date:20050802

They don't want ID to be taught. Following the decision of Judge William Overton in McLean v. Arkansas, anything can be taught as science so long as there is some science behind the stuff -- a body of research and a general consensus that the hypothesis works to some degree.

Intelligent design is not ready for prime time, some of the advocates argue. The advocates are still struggling to formulate any hypothesis that might lend itself to scientific examination, nor is there any general set of settled hypotheses that might lead to a general theory of intelligent design.

Consequently, the big money ID advocates wish to avoid a court decision that points that out. Since there is no significant body of science there, they fear a decision that says a decision to teach it now is done on the basis of religion. Judge Overton's finding that creationism is religion has been fatal to plans to teach creationism; that was the basis for the judgment against the Louisiana statute in Edwards v. Aguillard, which the Supreme Court agreed with in 1987.

In the current controversies, the proposal is to put intelligent design into biology classes.

Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:23:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the primary ID advocates themselves continually say that they don't want ID to be taught in science classrooms. In fact, when my side says that they do they throw a fit about how we're misrepresenting their position.

Where do they want ID to be taught? If not in a course examining the truth of the origin of the universe/people and so forth, teaching ID would seem to be harmless even from a separationist perspective.

Bobby

Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___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.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.

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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Hamilton02




There was a story in yesterday's NYT about a group placing "Bible" classes 
in various public schools. Apparently, the content includes assertions 
about intelligent design. So it would appear there is a mutli-pronged 
approach. 

To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement is that it 
follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that 
evolution is in doubt. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the 
political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the 
right evangelical Christian groups. That political unity appears to have 
yielded anotherissue where they are in synch. The ID offensive is 
afairly coordinatedsocial movement to push science aside for the 
purpose of furthering religion through the public schools. (Even 
more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are 
not changing their curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though 
it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.)

Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left Behind as a 
base of power to force public schools to teach ID? Could the Bush 
Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would do as much?

It's also very interesting that this issue comes to the fore in the midst 
of the Roberts nomination. Having chosen the business interests' favorite 
candidate and gotten pilloried by some right Christian groups, Bush may well now 
be placating those same groups.

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: 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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  
  
  In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:23:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  the primary ID advocates themselves continually say that they
don't want ID to be taught in science classrooms. In fact, when my side
says that they do they throw a fit about how we're misrepresenting
their position.
  
  Where do they want ID to be taught? If not in a course
examining the truth of the origin of the universe/people and so forth,
teaching ID would seem to be harmless even from a separationist
perspective.
  
  

They claim that they only want the "evidence against evolution" taught,
but this is primarily a tactical maneuver. Their stated goal remains
not only equal time, but the replacement of evolution with ID, as their
own documents clearly shows.

Ed


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







[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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left
Behind as a base of power to force public schools to teach ID? Could
the Bush Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would
do as much?
  

The original language of the NCLB contained something called the
Santorum Amendment, which read:

"It is the sense of the Senate that- (1) good science education should
prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of
science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the
name of science; and (2) where biological evolution is taught, the
curriculum should help students to understand why this subject
generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the
students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding
the subject."

That language was stripped out of the bill by the conference committee
that reconciled the House and Senate versions and was not in the final
bill that was signed by the President. But ID advocates have
nonetheless claimed that it is binding and that it establishes a
guideline for public schools to "teach the controversy". 

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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Using NCLB to require a change in curriculum would be a federal power grab in education quite unprecedented. Heck, the federal establishment was nervous about simply making available lesson plans used in schools through the old (soon-to-be-gone) ERIC Library System, and both parties and all players were insistent that federal curriculum not be a possibity when I was partly responsible for redesigning the ERIC system in 1987. It's a quietly sensitive issue.

There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MAstrongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down. ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however. We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school district "fired" their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push).

But generally, curriculum is off-limits for federal action. There are no curriculum writers at the Department of Education, by design, by tradition, and by several different laws. Curriculum is a local issue.

Ed Darrell
Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There was a story in yesterday's NYT about a group placing "Bible" classes in various public schools. Apparently, the content includes assertions about intelligent design. So it would appear there is a mutli-pronged approach.

