Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/17/2004 3:22:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had a neighbor, who characterized himself as "a born again Christian." Knowing that I am Jewish, he one day presented me with literature from "Jews for Jesus." He explained to me his reasons for doing so, and I told him that I've thought about religion a great deal, even taught the philosophy of religion, and I have well-decided beliefs on the matter and essentially concluded thanks but no thanks. Our "good neighbor" relationship was none the worse--indeed, it probably became richer--as a result of this episode. Had he pursued his religious inclinations to convert me, or had I persisted in challenging his convictions, our relationship might not have withstood the test of time. This narrative is evidence aplenty that the discussion can move forward in meaningful ways without the "proselytizing" crutch to aid it. Notice that you say he "presented" you the material and he "explained" his reasons for doing so. It's a small matter to make these mortals so happy. 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/16/2004 5:14:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: namely that teaching and proselytizing religion tend to go hand in hand. Another very good reason for eliminating public schools, or as my liberal friends so often want to do, relying on the canadian model, under which public and parochial schools are funded. Then all are accommodated and the realpolitik of NEA proselyzation does not threaten people of 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
As I read Jim's post, he is not denying what Bobby says, that there is a difference between objectively teaching about religion on the one hand, and trying to persuade on the other. In fact, Jim's post says that he accepts that distinction. Jim's point is that persuasion with which one agrees is typically not labeled proselytizing. Rather, that term is reserved for persuasion which is thought to be improper--and such impropriety is usually in the eye of the beholder. Where the main use of a term is pejorative, it may not be a very helpful term. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12/16/2004 7:22 PM Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:55:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you think that experience requires a different conclusion, then you simply have not read the opposing briefs of a variety of groups on the opposite side from me in numerous constitutional cases. I think briefs are one of the worst examples of testing the importance of the distinction between teaching and proselytizing. Briefs are advocacy pieces, usually (in my experience a long time ago as a federal appellate clerk) poorly done. Impartiality, if it exists at all, is not likely to be found in briefs. Indeed, it might be oxymoronic to contend that impartiality is or should be a goal of brief writing. The distinction between impartiality and advocacy, of course, itself is one of those troubling distinctions (or perhaps dichotomies) whose use might be counterproductive generally. Still shouldn't we exhibit patience when hearing someone using this distinction to see if that particular person is sensitive to its importance and is also sensitive to the ease of abusing it. Only a few people, Stanley Fish comes to mind if his work is not completely based in irony, sincerely believe that these distinctions are meaningless, incoherent or necessarily subject to abuse. Finally, distinctions such as teaching and proselytizing and impartiality and advocacy as well as a host of others are currently defining characteristics of our conceptual discourse. Abandoning these distinctions, while not impossible I suppose, requires a revolution in conceptual discourse similar to the types of revolutions in science Kuhn wrote about. Rejecting our current conceptual discourse is not impossible, but the cost is enormous and should not be borne without an extraordinary justification. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ATT1541434.txt ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/17/2004 10:59:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim's point is that persuasion with which one agrees istypically not labeled "proselytizing". Rather, that term is reserved forpersuasion which is thought to be improper--and such impropriety is usuallyin the eye of the beholder. Where the main use of a term is pejorative, itmay not be a very helpful term. I appreciate Mark's remarks, but I understood Jim to be saying just what Mark attributes to him above. Perhaps, my post was unclear. Let me try again. Evaluating the benefits of using a distinction (or a term) seems to require three elements: (1) How important is the termin our conceptual scheme, (2) How much is it being abused, and (3) How difficult is it to rehabilitate the term, for example, by pointing out its salience in our conceptual scheme as a reason for being more circumspect in avoiding its abuse. For Jim to be right, in my view, he would need to say much more thanpeople often use theterm,"proselytizing" say, as a pejorative term, and "teaching" as an honorific term to hammer home their own partisan views.Consequently, my remarks were directed, even if inelegantly stated, to the fact, as I see it, that for Jim's' assault on the distinction to be plausible, he needed to address the three elements above. I do not see that Jim has succeeded in doing so. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
On Friday, December 17, 2004, at 12:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question of how much it is being used/abused I reflected on anecdotally from my experience litigating these cases for nearly twenty years. A very quick electronic search on Lexis, of Supreme Court briefs, reveals some 300 plus briefs in which the term is employed, and when the precise term proselytizing is searched, the number is 151, with the bulk of its uses being -- no surprise -- in cases involving religion in the schools. And no further surprise, it is principally used by certain members of the usual gang of suspects on one side. But even if it used by only one side, that does not mean it is being misused or used pejoratively. Some teachers sometimes proselytize. Sometimes what one side would characterize as proselytization the other side would as well. Sometimes the other side would not. Having been told that both evangelism and proselytization are Christian obligations (I understand the first easily enough, but have some trouble with the second as a matter of interpretting the gospels), I just don't see it as pejorative in general. I think an objective study of the question will bear it out, and may pursue it myself when time allows. [snip] Proselytizing is a provocative term unless used in a self-deprecating fashion and is likely to do less good than ready substitutes for it. such as? -- 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 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21 ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/17/2004 12:20:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Its importance in communication is not subject to dispute. My messages on this subject have been to the effect of its incalculable value in steering the hearer from rational considerations of that which is tendered through efforts described pejoratively as proselyzation. Who could dispute the importance of a hammer to a carpenter? Nonetheless, when the carpenter uses the hammer to open windows, we could all agree, I supposed, that misuse and abuse was occurring. If its importance is not subject to dispute, then why the fuss? Many distinctions, dichotomies, and terms may in certain circumstancesdistort discourse. Why not just view "proselytizing" as one more term to explicate and argue about. In other words, rather than insist that some terms are inevitably used pejoratively and accordingly steer the conversation away from rationality, include these terms in the conversation and deliberate about whether they are useful or not. I had a neighbor, who characterized himself as "a born again Christian." Knowing that I am Jewish, he one day presented me with literature from "Jews for Jesus." He explained to me his reasons for doing so, and I told him that I've thought about religion a great deal, even taught the philosophy of religion, and I have well-decided beliefs on the matter and essentially concludedthanks but no thanks. Our "good neighbor" relationship was none the worse--indeed, it probably became richer--as a result of thisepisode. Had he pursued his religious inclinations to convert me, or had I persisted in challenging hisconvictions, our relationship might not have withstood the test of time. But neither one of us pursued his inclinations in this regard, and in my view, that's the way it should be. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
