Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

RC said: So, they produced a document that, in a
sense, transcended the issue.
I respodn: Yes -- but only after a civil war and a long, hard struggle for
civil rights -- not really because they intended it.

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:06 PM, <rcmetcalf@thinkagain.us> wrote:

> > 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
> >
>
>
>

-- 
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.