>> Jim foley replied:
>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.
>> Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but how does discussing
>> scientific evidence of intelligent design in a science class get
>> interpreted as "making a law respecting an establisment of religion"?
I think because courts, and the ACLU, consider that the scientific
evidence is without merit, and is merely a front for a religious agenda.
An example of evidence for this is the following excerpt from the 1982
court decision overturning Act 590 in Arkansas:
Ellwanger's correspondence on the subject shows an awareness that
Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this
fact. In a letter to State Senator Bill Keith of Louisiana, he says,
``I view this whole battle as one between God and anti-God forces,
though I know there are a large number of evolutionists who believe in
God.'' And further, ``... it behooves Satan to do all he can to
thwart our efforts and confuse the issue at every turn.'' Yet
Ellwanger suggest to Senator Keith, ``IF you have a clear choice
between having grassroots leaders of this statewide bill promotion
effort to be ministerial or non-ministerial, be sure to opt for the
non-ministerial. It does the bill effort no good to have ministers
out there in the public forum and the adversary will surely pick at
this point ... Ministerial persons can accomplish a tremendous amount
of work from behind the scenes, encouraging their congregations to
take the organizational and P.R. initiatives. And they can lead their
churches in storming Heaven with prayers for help against so tenacious
an adversary.'' (Unnumbered attachment to Ellwanger Depo. at 1.)
Ellwanger shows a remarkable degree of political candor, if not
finesse, in a letter to State Senator Joseph Carlucci of Florida:
2. It would be very wise, if not actually essential, that all of us who
are engaged in this legislative effort be careful not to
present our position and our work in a religious framework.
For example, in written communications that might somehow be
shared with those other persons whom we may be trying to
convince, ti would be well to exclude our own personal
testimony and/or witness for Christ, but rather, if we are so
moved, to give that testimony on a separate attached note.
(Unnumbered attachment to Ellwanger Depo. at 1.)
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.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