Re: Draft ID statutory language
It seems to me this language presents a kind of King Canute conundrum. It makes a legislative statement, a legislative finding, that is at least contestable if not clearly contrary to fact. Were I challenging, I'd challenge the first sentence as factually inaccurate, especially where it says "there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either." There is plenty fo scientific information about the origins of the universe and the origins of life, in their respective scientific spheres. Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize in 1978 for discovering the "cosmic background radiation" that confirmed Big Bang and, more importantly, disproved Steady State (here's the Nobel site on the award: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1978/). Canute can order the tides to desist, but they won't. The legisl! ature can make claims contrary to fact and history, but the claimsmay not stand, depending on the court. The case of the Utah legislature's covering the clock in order to keep legislating past the deadline for adjournment sine die might be a relevant precedent.It seems to me it would be difficult to find any valid, secular purposes to the blanket banning of information on DNA evidence of heredity, which seems to me clearly covered under the first paragraph; or of any of the other interesting, informative, but inconclusive research done by NASA's astrobiology program, Sidney Fox's protocells, Andrew Ellington's chirality observations, or the Urey-Miller experiments and the consistent follow ups by James Ferris and NASA. This language arguably bans discussions of the work of Luther Burbank and George Washington Carver, in addition to banning the use of plant keys in botany, and the study of the work of Carl Linne, since they pr! ovide supporting evidence for natural selection and especially common descent. I'd have a tough time teaching a Boy Scout merit badge in Forestry or Wildlife Management under such rules. The First Class requirements for plant identification might be allowable, but as I noted, the usual use of plant keys seems to be disallowed. The second clause tends to invalidate teaching about the control of diseases through most of the methods of public health, if we truly are to avoid discrimination against the beliefs of Christian Scientists, I think. Is there any valid reason to want to contradict so much science -- valid secular or religious reason?I haven't had my coffee yet. I may be missing problems with the language, but that's my first reaction.Ed Darrell Dallas "Gibbens, Daniel G." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Belowisdraft language fora billfor our state legislature in light of pro-ID bills filed. Although the deadline has passed for bill-filing this session,some thinksomething of this sort may havefuture use. So comments and criticismare requested.Obviously the draft is an effort under the rubric of pragmatism. It does not address critical issues such as thedefinition for public school purposes of "science", or what's involved in teaching "about religion". On the l! atter 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 teachersshall 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 JamarSent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:57 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 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
Tenafly Eruv Case Finally Settled
From the Times:"After five years of legal battles, the leaders of this Bergen County borough approved an agreement on Tuesday night that enables an eruv, a symbolic boundary for Orthodox Jews that allows them to do some work on the Sabbath, to remain in place." Nice victory for religious libertyunder the individualized exemption processexception of Smith.Rick DuncanRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexe! d, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.___ 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.
Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
I don't know if this report is accurate or not, but here is an excerpt: A holy war over homosexuality has erupted on the campus of a San Francisco Bay area high school, as five teachers are refusing orders to display a pro-"gay" banner because of their religious beliefs. The rainbow-flag poster with pink triangles and other symbols of homosexual pride carries the message, "This is a safe place to be who you are. This sign affirms that support and resources are available for you in this school." The banner, designed by the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Leandro High School south of Oakland, Calif., was ordered by the school board in December to be posted i! n all classrooms. "This is not about religion, sex or a belief system,'' district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the policy, told the San Francisco Chronicle. "This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation." Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.___ 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Does someone think there is a (serious) religious liberty argument available to the teachers here? From what we have here, there appears to be nothing at all religious about the message and policy the school board has decided to pursue; it is a secular message about diversity. There is nothing inherently religious about homosexuality per se (just as there is nothing inherently religious about pork -- would an orthodox Jew who refused to post the school lunchroom menu in her classroom because it included pork products have a valid religious liberty claim?). It is only a religious issue to the extent that teachers who object to gay people based on their personal religious beliefs choose to characterize it as one. Cf. a PR campaign to embrace religious diversity among students, something that sent the message that all student religious backgrounds are viewed by the school as equal and accepted. Would the teachers have an argument against that as well? Steve Sanders Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I don't know if this report is accurate or not, but here is an excerpt: A holy war over homosexuality has erupted on the campus of a San Francisco Bay area high school, as five teachers are refusing orders to display a pro-gay banner because of their religious beliefs. The rainbow-flag poster with pink triangles and other symbols of homosexual pride carries the message, This is a safe place to be who you are. This sign affirms that support and resources are available for you in this school. The banner, designed by the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Leandro High School south of Oakland, Calif., was ordered by the school board in December to be posted in all classrooms. This is not about religion, sex or a belief system,'' district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the policy, told the San Francisco Chronicle. This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner - Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail. _ 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
