RE: [asa] Expelled and ID (slavery)

RC said:
"In the sense that they didn't specifically deal with it in the
Constitution, they did effectively endorse it."

I disagree. I think they didn't directly address it because they had
bigger issues to deal with... and fight over. It seemed like by the
time the slavery issue got to Pres. Lincoln, he was so grieved about it
that he thought maybe the pain and destruction from the civil war was
God's chastisement.

-----Original Message-----
From: rcmetcalf@thinkagain.us [mailto:rcmetcalf@thinkagain.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:06 PM
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

> Bernie said: They didn't even deal with slavery.
>
> I respond: they dealt with slavery - they effectively endorsed it.

In the sense that they didn't specifically deal with it in the
Constitution, they did effectively endorse it. But notice that the
Constitution is still applicable to all citizens, regardless of race,
now
that slavery has been abolished. So, they produced a document that, in a
sense, transcended the issue.

RC

>
> 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.
Received on Wed May 21 17:28:19 2008