date:20050803





Gene Summerlin wrote:

  
  
  Ed,
  
  I'm sorry if I misunderstood the
tenor of some of the arguments being made on this list. From my quick
preview of the posts I gained the impression that some had articulated
the notion that real scientists rejected intelligent design or the idea
of a supreme creator as unscientific and indefensible. I apologize for
my mistake and just wanted to point out that many well respected and
accomplished scientists believe that their studies, in fact, provide
evidence of an intelligent creator behind their scientific discoveries.


Saying that the idea of God is "unscientific" is not the same as saying
it is "indefensible". Science is a set of tools for providing
explanations about the natural world and how it works. Like any set of
tools, it is only useful when applied in the proper context. A chainsaw
does a great job of clearing trees but a lousy job of fixing your
television set. Because God is outside of the natural world and not
subject to physical laws, science cannot answer questions about God or
determine God's existence or non-existence. One can draw inferences
from science to inform their philosophical or religious views, but
those views are still not a part of science. For instance, Quentin
Smith argues that big bang cosmology provides evidence against the
existence of God while William Lane Craig argues that big bang
cosmology provides evidence for the existence of God. So what does big
bang cosmology say about God? Absolutely nothing. Both arguments are
philosophical inferences from science, not science proper. 

We also have to bear in mind that "intelligent design" is not
synonymous with belief in God. In fact, ID advocates attempt
(dishonestly) to argue that ID isn't about God at all. But ID is, at
this point, little more than a set of arguments about evolution and
cosmology. Thankfully, the existence of God does not depend on the
truth of those arguments, so one can reject ID and believe in God (my
colleague Howard Van Till is a devout Christian and a physicist and he
has written volumes critiquing the ID arguments). 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

New Religion/Law (Sort Of) Web Site

2005-08-03 Thread Jlof

www.TheAmericanView.com
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

New Religion/Law (Sort Of) Web Site

2005-08-03 Thread Jlof

www.TheAmericanView.com
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

I think Mike McConnell's excellent post on evolution vs. design from March 19, 1997 on this list is worth re-posting. So here's Michael!

"Larry Ingle writes: Beg pardon, but my understanding of evolutionary theory, as a non-scientist, is that evolution has been "raised . . . beyond the level of theory" in the same way that Copernicianism has: until something else

comes along that more adequately explains the facts, the "theory" of evolution is valid. Or, to make sure that this remains roughly on an acceptable topic, so long as courts and law school profs accept Chief Justice Marshall's formulation in 1803 and do not challenge whether judicial review reflects original intent, it remains valid.I don't understand this, and will expose my ignorance to the world inthe hope of being instructed by those with a better education inphilosophy of science than I have.My understanding of the Copernican "theory" is that the earthrevolves around the sun, rather than vice versa. Sandy Levinson saysthat this is "theory laden," but I don't understand why. I canunderstand why, from an earthly vantage point, the sun *appears* torevolve about the earth, and I can understand why, from a Biblicalstandpoint, it might seem to make sen!
se that
the earth is the centerof the Universe; but once we have access to a vantage point outsideof the earth and the sun, it there any room for doubt that Copernicuswas right? Is there any competing theory that accounts for thesensory data? If the claim that the earth revolves around the sun isa "theory," then is it equally a "theory" that food assuages hunger,or that I have three children?Darwinian evolution, it seems to me, is an entirely different sort of"theory." The point of the theory, for present purposes, is that thecomplexity of life forms came about by natural, materialistic means,through chance variation and natural selection. Now, as even the workof evolutionary biologists tells us, it remains rather unclearprecisely how this occurred; no one knows how life itself began (oneprominent biologist says it must have arrived from outer space, atheory no more scientific than Genesis 1); there are surprisingly feweven
arguable intermediate species forms in the fossil record;Darwin's original conception, that small changes over an incrediblylong time gradually produced the current state of life forms, isclearly inconsistent with the evidence; different biologists offerdifferent theories in an attempt to account for as much of theevidence as possible.(This is quite different from the Copernican theory, which as far asI know perfectly accounts for the evidence. There is nosensory evidence suggesting that the sun revolves around the earth.There is, by contrast, lots of evidence that even the best theoriesof evolutionary biology cannot account for. That is why biology issuch a lively and exciting field--though in my opinion it would beeven livelier and more exciting if it were less defensive.)My view is that biologists should carry on with their scientifictask: trying to devise a naturalistic explanation that comports withthe
evidence. Whatever appears, at any given point in time, to be the*best* naturalistic theory, should be taught as such. But unless anduntil biologists come up with a theory that truly explains theevidence (as the Copernican "theory" explains the evidence), there isroom for doubt. The anti-evolutionist may continue to conclude thatthe alternative explantion--design--is more persuasive. Since thealternative theory cannot be directly proven or disproven (and henceis not "scientific" under some definitions of that term), theplausibility of the theory of design must be judged on the basis ofthe plausibility (or implausibility) of the best naturalistic theory.As long as the best naturalistic theory has so many gaps, it is notunreasonable or unscientific for people to be skeptical of it.The theory of design is *not* parallel to Ptolemaic astronomy. Theclaim that the sun revolves around the earth is inconsistent with thedat!
a. The
claim that life forms were the product of design is notinconsistent with the data.Creationists should not be hostile to the work of evolutionarybiology. If the creationists are correct about the world, thebiologists will never come up with a plausible naturalisticexplanation. The only way to find out is to let them do theirwork. The only legitimate complaint on the creationists' part has todo with the way science is taught in the schools, which should avoiddogmatism and inaccuracy. Scientists should be for that, too.It seems to me that the evolutionary controversy is a greatopportunity for high schools to explain to their students both thenature of the scientific enterprise and the limits of science. Ithink that science educators are so frightened by and hostile toward"creationists" that they retreat into an unscientific dogmatismrather than give their "opponents" an inch. No scientist should everbe embarra!
ssed to
admit that we don't

RE: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Here is avery recentarticle on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwinon trial and got a conviction! Here is a good excerpt:

Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his descendants worked to solve the questions of our existence based on science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of reason -- astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers -- have conspired to purge God from the handiwork of the universe. By the time Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, the fatal blow had been cast.
"The very persons who insist upon keeping religion and science separate are eager to use their science as a basis for pronouncements about religion," he wrote. "The literature of Darwinism is full of antitheistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us."
Johnson suggests that evolution has become a faith-based movement in its own right. He maintains that biologists have become so invested in the Darwinian worldview that they have ceased looking for contradictory evidence. "As the creation myth of scientific naturalism, Darwinism plays an indispensable ideological role in the war against fundamentalism," he wrote. "For that reason, scientific organizations are devoted to protecting Darwinism rather than testing it, and the rules of scientific investigation have been shaped to help them succeed."
Johnson regards scientists as today's reigning priesthood -- a monklike discipline that controls our culture's story of creation and protects its orthodoxy as ruling paradigms have done for centuries. "They are jealous of their power," he says. "They will do anything to protect it. If that means labeling someone like me as a Bible-thumper, then that's what they'll do. They'll say, 'You don't agree with evolution, therefore you believe in the Bible's account! You read Genesis literally!' Of course, that's the stereotype they want to preserve."
Evolutionary biologist William Provine is one member of the "priesthood" who has publicly debated Johnson. Provine has his Cornell University students read Darwin on Trial and has invited Johnson in for quizzing. After class the two men have shared cocktails. Provine considers Johnson "a very worthy opponent."
But Provine lambastes Johnson's notion that the universe has been put together with outside help. "Phil has never persuaded me to change one of my views on evolution, ever," says Provine, a no-doubt-about-it atheist. "I do admire his clear-cut focus on assumptions -- Phil is one smart cookie, and his mental apparatus in his head -- whoa, man -- he's got some great mental power. ... But intelligent design is complete and utter bullshit. ... By the end of the semester, I believe he's made more evolutionists than I have."

