Elective Bible Classes
The Texas Freedom Network released a report yesterday on the Bible study curriculum offered by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools and used in some 37 states, written by Mark Chancey, a Biblical studies professor at Southern Methodist University. This report makes quite obvious that this curriculum is not an objective, scholarly look at the Bible as literature but a pervasively sectarian attempt to indoctrinate and proselytize. The most stunning thing to me about this curriculum is that it includes the sort of "golly gee whiz" nonsense that one finds in Kent Hovind seminars as verified and credible information. The work of cranks and frauds like J.O. Kinnaman (a whacko who claims that Jesus and Paul had visited Great Britain, that he had personally seen the school records of Jesus in India, and that the Great Pyramid of Giza is a radio transmitter that sends messages to the Grand Canyon) and Carl Baugh (a creationist with a fake degree who is an embarrassment even to his fellow young earth creationists) is presented uncritically. This is really bottom of the barrell stuff, the antithesis of a reasonable and scholarly curriculum. The curriculum even includes the patently absurd urban legend that NASA's computers had discovered a "missing day" that confirmed that Joshua really had commanded the sun to stand still. It also includes several fake quotes from the Founding Fathers, the same fake quotes we see repeated constantly in breathless emails forwarded around the internet. For a more thorough analysis, see my essay about it or the full report itself. I have a hard time believing that this curriculum could survive a court challenge. Even without the obvious sectarian nature of it, the scholarship and pedagogy alone is utter garbage. Yet this curriculum is endorsed by groups like the American Center for Law and Justice. It's astonishing to me that an organization like that would endorse a curriculum as riddled with lies and nonsense as this one is. Ed Brayton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05 ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
I wrote an analysis of this curriculum that appeared in the Journal of Law and Education Paterson, F. R. A. (2003). Anatomy of a Bible course curriculum. Journal of Law and Education, 32(1), 41-65. Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Associate Professor Department of Educational Leadership Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 ___ To post, send message to 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: Elective Bible Classes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote an analysis of this curriculum that appeared in the Journal of Law and Education Paterson, F. R. A. (2003). Anatomy of a Bible course curriculum. Journal of Law and Education, 32(1), 41-65. Would you agree with Chancey's assessment of the curriculum? Ed Brayton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05 ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
Yes. I lacked his training and expertise in theology and archaeology and so focused on the constitutional infirmities of the curriculum and how to avoid those infirmities. Frances Paterson ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:47:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For a more thorough analysis, see my essay about it or the full report itself. I have a hard time believing that this curriculum could survive a court challenge. Even without the obvious sectarian nature of it, the scholarship and pedagogy alone is utter garbage. Yet this curriculum is endorsed by groups like the American Center for Law and Justice. It's astonishing to me that an organization like that would endorse a curriculum as riddled with lies and nonsense as this one is. Ed, you are right to doubt that boobery and nuthatchism should be likely to survive a court challenge. Of course, I felt much the same way, when pursuing my undergraduate degree in biology, when a professor in the Marine Biology department, teaching a course on evolutionary biology, gave the lecture on the already long discredited then theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Obviously, instead of simply pointing out to the professor after class that the fields of embryology and fetology had discredited entirely that theory, I should have sought a judicial determination that his teaching of an unfounded article of human evolutionary faith constituted an establishment of religion. On a more serious note, why shouldn't ID and evolution and YEC and other origins philosophies be the subject of instruction in a sociology or psychology or philosophy course. I know, not so many of those taught in our elementary and secondary schools. One thing I know that I know is that a great deal that is taught in high school biology courses is taught, and is capable of being taught, from a point of view agnostic on origins, and without reference to origins. 