I second Paul's concern.
Frank
On 12/13/05 7:37 AM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if Mr. Darby's anti-Semitic self-promotion really belongs on
this list serve?
Larry Darby wrote:
Thank you to all who have expressed an interest in restoring good
government to Alabama
The problem is that methodological naturalism prevents us from detecting a
hate crime, since hate is an immaterial property had by agents that can
only be inferred from behavior, speech, etc. Other minds cannot be observed,
just inferred by analogy, like the traditional argument from design.
Michael:
The Declaration of Independence is merely a document that is intended to convey
what its authors believed are truths eternal in their patrimony. You are
correct that these truths were not applied justly. However, the failure of
mortals to live up to these standards does not diminish
Title: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of Hostility to Religious Expression
I dont want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says
.
Steve
On Nov 4, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Francis Beckwith wrote:
I dont want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says misperception. A misperception is in fact
Perhaps I missed something, but it seems to me that ASU is in fact
discriminating against a group because of its religious practice. There is,
after all, a free exercise clause in the constitution and not a free love
clause. (You ex-hippies may think otherwise, of course). It seems to me that
The problem with the answer, devoutly religious people believe X and Y at
the same time, assumes that the way we answer such questions is to ask the
people who believe both X and Y rather than assess the conceptual
compatibility of both X and Y. If, for example, I were to ask the question,
Can one
traditions and have abandoned the notion that traditional theology may be rationally embraced by thoughtful people.
Take care,
Frank
On 10/18/05 5:36 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francis Beckwith wrote:
The problem with the answer, devoutly religious people believe X and Y
Title: Re: New lawsuit against U Cal Berkeley
Ed:
On 10/18/05 9:44 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only because they have been told that evolution = philosophical materialism.
That is not only false, it is absurdly false. No one has yet explained why
evolution is naturalistic
Title: Re: Public Schools, Intolerance Christian Dancers
Be fruitful and multiply!
On 10/7/05 9:35 PM, Ed Darrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ADF is larger than ACLU now? Amazing.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is an ADF press release concerning a victory in a
You can conclude the course with the lecture, Why the moral relativism
embraced by secularism can't adequately account for the wrongness of the
acts I just condemned.
Time for Eugene to spank us.
Frank
On 9/6/05 1:24 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The KKK (and the use of the
Title: Re: UC Case: Facts from Complaint
Bobby, I dont disagree with you. All I was saying is that secular relativism cannot account for the wrongs. I did not say that secularism is relativistic per se. What I was thinking of was the stuff written by Stephen Gey in which he says that
Let's not forget this one: Colonel Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken fame
left a will specifying that 10% of KFC's profits be given to the Ku Klux
Klan. Read about it here:
http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/sanders.asp
On 8/25/05 2:16 AM, Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember the
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
What would be an example of values trumping science? Now, Ive read articles and books in which authors offer arguments as to why certain scientific experiments and research are unethical. Because of these suggested
Ed:
We are veering off the church-state issue. So, in order to not irritate
Eugene, I will respond briefly.
I think the Craig-Smith debate makes my point. Both Craig and Smith agree
that Big Bang cosmology, because it is knowledge, has implications for
theology. For Smith, it better comports
Title: Re: No Secular Purpose
Ed:
Its not clear to me why the beliefs of ID advocates should be the object of judicial assessment. As I understand the Madisonian and Jeffersonian traditions on matters religious, the state has no right, and thus no legitimate power, to interfere with the
for restricting a citizens liberties.
Frank
On 8/21/05 5:13 PM, Sanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francis Beckwith writes:
. Motives, after all, are types of beliefs that causally contribute to bringing about certain actions. But beliefs are off limits, according to the Courts Jeffersonian
Title: Re: No Secular Purpose
What I am saying is that if the citizens have good secular reasons for their policy proposal, then their religious motives should be irrelevant, since motives are not the justification for the policy or even the policy itself. Motives are beliefs that causally
. As an active and practicing Christian, I have difficulty figuring out what these peole say is offensive in evolution. That is evidence again that it's a sectarian issue, and not one of science.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed:
Its not clear to me why the beliefs of ID
Steve:
I have not read the Court opinion, so I could be writing this from ignorance.
But if the Court deemed the pledge not a religious exercise, then the
presence or absence of the term under God may not be relevant. For example,
if the students were required (with exemptions) to stand up and
Title: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
I not only read it, but I reviewed it for Journal of Law and Religion in Fall 2001.
Frank
On 8/19/05 1:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/19/2005 2:14:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Mark:
Having been the victim of such retaliation here at Baylor, I am skeptical of
Ed's response (though I like Ed personally, and carr no ill will toward him).