Phil can tell you that there are lots of reputable scientists who have remained in the closet for fear of career suicide with their doubts about Darwin and their support for ID.

Cheers, RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Hmmm. So the onlyscientists whose views count about the case for evolutionary biology are evolutionary biologists?And exactly what would happen to the career of an evolutionary biologist--or any other scientist--who went public with his or her doubts aboutevolution? Would they still get grants? Would they still be able to publish--even on unrelated topics--in professional journals?Would they even be allowed to teach their classes without restrictions?

Johnson is right about a priesthoodof Darwin, andyou know what happens to heretics who denounce the true faith!

Asfor as Marci's reference to"believers," exactly what kind of God is the God of natural selection? A real God in control of destiny who loves us and wants us to abide with Him for eternity? Or a house god made of wood byevolved germs in trousers afraid of being alone in a purposeless Universe?

Cheers, Rick[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that to gain any converts. Are we expected to believe that scientists who have devoted their lives to evolutionary biology have kept their doubts to themselves? Or is the claim that scientists who have specialized in other areas have their doubts?As someone who is married to a scientist, inscience, the area of one's expertise means a lot. Indeed, I would put no credence into even a biological scientist's concerns about evolution if he has not been testing the hypotheses him or herself.

And let's be very clear -- this is not a debate between believers and atheists. There are plenty of believers who do not think intelligent design is scientific and who think evolution is the best science there is on the origins of human life.

Marci

In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:46:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Phil can tell you that there are lots of reputable scientists who have remained in the closet for fear of career suicide with their doubts about Darwin and their support for ID.

Cheers, Rick

___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail!
has the
best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Steven Jamar

Who created god?Some of us believe that indeed the universe "was not designed and has no purpose" and that the question "why is there anything?" is interesting, but at present beyond the ability of anyone to answer convincingly.Some of us also believe that "we humans are the product of [evolutionary] processes that care nothing about us."  And many of us who believe these things use the current best scientific understanding of the universe and evolution as part of the basis for why we believe like this.But others who do not believe these same things also point to the lack of answers to why is there anything and to the gaps in our knowledge about many things in physics and evolution and infer the existence of some creator.Some creationists do not have any difficulty with the fact of evolution.  Some do.  All but the most rabid creationists recognize "micro-evolution," extinction, mutation, and many other aspects that are explained by evolutionary concepts.The rhetoric about what the other actually believes tends to be about what is going on at the other's polar extreme.  And the press tends to grab the poles rather than anything even 10 degrees from the pole because it makes better copy.So where should the state be in all of this?  Let science texts and scientists teach science.  Then have their courses about philosophy and religion.  But that isn't acceptable to many in the creationist and literalist Christian faction -- most liberals I know -- like many people (liberals and others) who have posted on this issue on this list -- would be fine with having science taught as science and philosophy and religion taught about.  Not all, but many.The spin put on Bush's remarks by his science advisor sit well with most of us -- but not those on the Christian right.SteveOn Aug 3, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:Here is a very recent article on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwin on trial and got a conviction! Here is a good excerpt:   Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his descendants worked to solve the questions of our existence based on science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of reason -- astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers -- have conspired to purge God from the handiwork of the universe. By the time Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, the fatal blow had been cast.  "The very persons who insist upon keeping religion and science separate are eager to use their science as a basis for pronouncements about religion," he wrote. "The literature of Darwinism is full of antitheistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us."   --  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/  "If we are to receive full service from government, the universities must give us trained [people].  That means a constant reorientation of university instruction and research not for the mere purpose of increasing technical proficiency but for the purpose of keeping abreast with social and economic change. . . .  Government is no better than its [people]."  William O. Douglas  ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

I agree with Steve Jamarthat educators ought to be allowed to teach science free of any interference from government. That is why I support school choice--let's allow science teachers and educators to design thesciencecurriculumfor their respective publicor private schools and allow parents to choose (without penalty)which curriculum (public or private)is best for their children.

The only reason this is a problem is because whoever controls the public school curriculum canimpose that curriculum on all of our children through the government school monopoly. I don't care whether evolution is taught as a fact atthe school yourkids attend, Steve. But I do care about what my children are taught. I would like my children to be taught the way McConnell and Johnson suggest.

We humans--whether evolved or created--don't know much about what happened even yesterday. It is hubris to pretend that we know what happened 10,000 or 10 billion years ago.

Cheers, Rick Duncan
Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who created god?

Some of us believe that indeed the universe "was not designed and has no purpose" and that the question "why is there anything?" is interesting, but at present beyond the ability of anyone to answer convincingly.

Some of us also believe that "we humans are the product of [evolutionary] processes that care nothing about us."

And many of us who believe these things use the current best scientific understanding of the universe and evolution as part of the basis for why we believe like this.

But others who do not believe these same things also point to the lack of answers to why is there anything and to the gaps in our knowledge about many things in physics and evolution and inferthe existence of some creator.

Some creationists do not have any difficulty with the fact of evolution. Some do. All but the most rabid creationists recognize "micro-evolution," extinction, mutation, and many other aspects that are explained by evolutionary concepts.

The rhetoric about what the other actually believes tends to be about what is going on at the other's polar extreme. And the press tends to grab the poles rather than anything even 10 degrees from the pole because it makes better copy.

So where should the state be in all of this? Let science texts and scientists teach science. Then have their courses about philosophy and religion. But that isn't acceptable to many in the creationist and literalist Christian faction -- most liberals I know -- like many people (liberals and others) who have posted on this issue on this list -- would be fine with having science taught as science and philosophy and religion taught about. Not all, but many.

The spin put on Bush's remarks by his science advisor sit well with most of us -- but not those on the Christian right.

Steve

On Aug 3, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:

Here is avery recentarticle on Phil Johnson, the man who put Darwinon trial and got a conviction! Here is a good excerpt:

--
Prof. Steven D. Jamarvox: 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/

"If we are to receive full service from government, the universities must give us trained [people]. That means a constant reorientation of university instruction and research not for the mere purpose of increasing technical proficiency but for the purpose of keeping abreast with social and economic change. . . . Government is no better than its [people]."

William O. Douglas___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Hamilton02





There have been literally thousands of scientists testing evolutionary 
theories (which, by the way, have evolved well beyond Charles Darwin) for over a 
century. Evolution is not a single hypothesis, but rather thousands of 
hypotheses that have been tested using scientific theory. And they will 
continue to be tested. Sounds like the scientific method to me, not a 
"priesthood." The priesthood in this arena are those on the other side, 
who do not have the science to rebut evolution, but think faith is enough. 
That is why evolution must stay in the science curriculum, unless and until its 
hypotheses are proven by scientific method to be wrong. And intelligent 
design, or creationism as it was first dubbed, belongs in a theory course -- 
either on beliefs about the origins of the world or beliefs about the role of 
humans in the world, or whatever. 

There aremillions of Christianswho believe that evolution is 
the best theory we have to date on the origin and development of humans. I 
am one of them. Calling people who think evolution is scientifically 
persuasive nonbelievers is just that-- name-calling, without any factual 
basis.

Marci

In a message dated 8/3/2005 12:13:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Hmmm. So the onlyscientists whose views count about the case for 
  evolutionary biology are evolutionary biologists?And exactly what would 
  happen to the career of an evolutionary biologist--or any other scientist--who 
  went public with his or her doubts aboutevolution? Would they still get 
  grants? Would they still be able to publish--even on unrelated topics--in 
  professional journals?Would they even be allowed to teach their classes 
  without restrictions?
  
  Johnson is right about a priesthoodof Darwin, andyou know 
  what happens to heretics who denounce the true faith!
  
  Asfor as Marci's reference to"believers," exactly what kind 
  of God is the God of natural selection? A real God in control of destiny who 
  loves us and wants us to abide with Him for eternity? Or a house god made of 
  wood byevolved germs in trousers afraid of being alone in a purposeless 
  Universe?
  
