Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:34 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
wrote:

> David C. -- interesting questions -- I think one problem is that our
> Constitution is stretched to the limit in general with respect to public
> schools.

I think you are correct. I mean, i think I know where you are coming from.

> A wildly pluralistic mandatory secular public education system just wasn't
> on the radar screen of the framers.

Yet has supposedly been created afterward. One is tempted then to wax
poetic about Umbra and Penumbra and shadows of principles "found" in the
constitution. What I remember about Robert Bork was he argued against
finding meaning in shadows. Besides, to have a shadow one needs a light
source. There is only one light source available, and He is now pushed
out.

> If you think about it, can *any* subject, except maybe basic math, really
> be religiously neutral?

You have a point. I used to argue against this idea that nothing can be
found that is religiously neutral. The latter seemed to be the view of some
of the most radical right wing young earth creationist thinkers. Caleb
Stegall and John Yost come to mind as I dredge through my memories of those
discussions. It seems ironic that you of all people suggest you may
somewhat agree with them. Well on some small point. I certainly do not
take you to by any means be any sort of ultra right wing young earth
creationist.
Perhaps they held a grain of truth after all? Who knows?

But we all evolve and learn. At one time I would have rejected the idea
that naturalism is the invention of Christianity. I have therefore evolved
a bit. I now have to ask, if naturalism was invented to support the idea
of a lawgiver God, how did it morph into something against a lawgiver,
and instead is widely perceived to support only no-lawgiver at all? (i.e.,
materialism?). Can it be there are multiple types of naturalism
springing out of the original Christian idea? If so, how can it be that
one kind is demanded by some to be preferred by the state, and the other
kind denigrated? I am afraid I fail to understand. But it seems to me to
be an interesting question.

> 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.
Received on Mon May 26 15:29:23 2008