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: Elective Bible Classes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:47:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For a more thorough analysis, see my essay about it or the full report itself. I have a hard time believing that this curriculum could survive a court challenge. Even without the obvious sectarian nature of it, the scholarship and pedagogy alone is utter garbage. Yet this curriculum is endorsed by groups like the American Center for Law and Justice. It's astonishing to me that an organization like that would endorse a curriculum as riddled with lies and nonsense as this one is. Ed, you are right to doubt that boobery and nuthatchism should be likely to survive a court challenge. Of course, I felt much the same way, when pursuing my undergraduate degree in biology, when a professor in the Marine Biology department, teaching a course on evolutionary biology, gave the lecture on the already long discredited then theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Obviously, instead of simply pointing out to the professor after class that the fields of embryology and fetology had discredited entirely that theory, I should have sought a judicial determination that his teaching of an unfounded article of human evolutionary faith constituted an establishment of religion. I think you missed my point, Jim. Why on earth does the American Center for Law and Justice, an organization for whom you are senior counsel, endorse a curriculum that is A) obviously sectarian in nature and B) literally full of false claims. I mean, a curriculum that passes on the ridiculous NASA myth as true, contains numerous false quotations (acknowledged as such even by the very man whose work they cite and who is on their advisory board) and presents the work of cranks and frauds like Baugh and Kinnaman is hardly worthy of your organization's endorsement, is it? One would think just to avoid the embarrassment of being associated with such nonsense would be sufficent to distance oneself from this. It's unconstitutional because it's obviously sectarian and proselytizing in nature; the fact that the scholarship is also mostly crap is a separate issue. On a more serious note, why shouldn't ID and evolution and YEC and other origins philosophies be the subject of instruction in a sociology or psychology or philosophy course. I know, not so many of those taught in our elementary and secondary schools. One thing I know that I know is that a great deal that is taught in high school biology courses is taught, and is capable of being taught, from a point of view agnostic on origins, and without reference to origins. Well how would you go about teaching such things? Should teachers discuss young earth creationism without pointing out the myriad reasons why we know it to be utterly false? Ed Brayton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05 ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/2005 11:26:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you missed my point, Jim. Why on earth does the American Center for Law and Justice, an organization for whom you are senior counsel, endorse a curriculum that is A) obviously sectarian in nature and B) literally full of false claims. Because the question you ask involves our past representation of a client, I must take care in how I respond. So let's try it this way. If you set aside the particulars of the NCBCS materials, and go to the underlying, constitutional law question, would you agree that, given appropriate materials,elective courses on the Bible as literature, as history, or in comparative religion, could be taught in our public schools under the current Establishment Clause analysis? It seems to me that there are not only afew answers to that question (yes, no, depends) but a few approaches to answering the question (I have to read your curriculum first, I don't have to read your curriculum first). And as counsel, there are often, you may not realize, questions that you do not ask your client, because you do not want or need to know the answer. I mean, a curriculum that passes on the ridiculous NASA myth as true, contains numerous false quotations (acknowledged as such even by the very man whose work they cite and who is on their advisory board) and presents the work of cranks and frauds like Baugh and Kinnaman is hardly worthy of your organization's endorsement, is it? One should be careful to distinguish between the NASA myth and the biblical accounts referred to in the NASA myth. For more on the myth, and why commonsense Christians don't pass along the NASA story, see http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-a001.html. It's unconstitutional because it's obviously sectarian and proselytizing in nature; the fact that the scholarship is also mostly crap is a separate issue. And it was to that precise point that I offered the ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny example. There is a lot of fecal materials in the wide world. Some of it masquerades as faith, some of it masquerades as science, and some of it, masquerading as science and faith. If there is a flaw in the execution of the idea of Bible curriculum in the schools, that is not proof that the answer givenby a lawyer specializing in constitutional law was or is wrong. As for debunked voices quoted by others, I don't spend a great deal of my time trying on or proudly displaying the mantels of such "frauds" so I am certainly not going to spend anytime defending them or joining in your crusade against them. I choose to focus on the neat question of whether instruction may occur. On a more serious note, why shouldn't ID and evolution and YEC and other origins philosophies be the subject of instruction in a sociology or psychology or philosophy course. I know, not so many of those taught in our elementary and secondary schools. One thing I know that I know is that a great deal that is taught in high school biology courses is taught, and is capable of being taught, from a point of view agnostic on origins, and without reference to origins. Well how would you go about teaching such things? Should teachers discuss young earth creationism without pointing out the myriad reasons why we know it to be utterly false? Wouldn't it depend on the particular course of study? If the course seeks to inform students that among the great questions that humans pursue the answer to one is their origin, and if YEC is an example of the kinds of answers, whether you or I agree on the rightness/wrongness of that explanatory mechanism, why couldn't teaching ABOUT it occur? 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: Elective Bible Classes