  Cheers, Rick


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design




Rick Duncan wrote:

Darwin on Trial is not just an attack on evolution, but on the very 
modern principles of science. Johnson believes Galileo and his 
descendants worked to solve the questions of our existence based on 
science, not faith, but that for several centuries since then, men of 
reason -- astronomers, mathematicians, philosophers -- have conspired 
to purge God from the handiwork of the universe. By the time Darwin 
published Origin of Species in 1859, the fatal blow had been cast.



Here's a perfect illustration of how the ID movement speaks with a 
Janus-like duality (read: dishonesty). Phil Johnson will rail against 
atheistic science and proclaim that ID is all about restoring a 
Christian culture and overthrowing atheism and establishing a theistic 
science. He'll say things like, The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] 
is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus 
shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of 
God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 
'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin and finally 
'introduced to Jesus.'  But then when people like me say that ID is 
religiously motivated and intrinsically religious in nature, they scream 
bloody murder and claim that ID doesn't have anything to do with God or 
religion, and for all they know the designer might be an alien (which 
is flatly contradicted by the DI's definition of intelligent design). 
They do this because they know that they must hide the religious 
motivations or risk being stuck on the purpose prong of the Lemon test 
(whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant). So they engage in 
dishonesty. When speaking to their followers they speak boldly of 
standing up for Jesus; when speaking to the media they pretend that it's 
purely about science. And when you bring up their many statements to the 
contrary, they react with feigned outrage - how DARE you accuse us of 
religious motivation!






 
Phil can tell you that there are lots of reputable scientists who have 
remained in the closet for fear of career suicide with their doubts 
about Darwin and their support for ID.



And quite convenient that, because they're in the closet, his claim can 
never be verified, don't you think?


Ed Brayton


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

I didn't call anyone a non-believer, Marci. I simply asked what kind of God is the God of natural selection? That is not name-calling. It is asking the most essential question anyone can ask of a "believer"--who is God, and did He create you, or did you create Him?

Those, I know, are not question for debate on this list. But they are the key questions you must ask yourself if you are willing to accept the theory that human beings are the result of a purposeless process of natural selection.

Cheers, Rick

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There aremillions of Christianswho believe that evolution is the best theory we have to date on the origin and development of humans. I am one of them. Calling people who think evolution is scientifically persuasive nonbelievers is just that-- name-calling, without any factual basis.
Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Hamilton02





Rick-- That means that astronomy should be abandoned, because an 
astronomisttoday examinesphenomenathat took place thousands 
and millions of years ago. It takes time for information to flow through 
space, as Einstein showed.  Science is all about drawing conclusions based 
on data, and it is no more illegitimate to draw conclusions about events 
occurring long ago in the evolution context than it is in the astronomy 
context.

Marci 




In a message dated 8/3/2005 12:29:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We 
  humans--whether evolved or created--don't know much about what happened even 
  yesterday. It is hubris to pretend that we know what happened 10,000 or 10 
  billion years ago


___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Sanford Levinson




I 
know that I should simply forbear from comment, but when Rick 
writes:

We humans--whether evolved or 
  created--don't know much about what happened even yesterday. It is hubris to 
  pretend that we know what happened 10,000 or 10 billion years 
ago

I cannot help but wonder why in the world he 
has any faith as to his knowledge of events that purportedly happened sometime 
between 2000-3500 years ago for which (in the case of, say, a Jewish presence in 
the Sinai), there is no archeological evidence--i.e., not the barest 
scintilla--whatsover. 

sandy
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Some add to this pot the concept of falsafiability; and this
important consideration is what I find most troubling about the devoted
adherents of evolutionary faith. Where the scientific method and
falsafiability would require, for example, that the theory of
relativity be subjected to testing intentional designed to show how the
theory FAILS to explain, evolutionary theories are not subjected to
falsifiability analysis; the closest anyone comes to such analysis is
when ID proponents or neo Darwinists or others point out the gaps and
failures of explanation. 
  
  

I don't think you understand the concept of falsifiability.
Falsifiability does not mean that you must subject a theory to testing
"designed to show how the theory fails to explain" something. It only
means that one must, in principle, be able to imagine a set of data
that would falsify the explanation if that data were found. In the case
of evolution, this is rather easy to imagine. Find a single hominid (or
even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata
and evolution is dead. If the fossil record showed that all life forms
lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead. If genetics
did not allow traits to be inherited, evolution would be dead. One
could go on all day. The fact that evolution hasn't been falsified
doesn't mean it's not falsifiable, it more likely means it's true. On
the other hand, how could creationism (broadly defined) possibly be
falsified? No matter what the data said, one could simply say that God
created in that manner for reasons unknown to us. Now creationism as
narrowly defined, say as young earth global flood creationism, which
makes specific claims about the natural history of life on earth that
are testable, has long been falsified because it fails completely as an
explanation for the data. 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Francis Beckwith

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 Popper, there is a no consensus on its adequacy. For example, we know that theories that encounter contrary datapossible defeatersare some time supplemented by ad hoc hypotheses. Does that make the original theory unfalsifiable, or is postulating ad hoc hypotheses a legitimate tactic in the face of a possible defeaters to an otherwise fruitful theory. When do we know that a theory has been falsified? Is it one anomaly, 20, 50? Nobody knows.

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, then that would show that God as an explanation for the universes beginning is unnecessary. Since genetic inheritance is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for Darwinism, its falsification would falsify every theory of biological change that relies on inheritance including Darwinism. So, that isnt much of a test. The other examples are equally unpersuasive: Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead. I doubt it. I can easily imagine someone saying any of the following: maybe our dating methods are wrong; maybe evolution worked differently than we supposed; or maybe this anomaly will be explained in the future, but one anomaly is no reason to give up an otherwise fruitful theory. Heres the other example: If the fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead. Actually, we wouldnt be here to make that observation, because we would be one of those dead life forms.

The debates about the nature of science, falsification, etc. are much more complicated than can be written about here. Nevertheless, much of this discussion on design and naturalistic evolution is poorly assessed, in my opinion, because of the disciplinary fragmentation of the academy. A result of this is the ridiculous notion that calling an argument philosophical or religious means that the argument can never serve as a defeater to the deliverances of science. But if knowledge is seamless, as I believe it is, then a good philosophical argument against a scientific hypothesis counts against it. If, for example, I can show that it is conceptually impossible for an infinite series of causes to exist in reality, then I dont care how many multiple universes Stephen Hawking wants to postulate in order to avoid the daunting conclusion that the ground of being is indeed personal. Just like I know there cant be five married-bachelors in the next room without having to look, I can know that an infinite regress of causes is impossible without peering through a telescope or lifting a pyrex tube.

Keep this mind: the distinction between science and non-science is not a judgment of science, but a philosophical conclusion about science.

Frank

On 8/3/05 1:21 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some add to this pot the concept of falsafiability; and this important consideration is what I find most troubling about the devoted adherents of evolutionary faith. Where the scientific method and falsafiability would require, for example, that the theory of relativity be subjected to testing intentional designed to show how the theory FAILS to explain, evolutionary theories are not subjected to falsifiability analysis; the closest anyone comes to such analysis is when ID proponents or neo Darwinists or others point out the gaps and failures of explanation.

I don't think you understand the concept of falsifiability. Falsifiability does not mean that you must subject a theory to testing designed to show how the theory fails to explain something. It only means that one must, in principle, be able to imagine a set of data that would falsify the explanation if that data were found. In the case of evolution, this is rather easy to imagine. Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead. If the fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead. If genetics did not allow traits to be inherited, evolution would be dead. One could go on all day. The fact that evolution hasn't been falsified doesn't mean it's not falsifiable, it more likely means it's true. On the other hand, how could creationism (broadly defined) possibly be falsified? No matter what the data said, one could simply say that God created in that manner for reasons unknown to us. Now creationism as narrowly defined, say as young earth global flood creationism, which makes specific claims about the natural history of life on earth that are testable,

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread ArtSpitzer

The following useful perspective on ID comes from http://www.venganza.org/index.htm , which also contains related materials. If I properly understood Jim Henderson's posts yesterday, I believe the ACLJ would support FSM on the same grounds that it supports ID.
Art Spitzer
Washington, DC
(I hope no one finds the following offensive. If anyone does, he or she might bear in mind that some of us find ID offensive.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

[graph omitted from e-mail]

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

___
To post,

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design




Francis Beckwith wrote:

  
  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, then that would
show that God as an explanation for the universes beginning is
unnecessary.  
  