I think Steve is right that there is probably no 1A religious liberty issue (certainly no EC issue)or free speech (compelled spech)issue so long as the requirement is that the banner be posted in the classroom as opposed to requiring the teachers to do the posting themselves or to somehow associate themselves with the display and its message. The classroom is the property of the school, not the teacher.The solution is probably for school authorities to post the display themselves (e.g., require janitors to put it up), rather than require dissenting teachers to do it. What if a teacher walks into class, sees the display, and states that he does not agree with its posting in his classroom. May the school discipline him for merely making it clear that the display is the message of the school board as opposed to that of the teacher himself? Could a public school require dissenting teachers to post a! pink triangle in their offices or wear a pink triangle pin on their clothing? Now we are getting closer to a serious 1A issue.I also think there is anon-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs?RickSteve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does someone think there is a (serious) religious liberty argument available to the teachers here? From what we have here, there appears to be nothing at all religious about the message and policy the school board has decided to pursue; it is a secular message about diversity.There is nothing inherently religious about homosexuality per se (just as there is nothing inherently religious about pork -- would an orthodox Jew who refused to post the school lunchroom menu in her classroom because it included pork products have a valid religious liberty claim?). It is only a religious issue to the extent that teachers who object to gay people based on their personal religious beliefs choose to characterize it as one.Cf. a PR campaign to embrace religious diversity among students, something that sent the message that all student religious backgrounds are viewed by the school as equal and accepted. Would the teachers have an argument against that as well?Steve SandersQuoting Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I don't know if this report is accurate or not, but here is an excerpt: A holy war over homosexuality has erupted on the campus of a San Francisco Bay area high school, as five teachers are refusing orders to display a pro-"gay" banner because of their religious beliefs. ! The rainbow-flag poster with pink triangles and other symbols of homosexual pride carries the message, "This is a safe place to be who you are. This sign affirms that support and resources are available for you in this school." The banner, designed by the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Leandro High School south of Oakland, Calif., was ordered by the school board in December to be posted in all classrooms. "This is not about religion, sex or a belief system,'' district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the policy, told the San Francisco Chronicle. "This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation." Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must! follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner - Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail._Steve SandersE-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.___ 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
teaching about religion in the public schools
There is a long article in yesterdays WSJ about the conflicts that have arisen in the California Department of Educations textbook review process. At least to my mind, the article raises a variety of interesting questions. Is there a constitutional problem if a public school teaches children what members of their religion and other religions purport to believe and those teachings are challenged on the grounds that they: misrepresent the religions teachings denigrate the tenets of a particular faith favor one or more religions over others -- or one understanding of what a religion stands for over another when there is internal conflict as to the religions precepts. Under Scalias understanding of the Establishment Clause, might a school only teach students about monotheistic faiths and ignore any discussion of other religions. The article describes a disagreement among Hindu organizations and scholars on the question of whether Hinduism is monotheistic or polytheistic. Who gets to answer that question (both for the purpose of determining what is taught in school and with regard to the preferences Scalia would extend to monotheistic religious displays)? Is that a matter for political determination or constitutional adjudication? Alan Brownstein UC Davis ___ 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Since the discussion is non-constitutional at this point, isn't this the same policy issue presented when a Catholic school hires non-Catholic teachers, which they often do, and yet requires them to operate in classrooms with crucifixes in them? If the Catholic school can reiterate its institutional message by symbolic representation, regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual teachers, why can't a public school do the same (with respect to a secular message)? A religious objection to a religious message and a religious objection to a secular message seem to me to be on an equal footing. VanceOn 1/26/06, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think there is anon-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs? -- Vance R. KovenBoston, MA USA[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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What if a teacher walks into class, sees the display, and states that he does not agree with its posting in his classroom. May the school discipline him for merely making it clear that the display is the message of the school board as opposed to that of the teacher himself? It be interesting to speculate, too, whether gay students would then have some sort of disparate-impact and/or harassment claim (against the teachers individually? the school board?) under the state or local non-discrimination ordinances (there is no federal gay rights law, of course). I also think there is a non-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs? Rick, the problem with this, is seems to me (and like yours, this isn't a legal argument, but a practical one), is that the vast majority of religious believers (of all types) probably encounter, in their daily work lives, any number of policies, things they are expected to do, colleagues they are expected to put up with, etc., that they could claim violate some sincerely held religious belief of theirs, if they insisted on being strict and literal about it. But most people do what they need to do to get by each day, if for no other reason than they've absorbed the American ethos of live-and-let-live pluralism. Not long ago, civic-republican oriented conservatives wrote books with titles like The Culture of Complaint, about how too many Americans had become whiny, oversensitive rights-claimers to the exclusion of larger notions of duty and citizenship. I confess, the idea of teachers taking offense and asserting rights against policies that are intended to help their own students learn in safer and more effective environments strikes me as being just as regrettable. Steve Sanders ___ 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
It's the same except in one case it's the government "Vance R. Koven" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the discussion is non-constitutional at this point, isn't this the same policy issue presented when a Catholic school hires non-Catholic teachers, which they often do, and yet requires them to operate in classrooms with crucifixes in them? If the Catholic school can reiterate its institutional message by symbolic representation, regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual teachers, why can't a public school do the same (with respect to a secular message)? A religious objection to a religious message and a religious objection to a secular message seem to me to be on an equal footing. Vance On 1/26/06, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think there is anon-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs?-- Vance R. KovenBoston, MA USA[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.___ 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.