I oppose teaching creationism, including intelligent design, in science courses. However, I think this topic should be an appropriate subject for an elective in HS, especially if taught from the historical or sociological or political perspective. I don't even get very exorcised about biology teachers in HS cutting out evolution, as so many do. But then I have a relatively low opinion of what can be effectively taught in HS anyway, compared to college.Would I like HS graduates to be literate? Sure.Would I like HS graduate to understand some basics of numbers and statistics and economics? Sure.Would I like them to understand anything about our government and history other than Washington Lincoln that the Civil War happened? Sure.If one were to teach evolution at sufficient depth to then teach the limitations of it and critiques of it, then that would be great. But I don't expect that happens very often around the country.Evolution is an established fact. The only scientific debates about it relate to the precise mechanisms involved, the timing of it, and the like. It is not merely a guess as some, even on this list, seem to still insist it is.At the HS level, in the science curriculum, religion should be kept out. Including creationism in all its guises.That said, I recall my HS biology class having a lively discussion about creationism -- even way back then -- with the teacher doing a masterful job of keeping the discussion focused on two things -- knowability and testability and taking no position on the substance of it other than to say that evolution is what science has shown to explain the biological world today. The possible existence of a motive force from outside is just not knowable and is for religion and philosophy.My main problem with the ID folk is that they are pushing it as an alternative to evolution and claiming that evolution is simply wrong rather than admitting evolution has happened and is happening and pulling to one side the philosophical and religious issues of soul and deity and the like.Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "Example is always more efficacious than precept." Samuel Johnson, 1759 ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:05:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My main problem with the ID folk is that they are pushing it as an alternative to evolution and claiming that evolution is simply wrong rather than admitting evolution has happened and is happening and pulling to one side the philosophical and religious issues of soul and deity and the like. Well, insisting ongenuflection to the evolutionary hypothesis will get a guy in trouble, I think. At least, if I recall, the DOJ made some prof. in Texas uncomfortable when his practice of treating evolution agnostics and antievolutionists as nuthatches and boobs to whom he could not give a reference for graduate educational advancement. 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: Elective Bible Classes
Evolution is hardly a "hypothesis" and while the age of the earth may not be certain, anyone who insists it is only about 6,000 years old (using modern 365 day, 24 hour a day) years is simply not dealing with reality or truth. The US used to lead the world in science and engineering advances. If we insist on going down the road of anti-science and pseudo-science, we will continue to undermine one of the most important engines of our economy as the rest of the world surpasses the Americans who refuse to teach their children biology, geology, chemestry, and other sciences and instead teach them religious doctrine that has no place in the science class room. On the other hand, if we want to mandate teaching "creation" myths and stories in all our schools, that would be a great course, In doing so, they could spend a day on intelligent design, perhaps after spending a few days on the more important story in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enumah Elish . Creation stories and myths are wonderful teaching tools for understanding human society -- how humans think about themselves. Intelligent Design is just the lastest in a long tradition of this kind of thinking. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:05:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My main problem with the ID folk is that they are pushing it as an alternative to evolution and claiming that evolution is simply wrong rather than admitting evolution has happened and is happening and pulling to one side the philosophical and religious issues of soul and deity and the like. Well, insisting ongenuflection to the evolutionary hypothesis will get a guy in trouble, I think. At least, if I recall, the DOJ made some prof. in Texas uncomfortable when his practice of treating evolution agnostics and antievolutionists as nuthatches and boobs to whom he could not give a reference for graduate educational advancement. 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, if appropriately written and taught, I not only agree that it could pass constitutional muster, I think it would be an excellent course to offer. But this curriculum is clearly not appropriately written or taught. The question is not whether a hypothetical course curriculum should be endorsed, but why THIS one has been endorsed. Read Gerald Bradley's 2003 response to Frances Patterson's criticism of the NCBCS curriculum and you may have some answers on why some have endorsed it. You can find his letter on the NCBCS website (I had to hunt the site down as I had no idea there was one). See http://www.bibleinschools.net/sdm.asp?pg=endorsements. 