But one can hardly imagine what kind of evidence there could be the
universe always existing. And showing that God is unnecessary as an
explanation for one thing doesn't falsify the existence of God. If it
did, the failure of every god of the gaps argument in history would
have falsified it and it didn't. "Unnecessary" is not synonymous with
"falsified". 

Since genetic inheritance is a
necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for Darwinism, its
falsification would falsify every theory of biological change that
relies on inheritance including Darwinism. So, that isnt much of a
test.

I don't understand the reasoning here. If it can falsify more than one
explanation, it's "not much of a test"? All that is required for
falsifiability is that the explanation be falsified if a given set of
data is found; whether the data also falsifies another potential
explanation is irrelevant. If the police had 3 suspects for a murder, 2
male and 1 female and genetic evidence showed that it must have been
female, the fact that this evidence falsified two of the three possible
explanations hardly makes the falsification of those explanations any
less true or compelling.

 The other examples are equally
unpersuasive: Find a single hominid (or even mammalian or avian)
fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is dead. I
doubt it. I can easily imagine someone saying any of the following:
maybe our dating methods are wrong; maybe evolution worked differently
than we supposed; or maybe this anomaly will be explained in the
future, but one anomaly is no reason to give up an otherwise fruitful
theory.
Falsifiability is not based upon whether someone will admit that a
theory is falsified, but rather on whether the evidence logically does
falsify it. If it required admission, then the potential falsification
you offered above for the existence of God is even weaker and less
compelling. 

 Heres the other example: If the
fossil record showed that all life forms lived and died at the same
time, evolution would be dead. Actually, we wouldnt be here to make
that observation, because we would be one of those dead life forms. 
  
Okay, so make it "all other life forms" or "all other life forms were
on the planet simultaneously". Either way, it's still a valid potential
falsification because it would negate the possibility of ancestral
relationships.


The debates about the nature of science, falsification, etc. are much
more complicated than can be written about here. Nevertheless, much of
this discussion on design and naturalistic evolution is poorly
assessed, in my opinion, because of the disciplinary fragmentation of
the academy. A result of this is the ridiculous notion that calling an
argument philosophical or religious means that the argument can
never serve as a defeater to the deliverances of science. But if
knowledge is seamless, as I believe it is, then a good philosophical
argument against a scientific hypothesis counts against it. If, for
example, I can show that it is conceptually impossible for an infinite
series of causes to exist in reality, then I dont care how many
multiple universes Stephen Hawking wants to postulate in order to avoid
the daunting conclusion that the ground of being is indeed personal.
Just like I know there cant be five married-bachelors in the next
room without having to look, I can know that an infinite regress of
causes is impossible without peering through a telescope or lifting a
pyrex tube. 
  

I would agree with this, but in terms of the existence of God I would
suggest that it's trivially easy to show that every possible answer is
logically impossible. Which leaves us with quite a problem on our hands
- which I'm okay with, by the way. 

Keep this mind: the distinction between science and non-science is not
a judgment of science, but a philosophical conclusion about science.

But surely you wouldn't argue that if we can't define a perfect
demarcation between science and non-science, we should have no
standards at all for what goes in science curricula and what doesn't. 

Ed Brayton


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Brad M Pardee


Art Spitzer wrote on 08/03/2005 01:34:26 PM:

 (I hope no one finds the following offensive. If anyone does,
he or
 she might bear in mind that some of us find ID offensive.)

I can understand what you might not agree with ID.
I can even understand why you might be offended by the way in which
some people have advocated it. I cannot, however, understand how
you can find ID offensive. Although I have not agreed with everything
the advocates of evolution have said here, I never found their belief in
evolution offensive. What you have posted here, however, IS offensive
because its sole purpose is to mock the people you don't agree with. Making
fun of people we don't agree with or don't approve of may have a place
in a late night talk show monologue or an editorial cartoon. But
it has no place in any serious discussion of an issue. No matter
how fervently you believe in the truth of evolution and no matter how passionately
you disagree with ID, that's no excuse for mocking people on the other
side.

Brad Pardee___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread ArtSpitzer


In a message dated 8/3/05 2:58:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


As an Italian, however, I am offended by the use of spaghetti. Perhaps in order to more diverse you can change it to taco or matzah in future postings.


If it were my own letter I'd be happy to do that, and also to substitute "ACLU Lawyers" for "Pirates" in case there are any offended pirates out there.
Art Spitzer
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

From the list custodian re: evolution vs. intelligent design

2005-08-03 Thread Volokh, Eugene

This thread has been quite interesting; but my tentative sense
is that (1) it has gone on for quite a while, (2) it seems to be
repeating itself a bit, and (3) online discussions on this topic have
been known to go on for a very long time.  Might it be good to wind
things down?  Many thanks,

The list custodian
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

I missed Art's post for some reason, it never came here. And while the 
open letter is obviously parody, parody often reveals a kernel of truth 
and this is no exception. My friend Rob Pennock wrote in his first book 
on ID about all the possible alternatives to evolution that, under an 
equal time policy, would also have to be given equal time. One that he 
mentioned in particular was the Raelians, who believe that life on earth 
was bioengineered by aliens. A few months after his book was published, 
the Raelians actually issed a press release applauding the efforts of 
the ID advocates to open up science classrooms to alternatives and hoped 
that this would pave the way for them to introduce their theories into 
the public schools as well. And of course, there are others as well. You 
have the Hindu creationism of Cremo and Thompson, with actual 
credentialed scientists working to prove that humans have been here for 
hundreds of millions of years and that all of life is cyclical in nature.


One could go beyond biology as well. If the teach the controversy 
message is to be taken seriously, we must implement it in all 
disciplines. Logically, would we not then also have to teach geocentrism 
along with heliocentrism in earth science classes (bear in mind that the 
geocentrists also have their own organizations with genuine credentialed 
scientists, Gerardus Buow in particular)? Or flat earthism? Or even give 
equal time to holocaust denial in history classes, or to those who think 
that the Illuminati are behind everything? Do we have to teach astrology 
along with astronomy? Or along with the germ theory of disease, do we 
also teach Christian Scientism or the new age mind-over-matter nonsense 
of Deepok Chopra? One could go on all day, of course.


Ed Brayton


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.9/62 - Release Date: 8/2/05

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-03 Thread Francis Beckwith

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, then that would
 show that God as an explanation for the universe¹s beginning is unnecessary.
 
 But one can hardly imagine what kind of evidence there could be the universe
 always existing. And showing that God is unnecessary as an explanation for one
 thing doesn't falsify the existence of God. If it did, the failure of every
 god of the gaps argument in history would have falsified it and it didn't.
 Unnecessary is not synonymous with falsified.

But it seems that there are entire is cluster of rational beliefs that
cannot be falsified that are nevertheless essential. For example, the claim
that falsification is necessary itself can't be falsified.  So, clearly
there is at least one necessary, though unfalsifiable, belief. Second, if I
hold to the belief that George Washington had an affair with Abigale Adams,
I can't really falsify it, but I can marshal evidence against it and show
that the belief is unreasonable. Because it is possible that the belief is
true, one cannot technically falsify it. But that actually counts against
falsification as a test of rationality, since we know it is rational to
reject this belief and it is nevertheless unfalsifiable.


I think you may be confusing a believer's subjective adherence with a belief
with the grounds for a belief. You are correct that people will believe all
sorts of things in spite of the evidence, but that does not mean that the
defeaters they ignore are not real defeaters or at least count against the
belief.  