Some of these people will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who even entertains
the possibility that ID advocates are raising
Title: Re: Increase in No Religion?
Of course, what constitutes the public good is itself in dispute. For example, is the public good advanced or inhibited by denying vouchers to religious parents who want to send their children to private schools? It depends. If one believes that parental
Title: Re: Increase in No Religion?
I dont disagree in principle, Marci. However, it seems to follow, then, that any so-called secular claims about what constitutes the public good that may burden religious practice have the same burden. Here I am thinking the horrible law in California that
Title: Re: Increase in No Religion?
There is a difference, I think. In the Catholic Charities case, the state defined religion in such a way that anything that did not constitute worship or evangelism was not religion (thus excluding organizations like CC that engage in works of mercy). Also,
Well, I believe in revealed truths. But I am also an odd sort of Evangelical
Protestant in the sense that I believe that there are a variety of religious
claims for which I may offer non-religious arguments. I am also a Thomist
(and more than just a peeping Thomist, to borrow phrase from Ralph
Title: Re: Increase in No Religion?
Interesting. A couple of years ago I suggested in a discussion with a colleague that one may have secular reasons for believing in revealed truth, insofar as one attempts to marshal evidence for the inspiration of a particular text. So, in principle, one
way.
Rick
Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the regulatory state in which we liveone that requires that parents who send their children to religious private school must pay for both the school tuition as well as taxes to fund public schools--it seems to me
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
The notion of falsifiability as a criterion for truth claimswhether inside or outside of sciencehas come under withering criticism by philosophers of science over the past 40 years. Proposed in its most robust and sophisticated form by Karl
On 8/3/05 2:48 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Francis Beckwith wrote:
Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design Clearly, there is potential data
that count against theistic accounts of the universe. For example, if there
is a good argument that the universe did not begin to exist
Title: Re: Establisment clause and oppressive taxation
Given the regulatory state in which we liveone that requires that parents who send their children to religious private school must pay for both the school tuition as well as taxes to fund public schools--it seems to me that the principle
Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been federalized? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local issue, but at least one aspect of it has been
curriculum.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been federalized? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local issue, but at least one aspect
, patriotically, and liberty-confirmingly comforting.
Ed Darrell'
Dallas
Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed:
Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may under perform. Im always
Title: Re: Challenge
Gene:
Isnt there something odd about the government setting the parameters of appropriate religious activism on the grounds that religion and the government should be separate? If they should be separate, then the government should remain silent on the subject? But it
Title: Re: ajc-church-state barrier has baptist roots
Of course, Nathaniel J. Hammond, given his confederate credentials, was likely no friend of the 14th amendment and or the doctrine of incorporation. Given that, it makes sense why he would think it necessary to pass legislation in Georgia
Title: Re: Harm to Others as a Factor in Accommodation Doctrine
Although Marcis point is well-taken, I think another way to understand Marcs (BTW, how cute is that, Marci and Marc?) point is to change Marcis counter-example from churchs protecting pedophiles under the free exercise clause to
Title: Re: Public Good
Thanks Marci. I appreciate it. Sorry for not replying more promptly. Its mid-term, spring-break season here at Baylor and Ive been very busy.
Have you been approached by these federalist society folks in Seattle to debate me on teaching intelligent design in public
Sorry for the last message, my listserve friends. I meant it to be sent
privately to Marci. My bad.
Take care,
Frank
--
Francis J. Beckwith
Associate Professor of Church-State Studies Associate Director
J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Title: Re: evangelize
Would it be appropriate of me to say that Bobbys comments about evangelism are good news? :-)
Frank
On 2/27/05 9:16 AM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Amen!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Eugene is absolutely right, and so I ask his indulgence regarding
Title: Re: question
I think the gentleman, Mr. Ingle, may have been asking his question in total innocence. I think that Ross Heckmans response was kind and gracious, for it assumed that Mr. Ingle may be a novice to either this list or to internet interaction in general. Having been at the
Title: Re: proselytization
Heres the way I look at. People who I agree with set out to raise consciousness. People I disagree with proselytize with militant zeal. :-)
FJB
On 12/18/04 10:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/18/2004 10:33:33 AM Eastern
It seems to me that Eugene is right. The God of the Declaration is
theologically minimal, which means that it is consistent with common
understandings of Deism and orthodox Christianity. It seems to me that one
can be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of the
Declaration.