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:33:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The US used to lead the world in science and engineering advances. If we insist on going down the road of anti-science and pseudo-science, we will continue to undermine one of the most important engines of our economy as the rest of the world surpasses the Americans who refuse to teach their children biology, geology, chemestry, and other sciences and instead teach them religious doctrine that has no place in the science class room. How old did anyone "THINK" the world was, when the wheel was invented? When the Roman aquaducts were built? When the Sistine Chapel was painted? When an apple's fall cemented an idea in Newton's mind? Is there a polite and professional way to communicate the following? I realize it comes across as harsh, but to be honest, I don't think that you were particularly concerned about how you communicated your views in the last missive. That would not justify be rude or needlessly sharp and harsh. But, at the base of it, your comments are fairly read as adopting an ugly, factless, lampooningversion of folks whose principal offense is to have developed and maintained, perhaps based on their faith, some commonsense doubts about evolutionary hypotheses. To exacerbate matters,you blame America's supposed educational decline and leadership in science on these dunderheads. 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: yet it's trumpeted as proof of the bible's accuracy in the very curriculum that the ACLU endorses. Art, are you there? Has the ACLU finally been freed from the dark side? 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If teh course is about the history of false ideas that have long been disproven, I suppose one might do that. You have a harsh distemper for Young Earth Creationists. Yet you seem not to realize for just how little time the hypotheses that you tout as laws of the Universe have held sway in the scientific community. And you seem unaware of how much human development occurred in the absence of any awareness of these ideas that you call facts: as though, like Athena springing full grown from the head of Zeus, all knowledge, all understanding, all truth, leaped fully integrated, from the head of Darwin. And as Athena insisted upon worship, you seem to think it would be appropriate to demand some kind of slavish devotion to the evolutionary hypotheses. As a sociological phenomenon, I find the talismanic devotion to the evolutionary hypothesis fascinating and instructive. It resembles, in important ways, the demand made, in C.S. Lewis' "The Hideous Strength,"on Mark Studdock by the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments that he stomp upon, revile, and spit upon, a mosaic of a cross in which he had no faith. In service of so-called science, this talismanism, this kissing the baloney stone (apologies to the Irish among us), presents one of the great dangers of evolutionary cohorts:the extent to which they feel no regard for constitutional limits on government conduct that intrudes into faith and conscience. 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.
From the list custodian RE: Elective Bible Classes
Folks: Please keep things as calm as possible here. People will sometimes misspell others' names (as Eugene Volokh, I can assure you of that). People will write responses and not tell the responded-to party about it. (It's not clear to me that there is a social norm about whether such notification is required, but even if there is, sometimes people will slip up.) People will say things about supporters or opponents of evolution that might be taken the wrong way. The more we ignore petty slights like that, at least on-list, and stick with the substance, the happier people will be in the long run, and the more productive the discussion will be. Eugene -Original Message- Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:42 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Elective Bible Classes Well, I'm looking but not seeing it. How nice of him to let me know he had responded to my article. This is the first time I ever knew there was a letter--should I care to make any rebuttal. And tell me, is it you or Professor Bradley or both of you who is so careless about accuracy that you have misspelled my name? Tsk, tsk. That is exactly what the Bible in the Schools curriculum has been taken to task for. . . . ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, if appropriately written and taught, I not only agree that it could pass constitutional muster, I think it would be an excellent course to offer. But this curriculum is clearly not appropriately written or taught. The question is not whether a hypothetical course curriculum should be endorsed, but why THIS one has been endorsed. Read Gerald Bradley's 2003 response to Frances Patterson's criticism of the NCBCS curriculum and you may have some answers on why some have endorsed it. You can find his letter on the NCBCS website (I had to hunt the site down as I had no idea there was one). See http://www.bibleinschools.net/sdm.asp?pg=endorsements. I see Gerald Bradley's name listed there as an endorser, but no link to any response to Patterson's article. But Patterson said earlier that he evaluated only the legal questions, not the factual ones and my question and crticism deals with the factual problems with the curriculum. The curriculum A) was written without a single biblical scholar involved; B) contains numerous false quotations from the founding fathers within it, quotations that are admitted to be false even by a member of their advisory committee in a public letter in which he urged people