 Since genetic inheritance is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for
 Darwinism, it¹s falsification would falsify every theory of biological change
 that relies on inheritance including Darwinism.   So, that isn¹t much of a
 test.
 
 I don't understand the reasoning here. If it can falsify more than one
 explanation, it's not much of a test? All that is required for
 falsifiability is that the explanation be falsified if a given set of data is
 found; whether the data also falsifies another potential explanation is
 irrelevant. If the police had 3 suspects for a murder, 2 male and 1 female and
 genetic evidence showed that it must have been female, the fact that this
 evidence falsified two of the three possible explanations hardly makes the
 falsification of those explanations any less true or compelling.

What I was thinking here was a test that would uniquely falsify Darwinism
and keep in tact genetic inheritance.  Since, after all, nobody denies
genetic inheritance, not even Duane Gish (as far as I know).  Specificity in
these matters is virtue.

 
 The other examples are equally unpersuasive:  ³Find a single hominid (or even
 mammalian or avian) fossil in situ in precambrian strata and evolution is
 dead.²  I doubt it. I can easily imagine someone saying any of the following:
 maybe our dating methods are wrong; maybe evolution worked differently than
 we supposed; or maybe this anomaly will be explained in the future, but one
 anomaly is no reason to give up an otherwise fruitful theory.

 Falsifiability is not based upon whether someone will admit that a theory is
 falsified, but rather on whether the evidence logically does falsify it. If it
 required admission, then the potential falsification you offered above for the
 existence of God is even weaker and less compelling.

I probably wasn't clear in my example. What I was trying to show is that
fruitful theories do not collapse under the weight of one or two, or even
many, anomalies. It is perfectly acceptable to offer ad hoc hypotheses to
cover for problems.

In fact, anomalies sometimes inspire changes in research programs to try to
account for anomalies. So, it's not about the personal virtue of the
scientist (whether he or she will admit the game is up); it's about the
problem in trying to come with what counts as evidence that does falsify a
theory. I think it's much more difficult and complicated that you let on,
especially when vested interests and professional reputations are at stake.
I think we all underestimate the sociology of science and extra-scientific
factors play in the history of progress of science.

 
 Here¹s the other example: ³If the fossil record showed that all life forms
 lived and died at the same time, evolution would be dead.²  Actually, we
 wouldn¹t be here to make that observation, because we would be one of those
 dead life forms.
 Okay, so make it all other life forms or all other life forms were on the
 planet simultaneously. Either way, it's still a valid potential falsification
 because it would negate the possibility of ancestral relationships.

Good comeback, though ancestral relationships would also be consistent with
some forms of design

Re: Probation requirements

2005-08-03 Thread Steven Jamar

It says free exercise.  Not merely freedom of belief.  Aspects of one's religious activities (exercise) may be limited, but the exercise of one's religion may not be entirely eliminated (unless one's religious beliefs are such that all exercise involves murder and mahem and other conduct legitimately proscribable).  Even Reynolds recognizes that even though Congress cannot make religious beliefs illegal, it can, nonetheless, to some extent consistent with moral and social requirements and norms limit the exercise of those beliefs, the practice of them.  But it cannot proscribe religious practices that do not run afoul of other legitimate norms.And the law has developed in sophistication in drawing this line in the past 130 years -- see the various iterations of free exercise in international human rights instruments and newer constitutions (e.g., South Africa).  And see, even, U.S. S. Ct. cases showing some understanding of this.On Aug 3, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Gene Garman wrote: The free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited, but religion is not above the law, except in matters of opinion. The Free Exercise Clause does not say the exercise of religion cannot be abridged, which means reduced. The Free Exercise Clause plainly says the exercise of religion cannot be prohibited, which means totally. All actions are subject to the laws of the land which apply to all citizens equally, regardless of religion.   In 1879 (Reynolds v. U.S.) wording of the Free Exercise Clause, as written, was unanimously understood by the Court :   "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.The law can interfere with practices; even prohibiting some (bigamy, in Reynolds).  But it cannot prohibit all peaceable exercise.Steve --  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  "I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills."   Gandhi   ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Probation requirements

2005-08-03 Thread Brad M Pardee

The application of the free exercise
clause as you describe it would be no guarantee of free exercise at all.
Holding an opinion or a belief is not an exercise of anything. The
clause doesn't say the free belief in religion but the free exercise of
religion, which is clearly descriptive of an action, not merely a mental
process.

This was why the compelling interest
and least restrictive means requirement were necessary. Just as freedom
of speech does not protect slander or the making of terrorist threats,
free exercise of religion does not protect every religious activity (such
as human sacrifice, to use an extreme example). As I understand it
(admittedly from a layman's perspective), Employment Division v. Smith
took this reasonable test and reduced it to an anti-discrimination clause,
which is a VERY different animal from a guarantee of Free Exercise.

There is a substantial difference between
a license for anarchy and giving the state a blank check to
require or prohibit anything it wants to as long as it places the same
burden on every person. The free exercise of my faith that is only
protected until the state decides otherwise is no free exercise at all.
If the state is going to compel its citizens to choose between their
God and their government, it SHOULD have to demonstrate a compelling interest
beyond Well, we want to. It SHOULD be able to show that
what they propose is the least restrictive means of defending that compelling
interest.

Otherwise, all our talk of free exercise
and religious freedom is nothing more than Pollyannic wishful thinking.

Brad Pardee

Gene Garman [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/03/2005 02:29 PM

Please respond to
Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

To
Samuel V [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu

Subject
Re: Probation requirements

The free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited, but
religion is not above the law, except in matters of opinion. The Free Exercise
Clause does not say the exercise of religion cannot be abridged, which
means reduced. The Free Exercise Clause plainly says the exercise of religion
cannot be prohibited, which means totally. All actions are subject to the
laws of the land which apply to all citizens equally, regardless of religion.

In 1879 (Reynolds v. U.S.) wording of the Free Exercise Clause,
as written, was unanimously understood by the Court :

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot
interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.
...

Can a man excuse his practices ... because of his religious belief?
To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief
superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen
to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under
such circumstances.
...

It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion;
it was still belief, and belief only.

The Free Exercise Clause, by its precise wording, is in complete harmony
with Reynolds v. U.S. The Free Exercise Clause does not forbid
all religion exercise, but it is not a license for anarchy; and, it makes
no exception for anyone. All actions are subject to rules of conduct
lawfully established, such as probation rules, regardless of religion opinion.

You can also refer to the unanimous decision of Davis v. Beason
in 1890.

Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org

Samuel V wrote:
Can anyone point me to an article, preferably available
online,
discussing whether probation requirements violate free exercise? For
example, is a free exercise problem created whensuch as when the
effect of the restriction is to prohibit the probationer to attend the
church of his choice (because he can't leave town, can't be near
children, can't be near wine, etc.).

If you'd like to respond offlist, please do so to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
forward the messages to others.

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted;
people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly)
forward the messages to others.

Re: religiously-motivated political strife

2005-08-03 Thread Hamilton02





Clearest early example was the established Puritans' intolerance that drove 
the Baptists out and to the belief that the separation of church and state was 
the only way to religious liberty for them (a politically powerless 
religion).