But the greatest level of generality does not produce any solutions to the problem of how to treat members of minority religions. So the abstract notion that teaching religion is somehow constitutional flies in the face of the hard facts of life: namely that teaching and proselytizing religion tend to go hand in hand. Those who favor teaching religion in the common schools have the burden, it seems to me, of establishing, in concrete, real world terms, that their programs will be limited to teaching. That strikes me, by the way, as a tall order indeed. They havent made the case yet. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information Now you have made patent your concern: proselytization. But you seem to agree that teaching about religion is something other than proselytization. (As an aside, I always wonder that those with whom we agree never proselyze, they only offer irrefutable arguments, while those whose views are disagreeable are readily described as proselytizing. There is, it seems, a knee-jerking content to the term that makes it valuable in guiding discussions away from substance.) I will concede that the First Amendment, as construed in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, bars proselyzing by school officials (not by students acting on their own). But will you concede that, at least at the greatest level of generality that there is no constitutional impediment to teaching about religion? Jim Can't We All Just Get Along 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
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. ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Now you have made patent your concern: proselytization. But you seem to agree that teaching about religion is something other than proselytization. (As an aside, I always wonder that those with whom we agree never proselyze, they only offer irrefutable arguments, while those whose views are disagreeable are readily described as proselytizing. There is, it seems, a knee-jerking content to the term that makes it valuable in guiding discussions away from substance.) I will concede that the First Amendment, as construed in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, bars proselyzing by school officials (not by students acting on their own). But will you concede that, at least at the greatest level of generality that there is no constitutional impediment to teaching about religion? Jim "Can't We All Just Get Along" 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/16/2004 11:54:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not wrong to be concerned about stigma and exclusion, as some members of the Court have noted over the years. But this is why education must including teaching about religion. Stigma and exclusion attach to the things we disregard, the things we discount, the things we devalue. Few things more effectively communicate disregard, discounted importance, and devaluation as well as the act of ignoring. 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/16/04 5:25:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: if we leave it to other non-public institutions to teach about it. Well, nongovernmental institutions anyway. I admit to a bit of concern regarding the use of the terms public and government interchangeably. One can opine that religion has been thrown out of the public square when the only square the Establishment Clause addresses is that portion of public life "owned" in a sense by the government. As I look around (despite teapot tempests over "Season's Greetings" and "Happy Holidays") I see an abundance of religious _expression_--much of it, to be sure, on private property but property that is either open to the public or expressing a belief/statement/viewpoint that the public sees/can see at will. So I guess it should be asked, "Define 'public.'" Sometimes, it seems that some religious conservatives conflate the separation of church and state and Establishment Clause jurisprudence (Engel and its progeny) with the nongovernmental secularization (coarsening?) of the culture. Some ascribe the secularization of the culture to the former and wish to use the machinery of the state to reduce it. Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Associate Professor Department of Educational Leadership Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
On Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 12:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (As an aside, I always wonder that those with whom we agree never proselyze, they only offer irrefutable arguments, while those whose views are disagreeable are readily described as proselytizing. There is, it seems, a knee-jerking content to the term that makes it valuable in guiding discussions away from substance.) please limit this to yourself, it if is indeed true for you. It is not true in my experience, except for some close minded zealots -- with whom I haven't much direct contact these days. The word is used loosely often, this I grant, but there is a difference between teaching about and proselytization howsoever easily one can drift from one to the other if unwary or if not trying to avoid doing so. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ There is no cosmic law forbidding the triumph of extremism in America. Thomas McIntyre ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Steve, I will not limit that remark to myself. In fact I do not make this use of the term. But in a constitutional law career nearing the twenty year mark, I no longer feel tentative about expressing what I think candor would require most to admit: proselyzing is the ugly term (even though it is actually a perfectly fine word) used to poison the minds of individuals to whom its users are communicating about the persuasive efforts of others. If you think that experience requires a different conclusion, then you simply have not read the opposing briefs of a variety of groups on the opposite side from me in numerous constitutional cases. By the way, you may have missed part of my point. I readily concede that such activities, whether powerful and persuasive (because we like the speaker or his ideas) or proselyzing (because we mistrust the speaker or his motivations), are different in kind from teaching about religion. I understand Professor Newsome's argument that actually teaching about religion is accomplished at best imperfectly (and I'd agree with his conclusion but not likely with his reasoning), but I don't think that imperfect accomplishments are reason to abandon worthy enterprises. 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:20:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word is used loosely often, this I grant, but there is a difference between teaching about and proselytization howsoever easily one can drift from one to the other if unwary or if not trying to avoid doing so. Conceptually, Steve must be right. Right? To denigrate this distinctionmeans that at least in principle, we can draw the distinction. Of course, in fact the distinction might be difficult to apply or even susceptible to abuse, but the cases where what was thought to be an important (interesting, useful, etc.) distinction proves wrong are, I would think, rare. So it goes with the distinction between "teaching" and "proselytizing." If both sides in a controversy accuse the other of proselytizing not teaching, it is unlikely that the distinction is meaningless or incoherent, or that its use is always partisan. One can, of course, counsel others not to use the distinction, or at least not to use it as a dispositive mechanism. But such counsel presupposes the intelligibility of the distinction, not its incoherence, and certainly not the inevitability of its abuse in public discourse. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:55:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you think that experience requires a different conclusion, then you simply have not read the opposing briefs of a variety of groups on the opposite side from me in numerous constitutional cases. I think briefs are one of the worst examples of testing the importance of the distinction between teaching and proselytizing. Briefs are advocacy pieces, usually (in my experience a long time ago as a federal appellate clerk) poorly done. Impartiality, if it exists at all, is not likely to be found in briefs.Indeed, it might be oxymoronic to contend that impartiality is or should be a goal of brief writing. The distinction between impartiality and advocacy, of course, itself is one of those troubling distinctions (or perhaps dichotomies) whose use might be counterproductive generally. Still shouldn't we exhibit patience when hearing someone using this distinction to see if that particular person is sensitive to itsimportanceand is also sensitive to the ease of abusing it.Only a few people, Stanley Fish comes to mind if his work is not completely based in irony, sincerely believe that these distinctions are meaningless, incoherent or necessarily subject to abuse. Finally, distinctions such as "teaching and "proselytizing" and "impartiality" and "advocacy" as well as a host of others are currently defining characteristics of our conceptual discourse. Abandoning these distinctions, while not impossible I suppose, requires a revolution in conceptual discourse similar to the types of revolutions in science Kuhn wrote about. Rejecting our current conceptual discourse is not impossible, but the costis enormous and should not be borne without an extraordinary justification. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
They are wrong be about it being unconstitutional to teach religion because the Supreme Court-including its most liberal and separationist justices have said so repeatedly beginning no later than Schempp. It is also impossible to teach many subjects well without an understanding of religion-i.e. current events and history. The failure of history texts to grapple with religion in the 70s and 80s documented inter alia by an important study conducted by People for the American Way or Americans United-I have forgotten which for the moment-- led to widespread disenchantment with public education in some elements of the population. The silence was interpreted not always incorrectly-as a conclusion that religion was not very important as a social force or that it is always socially retrogressive. Cutting out evangelical Christianity from the abolitionist movement or ignoring the Christian roots of Martin Luther King s leadership role in the civil rights struggle says something about a texts view of the importance of religion. Much the same can be said for Bible as literature courses or comparative religion courses. These can surely be taught reasonably objectively if one tries and they cover a subject matter that is culturally important. Such courses cannot be Sunday school classes in public school garb, but it is not hard to meet that standard. It is unfortunate that Mr. Williams course of conduct suggests otherwise and that he finds defenders but the fundamental point remains true. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:37 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information Could you explain why liberals are wrong? -Original Message- From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:12 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information . Liberals are sometimes suspicious of efforts to teach about religion in the public schools. They are wrong to think that such teaching is unconstitutional or unwise.: ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/15/2004 4:53:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, that isnt the rub. There is nothing like the EC that speaks to either biology or oxygen. Precisely. And there's nothing in the EC that speaks to teaching about religion. Jim "Copies of the Constitution Available for Your Use" 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
You are, of course, right in theory, but I think that practical experience undercuts the theory. That is the point that liberals, like me, make all of the time. More importantly, practical experience teaches, I think, that if public schools were to teach what you would have them teach, that those students who belong to religious traditions that, historically, were not involved in abolitionism or the civil rights movement, will invariably be made to feel less American, feel more like outsiders. It is not wrong to be concerned about stigma and exclusion, as some members of the Court have noted over the years. People like Jonathan D. Sarna, R. Laurence Moore, and others have demonstrated that there are counter narratives, the stories of members of minority religions becoming Americans. We need to teach those stories too. But I hear no groundswell urging that public schools teach the story of the Americanization (for want of a better term) of Catholics, Jews, Eastern Orthodox, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Pagans, Native Americans, and others, and how these groups all too often had to contend with a majoritarian religion that was disinclined to let them in on their own terms. I hear no hue and cry that we teach about the positive contributions to American history and society that members of minority religions have made. The only complaints about not enough teaching about religion in the common schools seem to come largely from members of the same religion over and over again, like a broken record, and what they really want to do is to have the public schools celebrate their religion. With regard to the Bible, here we run into a buzz saw. If we take evangelical Protestantism at its word, to read the Bible is to worship God. The Bible functions, for evangelicals, much like a sacrament functions for Catholics. Bible-as-literature courses clearly are problematic because I seriously doubt that in American school rooms, the worship dimension of Bible reading can be eliminated or kept out. This has constitutional implications. I dont see the same problem with scripture from other religions. But I could be wrong on this point since I do not know much about non-Christian religions. Again, I dont hear a hue and cry to teach the Koran or the holy works of Buddhism or Hinduism. I believe, and I suspect a fair number of liberals believe, that the asymmetry that I have described has constitutional implications. I dont think that we are wrong. We may disagree with you, but that does not make us wrong. -Original Message- From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:23 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information They are wrong be about it being unconstitutional to teach religion because the Supreme Court-including its most liberal and separationist justices have said so repeatedly beginning no later than Schempp. It is also impossible to teach many subjects well without an understanding of religion-i.e. current events and history. The failure of history texts to grapple with religion in the 70s and 80s documented inter alia by an important study conducted by People for the American Way or Americans United-I have forgotten which for the moment-- led to widespread disenchantment with public education in some elements of the population. The silence was interpreted not always incorrectly-as a conclusion that religion was not very important as a social force or that it is always socially retrogressive. Cutting out evangelical Christianity from the abolitionist movement or ignoring the Christian roots of Martin Luther King s leadership role in the civil rights struggle says something about a texts view of the importance of religion. Much the same can be said for Bible as literature courses or comparative religion courses. These can surely be taught reasonably objectively if one tries and they cover a subject matter that is culturally important. Such courses cannot be Sunday school classes in public school garb, but it is not hard to meet that standard. It is unfortunate that Mr. Williams course of conduct suggests otherwise and that he finds defenders but the fundamental point remains true. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:37 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information Could you explain why liberals are wrong? -Original Message- From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:12 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information . Liberals are sometimes suspicious of efforts to teach about religion in the public schools. They are wrong to think that such teaching is unconstitutional or unwise
