Re: Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dove...

I realized as I hit "send" that the end of my response below was overly
snarky. I felt the "lawyer" reference was something of an ad hominem, and I
responded inappropriately in kind. I've made a New Years' resolution to try
and avoid that kind of thing. Sorry.

On 1/9/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *You're right that ID does not have ALL the accouterments of a /cultus/,
> but it is clearly religious*
>
> Well then, any philosophical claim is religious. Therefore, nothing with
> any philosophical basis can be taught in public schools under the
> establishment clause. I guess we have to close down all the public
> schools. Religiously-derived is not the same thing as a "religion" under
> the law.
>
> *But I recognize that the obvious is not adequate for a lawyer who
> dislikes the ramifications of a decision.
> *
> The law is what it is, and what it is is that "religion" has a historical
> and cultural meaning that includes, as you put it, aspects of a "cultus" as
> well as some metaphysical ideology. But I recognize that what the law
> actually says and the traditions from which it is derived are not adequate
> for an idealogue who wants to enforce his views on the rest of the world
> under the guise of the first amendment.
>
> On 1/9/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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 21:10:10 2006