Does anyone know of anything really good that's been written on this very distinction that Doug is suggesting, for purposes of Religion Clause law?
Thanks > Well, yes and no. Ed's examples are all cases where religions make > claims about the natural world: claims within the domain of science to > investigate and within the domain of government to respond to. When > religion makes claims that are more exclusively religious -- claims > about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about > God's desires for humans -- then it is true that government cannot say > those claims are false. I well recognize that the examples between the > dashes are a first approximation and not an adequate definition. > > > Douglas Laycock > University of Texas Law School > 727 E. Dean Keeton St. > Austin, TX 78705 > 512-232-1341 (phone) > 512-471-6988 (fax) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:01 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist > > Christopher C. Lund wrote: > > > The University of Kansas is planning to teach a course on intelligent > > design next semester. But it's not a science class. It is a > > religious-studies class, and it's titled, "Special Topics in Religion: > > Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." > > (The chairman of the department, in explaining the class, said this, > > "Creationism is mythology . . . Intelligent design is mythology. It's > > > not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is > > not.") It's the next step in the intelligent design/evolution fight. > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_cou > > rse > > > > Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause > > problem here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of > > Kansas cannot teach that intelligent design is false, right? > > Government cannot pass directly on the truth or falsity of religious > > teaching. > > > Hey, that works for me. That means that ID is, in fact, a religious > teaching and not a scientific theory and means it cannot be taught in > public school science classrooms. ID advocates can't have it both ways, > claiming that it's not religious idea but a scientific theory when > trying to get around establishment clause problems on one level, then > claiming it is a religious idea and not a scientific theory to claim an > establishment clause violation at another level. > > Of course, the entire question is based upon a false premise. Of course > a public university can teach that religious ideas are false. The Noahic > global flood is a religious claim, but any geology course at any public > university in the nation will teach that no such global flood ever took > place. Belief in a flat earth is a religious belief based upon > interpretation of the bible, and so is geocentrism; both of those > religious ideas are debunked in public university classrooms every day, > as well they should be. The germ theory of disease completely negates > the religious views of the Christian Science Church and Mary Baker Eddy; > that doesn't mean that university hospitals are violating the > establishment clause by teaching it. > > Ed Brayton > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly > or wrongly) forward the messages to others. > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [email protected] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. > Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people > can > read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the > messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
