Re: [asa] Expelled and ID

Sorry, made a typo. Left out the word "opposing".

We agree of course that the state may not establish a "religion of
secularism" in the sense of

affirmatively opposing

or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no
religion over those who do believe."

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:30 PM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I hope it wouldn't be inappropriate to quote something pinned to my wall?
> Just food for thought?
>
> Abington School Dist. v. Schemmp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963) It is insisted
> that unless these religious excercises are permitted a "religion of
> secularism" is established in the schools. We agree of course that the state
> may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively
> or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no
> religion over those who do believe." Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 314.
>
>
>
> 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. 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.
Received on Mon May 26 15:35:53 2008