Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

Bernie said: They didn't even deal with slavery.

I respond: they dealt with slavery - they effectively endorsed it.

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
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.