RE: teaching about religion in the public schools
Alans post raises an important point, which is that when we expect, or even mandate, public schools to address controversial matters or matters that strike close to home for people, in terms of their strongest values and personal lives, sticky questions may arise. Ill duck the specific questions Alan raises about teaching on religion for now although I think them to be unavoidable questions for a school system and instead suggest that one could sketch a similar series of anguishing questions for how a public school would address issues of race, economic class, political affiliation, and sexual orientation. To take just the latter as an example, a quality education to prepare a student for life in the modern American culture could not ignore altogether the controversies about homosexual orientation and same-sex marriage. But given the strong divisions in our culture, a balanced educational approach ought to tread along a careful line between presenting accurate information and proselytizing either for traditional values or in favor of the moral neutrality or societal benefits of homosexual unions. What Im saying is this: the fact that teaching about sensitive topics, whether religion or race or sexual orientation, is difficult is not necessarily a reason not to do it. That a difficult subject is challenging to convey, and a fully satisfactory resolution may prove always elusive, doesnt mean that the matter isnt worth the effort. (Note that I dont understand Alan here to be saying otherwise, I was just using his post as a springboard to anticipate the argument that some may make, and have made in the past, that these kinds of sticky problems prove the impossibility and impropriety of teaching about religion in public schools.) Greg Sisk -Original Message- From: Alan Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:39 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: teaching about religion in the public schools There is a long article in yesterdays WSJ about the conflicts that have arisen in the California Department of Educations textbook review process. At least to my mind, the article raises a variety of interesting questions. 1. Is there a constitutional problem if a public school teaches children what members of their religion and other religions purport to believe and those teachings are challenged on the grounds that they: a. misrepresent the religions teachings b. denigrate the tenets of a particular faith c. favor one or more religions over others -- or one understanding of what a religion stands for over another when there is internal conflict as to the religions precepts. 2. Under Scalias understanding of the Establishment Clause, might a school only teach students about monotheistic faiths and ignore any discussion of other religions. 3. The article describes a disagreement among Hindu organizations and scholars on the question of whether Hinduism is monotheistic or polytheistic. Who gets to answer that question (both for the purpose of determining what is taught in school and with regard to the preferences Scalia would extend to monotheistic religious displays)? Is that a matter for political determination or constitutional adjudication? Alan Brownstein UC Davis ___ 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Whoops. I sent the last reply by mistake.Sorry.I meant to say that the cases are the same except in one case it is the government requiring public school teachers to teach in a classroom under an ideological display that offendssome teachers' religious beliefs.I think the govt has the power to do it, but I would not want my elected school board to shove a contoversial message down the throats of sincerely dissenting teachers (not to mention dissenting students who are being made a captive audience for this message).Rick "Vance R. Koven" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the discussion is non-constitutional at this point, isn't this the same policy issue presented when a Catholic school hires non-Catholic teachers, which they ! often do, and yet requires them to operate in classrooms with crucifixes in them? If the Catholic school can reiterate its institutional message by symbolic representation, regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual teachers, why can't a public school do the same (with respect to a secular message)? A religious objection to a religious message and a religious objection to a secular message seem to me to be on an equal footing. Vance On 1/26/06, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think there is anon-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs?-- Vance R. KovenBoston, MA USA[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will no! t be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.___ 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Steve: I agree with your point about whiny victims and the culture of complaint. But here is the problem. One group of whiny complainers asks for a Pink Triangle to make them feel more welcome. This causes another group of whiny complainers to complain about having the Pink Triangles shoved down their throats. Which group of whiny complainers should be appeased? What would be the more neutral way of resolving this dispute between the dueling whiners?Rick DuncanSteve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: What if a teacher walks into class, sees the display, and states that he does not agree with its posting in his classroom. May the school discipline him for merely making it clear that the display is the message of ! the school board as opposed to that of the teacher himself?It be interesting to speculate, too, whether gay students would then have some sort of disparate-impact and/or harassment claim (against the teachers individually? the school board?) under the state or local non-discrimination ordinances (there is no federal gay rights law, of course). I also think there is a non-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs?Rick, the problem with this, is seems to me (and like yours, this isn't a legal argument, but a practical one), is that the vast majority of religious believers (of all types) probably encounter, in their daily work lives, any number of policies, things they are expected to do, colleagues they are expected to put up with, etc., that they could claim violate some sincerely he! ld religious belief of theirs, if they insisted on being strict and literal about it. But most people do what they need to do to get by each day, if for no other reason than they've absorbed the American ethos of live-and-let-live pluralism.Not long ago, civic-republican oriented conservatives wrote books with titles like "The Culture of Complaint," about how too many Americans had become whiny, oversensitive rights-claimers to the exclusion of larger notions of duty and citizenship. I confess, the idea of teachers taking offense and asserting "rights" against policies that are intended to help their own students learn in safer and more effective environments strikes me as being just as regrettable.Steve Sanders___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.___ 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.