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Actually, one could reach a different conclusion about ignoring religion in the common schools: religion is sufficiently important to so many Americans, but since we hold a wide range of religious or philosophical views, that we respect religion, its uniqueness and its diversity, if we leave it to other non-public institutions to teach about it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information In a message dated 12/16/2004 11:54:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not wrong to be concerned about stigma and exclusion, as some members of the Court have noted over the years. But this is why education must including teaching about religion. Stigma and exclusion attach to the things we disregard, the things we discount, the things we devalue. Few things more effectively communicate disregard, discounted importance, and devaluation as well as the act of ignoring. 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Could you explain why liberals are wrong? -Original Message- From: Marc Stern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:12 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information . Liberals are sometimes suspicious of efforts to teach about religion in the public schools. They are wrong to think that such teaching is unconstitutional or unwise.: ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/15/2004 3:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rather than saddling teachers with a burden, perhaps the better course of action is not to try to teach religion in the public schools at all. Of course, one might try to teach biology without discussing oxygen. Can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? That, my friend, is the rub. 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
No, that isnt the rub. There is nothing like the EC that speaks to either biology or oxygen. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information In a message dated 12/15/2004 3:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rather than saddling teachers with a burden, perhaps the better course of action is not to try to teach religion in the public schools at all. Of course, one might try to teach biology without discussing oxygen. Can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? That, my friend, is the rub. 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information .:.
Come on. Are these tits and tats really what this list is for? A little restraint goes a long way. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:53 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information .:. No, that isn't the rub. There is nothing like the EC that speaks to either biology or oxygen. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:53 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information In a message dated 12/15/2004 3:47:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rather than saddling teachers with a burden, perhaps the better course of action is not to try to "teach" religion in the public schools at all. Of course, one might try to teach biology without discussing oxygen. Can it be done? Sure. Should it be done? That, my friend, is the rub. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP mail server made the following annotations on 12/15/2004, 04:06:50 PM - This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
I've said it before; I'll say it again: Don't cloud the issue with facts! :) NPR ran a story yesterday on the Williams case. The link is here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4224577. According to the story, the principal had received many complaints about Williams over the past year or more, and the complaints had come from many different parents. Parents interviewed in the story said that Williams brought up God, Jesus, and Christian principles in math, science, and other subjects in addition to U.S. history, and that he sometimes did so many times per day. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality. Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941 ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Even more interesting in that story, I think, are two things. First, a spokesman for the school district points out that the 5th grade textbook that Mr. Williams uses contains a full copy of the Declaration of Independence. That alone shows that the ADF's press release titled "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom" was the sort of dishonest public relations nonsense that is common in this area. In light of that, one would hope that Jim Henderson would not continue to argue that the ADF's press release was honest. Obviously the Declaration was never "banned from the classroom". Second, there is the quote from Mr. Williams himself where he says, "My agenda is to give my students an accurate representation of history." One might be more likely to take that claim seriously if his handouts did not contain numerous false quotations never said by the men they are attributed to, and one entire document that is fraudulently attributed to one of them. If his goal is accuracy, he's not doing a very good job of achieving that goal. Ed Brayton Marty Lederman wrote: Chip Lupu is unable to post from home and asked that I forward this to the list: NPR ran a story yesterday on the Williams case. The link is here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4224577. According to the story, the principal had received many complaints about Williams over the past year or more, and the complaints had come from many different parents. Parents interviewed in the story said that Williams brought up God, Jesus, and Christian principles in math, science, and other subjects in addition to U.S. history, and that he sometimes did so many times per day. If that is an accurate description of Mr. Williams' behavior in a fifth grade public school class, is it not obvious that the principal is acting constitutionally and responsibly (I would describe it as "well within the zone of Establishment Clause discretion") in monitoring Mr. Williams' assignments? Eugene Volokh was exactly right last week when he asserted that the relevant question here is NOT whether a particular assignment is a violation of the Establishment Clause -- as you can see, we can argue endlessly about the particulars of hypotheticals -- but rather whether, in light of all of the circumstances, the principal acted within the constitution in looking over Mr. Williams' shoulder. The idea that Williams has any sort of First Amendment right to insist upon teaching in the ways described in the NPR program seems wholly preposterous. ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:44:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that the only relevant question in terms of this lawsuit is whether any of those assignments are properly given by this teacher to his students, not whether they might hypothetically be okay in a different set of circumstances. I say they clearly are not. Well, why? I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief. They seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this Nation. The only way that such dogmatic rejections of the propriety of Mr. Williams' easter assignment could be justified is if noassignmentinvolving thereading of the Easter story from the Bible may be made in a public school, if nowriting assignment ever may requirea student to "respond" to themes such as sacrifice, resurrection, hope, new life.I realize that I am asking persons who challenge the propriety of this assignment sheet to offer some demonstration of its unconstitutionality beyond the bare assertion of it; and I realize that such calls for proof often are charged by others as a dodge for real analysis. But I am truly perplexed. This assignment sheet does not, to my reading of it, do anything other that provide the means for a student to learn about these subjects. 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In California 5th grade is US history. 6th grade is from the beginning of history to the fall of Rome. 7th grade goes on from the fall of Rome. Some discussion of Islam is appropriate for 7th grade. My wife teaches 6th grade. For the Egypt part, they mummify chicken legs. One year, those students and parents who were willing, went to see Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat. Alan Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong Serving the Family Small Business Since 1984 18652 Florida St., Suite 225 Huntington Beach CA 92648-6006 714-375-1147 Fax 714 375 1149 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.alanarmstrong.com KE6LLN On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:27 AM, Ed Brayton wrote: Steven Jamar wrote: Is it a sociology class? I think it depends a lot on purpose and presentation. Mr. Williams teaches 5th grade. Ed Brayton ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
