David Opderbeck wrote:
> I'm having trouble with this hypo, Pim, because I don't see how such
> an argument could be raised.
In fact something very similar was raised by a teacher who argued that
the school by forcing him to teach evolution was violating the
establishment clause. Similarly, many Christians believe that evolution
forces naturalism or atheism onto their children.
After all according to the endorsement test in creates in the mind of a
reasonable observer the impression or perception that the government is
endorsing or disapproving of religion.
Connor's was particularly concerned that outsiders of the political
community would feel that there would be favored members and non-favored
members of the community
/Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are
outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an
accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored
members of the political community. Disapproval sends the opposite
message
/
> Imagine a different hypo: researchers find a strong link between
> prayer and performance on standardized tests. The results of this
> research are published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, and are
> confirmed by a number of peer reviewed follow-up studies. Some
> studies suggest that prayer causes biochemical changes in the brain
> that stimulate comprehension and problem-solving acuity. (Remember
> this is a hypo -- I doubt such studies actually exist, but then again,
> who knows.)
>
> A local school board, anxious to improve test scores in the district,
> adopts a mandatory prayer policy before the state competency exams are
> given. The school board plans to keep careful records of student
> performance, which will be made available to researchers who are
> conducting additional studies concerning the linkage between prayer
> and standardized tests.
Does the school board have a valid secular purpose, namely participation
in a science study, to further its required participation? I can see
this policy fail on many grounds, for instance the forced participation
in a research study. Second of all, I do not see that the schools policy
makes for a valid scientific approach to resolve these questions. While
these are 'questions of science' they fail the standards the court has
set for scientific evidence in Daubert.
>
> Part of the problem here is that I think you view "science" and
> "religion" as opposite poles: if science, then not religion. I don't
> think it's that simple under the establishment clause. The
> establishment clause jurisprudence asks for assessment of public
> perception and personal motives, which can't be boiled down to such a
> simple proposition.
>
I realize that there are grey areas and that a religious purpose can
still be accepted if there is a valid secular purposes. It's not that
black and white but IF something is scientific, then I argue that the
'purpose' issue may be resolved satisfactorily. In the case of purpose,
the SC has left the decision of purpose mostly to the legistlator, of
course, when a clear secular purpose is lacking, the purpose will be
considered to be religious.
See
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/claytonp.html
where although a clear religious purpose was lacking, the fact that no
secular purpose could be identified and thus the policy (to prohibit
school dances) violated the Lemon purpose prong.
Received on Tue Jan 3 23:14:33 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 03 2006 - 23:14:33 EST