On Sat, 27 Apr 1996, John E. Rylander wrote:
> (The first attempts to post this properly failed -- one more try.)
>
> I generally don't have time to reply, just being a happy lurker :^> and wishing to avoid fire fights, but I had to reply briefly to this.
>
> While secularists often see the goal of the first amendment being "religious containment", a government effort to restrict religion to the private sphere in order to protect the government from its influence, original intent indicates that the purpose was to promote religious freedom. Indeed, religious speech is the single most protected kind of speech.
>
> There are always controversial cases, where rights conflict and so forth, but unless we remember that -the whole point- of "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (commonly, but a bit misleading, referred to as the "no establishment" clause) was not to -restrict- religious freedom, but to -enhance- it, we're liable to miss the boat completely in applying it.
> After all, the experience of the founders didn't lead many of them to fear that religious principles would control the government, but that the government would control religious principles, and thereby control or oppress the people.
>
> Along these lines, in properly resisting the injection of sectarian doctrine into the public school classroom, it is no less severe an error to impose secularism, which is in a real sense a worse error, since that is not only a tyranny, but a tyranny of the minority over the majority. (That's one thing I notice that seems common with the ACLU: they tend to defend fringe points of view against the majority, seeing minority rights as trumping majority rights. I once heard one defend this by saying "the majority can look out for itself". This sounds noble, until one realizes that what they often end up doing is replacing some hint of a tyranny of the majority with the established fact of a tyranny of the minority. Myself, I always thought it was better to do -less- harm than -more- harm, harm -fewer- rather than -more- people.)
>
> That said, I agree that creation science shouldn't be taught in the science classroom, since I would agree with those who deem it actually non- or unscientific. But simply because it is unscientific doesn't mean that ontological naturalism, as an obvious alternative, is okay, and I think the scientific creationists sometimes have some good non-scientific points along those lines.
>
> (An example: I remember laughing when the National Council on Science Education sent me a warning letter talking about how creationists were going to take over the world [not exactly what they said, but that expresses the tone of it], and that they needed my money to fund their inter- and non-faith effort to overcome this shameful, malicious, bigoted, etc. etc. ignorance and darkness. And if I sent in $100, they would send me an example of this united effort: a copy of Richard Dawkins' -The Blind Watchmaker-! Mr. Interfaith himself. I found this at best intellectually laughable, and worst rather dishonest, giving more rather than less credence to the creationists' case philosophically. And this sort of slippage between scientific and scientistic is very, very common, I believe.)
>
> So again, while I strongly disagree with "scientific" creationism, and strongly agree with those who ask for novel, falsifiable, empirical predictions before I'll take it seriously -qua science-, they have some good philosophical and political points to make.
>
> Maybe the only philosophically clean solution is school privatization. (And another classic case of secularistic resistance: the most common "in principle" ground for opposing that is that it would allow parents to choose religious schools, which is a mega-no-no if one's goal is to promote secularism and religious containment, but a great good if one's goal is to promote government neutrality or religious freedom.)
>
> Sorry to go on so long, Jim et al. But I think this stuff is important.
>
> --John
>
> From: Jim.Foley@symbios.com[SMTP:Jim.Foley@symbios.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 1996 6:25 PM
> To: evolution@Calvin.EDU
> Subject: ACLU and free speech
>
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:34:29 -0500, Chuck Warman
> >>>>> <cwarman@sol.wf.net> said:
>
> >> 2. I believe that *you and I both know* that the ACLU has a double
> >> standard regarding free speech; specifically that "religious speech"
> >> should be more restricted than generic speech.
>
> But doesn't that "double standard" come directly from the constitution?
> Religious speech *should* be restricted in cases where it could be
> construed as an endorsement by the government (i.e. in public school
> science classes). At least, that seems to be the way the constitution
> is interpreted nowadays.
>
> For reference:
> AMENDMENT I
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> --
> Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, CO
> Jim.Foley@symbios.com (970) 223-5100 x9765
> I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call
> it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder
>
>
>
>
>
>