Marci
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: religiously-motivated political strife

I assume Kevin is interested in pre-1787 religious strife that the
framers knew about and wanted to avoid repeating. Without offering a
full history, here are some "greatest hits of religious strife"
In
1657, Stuyvesant refused to allow a boatload of Quakers to land in New Amsterdam. This was the beginning of the
longest
and most brutal religious suppression in the colony's history. Over
the
next six years, officials jailed, expelled, fined, placed at hard
labor, and
tortured numerous Quakers for preaching in the colony. Non-Quakers
were
also jailed and fined for aiding or harboring Quakers.
In 1657 Dutch
authorities in New Netherlands tortured the Quaker Robert Hodgson in a
variety
of ways, including dragging him behind a horse cart, placing him in a
vermin
filled dungeon, and severely whipping him and "chaining him to a
wheelbarrow in the hot sun until he collapsed." He was later hung by
his hands in a prison cell and "whipped until he was near
death." After two days in solitary confinement, he was again whipped
until near death. Hodgson's ordeal ended when Stuyvesant's own sister
convinced him to release Hodgson from prison and expel him from the
country. He had earlier tried to expell Jews and Lutherans from the
colony

Mass. Bay Colony hanged 4 Quakers -- 2 men and later 2 women -- for
returning to the colony after they were expelled and preaching.
Earlier Mass. Bay colony expelled Roger Williams for his heresies (be
later founded the Baptist Church) as well as Anne Hutchinson for hers.
Massacusetts colony executed 19 people for witchcracft, pressed one man
to death for refusing the plead to the indictment and sent hundreds to
jail (where some died) and also hanged two dogs for witchcraft, all of
which were religious crimes

About 19 others were executed in various colonies for witchcraft.

Plymouth Colony, imposing Biblical Law, hanged Thomas Granger for
beastiality after first killing all the animals he had had sex with
(they symbolically killed 3 wild turkeys to atone for the turkey he
had sex with).

The Md. "Toleration Act" allowed for the execution of Jews and anyone
else who did not accept the divinity of Jesus; one Jew was sentenced to
death but commuted to expulsion.

Virginia savagely mistreated Baptists in the 1770s and 1780s; jailing
and whipping Baptist ministers.

While there was some religious persecuation after the colonial period,
it died down a great deal and certainly the Free
Exercise/Anti-Establishment tradition (even if it was not legally
applicable the states, helped create much greater religious tolerance,
despite persecution of Mormons in the 1830s and 1840s, some Catholic
persecution in the 1830s, and the lynching of Leo Frank by a mob in
1915 (I think that is the right date).

You can find citations for these events and further discussions in the
following places:

Paul Finkelman, The Ten
Commandments on the Courthouse Lawn and
Elsewhere, 73 Fordham
L. Rev.
1477-1520 (2005).
Paul Finkelman, Religious
Liberty and the
Quincentennary: Old World Intolerance, New
World Realities,
and Modern Implications," 7 St.
Johns J. Legal Comm. 523 (1992).
Paul Finkelman, RELIGION AND AMERICAN LAW: AN ENCYCLOPEDIA (Garland,
2000).

My question will perhaps reveal more
about my ignorance of American history than I ought to disclose but my
question is as follows:

Various Supreme Court justices have
argued that one of the motivations of the establishment clause is the
prevention of religiously-motivated political strife. See, e.g., Justice Souter's
dissenting opinions in Mitchell and Zelman. However, the only references
to strife one sees in the opinions are to 17th century Europe and to
the divisiveness of founding era state-supported churches.

My question then is what events, if any,
would list members point to as examples of religiously-motivated strife
in the American context--this to head off someone who might like
Justice Stevens in Zelman point to conflicts in "the Balkans, Northern
Ireland, and the Middle East." 19th
century school funding conflicts?

Thanks.

Kevin Pybas
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this
large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the
list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web
archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.

"Example is always more efficacious than
precept."

Samuel

Re: religiously-motivated political strife

They could not, and did not, persecute Anglicans, of course; and
probably tolerated prebyterians after the late 1640s; a few Jews were
allowed to reside in Mass. Bay, unlike Quakers who were hanged

James Maule wrote:

Not just Baptists. Quakers. And "Papists." And anyone who wasn't a
Puritan.

Jim Maule

[EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/3/2005 5:29:14 PM

Clearest early example was the established Puritans' intolerance that
drove
the Baptists out and to the belief that the separation of church and
state was
the only way to religious liberty for them (a politically powerless
religion).

Marci

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK 74105

918-631-3706 (voice)
918-631-2194 (fax)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Fwd from Rick Garnett re: religiously-motivated political strife

2005-08-03 Thread Volokh, Eugene

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 Dear all,
 
 In their e-mails, Marci, Paul, and Steven have identified 
 conflicts that certainly strike me as qualifying as 
 religiously-motivated political strife.  (In the cases, it 
 does seem to me that the school wars / Know Nothings / Blaine 
 Amd / Pierce v. Soc. of Sisters cluster of conflicts between 
 Catholics and others are most prominent and relevant).  And, 
 like Kevin says, several Justices -- most prominently, at 
 present, Justice Breyer -- have argued that one of the 
 motivations of the establishment clause is the prevention of 
 religiously-motivated political strife.  My own question, 
 though -- one that is the subject of a forthcoming article -- 
 is whether, why, and / or how these motivations, or the 
 undesirability of such strife should be used to supply the 
 Establishment Clause's enforceable content.
 
 Best wishes,
 
 Rick
 
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: religiously-motivated political strife

2005-08-03 Thread Michael MASINTER

Don't overlook the anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party riots, including the
Philadelphia Bible Riot of 1843:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/photo_gallery/photo2.html

Two sources approach the same history from different perspectives, but do
not much disagree on what happened:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08677a.htm
http://www.atheists.org/publicschools/street.html


Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue
Professor of LawFort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University(954) 262-6151 (voice)
Shepard Broad Law Center(954) 262-3835 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel



___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: religiously-motivated political strife





I agree with Doug that there was more than I set out. His correction
is important.

Douglas Laycock wrote:

  
  
  
  More bad stuff went on the in
the 19th and 20th centuries than Paul's posting may imply, although the
executions and tortures that he describes in the 17th  19th
centuries were not repeated so far as I know.
  
  There was much private and some
public violence against the Mormons, and after the Civil War an
organizedcampaign by federal and territorial governments to suppress
polygamy at whatever cost to religious liberty --criminal prosecutions
of church leaders, test oaths to prevent Mormons from voting (upheld in
Davis v. Beason, a decision implicitly overruled in Torcaso v. Watkins,
but which supports of Smith still seem to rely on), and forfeiture of
the church's corporate charter and seizure of most of its property.
  
  Protestant-Catholic conflict,
principally over Protestant religious instruction in the public
schools, flared off and on for a century from the 1820s, with
occasional mob violence, church burnings, and people dead in the
streets. Catholic children were whipped for refusing to read the King
James Bible, and there is at least one reported acquittal of a teacher
who administered such a whipping.
  
  Private violence against
Jehovah's Witnesses in the 30s and 40s, especially after Gobitis upheld
the flag salute requirement in 1940. At the same time, an sustained
effort by local governments to suppress proselytizing by Witnesses,
with many ingenious and facially neutral ordinances enacted to get
them. Most of these ordinances were struck down in nearly two dozen
Supreme Court decisions from the late 30s to the early 50s.
  
  There are many accounts of these
episodes, a few comprehensive, mostdealing with one small piece of the
story. 
  
  Douglas Laycock
  University of Texas Law
School
  727 E. Dean Keeton St.
  Austin, TX 78705
   512-232-1341 (phone)
   512-471-6988 (fax)
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Paul
Finkelman
  Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:43 PM
  To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
  Subject: Re: religiously-motivated political strife
  
  
I assume Kevin is interested in pre-1787 religious strife that the
framers knew about and wanted to avoid repeating. Without offering a
full history, here are some "greatest hits of religious strife" 
  In 1657, Stuyvesant refused to allow a boatload
of Quakers to land in New Amsterdam.
This was the beginning of the longest and most brutal religious
suppression in the colony's history. Over the next six years,
officials jailed, expelled, fined, placed at hard labor, and tortured
numerous Quakers for preaching in the colony. Non-Quakers were also
jailed and fined for aiding or harboring Quakers. !--[if
!supportEndnotes]-- In 1657 Dutch authorities in New Netherlands
tortured the Quaker Robert Hodgson in a variety of ways, including
dragging him behind a horse cart, placing him in a vermin filled
dungeon, and severely whipping him and "chaining him to a wheelbarrow
in the hot sun until he collapsed." He was later hung by his hands in
a prison cell and "whipped until he was near death." After two days in
solitary confinement, he was again whipped until near death. Hodgson's
ordeal ended when Stuyvesant's own sister convinced him to release
Hodgson from prison and expel him from the country. He had earlier
tried to expell Jews and Lutherans from the colony
  
Mass. Bay Colony hanged 4 Quakers -- 2 men and later 2 women -- for
returning to the colony after they were expelled and preaching.
Earlier Mass. Bay colony expelled Roger Williams for his heresies (be
later founded the Baptist Church) as well as Anne Hutchinson for hers.
Massacusetts colony executed 19 people for witchcracft, pressed one man
to death for refusing the plead to the indictment and sent hundreds to
jail (where some died) and also hanged two dogs for witchcraft, all of
which were religious crimes
  
About 19 others were executed in various colonies for witchcraft.
  
