Re: [asa] Book TV on C-SPAN 2

Putting this in a different context might clarify a little -- or maybe show
how muddy they are. Let's say a social studies text said this: *"The
teachings of Islam do not require good Muslims to use violence. Islam is at
heart a religion of peace."*

Many of us non-Muslims would approve of this sentiment, or at least would
like it to be true, and many practicing Muslims would also agree with it.
But some practicing Muslims, even if a minority, would find it offensive and
blasphemous. Given all this, I think the statement is clearly
unconstitutional under the establishment clause. The minority's religious
view is exactly what the establishment clause is designed to protect. Don't
forget that the most vocal proponents of separation of church and state in
colonial times were free chuch Baptists who were being persecuted by state
church Presbyterians.

Now, let's change the wording a bit. Say the text said this: *"Many
Muslims believe Islam is at heart a religion of peace. Most Muslims deplore
terrorist acts and violence." *

This latter statement would probably be ok Constitutionally, because it is
merely sociologically descriptive.

So, I think in a public school one could say *"Many Christians and other
religious believers see no conflict between evolution and religious belief."
* However, one probably could not say *"There is no conflict between
evolution and Christian or other religious beliefs."*

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:

> Pim,
>
> I agree that West did not present Miller's theological views fairly.
> That's why I said in my first post that I find the truth somewhere in the
> middle--ie, somewhere between your view and West's.
>
> On the constitutional issues, I'm with West. Here is what you say in your
> most recent post, Pim:
>
> <Furthermore, I am not impressed by West's assertion that this is a one
> sided
> representation of religion, let alone a violation of the establishment
> clause of the constitution. After all, one may point to a valid secular
> purpose to point out that evolutionary theory is not necessarily at odds
> with religious faith. It is far different from the position that
> evolutionary theory and fact are at odds with religious faith, a position
> which serves no valid secular purposes.>
>
> How does one religious position on evolution have a valid secular purpose,
> when another doesn't? You and I agree that one has much greater value
> than
> the other, but how can we make that determination without favoring one
> religious view over another?
>
> Ted
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 26 14:31:01 2008