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

But the problem is that, as valid as this purpose may be, it is directly
endorsing one religious viewpoint over another. That the government cannot
do.

Again, think through the consequences outside this one context. We could
just as well support a public school teaching that "the use of aggressive
interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, is not necessarily at
odds with religious faith." This might serve a valid secular purpose,
particularly if, say, the government were trying to extract information from
suspected terrorists and public opposition were making that process
difficult. But many religious believers would say that torture is always at
odds with their faith, and so the statement endorses one religious view
about the propriety of such techniques over another.

As you hopefully can see, there are infinite possibilities for government
propaganda and mischief when the government is permitted to endorse a
particular contested religious view because of some putatively higher
purpose.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Pim wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> This, it seems to me, is a profound statement, although it appears
> contrary to consistent logic on the surface. I will summarize your point,
> substituting "scientific" for the more controversial term "evolutionary":
>
> 1. Asserting that a scientific theory is not necessarily at odds with
> religious faith serves a valid secular purpose. Your point is, the "valid
> purpose" is to make the teaching of science more palatable or easy to bear
> for those who hold a particular religious viewpoint.
> 2. Asserting that a scientific theory IS at odds with religious faith DOES
> NOT serve a valid secular purpose. Whether it be atheism trying to
> establish the falsity of religion, or religion trying to assert the falsity
> of science, both points are a philosophical/religious purpose, not a secular
> one.
>
> And I think, your use of the term "valid secular purpose" has to do with
> the legal judgment that instruction in the (secular) classroom must serve a
> purpose toward the end of secular education, not the furthering of purely
> religious goals. Is this a fair summary of what you are saying?
>
>
> Jon Tandy
>
>

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 15:11:32 2008