not to repeat them, yet they are still there; C) presents the work of pseudo-scholars who are (at best) cranks and (at worst) outright frauds as credible and as proof of the bible's accuracy; and D) contains at least one whopper of an urban legend that you yourself say no "commonsense Christian" - much less someone with the ability to write a public school course curriculum - would pass on. And that doesn't even include the fact that much of the text is plagiarized or any of the obvious legal problems with it. Why on earth would the ACLJ endorse a curriculum riddled with falsehoods and absurdities like this? Again I ask, do you just not care whether the information presented is true or not as long as it endorses the Bible as true? It's a serious question. This curriculum is so bad that it wouldn't pass muster in a church sunday school where the pastor was even decently educated. I'm absolutely baffled as to why otherwise credible organizations and individuals like Robert George would allow their names to be used as endorsements of something written this badly. Ed Brayton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05 ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/05 1:34:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 8/2/2005 12:07:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: yet it's trumpeted as proof of the bible's accuracy in the very curriculum that the ACLU endorses. Art, are you there? Has the ACLU finally been freed from the dark side? Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ Yes, I'm lurking here Jim. I was amused by the typo, but it's hardly surprising given that your organization chose a name so that its initials could mimic ours. The sincerest form of flattery, I've always thought. Art Spitzer ACLU ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/2005 2:16:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is an illogical conclusion. How does it follow that because I think that young earth creationISM has been disproven that therefore I have a "harsh distemper" for young earth creationISTS? I suspect that it is evidenced by tone of writing. If your tone was unintentionally harsh, then I accept that you are, like us all, human and fallible. 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: Elective Bible Classes
Well, I see a Bradley letter (a pdf linked from the legality section of the web site) but it is dated 1999 and since my article did not appear until 2003 it can hardly be a response to it. Frances one-T Paterson ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/2/2005 1:57:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This curriculum is so bad that it wouldn't pass muster in a church sunday school where the pastor was even decently educated. Of course, decent education is a palpably suspect notion. It fairly reeks of preconceived judgments, such as, he could not have studied under Dr. Blank because his theology is so unsophisticated, etc., etc., etc. Jim, for crying out loud, I listed just a few of the blatant falsehoods and utter nonsense that is in the curriculum. You yourself said that even a "commonsense Christian" wouldn't pass on the idiotic NASA myth, yet that curriculum passes it on as factual. To respond to a list of undenied nonsense in the curriculum with "decent education is a palpably suspect notion" is just plain sophistry and you know it. Yes, it "reeks of preconceived judgements", particularly a judgement that says that teaching this kind of garbage in schools is a bad idea. Our judgments about the legality of the proposal to have Bible curricula in the public schools are constitutionally sound. If you have an issue with content, do what I did with the baloney about ontogeny, tell the person who is responsible. So your answer to my question of whether you just don't care that your organization is endorsing a curriculum packed with lies and banalities and presenting the work of frauds and cranks as credible appears to be "no, I don't care. It's legal to teach some type of bible curricula, so I don't care whether this one contains accurate information or not." The folks that wrote this drek are clearly hopeless. But one would think that otherwise credible organizations like yours, and otherwise credible people like Robert George, would be a lot more discerning before endorsing this kind of nonsense. It's every bit as bad as an historian endorsing a textbook full of holocaust denial or a physicist endorsing claims of a perpetual motion machine. Ed Brayton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 8/1/05 ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/2005 2:30:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So your answer to my question of whether you just don't care that your organization is endorsing a curriculum packed with lies and banalities and presenting the work of frauds and cranks as credible appears to be "no, I don't care. It's legal to teach some type of bible curricula, so I don't care whether this one contains accurate information or not." The folks that wrote this drek are clearly hopeless. But one would think that otherwise credible organizations like yours, and otherwise credible people like Robert George, would be a lot more discerning before endorsing this kind of nonsense. It's every bit as bad as an historian endorsing a textbook full of holocaust denial or a physicist endorsing claims of a perpetual motion machine. Your response is fascinating to me. I have explained -- to the extent I think it is permissible to do --precisely why the ACLJ is listed as an endorser of the NCBCPS, that is, as an endorser of the concept that such instruction is constitutionally principled. You may do with that explanation whatever delights your soul. Repetition is not likely to produce greater insight so I will let go at this point. 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: Elective Bible Classes