To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement is that it follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that evolution is in doubt. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the right evangelical Christian groups. That political unity appears to have yielded anotherissue where they are in synch. The ID offensive is afairly coordinatedsocial movement to push science aside for the purpose of furthering religion through the public schools. (Even more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are not changing their curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.)

Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left Behind as a base of power to force public schools to teach ID? Could the Bush Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would do as much?

It's also very interesting that this issue comes to the fore in the midst of the Roberts nomination. Having chosen the business interests' favorite candidate and gotten pilloried by some right Christian groups, Bush may well now be placating those same groups.

Marci___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.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Francis Beckwith

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Because the federal courts have addressed the question of evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been federalized? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local issue, but at least one aspect of it has been federalized.

Frank

On 8/2/05 8:07 AM, Ed Darrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA strongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down. ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however. We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school district fired their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push).

Ed Darrell
Dallas

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a story in yesterday's NYT about a group placing Bible classes in various public schools. Apparently, the content includes assertions about intelligent design. So it would appear there is a mutli-pronged approach.

To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement is that it follows on the heels of the Viennese Catholic Archbishop's statement that evolution is in doubt. I think it is a mistake to underestimate the political ties between the anti-abortion forces in the right Catholic and the right evangelical Christian groups. That political unity appears to have yielded another issue where they are in synch. The ID offensive is a fairly coordinated social movement to push science aside for the purpose of furthering religion through the public schools. (Even more interesting, I suppose, is that Catholic schools, in the US at least, are not changing their curricula in response to the Catholic statement, even though it was apparently endorsed, or permitted and encouraged, by the Pope.)

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.

___
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

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Hamilton02





Well, at one time, most issues were local issues. Now we have federal 
regulation of local land use under RLUIPA, with the Bush Administration 
defending Congress's power to regulate localland use law. This 
Administration is constantly touting No Child Left Behind. If there 
is an opening, and it looks politically advantageous, I would imagine we'll see 
a President trying to force curriculum reform from above, with or without 
curriculum experts in the DOE.

Marci


In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:08:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Curriculum is a local issue.
  
  Ed Darrell
  Dallas


___
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

2005-08-02 Thread Hamilton02





An issue is not federalized simply because the federal Constitution has 
been applied to a state. 

Marci

In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:13:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of 
  evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been 
  “federalized”? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local 
  issue, but at least one aspect of it has been federalized. 
  Frank


___
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

2005-08-02 Thread Sanford Levinson







At one level I don't 
understand what the problem is with the Santorum Amendment, which could easily 
be interpreted as a mandate to teach students the difference between analysis 
founded on genuine science (e.g., evolution) from analysis that is, from a 
scientific perspective, simply and utterly bogus (e.g., ID). Imagine a 
mandated class on "comating Holocaust denial," devoted to offering specific 
responses to the claims of deniers. I suppose that one might argue that 
such a class would be unwise inasmuch has it suggested that one could even 
"debate" (rather than merely express contempt for) Holocuast deniers, but if one 
believed that too many people were vulnerable to their claims (especially 
because of easy access to Internet sites and the like), then I could imagine 
offering such a class. But, of course, no one believes that the Santorum 
amendment is motivated by a desire torip out the week of 
ID.

In any event, I think the amendment is an interesting exercise for 
interpretation buffs, since I can readily imagine that proponents of ID would be 
furious at the linguistically identical amendment if it had been offered by, 
say, a liberal Democrat with a degree in biology who expressed his concern about 
the inability of contemporary students adequately to refute the pop-"science" of 
ID (that has apparently conquered the White House).

sandy



From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed BraytonSent: Tue 
8/2/2005 9:04 AMTo: Law  Religion issues for Law 
AcademicsSubject: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent 
Design
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  Any thoughts on whether Pres Bush will try to use No Child Left Behind as 
  a base of power to force public schools to teach ID? Could the Bush 
  Administration put in place regulations under NCLB that would do as 
  much?The original language of the NCLB contained 
something called the Santorum Amendment, which read:"It is the sense of 
the Senate that- (1) good science education should prepare students to 
distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or 
religious claims that are made in the name of science; and (2) where biological 
evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this 
subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the 
students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the 
subject."That language was stripped out of the bill by the conference 
committee that reconciled the House and Senate versions and was not in the final 
bill that was signed by the President. But ID advocates have nonetheless claimed 
that it is binding and that it establishes a guideline for public schools to 
"teach the controversy". Ed Brayton


___
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Rick Duncan

Prof. David DeWolf has an excellent article on "teaching the controversy." See DeWolf, Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech, 2000 Utah L.Rev. 39.

