RE: [asa] Expelled and ID

David Clounch said:
"I think one problem is that our Constitution is stretched to the limit
in general with respect to public schools. A wildly pluralistic
mandatory secular public education system just wasn't on the radar
screen of the framers."

The framers couldn't figure it all out-too many complex issues. They
narrowed their scope of the issues to work on. They didn't even deal
with slavery. It took a civil war to resolve that.

...Bernie

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:35 AM
To: David Clounch
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

David C. -- interesting questions -- I think one problem is that our
Constitution is stretched to the limit in general with respect to public
schools. A wildly pluralistic mandatory secular public education system
just wasn't on the radar screen of the framers. If you think about it,
can any subject, except maybe basic math, really be religiously neutral?
There's an underlying epistemological question about the possibility of
"neutrality" that many people, myself included, can't fully buy into on
both religious and philosophical grounds -- whether the subject is art,
literature, or science. That said, I support the general idea of public
education; I just don't know for sure what the first amendment
jurisprudence ought to look like in this area.

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:10 PM, David Clounch
<david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:

Dave O.,

I was merely trying to point out that the jurisprudence is the governing
set of rules.

This was in reply to where D.F.S. pointed out that there is a
philosophical principle involved. He was asking why that has to be held
to a secular standard. A very good question. Assuming he is correct in
his assertion that a philosophical principle is involved, then how much
of the base topic is tainted by philosophy? 1% ? 99% ? How can a
school board be expected to sort this out when all the kings horses and
all the kings men cannot do so? Thus one could easily suspect that the
prong of the Lemon test having to do with excessive entanglement must
raise questions. But other cases have called for valid secular purpose,
have they not?

 Now, if the subject had no philosophical principle at all - such as
calculus, and is thus just purely mathematical, then the subject is
purely secular, and passes any possible Lemon test with flying colors.

I have no problem with MN as long as it stays in church, or in the
clubhouse, or is held privately. When it enters the public square - as
public policy enforced by government agencies - this is when the
jurisprudence becomes applicable.

One problem is that MN is fully intended to impact religion. That is
it's purpose. Invented by Christian theologians for the purpose of
impacting religion makes it a dangerous philosophical opinion. What if,
for example, Islamic theologians disagree with the philosophical
principle? What if they think it impacts Islam? What about other
religions? Can school boards just ignore that impact? This is why it
seems to me the courts must eventually deal with the subject of
methodlogical naturalism.

Dave C (ASA)
PS, Yes, you do indeed raise interesting questions about Justice
O'Conner.

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:56 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
wrote:

The Lemon test isn't followed precisely anymore -- or maybe more
accurately, it isn't clear whether and to what extent the Lemon test
still controls in light of Justice O'Connor's reworking of that test.

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.