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
In a
message dated 8/23/2005 3:51:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
facts are what they are. Many American students have been driven
away from the natural sciences
In a message dated 8/23/2005 11:21:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
In a message dated 8/23/2005 7:36:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 bi
In a message dated 8/23/2005 3:51:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
facts are what they are. Many American students have been drivenaway
from the natural sciences because of the overreaching of
somereligionists.
But you didn't say that at all: you said th
argue over whether addressing this through school choice comes at too
>>high a social price, but it seems to me that to deny there is a problem
>>reflects just a lack of sympathy with those pervasively religious people, in
>>the moral philosophy sense of putting oneself in the o
MAIL 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 particu
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Although I defend (and defended at the time) the professor’s academic freedom to be discretionary in writing letters of recommendation, I don’t think that Ed’s depiction of what actually happened is completely accurate. The
of Law
-Original Message-
From: Ed Darrell
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005
4:35 PM
To: Law &
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
In 2003 the Justice Department investigated a repor
beginning 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 i
ences.
-Original Message-
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:41 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Unfortunately, it seems likely that many students who are
attribute to Alan such a lack of sympathy).
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
_
From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 8/23/2005 10:56 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
Yes. But I think I have been cons
08/23/national/23believers.html.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-Original Message-
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:51 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithson
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Michael,
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
sympathy).
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
_
From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 8/23/2005 10:56 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Hostility
Yes. But I think I have been consistent with my comments on
ademics
Subject: Re: Hostility
But the tensions created by pluralism are not limited to schools. They
extend throughout society. And the movement toward "going our separate
ways" isn't limited to schools, it extends to many other public programs
(see, e.g. charitable choice). In th
In a message dated 8/22/2005 9:02:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
those
who find design in nature
It would be
illuminating to learn under what conditions one would not "design in
nature." Verificationist and Falsificationist philosophical theories aside,
On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Rick Duncan wrote: I still think Mike McConnell said it best when he said: "A secular school does not necessarily produce atheists, but it produces young adults who inevitably think of religion as extraneous to the real world of intellectual inquiry, if they think of r
of increasingly isolated sub-societies that feel almost no
connections with one another and, indeed, may have a high degree of
hostility. I don't have any good answers to this dilemma. As a
practical matter, I favor public schools making a variety of accommodations with
different groups.
o many now
do?
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
_
From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 8/22/2005 11:42 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Hostility
But the tensions created by pluralism are not limited to
ubject: RE: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
There 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 viola
& Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Hostility
You know, I think the bottom line is our society is
too pluralistic for a one-size-fits-all curriculum at the government
school monopoly.
I empathize with Sandy when he expresses concern about
students being taught ID (and teac
& Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility
at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
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 particula
CTED]] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:49 AMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Hostility You know, I think the bottom line is our society is too pluralistic for a one-size-fits-all curriculum at the government school monopoly. I empathize with Sandy when
e rules in U.S. courts.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:49 AMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Hostility
You know, I think the bottom line is our society is too pluralistic for a one-size-fits-all c
nday, August 22, 2005 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Hostility
But the tensions created by pluralism are not limited to schools. They
extend throughout society. And the movement toward "going our separate
ways" isn't limited to schools, it extends to many other public programs
(see, e.g.
But the tensions created by pluralism are not limited to schools. They
extend throughout society. And the movement toward "going our separate
ways" isn't limited to schools, it extends to many other public programs
(see, e.g. charitable choice). In theory, it could apply to almost the
entire pu
sues for Law Academics
Subject: Hostility
You know, I think the bottom line is our society is too pluralistic for
a one-size-fits-all curriculum at the government school monopoly.
I empathize with Sandy
when he expresses concern about students being taught ID (and teachers b
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Ed:
We are veering off the church-state issue. So, in order to not irritate
Eugene, I will respond briefly.
I think the Craig-Smith debate makes my point. Both Craig and Smith agree
that Big Bang cosmology, because it is knowledge, has implications for
theology. F
May I suggest that the word "inevitably" when used with respect to
public schools almost always guarantees a false statement. This is
particularly the case for those of us who went to both public schools
and private religious schools after school.
MAG
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/22/05 11:24 AM >>>
In a message dated 8/22/2005 10:50:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I still
think Mike McConnell said it best when he said: "A secular school does
not necessarily produce atheists, but it produces young adults who inevitably
think of religion as extraneous to th
h the assumption that there is a god, but that does not make it science. And the belief in god is, as I understand it, not a rational one for the most part, but a matter of faith -- buttressed by experience perhaps, and reason, but not premised on it. Though for some it is.
The approach of some
In a message dated 8/21/2005 10:47:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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' expert
At 12:23 PM 8/21/2005 -0700, you wrote:
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, evolu
Ed:
We are veering off the church-state issue. So, in order to not irritate
Eugene, I will respond briefly.
I think the Craig-Smith debate makes my point. Both Craig and Smith agree
that Big Bang cosmology, because it is knowledge, has implications for
theology. For Smith, it better comports wi
I think Ed's point extends beyond science to other parts of the school
curriculum as well. History, art, literature, and other subjects may
reinforce or conflict with various religious beliefs. Generally speaking, I
don't think the Establishment Clause is violated when that occurs
incidentally
Frankie Beckwith 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
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
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
supp
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 quot
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!
I guess I'll teach Edwards in my Con Law II class based
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!
I guess I'll teach Edwards in my Con Law II class based
Rick Duncan wrote:
Ed: The Court held that the purpose of the legislature
was to bring religion into the classroom.It was the legislature's bad
purpose that was the problem. If the Court had found that the
legislature had a secular purpose, the Act would not have been
vulnerable to a facial
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 behi
Ed: The Court held that the purpose of the legislature was to bring religion into the classroom.It was the legislature's bad purpose that was the problem. If the Court had found that the legislature had a secular purpose, the Act would not have been vulnerable to a facial attack. The Court did not
Rick Duncan 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 wa
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
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
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
pur
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 ac
Gene Summerlin wrote:
Ed,
There is a huge difference between mutation
creating variation which combined with natural selection results in a
given population and saying that genetic mutations can take an organism
from being a fish to being a giraffe. Even with respect to variation,
.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed
BraytonSent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:49 PMTo: Law
& Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Findings on
Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Gene Summerlin wrote:
The idea that "pharyngeal ar
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