Re: Draft ID statutory language
Title: Message Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote: Messrs. Brayton's and Darrell's responses are much appreciated. For the religiously oriented,the lack of science-based information is no proof of the existence of "God" (or of "the Force" in sciencefiction). It does importantly leave intellectual space for those who choose to believe in a god (and if so to ponder wherethat godcame from), as well as intellectual space for those who choose to believe there is no god. And I think this is a very reasonable statement. I'm sure there will be some on the extremes on both sides who will argue that this is ceding too much to the other side, but I think it strikes a healthy and constitutionally appropriate balance. And shouldn't curiosityabout the origin and meaning of "time"also be encouraged in public school teaching? As for labeling "intelligent design" a"theory", I'm not sure. Francis Beckwith prefers "an intellectual movement" comprised of "particular strands of thought" (his 2003 book, p. 91). For Forrest Gross, it is a "bold strategy" as well as "a movement with a plan" (their 2004 book, p.16), among other things. One thing for sure, it is offered as contrary to "evolution theory". I think both Beckwith and Forrest and Gross have it right. It's certainly a movement that comprises a handful of basic arguments (irreducible complexity, specified information, etc), and it's certainly true that it is often (but not always) offered as being contrary to the theory of evolution, but that does not make it a theory in and of itself. Personally, I think a more accurate term is "model". That is, evolutionary theory is a model of the natural history of life on earth that is made up of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different theories and hypotheses about different aspects of how it occured. It can be stated as a general theory - "the theory that all life on earth is derived from a common ancestor via descent with modification" - but there are innumerable theories and hypotheses within that model. ID is not property called a theory for several reasons. First, it makes no novel predictions about the nature of the evidence, meaning that there is no model of the natural history of life on earth. For some ID advocates, the earth is only 6000 years old and all present life forms were created in a single week and lived on earth simultaneously; for other ID advocates, the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life developed on earth gradually over the course of 3.9 billion years as the evidence indicates. Second, there is no positive statement of ID that can be made, partially because of the first problem and partially because all of the arguments for ID presume and are reliant upon the failure of evolution to explain a given phenomenon (irreducible complexity relies upon the inability of complex biochemical systems to evolve, Dembski's explanatory filter relies upon the inability of the interaction of chance and law to do the same thing, all of Wells' arguments are purely negative in evaluating arguments for evolution, etc.). Third, because there is no way to either test or falsify ID. So it's fair to call it a movement, but not a theory in the scientific sense of the term. 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
We have the pink triangles here at the University of Nebraska, too (http://www.unl.edu/health/peereducation/ally.html) but I personally believe that they have nothing to do with safety. If people aren't safe because they're gay, straight, Christian, atheist, male, female, or any other reason at all, then there's a campus safety issue. In practice, though, what they call safety really means I won't hear anyone suggest that sex belongs only within a heterosexual marriage. Superintendent Lim's claim that it's not about a belief system is simply disingenuous. I say this as somebody who experienced more than a little verbal abuse growing up. I was considered a geek or a spaz or a nerd because I played the violin, I wasn't athletic, I was smart, and I didn't have many social skills. Did it hurt? Absolutely. Should the other kids have done it? Of course not. But that's part of what kids do. There will always be some kids who pick on other kids, either verbally or physically, sometimes both, and to varying degrees, especially if the victims aren't considered part of the in crowd. But the issue wasn't whether I was a geek or a spaz or a nerd. The issue was the abuse. If they think putting up posters about safety will make a difference, they're kidding themselves. If the bullies don't abuse kids because of their sexual orientation (or perceived sexual orientation, because not everybody abused for being gay really is gay), then they'll abuse them because they don't have a car or because their clothes aren't fashionable or because they're smart or because they wear glasses. Or because they play the violin. If they seriously wanted to address safety, then the posters would not single out one segment of the student body to say You're accepted to. They'd talk, instead, about bullying and disrespect across the board. Suppose you have Mike who goes to school and is very active in his evangelical church. He's invited to a party, and they tell him that there will be alcohol there and maybe a chance to have sex without any parents to say not to. Consequently, he says he won't go, and when asked why not, he tells them the truth: that drinking and premarital sex go against the teachings of his faith. In response, he gets called a prude or a holy roller or a Jesus freak. He opens his locker to find other students have stuck Playboy centerfolds in it. Is the school district going to make sure there is a banner in every classroom saying it's okay to hold any given faith and to live according to it? Not likely, and even if they did, would that mean the other students would stop mocking and harassing him? Even less likely. That's why a teacher has a legitimate reason to object to these posters, regardless of whether there is a Constitutional issue or not, because they have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with expressing the District's preferred political message. And the students who believe that sex belongs solely within a monogamous heterosexual marriage? They get the in your face message every day that the District considers them a threat to safety. I'm sure that makes them feel very welcome. Brad Rick Duncan wrote: I don't know if this report is accurate or not, but here is an excerpt: A holy war over homosexuality has erupted on the campus of a San Francisco Bay area high school, as five teachers are refusing orders to display a pro-gay banner because of their religious beliefs. The rainbow-flag poster with pink triangles and other symbols of homosexual pride carries the message, This is a safe place to be who you are. This sign affirms that support and resources are available for you in this school. The banner, designed by the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Leandro High School south of Oakland, Calif., was ordered by the school board in December to be posted in all classrooms. This is not about religion, sex or a belief system,'' district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the policy, told the San Francisco Chronicle. This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation.___ 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Rick Duncan wrote: Steve: I agree with your point about whiny victims and the culture of complaint. But here is the problem. One group of whiny complainers asks for a Pink Triangle to make them feel more welcome. This causes another group of whiny complainers to complain about having the Pink Triangles shoved down their throats. Which group of whiny complainers should be appeased? What would be the more neutral way of resolving this dispute between the dueling whiners? Given how common anti-gay harrassment and bullying is in our schools - and believe me, I've been there and seen it first hand - I hardly think it's reasonable to say that those who make an effort to prevent that from occuring are whiny complainers. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and imagine being a gay teenager on a football team. Teenage boys, in particular, can be incredibly cruel. If you are even suspected of being gay, if you show the slightest affectation that someone interprets as a sign of being gay, you can find yourself living a nightmare of constant bullying. I know this for a fact, I've watched it happen to people I care about and I've been one of those people who has had to stand up for them and say, Enough. When I see gay-straight alliances forming in public schools and kids rallying around other kids who have been victimized by this sort of thing and taking a stand against this kind of bigotry, I'm proud of them. The schools should absolutely be supporting those efforts. 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.