I like Prof. Levinson's hypo. Here's another one: Under Islam, Jesus is believed to have been born of the Virgin Mary and is considered a holy prophet. Read the Koran and other Islamic religion sources and contrast this view to the Christian view of Jesus as Messiah. On Friday, December 10, 2004, at 02:16 PM, Sanford Levinson wrote: Imagine the following assignment by a Jewish teacher to his class in World History two weeks before Easter (when, it so happens, the syllabus for the course is treating the Holocaust): The account of Jesus's trial and subsequent punishment as set out in the Christian Gospels is viewed by many historians and theologians as a central source of anti-Semitism and the cause of persecution and, indeed, massacre, of Jews throughout the ages. Please read the various accounts of Jesus's trial in the four Gospels and indicate why someone might view them as anti-Semitic. (Is there significant variation among the Gospels in this regard?) Would anyone on this list who supports Mr. Williams have any problems with this assignment? -- 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 Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime, Therefore, we are saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; Therefore, we are saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. Therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite a virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own; Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness. Reinhold Neibuhr ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:16:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief. They seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this Nation.
I disagree that Mr. Williams' assignment sheet, if authentic, is a "well crafted" history lesson for reasons already explicated in detail by others, particularly Ed Brayton. I also agree with all those who have stated that if the assignment sheet is authentic, Mr. Williams does not have much of a case.
But, the hypothetical issue Marty Lederman framed at the beginning of the week ("not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams' preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must") is a much closer question.
And, I agree with Jim Henderson that Mr. Williams' purported assignments to learn about Easter are similar to the assignments to learn about Islam used by the Byron Union School District that were upheld last year by a federal judge in the Northern District of California and are now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See, for example, the amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit from the Californian School Boards And National School Boards Associations in pdf format at:
http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?TRACKID=VID=50CID=470DID=34136
And, finally, I also agree with Jim Henderson that there is nothing per se unconstitutional about being a bad history teacher, about teaching only one side of a historical controversy, or even about teaching bogus history. If Mr. Williams were teaching only the viewpoint that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union or if Mr. Williams were using bogus evidence to deny the Holocaust, he'd be a bad teacher, but there's no Establishment Clause issue.
The subject about which Mr. Williams is teaching, however, is the historical relationship between the US government and religion ("the role of religion at the nation's founding" and "the reasons for the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment" according to paragraph 41 of his complaint), making the case a kind of "bank shot" endorsement case. Mr. Williams isn't so much directly endorsing religion as a state agent today (unless such facts come out), but, he is using one-sided and possibly bogus evidence to teach that the US government endorsed Christianity in the past. Williams' purported assignment sheet uses dubious sources to support the contentions that the US Constitution is "only for a moral and religious people" and the US government was "founded on Christian principles." I expect the "excerpted" sources listed in paragraph 40 of Williams' complaint will turn out to be similarly dubious and tendentious.
A more balanced debate on the subject could well be a valid history lesson in a public school, though it may be overly ambitious for the fifth grade. The study of the claim that our law is based on Christian principles could include Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper in which he argues "from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." See this address:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html
Or, a balanced approach could include many other statements Jefferson made about Christianity like "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." See this address:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_adams.html
Maybe Williams' distribution of GW Bush's National Prayer Day proclamation could be balanced with Madison's argument that such presidential proclamations should be unconstitutional (or maybe just contrast Madison's argument against his own religious proclamations as president). See this address:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/madison_livingston.html
Or, instead of tendentious excerpts, Williams could just supply all the documents available at this address:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_religion.html
Thus, though I agree with Jim Henderson that being a bad history teacher creates no constitutional issue "unless some standard can be identified that embodies the concerns of the First Amendment," when the subject being taught is the relationship between the US government and religion, Williams' one-sided, bogus approach does create just
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/10/2004 4:50:07 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 Just making a quick check, I can't find that the assignment on Easter meets any of the national standards urged under the various federal acts, nor does it meet any of the standards we have in Texas. Is there any argument that the assignment meets any state's standards? Can we see the standards? Ed Darrell Dallas ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/10/2004 11:18:35 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (about the assignment to study Easter): *John Adams wrote, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." He also wrote a paper called, "American Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity." Write a one page report on why he felt so strongly that this nation should be founded on Christian principles and quote from primary sources. What would be the reaction of the teacher were a student to turn in Adams' denial of the religious view the teacher assumes here, in Adams' exchanges with Jefferson? Did any student do that? Ed Darrell Dallas ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Wouldn't all of this balancing have to be prediated on showing that Jefferson and (sometimes) Madison are representative of the founders' views? This is not at all obvious, especially on the question of religion. As judges are notoriously bad historians, I'm not sure that this is such an easy case (or, perhaps that quality is what might make it easy for them). Richard Dougherty -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:39:15 EST In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:16:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief. They seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this Nation. I disagree that Mr. Williams' assignment sheet, if authentic, is a well crafted history lesson for reasons already explicated in detail by others, particularly Ed Brayton. I also agree with all those who have stated