I think your restatement is exactly right. Thanks
Steve Sanders wrote:
Paul,
I wouldn't blame religious activists for the state of the law in the
creche cases. It's the Supreme Court that created the
Santa-and-his-reindeer loophole. Surely the preference of activists
would be to simply place religious icons on public property without
added secular clutter. But given the law, some will do what they
must. I guess that's the point you're making.
Where the creche situation has been top-down, promoting intelligent
design as a legal alternative to evolution, while obviouly a response
to the Court's cases, seems to have been more of a bottom-up
innovation by legal and political strategists, no? I suspect that you
overestimate the interest these strategists have in theological
subtlety and logical rigor. Thus, perhaps I would rephrase your
question as: are sincere religious believers well-served by those who
subscribe to a "by any means necessary" approach to the legal and
political project of officializing Christianity?
Steve Sanders
Quoting Paul Finkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Perhaps it is a holiday gift for those who celebrate the anniversary
of the birth of the son of the intelligent designer but don't think
that the intelligent design plan was really a science project?
Which leads me to the quesiton, isn't the whole concept of
"intelligent design" ultimately blasphemous, and shouldn't people who
are biblical literalists be more offended by "intelligent design"
than evolution? After all, evolution simply says ignore (or believe
in) scripture as you choose, but here is the "science." But,
advocates of "intelligent design" argue for a religious basis for
change and the development of the earth that is clearly at odds with
scripture.
Is the push for "intelligent design" sort of like the outcome in
Lynch v,. Donnelly -- that in order to get religion on the public
square you have to mock it by cluttering the nativity scene with
clowns candy canes and Santa Claus? Thus, in oder to get religion
into the science class you hae to reject the scriptural account of
creation and offer some sort of faux theory of religion that is
neither religious nor scientific.
Paul Finkelman
Ed Brayton wrote:
If you can't get the decision from the court's website, it is
available at:
http://www.stcynic.com/kitzmiller_342.pdf
It's a big, big win for the plaintiffs. A very broad ruling, exactly
what the plaintiffs wanted.
Ed Brayton
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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.
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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.
_________________________________
Steve Sanders
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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.
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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.