RE: Draft ID statutory language
Title: Message With respect, I have a great deal of difficulty in understanding this proposed language, and its purpose. I have a great deal of concern about its probable effects or consequences. Let me just pose three questions for now. First, what is actual creation? Without knowing what that means, it is impossible to assess the duty that the first paragraph would impose on public school teachers. With regard to the second paragraph, why single out evolution/ID? Isnt there far more to teaching ABOUT religion than that? The focus is worrisome. Also with respect to the second paragraph, how are you going to enforce the prohibition contained in the proviso? From: Gibbens, Daniel G. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:48 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Draft ID statutory language Belowisdraft language fora billfor our state legislature in light of pro-ID bills filed. Although the deadline has passed for bill-filing this session,some thinksomething of this sort may havefuture use. So comments and criticismare requested. Obviously the draft is an effort under the rubric of pragmatism. It does not address critical issues such as thedefinition 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 teachersshall 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.
RE: teaching about religion in the public schools
The problem is just not the nature of the difficulties teaching about religion necessarily raises, but also the problem of enforcement. It does no good if the teachers will not abide by the resolution of the sticky problems made by the appropriate school or other officials including judges. From: Sisk, Gregory C. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:30 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: teaching about religion in the public schools (Note that I dont understand Alan here to be saying otherwise, I was just using his post as a springboard to anticipate the argument that some may make, and have made in the past, that these kinds of sticky problems prove the impossibility and impropriety of teaching about religion in public schools.) Greg Sisk ___ 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Brad M Pardee wrote: We have the pink triangles here at the University of Nebraska, too (http://www.unl.edu/health/peereducation/ally.html) but I personally believe that they have nothing to do with safety. If people aren't safe because they're gay, straight, Christian, atheist, male, female, or any other reason at all, then there's a campus safety issue. In practice, though, what they call "safety" really means "I won't hear anyone suggest that sex belongs only within a heterosexual marriage." Superintendent Lim's claim that it's not about a belief system is simply disingenuous. I think you're presuming here what you can't possibly know. You don't know what the motivations are of the people who want those signs to go up. How do you know that they're not genuinely concerned about the amount of bullying that goes on of anyone presumed to be gay? I've been in their place, seeking to do something to encourage people to treat these kids with dignity. I've watched it first hand and seen the destruction it can cause. I've grieved for a friend who killed himself because of it and it motivated me to band together with other like minded people to try and counter the bigotry and harrassment that they had to face every day. And yet you casually dismiss such concerns as really just being about not wanting to hear disagreement about sex within a heterosexual marriage? The fact that there are other forms of harrassment around does not diminish the legitimate actions to curb this particular type of abuse. 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Rick, I'll ask you to stipulate that there probably have been incidents of student-on-student harassment (verbal insults, perhaps physical threats and actual violence) directed at the gay students. This is certainly a common phenomenon at other schools, and so let's assume that this is what the school board is responding to. If we're then essentially balancing the equities, it doesn't seem to me a close call. This does not appear to be merely about dueling identity politics, though I recognize it is in the teachers' interest to make it seem so. First, we don't know that the gay students even asked for the posters. All we know is that the school board -- which, of course, has the right to make these policy judgments -- has apparently decided to address an actual, tangible problem (harassment, perhaps violence -- again, I'm making a highly plausible assumption), and determined that a campaign of this sort would be helpful in providing a safer and more effective environment for the education of students On the other side of the scale, we have no reason to believe that the teachers who object to this campaign have suffered comparable insults, harassment, or violence during the school day. Their equity in this situation is their desire to express their subjective dislike or religious disapproval of gay people. Moreover, while juveniles will behave like juveniles, the teachers are adult professionals who are supposed to be concerned with the ability of all their students to learn in a safe and effective environment. No one is requiring them to swear allegiance to a religious creed, march in a parade, or even teach Rubyfruit Jungle. So attempting to characterize this as something being shoved down their throat is quite an exaggeration, I'd suggest. If someone provided evidence that the teachers were suffering harassment that was qualitatively comparable to that being suffered by the gay kids, I'd support an appropriate tolerance campaign for the teachers. But being forced to accept their employer's decision to post a message aimed at improving the environment for students whose educational wellbeing the teachers are supposed to be concerned about anyway is not, to me, qualitatively similar to having your books dumped in the trash and being called a dirty name. Steve Sanders Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Steve: I agree with your point about whiny victims and the culture of complaint. But here is the problem. One group of whiny complainers asks for a Pink Triangle to make them feel more welcome. This causes another group of whiny complainers to complain about having the Pink Triangles shoved down their throats. Which group of whiny complainers should be appeased? What would be the more neutral way of resolving this dispute between the dueling whiners? Rick Duncan Steve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Rick Duncan : What if a teacher walks into class, sees the display, and states that he does not agree with its posting in his classroom. May the school discipline him for merely making it clear that the display is the message of the school board as opposed to that of the teacher himself? It be interesting to speculate, too, whether gay students would then have some sort of disparate-impact and/or harassment claim (against the teachers individually? the school board?) under the state or local non-discrimination ordinances (there is no federal gay rights law, of course). I also think there is a non-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs? Rick, the problem with this, is seems to me (and like yours, this isn't a legal argument, but a