that if the assignment sheet is authentic, Mr. Williams does not have much of a case. But, the hypothetical issue Marty Lederman framed at the beginning of the week (not whether the school may restrict Mr. Williams' preferred mode of teaching, but whether it must) is a much closer question. And, I agree with Jim Henderson that Mr. Williams' purported assignments to learn about Easter are similar to the assignments to learn about Islam used by the Byron Union School District that were upheld last year by a federal judge in the Northern District of California and are now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. See, for example, the amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit from the Californian School Boards And National School Boards Associations in pdf format at: http://www.nsba.org/site/view.asp?TRACKID=VID=50CID=470DID=34136 And, finally, I also agree with Jim Henderson that there is nothing per se unconstitutional about being a bad history teacher, about teaching only one side of a historical controversy, or even about teaching bogus history. If Mr. Williams were teaching only the viewpoint that Ronald Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union or if Mr. Williams were using bogus evidence to deny the Holocaust, he'd be a bad teacher, but there's no Establishment Clause issue. The subject about which Mr. Williams is teaching, however, is the historical relationship between the US government and religion (the role of religion at the nation's founding and the reasons for the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment according to paragraph 41 of his complaint), making the case a kind of bank shot endorsement case. Mr. Williams isn't so much directly endorsing religion as a state agent today (unless such facts come out), but, he is using one-sided and possibly bogus evidence to teach that the US government endorsed Christianity in the past. Williams' purported assignment sheet uses dubious sources to support the contentions that the US Constitution is only for a moral and religious people and the US government was founded on Christian principles. I expect the excerpted sources listed in paragraph 40 of Williams' complaint will turn out to be similarly dubious and tendentious. A more balanced debate on the subject could well be a valid history lesson in a public school, though it may be overly ambitious for the fifth grade. The study of the claim that our law is based on Christian principles could include Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper in which he argues from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. See this address: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html Or, a balanced approach could include many other statements Jefferson made about Christianity like And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. See this address: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_adams.html Maybe Williams' distribution of GW Bush's National Prayer Day proclamation could be balanced with Madison's argument that such presidential proclamations should be unconstitutional (or maybe just contrast Madison's argument against his own religious
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Marc's humorous riposte provides, I suppose, all the analysis that he thinks the Williams' assignment justifies. Having doubts, after laboring in the woodshed from time to time, that such humorous but otherwise pointless posts add anything of substance to the discussion, I will ask those who care to respond to it this question: Is there any circumstance in the American public schooling context in which any of these assignments may properly be given to students? If there are, what are they? If there are not, why not? 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
. Those who have followed my work over the years know I have been publicly critical of those who would prohibit teaching about religion. I have just completed-at the request of the Bible Literacy project, an affiliate of the American Bible Society- , vetting a text to teach about the Bible and the religious beliefs it engenders. MY colleagues on that project will, I am certain, testify that I did not shrink from insisting that the authors explicate religious disputes about the Bible in that book. Plainly ,there are circumstance in which religion can be taught to students, although even there a teacher probably has to follow school guidelines. This teacher is not teaching about religion; he is not teaching about Christian beliefs about the Resurrection and other matters. He teaches the resurrection as historical fact, even though it is a religious belief which I and millions of other Americans deny. His selection of texts is designed to convey a religious message, not teach history. Liberals are sometimes suspicious of efforts to teach about religion in the public schools. They are wrong to think that such teaching is unconstitutional or unwise. But if Williams cases is an example of what teaching about religion is about, then it cannot be taught in the public schools. My remark was then not a humorous riposte as Jim would have it. For all the hoopla, this is a frivolous case, Its prosecution will set back efforts to teach religion in the schools in serious and constitutional way. And it is a scary portend of what The Alliance Defense Fund thinks the law is that it pursues this case. Some cases are simply silly, even if they might in some way touch on serious issues. This is one of them. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information Marc's humorous riposte provides, I suppose, all the analysis that he thinks the Williams' assignment justifies. Having doubts, after laboring in the woodshed from time to time, that such humorous but otherwise pointless posts add anything of substance to the discussion, I will ask those who care to respond to it this question: Is there any circumstance in the American public schooling context in which any of these assignments may properly be given to students? If there are, what are they? If there are not, why not? 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
It is not an easy line to draw, but schools can teach about religion, about religious beliefs, about the roles of religion in history, and so on. But schools cannot teach the religion as truth. The school can teach that Muslims belief there is but one god and Mohammed is his prophet, but cannot teach that there is only one god and Mohammed is his prophet. Schools can teach that most Christians believe in three-gods-in-one or one-god-in-three and that they believe that Jesus is the savior, but cannot teach that Jesus is the savior. And it matters a lot whether it is a science class or a world ideologies class. On Friday, December 10, 2004, at 12:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will ask those who care to respond to it this question: Is there any circumstance in the American public schooling context in which any of these assignments may properly be given to students? If there are, what are they? If there are not, why not? Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ Love the pitcher less and the water more. Sufi Saying ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Robert K. Vischer wrote: Lets focus on the assignment to interview a Christian family about Easter and present the findings, as that seems, at least in my view, to be the least egregious. If Williams had given similar interview assignments covering other faith traditions at other holidays, wouldnt that be palatable? If he was even-handed in the religious coverage of his assignments, it seems that the assignments could be defended as attempts to let students gain insight into the lived realities of their communitys faith traditions. The problem with learning about religion simply as an external object to be studied in a textbook is that it necessarily tends to foster an impression of religion as a relic. Nothing eviscerates the vibrancy of faith like boiling it down to a two-page textbook synopsis. Certainly Williams should not be allowed to present the resurrection as historical fact, but is there any problem giving the students access to individuals who do view the resurrection (or Passover, etc.) as historical fact? Yes, that one assignment, aside from the others and in an entirely different context, might be appropriate. But would you care to lay odds on whether Mr. Williams had his students interview a Muslim family to find out how they celebrated Ramadan? I'd say they're probably slim to none. All of that will of course come out in court or in depositions. