You're right that ID does not have ALL the accouterments of a /cultus/,
but it is clearly religious. Further, it is, despite all counterclaims,
connected to monotheism. Now do you want to claim that monotheism by
itself is not A religion? Jones' decision did not mention metaphysics
explicitly to my recollection, but it was implicit in his ruling.
In your previous post, you presented a lengthy description of religions
according to judicial decisions. A naturalist might do the same for
"duck," recognizing the many species along with the differences between
the plumage of drakes and ducks, and so on to indefinite length. But the
classic "If it looks like a duck, ..." is fully adequate for most of us.
But I recognize that the obvious is not adequate for a lawyer who
dislikes the ramifications of a decision.
Dave
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:01:44 -0500 David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
writes:
The quote goes far beyond #2, and includes things like worship spaces,
authoritative founders (e.g., Jesus, Buddha), recognized officials
(priests), holidays, and such. While ID might be derived from a
religion, there's no way it would in itself be classified as a
"religion."
Received on Mon Jan 9 18:45:07 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 09 2006 - 18:45:07 EST