On 12/14/04 7:03 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan Leigh Armstrong wrote:
There are many holes in the theory of evolution. Evolution appears
to violate the laws of thermodynamics. There are also many things that
have been presented as evidence of evolution that have been proven
Title: Suggested articles on Religion, First Amendment, and Same-Sex Marriage
Dear Colleagues:
I am teaching an upper-division undergrad course next Spring called Religion and Society. I am looking for two articlesaccessible via Westlaw or Lexis or elsewhere on the internetthat are nice pro
Dear Frances with an e:
Of course, there are differences between private entities and government
ones, and I am fully conversant with those attributes. My point was to show
that one could in principle disagree with the claims of a practice, but out
of tolerance and the importance of sustaining a
I don't think Thomas disbelieves that incorporation has occurred (or
happened), and that has included the establishment clause. I think he is
questioning whether it is justified. After all, in the same 1940s in which
Everson came down the pike so did the Japanese internment case. I don't
think
On 6/14/04 8:11 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
It is fascinating to see Bush pick and choose which Catholic
doctrine he likes; I am sure, however, that His Holiness can see through all
of this.
You're absolutely right. Picking and choosing Catholic doctrines one likes
is
is justiciable or not) or
illegal.
If I'm not mistaken, the same (ir)relevancy conclusion is true of Frank
Beckwith's latest contribution. On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Francis Beckwith
wrote:
On 6/14/04 8:11 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
It is fascinating to see Bush pick
not longer legal or constitiutional.
Francis Beckwith wrote:
I was trying to make the same point as David, but with a little levity.
(The point was: this stuff cuts both ways, so let's move on).
You guys are wound up a little too tight for me. So much for the stereotype
of laid back Californians
Title: Gay Activists Threaten Church Tax-Exempt Status
Just got this from a friend. It is published by Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian outfit in Colorado Springs.
Frank
---
June 1, 2004
Church's Tax-Exempt Status Threatened
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent
Pro-homosexual
Title: Re: And proselytizing Re: religious indoctrination
Thanks Bobby. Its my fault for a bad choice of words.
Frank
On 6/3/04 9:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 6/3/2004 9:05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I dont think it was
Robin:
I actually don't disagree with you in principle. But what I was doing was
just speculating on what sort of tactic could be used to say that an
apparent neutral law really did target a religion.
Frank
On 6/2/04 10:50 AM, Robin Charlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know we've had related
Title: Re: Religion Clauses question
Paul:
I dont see it as a matter of like or dislike; in fact, I think that this mischaracterizes peoples objection to homosexuality. Clearly, some people dont like Christians and Jews, but that doesnt mean that one may not have arguments against the veracity
On 6/2/04 10:52 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Beckwith:
It is hard to imagine how one can treat someone with respect and at the
same time believe that such a person is not entitled to the same rights
that you have.
Yes, it is hard to imagine that I would hold that belief,
and their heterosexual wife). So why craft the argument as
being about bisexuality, and especially an idiosyncratic definition of
bisexuality?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Francis Beckwith
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 8:06 PM
He was probably singled out because he was a boy; that would make it a
gender-hate crime.
But what if the boy were 18 and he had consented to the act knowing that he
would die but that at the penultimate moment before his demise he would
experience the most exquisite orgasm imaginable. Does the
Title: Stomping out free speech
For some reason the linked forwarded by Rick Duncan didnt work. Heres one that does:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20040412.shtml
Frank
___
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe,
One could say, in response to Michael, that his beliefs prevent him from
affirming the value of homophobes. Of course, he thinks that judging
homosexuality as immoral is a mistaken point of view, a disorder one may
say. But I don't recall ever coming across the argument that establishes
the
I believe that Ed Darrell (I apologize if I misspelled your name) said in a
recent message that Judge Overton's opinion in McLean v. Arkansas was
well-crafted. For those who interested, I recently published a piece that
offered a critical assessment of this opinion:
Science and Religion Twenty
Title: Re: Under God
Justification has to do with epistemology. Im raising an ontological question about the nature of rights. One can certainly be justified in believing that one has rights without ever having an argument or reasons. For example, my grandma was pretty sure she had rightsbut
On 3/30/04 8:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/30/2004 7:08:25 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bobby Lipkin presents an argument that government can be humane, in the
sense of not inflicting suffering or cruelty -- and, would he
Title: Re: Lofton/Bobby
Bobby:
I dont know what thinkers you have been reading. But the sorts of arguments that you seem to attribute to ID advocates are not what dominate the literature. Let me recommend that you take a look at my work on this, which is published on my webiste:
Title: Re: NRO Article
Heres the portion of my book that deals with the Santorum Amendment. (Maybe this will clarify things a bit). I took it off of the pre-edited manuscript version, so I would appreciate if the members of this list not post it or send it to anyone. This is part of the Intro
64 matches
Mail list logo