practical one), is that the vast majority of religious believers (of all types) probably encounter, in their daily work lives, any number of policies, things they are expected to do, colleagues they are expected to put up with, etc., that they could claim violate some sincerely held religious belief of theirs, if they insisted on being strict and literal about it. But most people do what they need to do to get by each day, if for no other reason than they've absorbed the American ethos of live-and-let-live pluralism. Not long ago, civic-republican oriented conservatives wrote books with titles like The Culture of Complaint, about how too many Americans had become whiny, oversensitive rights-claimers to the exclusion of larger notions of duty and citizenship. I confess, the idea of teachers taking offense and asserting rights against policies that are intended to help their own students learn in safer and more effective environments strikes me as being just as regrettable. Steve Sanders ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Rick: Maybe the test ought to be which whiny group has suffered persecution, gets murdered, beaten up, and threatned (or beaten up and left tied to a fence overnight in Wyoming); which group lives in fear day-to-day of being attacked for the essence of who they are? which needs the protection of the school and which needs to have the majority group be educated about the fundamental wrongness of harming people because of who they are. Or, to put it anther way, in a majority Christian country, with a born-again president, do Chrisian students feel some threat that they are about to be beaten up or even killed because of who they are. If there is a real threat to Christian student and they need to be protected and that they need a place of refuge to avoiding being harmed by fellow students, then by-all means, have a pink triangle and a little cross in a triangle as well, and let the two persecuted groups meet together in a place of refuge. Paul Finkelman Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Steve: I agree with your point about whiny victims and the culture of complaint. But here is the problem. One group of whiny complainers asks for a Pink Triangle to make them feel more welcome. This causes another group of whiny complainers to complain about having the Pink Triangles shoved down their throats. Which group of whiny complainers should be appeased? What would be the more neutral way of resolving this dispute between the dueling whiners? Rick Duncan Steve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Rick Duncan : What if a teacher walks into class, sees the display, and states that he does not agree with its posting in his classroom. May the school discipline him for merely making it clear that the display is the message of the school board as opposed to that of the teacher himself? It be interesting to speculate, too, whether gay students would then have some sort of disparate-impact and/or harassment claim (against the teachers individually? the school board?) under the state or local non-discrimination ordinances (there is no federal gay rights law, of course). I also think there is a non-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs? Rick, the problem with this, is seems to me (and like yours, this isn't a legal argument, but a practical one), is that the vast majority of religious believers (of all types) probably encounter, in their daily work lives, any number of policies, things they are expected to do, colleagues they are expected to put up with, etc., that they could claim violate some sincerely held religious belief of theirs, if they insisted on being strict and literal about it. But most people do what they need to do to get by each day, if for no other reason than they've absorbed the American ethos of live-and-let-live pluralism. Not long ago, civic-republican oriented conservatives wrote books with titles like The Culture of Complaint, about how too many Americans had become whiny, oversensitive rights-claimers to the exclusion of larger notions of duty and citizenship. I confess, the idea of teachers taking offense and asserting rights against policies that are intended to help their own students learn in safer and more effective environments strikes me as being just as regrettable. Steve Sanders ___ 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner - Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail. _ 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
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Ed Brayton wrote: I think you're presuming here what you can't possibly know. You don't know what the motivations are of the people who want those signs to go up. How do you know that they're not genuinely concerned about the amount of bullying that goes on of anyone presumed to be gay? I've been in their place, seeking to do something to encourage people to treat these kids with dignity. I've watched it first hand and seen the destruction it can cause. I've grieved for a friend who killed himself because of it and it motivated me to band together with other like minded people to try and counter the bigotry and harrassment that they had to face every day. And yet you casually dismiss such concerns as really just being about not wanting to hear disagreement about sex within a heterosexual marriage? The fact that there are other forms of harrassment around does not diminish the legitimate actions to curb this particular type of abuse. Ed, The concerns you raise about bullying and harassment are legitimate concerns to any sane person. If the safety message, in practice, was about bullying and harrassment, I would support it because of my own experience of being bullied and harassed, albeit on a lesser scale for things not related to my sexual orientation. I have friends and family members who are homosexual, and if I heard about them being bullied or harassed, I know I'd want to do whatever was within my power to either stop the abuse or to ease the pain. I don't even know what words can adequately describe how I would feel if I heard that they were contemplating suicide because of being bullied or harassed. It is in practice, though, that the rubber meets the road. You're right that I can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt about motivations of the specific officials in San Leandro. I haven't seen their past actions or heard their past pronouncements. I do know what I've seen of what appears to be like-minded individuals here at UNL, though. The word they use may be safety, but in practice, they raise the issue of safety and dignity whenever they encounter anybody who believes that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. It doesn't matter how civil a person is. It doesn't matter how much a person is opposed to bullying of any kind across the board. The only thing that matters is that this person said that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong, and that makes the person a hateful bigot. If the people in San Leandro are truly concerned about genuine safety issues, then more power to them because that would certainly separate them from the folks on this campus, but I would then ask what they are doing to address the safety of students who are being harassed and bullied for reasons other than sexual orientation. Brad___ 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.
