Actually, it is too burdensome because far
too many teachers would refuse to utter those words. Would Williams ever say
those words?
-----Original Message-----
From: A.E. Brownstein
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday,
December 10, 2004 5:49 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case
- more factual information
I'm not sure that I understand the point here. Is it
that it is acceptable for public school teachers to teach religious beliefs
such as the resurrection of Jesus as historical fact?
Or is it that it is too burdensome for teachers to be "saddled" with
the responsibility of telling their students when a class discusses religion
that "In the United States, we live under a constitutional system
committed to religious liberty. Americans believe in many different religious
faiths and the tenets of these faiths are often inconsistent with each
other. Adherence to religious beliefs is a matter left to individuals and
faith communities to decide for themselves. That is why the government
and the public schools do not tell people what religion, if any, they should
follow. When we study religion in this class, we are studying what different
people believe; not what people should believe. Our government and our public
schools have no authority to declare religious truth."
Alan Brownstein
At 04:18 PM 12/10/2004 -0500, you wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:14:11 PM Eastern
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
He teaches the resurrection as historical fact,
even though it is a religious belief which I and millions of other
Americans deny.
Marc raises an interesting point here. Because
he has a belief about something that may be (or may not) a fact, he disputes
the propriety of Mr. Williams' teaching about the incident as a fact.
>From that leap, I suppose, is derived the expurgation principle by which every
fact of religious significance becomes suspect as an instructional device.
Will we really saddle our public school teachers with the burden of
saying: "of course, some people do not agree that this fact is true,
some people specifically state that the circumstances described by this fact
are false, some people find the assertion of this fact as a true historical
incident an affront to them personally because they do not hold to that fact
and to their religious faith." ??
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
