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

I would say that the result under the establishment clause would be the
same. If the motivation is to advance a particular religious viewpoint,
there is an establishment clause problem, regardless of where in the
curriculum the class falls. You can offer courses designed to study various
religions or compare religious viewpoints, but there has to be a secular
purpose of understanding and comparing different religious histories,
cultures and viewpoints, not a religious purpose of promoting one particular
religious viewpoint.

On 1/10/06, drsyme@cablespeed.com <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> What if the Dover school board had wanted to get ID into
> the public schools, by proposing that ID be taught in
> philosophy classes instead of science classes? Assuming
> the motivations otherwise were the same, would ID in
> philosophy classes violate the establishment clause?
>
> If so, then a determination that the actions of the school
> board violated the establishment clause should be
> sufficient, if not then the question of whether or not ID
> is science or not seems relevant.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > A. The "endorsement" test under the establishment clause
> >looks to the
> > relevant public's perception of the government's
> >actions: would the public
> > percieve a government endorsement of religion.
> > B. The "purpose" prong of the Lemon test asks about the
> >government's
> > motives: did the government intend to promote religion
> >or did the policy
> > have a valid secular motive.
> > C. Neither the question of public perception nor the
> >question of government
> > intent relate to any external, expert classification of
> >a governmental
> > policy as "science," "not science," or anything else.
> >These are questions of
> > subjective perception and motive, to be determined based
> >on each case's
> > factual setting. They are not questions of ontology or
> >ultimate objective
> > meaning.
> > D. Therefore, the broad question of whether something
> >is or is not
> > "science" is irrelevant to an establishment clause case.
> > Q.E.D.
> >
> > As
>
Received on Tue Jan 10 12:35:18 2006