Draft ID statutory language

[Gibbens, Daniel G.]

Title: Message

Below is draft language for a bill for our state legislature in light of pro-ID bills filed.  Although the deadline has passed for bill-filing this session, some think something of this sort may have future use.  So comments and criticism are requested.     Obviously the draft is an effort under the rubric of pragmatism.  It does not address critical issues such as the definition for public school purposes of "science", or what's involved in teaching "about religion".  On the latter issue, it simply relies on Brennan's concurring opinion in Schempp.   A. In courses presenting science-based information pertaining to the development processes of life forms, including evolution theory, or the development processes of physical matter, including big bang theory, public school teachers shall make clear that there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either; provided that related religion-based information, including intelligent design theory, shall not be presented in such courses. B. In non-science courses such as history, literature, and social studies, public school teachers may present information about religion, about differences between religious sects, and about religion-based views on the creation, origin or development processes of life forms or of physical matter, including intelligent design theory; provided that such teaching neither treats religion or religious views as truth or as ignorance, nor promotes nor discriminates against religion generally, any particular set of religious beliefs, or any negative views about religion.  Dan Gibbens University of Oklahoma College of Law  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:57 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: School District drops Intelligent Design Class I don't think is so hard to enforce.  Most people most of the time follow guidelines and this should be no different.  We should not ban something just because sometimes people stray across a fuzzy boundary inadvertently or just because some people will intentionally try to abuse the guidelines and further their own agendas. This desire for purity in this area baffles me.  It is not possible.  We ought not fail to do or allow something just because it can sometimes be abused.  And we ought not fail to teach something or allow something to be taught just because some people will be upset or draw the line differently. Steve On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Newsom Michael wrote: This is, of course, the central problem: how to enforce the distinction between teaching about religion and teaching religion.  Enforcement, it strikes me, is insuperably difficult.  How does one make sure that the teachers do not breach the line, and how does one make sure that the curriculum, or lesson plan does not breach the line? I am not sure, therefore, that one can reasonably assume that teaching about religion will not become, in far too many cases, teaching religion.  Thus why should one favor teaching about religion in the public elementary and secondary schools at all?   Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                     vox:  202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law                           fax:  202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW                            mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC  20008           http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar

_______________________________________________
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.