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Is it a sociology class? I think it depends a lot on purpose and presentation. I also think that we as lawyers, having been trained in a certain kind of compartmentalization and detachment and objectivity (please don't ignore the certain kind and blast me for an assertion I am not making), underestimate the difficulty of making the distinctions that we take for granted. And the whole experience of a believer is different from that of an outsider and some believers believe that it would be untrue to their beliefs even to investigate other things or to present information they don't agree with as anything but falsehood. And some of these people are teachers. My boys experienced a variety of incidents in schools where fundamentalists or evangeilcals and in one instance even young earther Christian teachers made explicit statements about religion and religous truth and/or taught, and in one case tested, certain things that excluded as religions anything other than Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. These were mostly social science and English teachers. As much as they or anyone else guards against injecting beliefs into the classroom, it happens -- the time together is just so extensive and intensive. So we need to cut a bit of slack for those sorts of things. But there comes a time when the teachers go over the line in assignments or comments or whatever. And this seems to be one of them. But I would really need to know all about it to make that decision. There are those on this list who have in the past opined that it is not possible to teach about religion without demeaning believers in the process -- it is, to them, inherent it teaching about instead of teaching the truth of it. That level of paranoia or thin-skinnedness or world view or whatever motivates those sorts of comments cannot be responded to effectively. There is no way around that world view. But that does not make that world view the right one or grant it a unit veto over the rest of us who want to understand each other. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. Mark Twain ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:55:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But would you care to lay odds on whether Mr. Williams had his students interview a Muslim family to find out how they celebrated Ramadan? I'd say they're probably slim to none. All of that will of course come out in court or in depositions. Hard to say, but many on this list will recall last year's controversy over purported indoctrination in Islam in a California middle school, where parents seeking an opt-out option were refused relief from having their children spend some six weeks in immersion study of Islam. The text used in teaching about Islam in that program, had the following assignment in it: Following are excerpts and some suggested review exercises from Across the Centuries, a Houghton Mifflin social studies textbook for seventh-graders: "An Islamic term that is often misunderstood is jihad. The term means to struggle, to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil. Under certain conditions, the struggle to overcome evil may require action." "These revelations confirmed both Muhammad's belief in one God, or monotheism, and his role as the last messenger in a long line of prophets sent by God. The God he believed in Allah is the same God of other monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity. Allah, the Arabic word for God, is the word used in the Qur'an." Review: "Writing activity. Assume you are a Muslim soldier on your way to conquer Syria in the year A.D. 635. Write three journal entries that reveal your thoughts about Islam, fighting in the battle, or life in the desert." "Collaborative learning. Form small groups of students to build a miniature mosque. You may decide to use cardboard, papier-mache, or other materials. Have one member do research at the library to find out what the insides of mosques look like. Have another member design a building plan. And have two members collect the building materials. Together, construct the mosque according to your plan." Of course, that Houghton Mifflin and a different California school district have decided to inculcate Islam does not justify Mr. Williams' in inculcating Christianity, if that is what he has done. 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Perhaps we should wait for confirmation that the "Easter handout" is authentic before judging Mr. Williams based on it. The source for it is a webpage that is very hostile to Mr. Williams and to the Alliance Defense Fund. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Ed Brayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 11:44 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information I think the folks in the school district that you refer to would have had a pretty strong case that many of those assignments were impermissable. Was there ever a lawsuit filed in that case, by the way? At any rate, it has nothing to do with this situation. Let me ask you directly, Jim: do you think the Easter handout that I posted was appropriate for a public school classroom? Do you think that it could or should pass constitutional muster? Ed Brayton ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Student writes "only a person of very low intelligence could believe this. The works studied are less realistic than the Wizard of Oz and contemptible." Onlythe worst form of moral monstr could believe that people who did believe in him deserve to be damned forever." What grade. Does it matter whether the teacher thinks the student got Christianity right? Who determines what constitutes getting Christianity right? MAG. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/10/04 04:15PM In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:44:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that the only relevant question in terms of this lawsuit is whether any of those assignments are properly given by this teacher to his students, not whether they might hypothetically be okay in a different set of circumstances. I say they clearly are not. Well, why? I looked over each of these assignments and I am dumbfounded by the assertion that these assignments inculcate belief. They seem well crafted to guide a student into studying the tenets of, and learning about, important aspects of the Christian religion, and about the connection between the Christian religion and the formation and progress of this Nation. The only way that such dogmatic rejections of the propriety of Mr. Williams' easter assignment could be justified is if noassignmentinvolving thereading of the Easter story from the Bible may be made in a public school, if nowriting assignment ever may requirea student to "respond" to themes such as sacrifice, resurrection, hope, new life.I realize that I am asking persons who challenge the propriety of this assignment sheet to offer some demonstration of its unconstitutionality beyond the bare assertion of it; and I realize that such calls for proof often are charged by others as a dodge for real analysis. But I am truly perplexed. This assignment sheet does not, to my reading of it, do anything other that provide the means for a student to learn about these subjects. 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/10/2004 4:28:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Student writes "only a person of very low intelligence could believe this. The works studied are less realistic than the Wizard of Oz and contemptible." Only the worst form of moral monstr could believe that people who did believe in him deserve to be damned forever." What grade. Does it matter whether the teacher thinks the student got Christianity right? Who determines what constitutes getting Christianity right? If the assignment is to write an opinion piece, then that is the teacher's problem, as I indicated in an earlier post. If the syllabus makes relevant to the grading performance on standards of grammar and composition, those factors can be given their proper weight, but the opinion expressed, however infantile and uninformed, should not be downgraded because of the view expressed. 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.
RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
Sandy's hypothetical is an excellent one, but let me add a refinement: I'm not sure that this assignment would violate the Establishment Clause, or even that Williams' assignment did so. Yet would anyone on the list think that it's unconstitutional for the school to conclude that this assignment causes more trouble and upset than it's worth, and that the teacher therefore ought to be barred from assigning it? That, I take it, is the purely legal question in the Williams case. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Sanford Levinson Sent: Fri 12/10/2004 2:16 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information Imagine the following assignment by a Jewish teacher to his class in World History two weeks before Easter (when, it so happens, the syllabus for the course is treating the Holocaust): The account of Jesus's trial and subsequent punishment as set out in the Christian Gospels is viewed by many historians and theologians as a central source of anti-Semitism and the cause of persecution and, indeed, massacre, of Jews throughout the ages. Please read the various accounts of Jesus's trial in the four Gospels and indicate why someone might view them as anti-Semitic. (Is there significant variation among the Gospels in this regard?) Would anyone on this list who supports Mr. Williams have any problems with this assignment? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 11:24 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams Case - more factual information IF this is typical of what the teacher was complaining about being forbidden to teach, the only question for the court is whether plaintiff will be liable for the school's attorneys fee under Rule 11, Marc Stern -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:18 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Steven Williams Case - more factual information The key question in the Steven Williams case, as Jim Henderson and I agreed last week, will revolve around the facts of the case - the contents of the handouts that were disallowed by the principal and whether they indicate that what Mr. Williams was engaged in was proselytizing rather than teaching history. Some of those handouts were included in the complaint that the ADF filed (http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/media/WilliamsvCupertinoComplaint.pd f), and one more has been published at http://www.eriposte.com/philosophy/fundamentalism/StevenWilliams_Easter_ assignment.jpg. The latter is apparently an assignment that Williams handed out about Easter to his 5th grade class. Here is the text of that assignment: Activities on Exploring Easter and Why it's Relevant in our Culture and Nation Christianity has had a huge influence on our nation and so during the Easter season it's important to know why Christians celebrate this 'Holy'-day and what impact Jessu Christ had on our society and nation. Pick 2 of the following activities and present them next week. * Read the East er story in the bible. Start reading Luke, chapter 22 and continue to the end of the book of Luke. Write a resopnse to some of the themes in the Easter story of the bible: betrayal, sacrifice, resurrection, love, hope, new life. Write a response to any of the themes in the story using references from the bible and how they apply to our culture today. Make a diorama of a scene from the story and attach your written response. *Interview a Christian family that celebrates Easter and write about what they do and why they do it. Write a summary of your interview and give an oral presentation to the class on what you found using props and antyhing appropriate to enhancing your presentation. *John Adams wrote, Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. He also wrote a paper called, American Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity. Write a one page report on why he felt so strongly that this nation should
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
On Friday, December 10, 2004, at 02:27 PM, Ed Brayton wrote: Steven Jamar wrote: Is it a sociology class? I think it depends a lot on purpose and presentation. Mr. Williams teaches 5th grade. I should have been more clear -- I was responding to Henderson's inquiry about could such an assignment ever be ok. Ed Brayton -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on. Robert Frost ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
I think the folks in the school district that you refer to would have had a pretty strong case that many of those assignments were impermissable. Was there ever a lawsuit filed in that case, by the way? At any rate, it has nothing to do with this situation. Let me ask you directly, Jim: do you think the Easter handout that I posted was appropriate for a public school classroom? Do you think that it could or should pass constitutional muster? Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/10/2004 1:55:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But would you care to lay odds on whether Mr. Williams had his students interview a Muslim family to find out how they celebrated Ramadan? I'd say they're probably slim to none. All of that will of course come out in court or in depositions. Hard to say, but many on this list will recall last year's controversy over purported indoctrination in Islam in a California middle school, where parents seeking an opt-out option were refused relief from having their children spend some six weeks in immersion study of Islam. The text used in teaching about Islam in that program, had the following assignment in it: Following are excerpts and some suggested review exercises from Across the Centuries, a Houghton Mifflin social studies textbook for seventh-graders: "An Islamic term that is often misunderstood is jihad. The term means to struggle, to do one's best to resist temptation and overcome evil. Under certain conditions, the struggle to overcome evil may require action." "These revelations confirmed both Muhammad's belief in one God, or monotheism, and his role as the last messenger in a long line of prophets sent by God. The God he believed in Allah is the same God of other monotheistic religions, Judaism and Christianity. Allah, the Arabic word for God, is the word used in the Qur'an." Review: "Writing activity. Assume you are a Muslim soldier on your way to conquer Syria in the year A.D. 635. Write three journal entries that reveal your thoughts about Islam, fighting in the battle, or life in the desert." "Collaborative learning. Form small groups of students to build a miniature mosque. You may decide to use cardboard, papier-mache, or other materials. Have one member do research at the library to find out what the insides of mosques look like. Have another member design a building plan. And have two members collect the building materials. Together, construct the mosque according to your plan." Of course, that Houghton Mifflin and a different California school district have decided to inculcate Islam does not justify Mr. Williams' in inculcating Christianity, if that is what he has done. 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. ___ 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.
Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
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 proprietyof 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.
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. ___ 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.