RE: teaching about religion in the public schools
I agree with a lot of what Greg says here. Schools can not and should not avoid teaching about any and all sensitive topics (although that does not mean that they have to address every imaginable controversial issue without regard to age propriety or class relevance.) When they do address sensitive topics, they should exercise care and present a balanced perspective.. But I take it that Greg and I would probably also agree that this kind of balance isnt necessary on all topics. Schools may overtly favor racial tolerance over bigotry and democracy over fascism. Government can endorse and promote at least some political values (or truths) in a variety of ways -- including public education. Moreover, as a general matter, it is pretty clear that the line between sensitive issues and those as to which a particular value perspective may be promoted should be resolved through political deliberation and, ultimately, majoritarian determination (e.g. election of school board members etc.) Either or both of us may disagree with some of those determinations as a matter of educational policy. But those disagreements usually do not raise constitutional issues. Religion is different (or at least arguably different). We dont assign questions about religious faith and truth to the government or to the polity for majoritarian determination. My question is whether this resistance to government deciding religious questions extends to government teachings about particular religious beliefs and communities. If the government teaches school children that Hinduism is a polytheistic faith, and this statement is in error or contested, does that raise a constitutional question? If a public school teaches students that the use of medical contraceptives is not necessarily inconsistent with Catholic beliefs because so many Catholics (or people who claim to be Catholic) use medical contraceptives, can that be the basis of a constitutional claim? Alan Brownstein From: [EMAIL PROTECTED].ucla.edu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED].ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Sisk, Gregory C. Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:30 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: teaching about religion in the public schools Alans post raises an important point, which is that when we expect, or even mandate, public schools to address controversial matters or matters that strike close to home for people, in terms of their strongest values and personal lives, sticky questions may arise. Ill duck the specific questions Alan raises about teaching on religion for now although I think them to be unavoidable questions for a school system and instead suggest that one could sketch a similar series of anguishing questions for how a public school would address issues of race, economic class, political affiliation, and sexual orientation. To take just the latter as an example, a quality education to prepare a student for life in the modern American culture could not ignore altogether the controversies about homosexual orientation and same-sex marriage. But given the strong divisions in our culture, a balanced educational approach ought to tread along a careful line between presenting accurate information and proselytizing either for traditional values or in favor of the moral neutrality or societal benefits of homosexual unions. What Im saying is this: the fact that teaching about sensitive topics, whether religion or race or sexual orientation, is difficult is not necessarily a reason not to do it. That a difficult subject is challenging to convey, and a fully satisfactory resolution may prove always elusive, doesnt mean that the matter isnt worth the effort. (Note that I dont understand Alan here to be saying otherwise, I was just using his post as a springboard to anticipate the argument that some may make, and have made in the past, that these kinds of sticky problems prove the impossibility and impropriety of teaching about religion in public schools.) Greg Sisk -Original Message- From: Alan Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED].ucdavis.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED].ucla.edu Subject: teaching about religion in the public schools There is a long article in yesterdays WSJ about the conflicts that have arisen in the California Department of Educations textbook review process. At least to my mind, the article raises a variety of interesting questions. 1. Is there a constitutional problem if a public school teaches children what members of their religion and other religions purport to believe and those teachings are challenged on the grounds that they: a. misrepresent the religions teachings b. denigrate the tenets of a particular faith c. favor one or more religions over others -- or one understanding of what a religion stands for over another when there is internal conflict as to the religions precepts. 2. Under Scalias understanding of the Establishment
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
On Jan 26, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: snip I do know what I've seen of what appears to be like-minded individuals here at UNL, though. The word they use may be safety, but in practice, they raise the issue of safety and dignity whenever they encounter anybody who believes that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. It doesn't matter how civil a person is. It doesn't matter how much a person is opposed to bullying of any kind across the board. The only thing that matters is that this person said that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong, and that makes the person a hateful bigot. If the people in San Leandro are truly concerned about genuine safety issues, then more power to them because that would certainly separate them from the folks on this campus, but I would then ask what they are doing to address the safety of students who are being harassed and bullied for reasons other than sexual orientation. Brad, I'm one of those likeminded individuals. I've known folks who hold that homosexuality is wrong, and yet managed to refrain from insulting, intimidating, berating, harassing and threatening homosexuals. In fact, they even stand up AGAINST that sort of behavior, AS PART OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEF. I think you're painting with too broad a brush. I've NEVER heard any of my compatriots EVER call someone a hateful bigot simply because they held a belief that homosexuality is wrong. What I've experienced is that name is used when such folks refuse to believe that there is a problem, turn a blind eye toward hateful behavior. I may very well burn in hell for not being heterosexual. I'll take my chances. However, I DO NOT have to put up with harassment here and now, and I DEMAND that teachers in public schools make EVERY effort to ensure that students don't have to put up with a hostile environment because of their self-identified sexual orientation, their religion, their color, their national origin, or their political affiliations. And if the schoolboard makes a decision to communicate that such things will not be tolerated by putting up rainbow flags, pink triangles and lambda sigil, then teachers REGARDLESS of their religious affiliation are duty bound to uphold it. Jean Dudley ___ 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.