As always, the solution to the culture war over the public school curriculum is parental choice and equal funding for all children.

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!?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

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:

  
  
  
  
  In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:02:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  They claim that they only want the "evidence against
evolution" taught, but this is primarily a tactical maneuver. Their
stated goal remains not only equal time, but the replacement of
evolution with ID, as their own documents clearly shows.
  
  I am perplexed by this response to those critical of
evolutionary theories, acting as though there is some dark cabal in it
all.
  

I didn't say anything about a "dark cabal". I simply said that their
ultimate and stated goal is the replacement of evolution (and
"materialism" or "materialistic atheism", terms they use
interchangably) with ID and "theistic science". That statement is
entirely true, that is indeed their stated goal. I could show you the
entire document, but I'm sure you've seen it.


  Scientific theory invites inquisition of explanatory
statements: this because that. If ID has no purpose other than
reminding folks that evolutionary "theories" are able to be disproved,
and to remove the talismanic veil of reverence that evolutionists have
conjured around the theories, allowing open, scientific, critical
analysis, then this is a good development for science.
  

If they actually did some science, you might have a point. As soon as
ID advocates produce an actual model from which one can derive testable
hypotheses and go about proposing some means of testing their ideas,
they will be taken seriously. But I'm not holding my breath. They are
engaged primarily in the act of public relations and marketing, not
science.

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?

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

The difficulty comes when anti-evolution advocates (I'm trying to avoid inflammatory labels) put forth what they regard to be the criticisms of evolution, rather than searching science journals for the same issues. There was -- still is -- a solid and good debate about rates of evolution, and the relative importance of things such as sexual selection versus natural selection, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, etc., etc. These discussions are not what are advanced by ID and creationists as critiques of evolution.

Instead, in Texas for example, what was proposed was a claim that moth researchers lied about what they found in peppered moths, (to pick one popular "criticism"). The proposed criticisms were of such a nature that, had most of us gotten such a paper in our classes and been able to track down the footnotes, we would have had a serious discussion with the author over the ethics of using sources in such a manner. One should understand that there is no serious moth scientist today who disagrees with the general conclusion of Bernard Kettlewell's research on melanism in peppered moths. Perhaps more important, each and every scientist claimed, by the critics of evolution, to question the research has written that they agree with Kettlewell and that their writings are being misused by the critics.

Or, there were lengthy criticisms aimed at claims that textbooks and curricula make claims against the existence of deity, when the books go to some lengths to avoid exactly that claim.

One of the difficulties is that a good understanding of evolution is required in order to see how the legitimate criticisms of Darwinian theory apply and why they are important. I have the distinct impression that most "critics" of Darwin do not want kids to know that much about evolution. There is no drive among critics to "teach the facts." Each criticism is aimed at preventing those facts from being comprehended well by students, it seems to me. The "criticisms" tend to depend on a great lack of knowledge about evolution to make them stick.

Biology books teach evolution agnostically, with no reference to origins other than a history of the planet geologically and a factual listing of the research on the conditions scientists find necessary for early life. It is that agnostic teaching exactly that the critics find offensive.

Ed Darrell
Dallas

Jim also wrote, earlier: 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.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In a message dated 8/2/2005 10:02:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They claim that they only want the "evidence against evolution" taught, but this is primarily a tactical maneuver. Their stated goal remains not only equal time, but the replacement of evolution with ID, as their own documents clearly shows.

I am perplexed by this response to those critical of evolutionary theories, acting as though there is some dark cabal in it all.