Very interesting. Frances "Polemic Author" Paterson I would suggest that list members read my article (available on Westlaw and Lexis) and judge for themselves whether Professor Bradley remarks are fair and objective. And I have a funny feeling I already know who will conclude that they are. Dear Jim, Kindly tell Professor Bradley the next time you see him that "all of [Professor] Paterson's allegations are easily falsified" is very poor English and I would expect better from my betters (a law professor yet) at Notre Dame. ___ 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: Elective Bible Classes
In a message dated 8/2/2005 2:45:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Very interesting. Frances "Polemic Author" PatersonI would suggest that list members read my article (available on Westlaw and Lexis) and judge for themselves whether Professor Bradley remarks are fair and objective. And I have a funny feeling I already know who will conclude that they are. Dear Jim, Kindly tell Professor Bradley the next time you see him that "all of [Professor] Paterson's allegations are easily falsified" is very poor English and I would expect better from my betters (a law professor yet) at Notre Dame. Will you do me the courtesies (undeserved no doubt) of pointing him out to me, because I do not know him from Adam and of taking it up with him more directly. 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: Elective Bible Classes
Samuel V wrote: I'd like to address the issue more generally, rather than focus on a specific curriculum which I have not seen. I would agree with Professor Brayton that any curriculum what was designed to give scientific support for a specific religious tradition, whether it be Joshua holding the sun still, the crossing of the Red Sea, etc., is improper, and an establishment clause violation, no matter how good or bad the science behind it is. Just for the record, I'm not a professor. I'm not even an attorney. I'm just a writer with an interest in such things. I also didn't say that any curriculum that is designed to give scientific support for a specific religious tradition is necessarily improper nor an establishment clause violation. I separate the two issues, and my primary focus here has been on the fact that the level of scholarship for this curriculum is just so BAD. I'm serious when I say that it's below the level of accuracy and intelligence that I would expect even in a Sunday School class taught by someone reasonably well educated. The fact that it is endorsed by so many otherwise credible individuals and organizations is truly shocking to me. I certainly would not want my name or reputation in any way involved with something with such shoddy scholarship. I mean, Kinaman and Baugh truly are just frauds, laughed at even by those who would otherwise agree with them (mention Baugh's name to a bright creationist like Art Chadwick or Kurt Wise and they will likely roll their eyes at the fact that Baugh continues to peddle nonsense that his fellow creationists themselves debunked years ago). And the NASA myth is just so ridiculous and has been discredited for so long that including it as an argument for the accuracy of the Bible is practically evidence that the argument is intended as parody. Yet here it is actually presented as factual. It truly is astonishing to me that this kind of cartoonish could make it into a school curriculum without some reasonably educated person saying, Hold on. However, my understanding of the intelligent design theory is that it is not (necessarily) that. Instead, the theory's first hypothesis is that the semi-random process of natural selection cannot explain the evolution or current state of species. There is nothing random about the process of natural selection. Indeed, natural selection is algorythmic, the opposite of random. Mutation, on the other hand, is more or less random (still not entirely so, since certain genes are more likely to mutate than others for a range of reasons). But this hypothesis does not in any way debunk or dispute evolution. No biologist believes that mutation and selection are the only mechanisms driving evolution either, it leaves out many other mechanisms like genetic drift, sexual selection, species selection, lateral gene transfer, and so forth. The second hypothesis is that the evolution or current state of species is best explained by a deliberate process of an intelligent designer. My own understanding of the science is that there are at least colorable scientific arguments to support these theories, in that it is difficult for natural selection, or any theory other than an intelligent designer, to explain certain inter-species development. This is too vague to really comment on, which is indicative of the problem with ID in general. There is no ID model which says how or when the intelligent designer intervened or what they actually did, and without such a model there is no way to derive any testable hypotheses. We are left with a purely negative argument - not evolution, therefore God must have donewell, something. But this kind of god of the gaps reasoning is rightly ignored in science because it has always turned out to be false in the past and because it doesn't really tell us anything useful. Because there is no ID model that can be tested, they have essentially built for themselves an unfalsifiable premise, that as long as there is any aspect of the evolutionary development of any biological trait at any time in the past that is not fully explained, their explanation can be invoked as an alternative. It's scientifically sterile. It prompts no research, it answers no questions, and it is neither testable nor falsifiable. Hence, it is rightly not taken seriously by scientists. That doesn't mean that scientists don't believe in God, a sizable portion of them in fact do; it just means that the ID theory is scientifically useless and therefore it has no place in science classrooms. Some would reject intelligent design because it is a theory which concludes that there is a Creator, and they thus conclude that the theory is therefore religious, and therefore unscientific. However, rejection of a scientific theory based upon the fact that it may support some religious views is as improper as accepting a theory for that reason. See the reasons