RE: Draft ID statutory language
Ed Brayton's suggestions were much cooler-headed than my post; if there is to be legislation, he offers some ways to make it almost workable.I am nervous about legislatures stepping into a role where what is known by science is determined by a majority vote of people who are almost completely divorced from science, still. Our colleagues in the tort trenches would be similarly concerned were legislatures to start determining what science can and cannot be used in trial, short-circuiting the trial processes where experts can be put on the stand and queried about what is really known. The present process gets well-researched ideas into the textbooks and into the curriculum without any legislative body required to approve the ideas as science. It seems to me that any attempt to legislate in the area is a step backwards, in the practice of science, in the determination of truth, and in the prac! tice of law. Will the legislature be in session when the science changes? I don't think a case is yet made that current systems are inadequate to determine what is known by science and what gets put in the textbooks.Ed Darrell Dallas"Gibbens, Daniel G." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Messrs. Brayton's and Darrell's responses are much appreciated. Ed Brayton's language suggestions are helpful. My understanding matches these two sentences of his: (1) "It's certainl! y true to say that we don't have any information about what, if anything, originated or caused the big bang." (2)"Scientists continue to research the question of the origin of life, but as of now there is no accepted explanation on that question." Similarly, my understanding matchesEd Darrell'sencouragement of public schoolscience teaching about "early earth environment, giving us information about the environment in which life originated," and"the 'cosmic background radiation' that confirmed Big Bang."The legislative draft language is a pragmaticeffort to distinguish the science-based information about "the development processes"-- including the conditions existing at the start of those processes -- on the one hand, and the lack of science-based information on what actually started those processes -- the source of those conditions --on the other. For the religiously oriented,the lack of science-based information is no proof of the existence of "God" (or of "the Force" in sciencefiction). It does importantly leave intellectual space for those who choose to believe in a god (and if so to ponder wherethat godcame from), as well as intellectual space for those who choose to believe there! is no god.And shouldn't curiosityabout the origin and meaning of "time"also be encouraged in public school teaching?As for labeling "intelligent design" a"theory", I'm not sure. Francis Beckwith prefers "an intellectual movement" comprised of "particular strands of thought" (his 2003 book, p. 91). For Forrest Gross, it is a "bold strategy" as well as "a movement with a plan" (their 2004 book, p.16), among other things. One thing for sure, it is offered as contrary to "evolution theory". Dan Gibbens -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed DarrellSent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 6:08 AM It seems to me this language presents a kind of King Canute conundrum. It makes a legislative statement, a legislative finding, that is at least contestable if not clearly contrary to fact. Were I challenging, I'd challenge the first sentence as ! factually inaccurate, especially where it says "there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either." There is plenty fo scientific information about the origins of the universe and the origins of life, in their respective scientific spheres. Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize in 1978 for discovering the "cosmic background radiation" that confirmed Big Bang and, more importantly, disproved Steady State (here's the Nobel site on the award: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1978/). Canute can order the tides to desist, but they won't. The legisl! ature can make claims contrary to fact and history, but the claimsmay not stand, depending on the court. The case of the Utah legislature's covering the clock in order to keep legislating past the deadline for adjournment sine ! die might be a relevant precedent.It seems to me it would be difficult to find any valid, secular purposes to the blanket banning of information on DNA evidence of heredity, which seems to me clearly covered under the first paragraph; or of any of the other interesting, informative, but inconclusive research done by NASA's astrobiology program, Sidney Fox's protocells, Andrew Ellington's chirality observations, or the Urey-Miller experiments and the consistent follow ups by James Ferris and NASA. This language arguably bans discussions of the work of Luther Burbank and George Washington Carver, in addition to banning the
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
--- Brad M Pardee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're right that I can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt about motivations of the specific officials in San Leandro. I haven't seen their past actions or heard their past pronouncements. I do know what I've seen of what appears to be like-minded individuals here at UNL, though. The word they use may be safety, but in practice, they raise the issue of safety and dignity whenever they encounter anybody who believes that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. - Question: How would such individuals know whether persons they perceive to be gay are having sex outside of heterosexual marriage or indeed having sex at all?? This is certainly an example of prejudice in its classic semantic meaning -- presupposing something about someone without any proof, based on preconceived notions of what must be so. Being gay is not about sex. A person can be gay and celibate (and indeed many are). It would seem that it is indeed the bigots, and their extremist counterparts, the harassers and attackers, who are being disingenous when they claim they are only expressing their religious view that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. ~Rita Ed Brayton wrote: I think you're presuming here what you can't possibly know. You don't know what the motivations are of the people who want those signs to go up. How do you know that they're not genuinely concerned about the amount of bullying that goes on of anyone presumed to be gay? I've been in their place, seeking to do something to encourage people to treat these kids with dignity. I've watched it first hand and seen the destruction it can cause. I've grieved for a friend who killed himself because of it and it motivated me to band together with other like minded people to try and counter the bigotry and harrassment that they had to face every day. And yet you casually dismiss such concerns as really just being about not wanting to hear disagreement about sex within a heterosexual marriage? The fact that there are other forms of harrassment around does not diminish the legitimate actions to curb this particular type of abuse. Ed, The concerns you raise about bullying and harassment are legitimate concerns to any sane person. If the safety message, in practice, was about bullying and harrassment, I would support it because of my own experience of being bullied and harassed, albeit on a lesser scale for things not related to my sexual orientation. I have friends and family members who are homosexual, and if I heard about them being bullied or harassed, I know I'd want to do whatever was within my power to either stop the abuse or to ease the pain. I don't even know what words can adequately describe how I would feel if I heard that they were contemplating suicide because of being bullied or harassed. It is in practice, though, that the rubber meets the road. You're right that I can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt about motivations of the specific officials in San Leandro. I haven't seen their past actions or heard their past pronouncements. I do know what I've seen of what appears to be like-minded individuals here at UNL, though. The word they use may be safety, but in practice, they raise the issue of safety and dignity whenever they encounter anybody who believes that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. It doesn't matter how civil a person is. It doesn't matter how much a person is opposed to bullying of any kind across the board. The only thing that matters is that this person said that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong, and that makes the person a hateful bigot. If the people in San Leandro are truly concerned about genuine safety issues, then more power to them because that would certainly separate them from the folks on this campus, but I would then ask what they are doing to address the safety of students who are being harassed and bullied for reasons other than sexual orientation. Brad ___ 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. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