Plymouth Colony, imposing Biblical Law, hanged Thomas Granger for
beastiality after first killing all the animals he had had sex with
(they symbolically killed 3 wild turkeys to atone for the turkey he
had sex with). 
  
The Md. "Toleration Act" allowed for the execution of Jews and anyone
else who did not accept the divinity of Jesus; one Jew was sentenced to
death but commuted to expulsion.
  
Virginia savagely mistreated Baptists in the 1770s and 1780s; jailing
and whipping Baptist ministers.
  
While there was some religious persecuation after the colonial period,
it died down a great deal and certainly the Free
Exercise/Anti-Establishment tradition (even if it was not legally
applicable the states, helped create much greater religious tolerance,
despite persecution of Mormons in the 1830s and 1840s, some Catholic
persecution in the 1830s, and the lynching of Leo Frank by a mob in
1915 (I think that is the right date).
  
You can

Re: religiously-motivated political strife

2005-08-03 Thread Steven Jamar

BTW, state sponsorship of religion need not necessarily result in religious strife.  State religions are still common around the world -- UK, Egypt, Israel, Switzerland (or did they recently disestablish? I recall reading something about that) and others.And non-establishment is no guarantee of lack of religious strife.  China, USSR, Russia (mushy case now, of course), and the US.  And sometimes that strife is between the state and the religion (China, US, Russia, Turkey).The main problem with an established religion from the narrow perspective of strife is when an established religion is not coupled with free exercise.  A secondary, but significant problem, can arise from resentment of one sect when their taxes are paid to another sect and yet they still must support their own chosen sect.  But these same kinds of problems arise in a non-establishment state like the US, viz., certain fundamentalist Christians view state-sponsored secular religion as establishment of non-religion (or worse); and certain groups regularly try to get federal or state funding for religious activities (bussing to parochial schools, vouchers, etc.) and others dislike their taxes being spent that way.  So the strife, such as it is, can arise in both establishment and non-establishment settings.Steve --  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  "I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills."   Gandhi   ___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

RE: religiously-motivated political strife

2005-08-03 Thread Pybas, Kevin M

All of the comments are helpful, but let me raise another question that is akin 
to the one Rick raised.  He asked  
 
whether, why, and / or how these motivations, or the
 undesirability of such strife should be used to supply the
 Establishment Clause's enforceable content.

WIth regard to neutral aid programs (as the Court characterizes them), is it 
really religious strife that worries us?  In other words, in the context of the 
modern administrative state, are the conflicts over the funding of education, 
for example, whether it be vouchers or the type of aid at issue in Mitchell, 
really about religion, or religiously-motivated in any sense?  In other words, 
how do we tell the difference between religously-motivated political strife and 
ordinary political disagreements (I understand that the word ordinary may not 
he all that helpful, but hopefully you see what I mean.)  

 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Wed 8/3/2005 5:08 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: religiously-motivated political strife


 
winmail.dat___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: religiously-motivated political strife

2005-08-03 Thread Robert O'Brien


Laycock's tight summary is important.

I have researched  the ACLU and Justice Department records on the attacks on 
Jehovah's Witnesses. I quickly count attacks in more than thirty states and 
include eight large mob attacks from Maine to Mississippi in June after the 
Gobitis decision. The mobs in several cases include a Mayor, a Fire Chief, a 
Sheriff,  a state police officer, a community police officer, and many local 
officials.   Approximately 250 court decision in 10 years concerned laws 
inhibiting activities of JWs.  In one episode a police officer met the JW 
group who came to his office to seek protection.  In the office the JW group 
were forced to drink each a bottle of castor oil before being tied to a rope 
and walk out of the town to find their moved cars.  Yes, 
religiously-motivated political strife was important to the decision in West 
Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette.


Bob O'Brien



- Original Message - 
From: Pybas, Kevin M [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:43 PM
Subject: religiously-motivated political strife


My question will perhaps reveal more about my ignorance of American history 
than I ought to disclose but my question is as follows:


Various Supreme Court justices have argued that one of the motivations of 
the establishment clause is the prevention of religiously-motivated 
political strife.  See, e.g., Justice Souter's dissenting opinions in 
Mitchell and Zelman.  However, the only references to strife one sees in the 
opinions are to 17th century Europe and to the divisiveness of founding era 
state-supported churches.


My question then is what events, if any, would list members point to as 
examples of religiously-motivated strife in the American context--this to 
head off someone who might like Justice Stevens in Zelman point to conflicts 
in the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East.  19th century 
school funding conflicts?


Thanks.

Kevin Pybas
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw


Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
wrongly) forward the messages to others.




NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: religiously-motivated political strife

Of course, in recent times much religious strife is caused by excluding religious people from equal access to the public square and from equal participation in the benefits of the welfare state. Locke v. Davey, for example, strikes me as a case in which Washington's rigid separationism caused religious people such as Joshua Daveyto feel unwelcome and stigmatized second class citizens.

For every person who feels upset when religious folks get their fair share of public benefits, there is another who feels upset and disrespected when religious folks are denied their fair slice of the benefit pie.I don't think religious strife gets us very far in deciding EC issues today, and to the extent it is relevant, it may be to counsel in favor of permitting and or requiring equal access, equalscholarships and educational benefits, etc.

Cheers, RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."  --The Prisoner
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Establisment clause and oppressive taxation





I would suggest you reread Madison's remonstrance on Religious freedom;
one of the clear motivating factors for the establishment clause was to
preclude the possibility that people would have to pay for other
people's religion. That was what was going on in Va and that, quite
frankly, is what the voucher system is all about; when tax money ends
up in a religious school, it means that taxpayers of one faith are
forced to support the religious schools of someone else. Madison
understood how deeply wrong, dangerous, and offensive that was. I am
surprised that you and Rick don't see this. 

Paul Finkelman

Pybas, Kevin M wrote:

  All of the comments are helpful, but let me raise another question that is akin to the one Rick raised.  He asked  
 
  
  
whether, why, and / or how these motivations, or the
undesirability of such strife should be used to supply the
Establishment Clause's enforceable content.

  
  
WIth regard to neutral aid programs (as the Court characterizes them), is it really religious strife that worries us?  In other words, in the context of the modern administrative state, are the conflicts over the funding of education, for example, whether it be vouchers or the type of aid at issue in Mitchell, really about religion, or religiously-motivated in any sense?  In other words, how do we tell the difference between religously-motivated political strife and ordinary political disagreements (I understand that the word "ordinary" may not he all that helpful, but hopefully you see what I mean.)  

 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Wed 8/3/2005 5:08 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: religiously-motivated political strife


 
  
  

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.



-- 
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK  74105

918-631-3706 (voice)		
918-631-2194 (fax)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: religiously-motivated political strife





Jim: 

I am surprised you cannot understand how executing people based on
Biblical Law might be seen as "religious strife." Similarly, the
taking of farm animals to destory them because they were "contaminated"
by Granger might lead to religious strife. Yes, the Turkeys were not
private property so that might not lead to religious strife, per se,
but it does indicate the dangers of allowing religious law to regulate
civil society. And that, is what the establishment clause is all about.