Re: Elective Bible Classes
Mr. Bradley's analysis in 1999 said: "The specific texts selected for this Course fall well within the range of objectivity, and steerwell clear of appearing either to promote or disparage the truth of the Bible. The selections are representative of the Bible as a whole. They pertain to the better known, more influential, Biblical episodes. All school children should know something about Noah, Moses, and Joseph and his coat of many colors. This Course includes them all. The Course does not paint an idealized picture of the Biblical protagonists. The ancient Israelites are realistically portrayed. The faith of Moses is contrasted with the faithlessness of his people. In one section, the course designers call for exploring Israels Failures, Punishment, Repentance. Special attention is given in another section of the course to Jewish feasts, not in order! to promote Judaism but to promote students understanding of Jewish culture and traditions." I find this statement misleading. Some of these texts may "fall within the range of objectivity," but they are a biased sample of the texts that should be found in that range and from which texts should be selected for such a class in the public schools. According to the analysis of this curriculum released yesterday by the Texas Freedom Network, done by a respected Bible scholar, the texts selected tend to promote the Bible as a true document, and in rather blatant, sometimes inaccurate form. Frankly, I'd be worried if I found this curriculum in use in my church. I think it is quite sectarian and unbalanced. Mr. Brayton has noted the difficulties with the history section, and I agree. The materials relied upon are not top notch, and they are biased. What is presented is a view that is contrary to the state standards for history in Texas, for example, and I would worry that kids taking this course may lose a few points on their exit graduation examinations, if they take the history portions seriously. This wouldn't be enough to worry about for most students, I suspect, but I worry that the curriculum glosses over or completely misses the importance of the religious freedom drive during the era of the American Revolution, dismissing the contributions of patriots whose religious views would not square precisely with the course authors' -- people like Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, Washington, LaFayette, John Adams, and John Witherspoon. So it's an evidentiary issue. Philosophically, a class in the Bible as history, as literature, as important to western civilization, would be permissible. But academically, I think this course runs afoul of the establishment clause, and is just seriuosly inadequate in other ways. Perhaps the course has been changed since 1999. If so, it has not changed for the better. The letter critiqueing Dr. Paterson's article is similarly unsatisfying to me in light of having seen what is in the curriculum in brief. Mr. Bradley writes: "The King James version is the only translation suited for a course about the Bible as history and literature. Any other version would raise constitutional questions. Why? Because no one disputes that, as a matter of historical fact, the King James translation has most affected American history. The King James is also, by all accounts, the richest translation as far as literary qualities go. Substituting a Catholic or Jewish version for the King James version would surely raise the question of bias in favor of those faiths." I consider that a direct slap (even if unintentional) at mainstream Protestant faiths as well as the Catholics. There are many who dispute which version of Christian scripture has "most affected American history" (I've seen cases made for Jefferson's version, and Mr. Bradley seems to give no regard to the Bible riots in some communities in the 19th century, nor to the great controversy over allowing the publication of other versions in the U.S. from 1791 on). Avoiding scholarship that corrects the many obvious errors in the King James Version seems to be academic blindness that could not benefit students; and if the course uses a corrected version of the KJV, then it disputes Mr. Bradley's analysis exactly. While he makes some significance out of the curriculum's accepting the KJV "uncritically," that would make me nervous in church, let alone a public school, and I think a good case can be made that such a view is by itself highly suggestive of an establishment clause violation. Such a course must include something more than the mere assumption that the Bible probably isn't false. To suggest, as the curriculum makes rather clear, that the Bible either should not be challenged or cannot withstand critical scrutiny, is certainly poor history if not an establishment violation by itself. So, philosophically, I think Bradley is correct -- a good Bible course in literature, or history, or social studies, could easily pass muster as legal for public schools. But I think this curriculum