Paul Finkelman

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  In a message dated 8/3/2005 5:43:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Plymouth Colony, imposing Biblical Law, hanged Thomas Granger
for beastiality after first killing all the animals he had had sex with
(they symbolically killed 3 wild turkeys to atone for the turkey he
had sex with). 
  
  I guess I am just terribly uncertain how this evinces religious
strife. Perhaps the turkeys co-religionists felt that they were
unfairly targeted?
  
  Jim Henderson
  Senior Counsel
  ACLJ
  
  

___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.



-- 
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK  74105

918-631-3706 (voice)		
918-631-2194 (fax)

[EMAIL PROTECTED]




___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Establisment clause and oppressive taxation

2005-08-03 Thread Francis Beckwith

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 from which Madison drew his conclusion is not so easily dispositive in resolving this dispute. Suppose, for example, it were discovered that food stamp recipients were using some of them for the purchase of bread and grape juice for Catholic Masses conducted in their homes. Would that violate Madisons principle, since the purchase results from money acquired through taxing non-Catholics? Or would it be consistent with Madisons principle, since the purchase is the result of the free agency of the citizen who received the food stamps rather than a result of a government-directed order (as in the case of religious assessments in early America)? Suppose we change the food stamps to school vouchers and the bread and grape juice to Catholic school admission? 

Im not sure Madison is helpful here.

Frank



On 8/3/05 11:27 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I would suggest you reread Madison's remonstrance on Religious freedom; one of the clear motivating factors for the establishment clause was to preclude the possibility that people would have to pay for other people's religion. That was what was going on in Va and that, quite frankly, is what the voucher system is all about; when tax money ends up in a religious school, it means that taxpayers of one faith are forced to support the religious schools of someone else. Madison understood how deeply wrong, dangerous, and offensive that was. I am surprised that you and Rick don't see this. 

Paul Finkelman

Pybas, Kevin M wrote:
All of the comments are helpful, but let me raise another question that is akin to the one Rick raised. He asked 


whether, why, and / or how these motivations, or the
undesirability of such strife should be used to supply the
Establishment Clause's enforceable content.


WIth regard to neutral aid programs (as the Court characterizes them), is it really religious strife that worries us? In other words, in the context of the modern administrative state, are the conflicts over the funding of education, for example, whether it be vouchers or the type of aid at issue in Mitchell, really about religion, or religiously-motivated in any sense? In other words, how do we tell the difference between religously-motivated political strife and ordinary political disagreements (I understand that the word ordinary may not he all that helpful, but hopefully you see what I mean.) 







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Wed 8/3/2005 5:08 PM
To: Law  Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: religiously-motivated political strife






___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.






___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Establisment clause and oppressive taxation

Or better yet, change the food stamp hypo to Kosher food. Why should non-Jews be taxed to pay for Kosher observance? The answer, of course, is that they are not being taxed to pay for Kosher observance. They are being taxed to pay for food supplements for the poor, including food stamp recipients who choose to keep a Kosher kitchen.

The same with education taxes supporting school choice. No one is being taxed to support religious instruction as such. Everyone is being taxed to pay for education, and everyone gets a free tax supported education up frontin return for paying a lifetime of educational taxes. Both Kosher education(in private religious schools)and non-Kosher education(in all other schools) are equally funded.There should be no strife at all, because everyone pays and everyone receives. Indeed, the battles over the public school curriculum we have been discussing would be less likely to occur (less strife) if dissenting families could exit the public schools without penalty.

The real strifeis createdwhen Jews are denied Kosher food in the food stamp program and whenfamilies who choose private schools are denied their fair slice of the K-12 educational benefit pie. I deeply resent being forced to pay taxes to support a system which provides no benefits to my children. I feel like a second class citizen. And many millions more feel the same way.

RickFrancis Beckwith [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 that the principle from which Madison drew his conclusion is not so easily dispositive in resolving this dispute. Suppose, for example, it were discovered that food stamp recipients were using some of them for the purchase of bread and grape juice for Catholic Masses conducted in their homes. Would that violate Madisons principle, since the purchase results from money acquired through taxing non-Catholics? Or would it be consistent with Madisons principle, since the purchase is the result of the free agency of the citizen who received the food stamps rather than a result of a government-directed order (as in the case of r!
 eligious
 assessments in early America)? Suppose we change the food stamps to school vouchers and the bread and grape juice to Catholic school admission? Im not sure Madison is helpful here.FrankOn 8/3/05 11:27 PM, "Paul Finkelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would suggest you reread Madison's remonstrance on Religious freedom; one of the clear motivating factors for the establishment clause was to preclude the possibility that people would have to pay for other people's religion. That was what was going on in Va and that, quite frankly, is what the voucher system is all about; when tax money ends up in a religious school, it means that taxpayers of one faith are forced to support the religious schools of someone else. Madison understood how deeply wrong, dangerous, and offensive that was. I am surprised that you and Rick don't see this. Paul FinkelmanPybas, Kevin M wrote:
All of the comments are helpful, but let me raise another question that is akin to the one Rick raised. He asked 
whether, why, and / or how these motivations, or theundesirability of such strife should be used to supply theEstablishment Clause's enforceable content.WIth regard to neutral aid programs (as the Court characterizes them), is it really religious strife that worries us? In other words, in the context of the modern administrative state, are the conflicts over the funding of education, for example, whether it be vouchers or the type of aid at issue in Mitchell, really about religion, or religiously-motivated in any sense? In other words, how do we tell the difference between religously-motivated political strife and ordinary political disagreements (I understand that the word "ordinary" may not he all that helpful, but hopefully you see what I mean.) From:
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Paul FinkelmanSent: Wed 8/3/2005 5:08 PMTo: Law  Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: religiously-motivated political strife

___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list

Re: religiously-motivated political strife

2005-08-03 Thread JMHACLJ





In a message dated 8/3/2005 7:57:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, 
  religiously-motivated political strife was important to the decision in 
  West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette.

And yet it is only in the fog of hindsight that Barnette became a religious 
freedoms case.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Establisment clause and oppressive taxation

2005-08-03 Thread JMHACLJ





In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:28:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I would 
  suggest you reread Madison's remonstrance on Religious freedom; one of the 
  clear motivating factors for the establishment clause was to preclude the 
  possibility that people would have to pay for other people's religion. 
  That was what was going on in Va and that, quite frankly, is what the voucher 
  system is all about; when tax money ends up in a religious school, it 
  means that taxpayers of one faith are forced to support the religious schools 
  of someone else. Madison understood how deeply wrong, dangerous, and 
  offensive that was. I am surprised that you and Rick don't see this. 
  

Of course you are right that the remonstrance addresses this issue. 
Perhaps the offense among folks whose religious faith prevents them from 
accessing government schools would be lessened if public funding was as faithful 
to Thomas Jefferson's vision as the Court has tried to make funding models be to 
Madison's worries.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: religiously-motivated political strife

2005-08-03 Thread JMHACLJ





In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:42:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am 
  surprised you cannot understand how executing people based on Biblical Law 
  might be seen as "religious strife." Similarly, the taking of farm 
  animals to destory them because they were "contaminated" by Granger might lead 
  to religious strife. Yes, the Turkeys were not private property so that 
  might not lead to religious strife, per se, but it does indicate the dangers 
  of allowing religious law to regulate civil society. And that, is what the 
  establishment clause is all about.

The Bible prohibits beastiality. The Biblical commonwealth enforces 
the injunction in keeping with the command. You see religious 
strife.

The Bible prohibits murder. Is the enforcement of the Biblical 
command evidence of religious strife?

As an example of religious strife contemporaneous to the framers and the 
founding, the treatment of Baptists in Virginia works pretty well. The 
enforcement of laws against unnatural sex acts, as an example, is, well, a 
turkey.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Re: Establishment clause and oppressive taxation