Scientific theory invites inquisition of explanatory statements: this because that. If ID has no purpose other than reminding folks that evolutionary "theories" are able to be disproved, and to remove the talismanic veil of reverence that evolutionists have conjured around the theories, allowing open, scientific, critical analysis, then this is a good development for science.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ___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.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Re: Elective Bible Classes

2005-08-02 Thread Steven Jamar

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

2005-08-02 Thread Paul Finkelman





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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Francis Beckwith

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

Ed:

Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may under perform. Im always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case. So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern. It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but federal lawmakers cannot address it.

Frank

On 8/2/05 9:04 AM, Ed Darrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

In each case in which the federal courts have addressed the issue a governmental body was attempting to impose a religiously-motivated curriculum. This is a violation of the establishment clause. Other than that, the federal courts have remained neutral in curriculum. Protecting the religious rights of citizens against state, local and local school government encroachment is quite a bit different from the executive branch of the federal government mandating curriculum.

As a political matter, every other nation whose students perform better than U.S. students in academic achievement tests, has a national curriculum with high standards to which all schools in the nation aspire or to which all schools are mandated to achieve. In each of those cases evolution is a part of the curriculum. I believe that a significant part of the drop off of educational achievement in U.S. kids is because of the wrangling over putting religion into the curriculum at the local level (4th grade U.S. kids lead the world in science achievement; by 8th grade they are apace with other industrialized nations; by 12th grade they are significantly behind other nations). Repeated studies indicate that U.S. kids are not taught evolution because teachers and administrators fear the hassle of parents and interest groups who complain. But as Mr. Brayton noted, even in the law hoped to improve our kids' educational achievement, amendments! were offered to encourage the watering down the science curriculum. (Mr. Levinson is right -- the language is facially not so damaging; but the amendment, which was written by a leading intelligent design advocate, a lawyer, includes those buzzwords and buzzphrases that indicate the intent to frustrate the teaching of evolution rather than require higher standards of achievement. Gotta know the jargon, sometimes.)

The federal courts' have addressed only whether the insertion of certain materials violates the establishment clause, and not other aspects of the science curriculum.

Ed Darrell
Dallas

Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the federal courts have addressed the question of evolution curriculum in a number of opinions, has not the issue now been federalized? So, though Ed is correct that curriculum is a local issue, but at least one aspect of it has been federalized.

Frank

On 8/2/05 8:07 AM, Ed Darrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There was a proposed amendment to NCLB endorsing the concept of including alternatives to education made by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-MA strongly opposed the amendment and it was pulled down. ID advocates have argued that a mention of the language in the report on the final bill is as good as law, however. We may see that argument made in the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design case, if it actually goes to trial (the school! district fired their expert witnesses backing ID; most ID advocates have argued this is not the case they should push).

Ed Darrell
Dallas

To me, what is most interesting about the President's statement is that it follows on

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Gene Garman





Re Rick's commentary, this is more than just a "culture war," it is a constitutional
war. From a Court precedent which Chief Justice Rehnquist and the ACLJ (just
a guess) do not accept:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least
this: ... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support
any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion" (Everson v.
Board of Education).

I do not believe there is a Court ruling which prohibits teaching of world
history or world religions or world philosophies in a public school. However,
the motive of the effort to inject ID into a science class  is obvious. ID
is not science, it is religion and should be in a philosophy or world history
or world religion class, all of which are clearly appropriate. Every public
school student should be taught about all of the major cultures and religions
of the world, as any good broad educational program would provide without
question.

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



Rick Duncan wrote:

  Prof. David DeWolf has an excellent article on "teaching the controversy."
  See DeWolf, Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or
Religion, Or Speech, 2000 Utah L.Rev. 39.
 
  
 
  As always, the solution to the culture war over the public school
curriculum is parental choice and equal funding for all children.
 
  
 
  Cheers, Rick
  
  
  
  
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

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: 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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

But isn't that exactly what the First Amendment means when it says "Congress shall make no law?" It's not odd at all, to me. It is historically, patriotically, and liberty-confirminglycomforting.

Ed Darrell'
DallasFrancis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed:Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may under perform. Im always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case. So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern. It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but feder!
al
lawmakers cannot address it. Frank ___
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: 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

2005-08-02 Thread Volokh, Eugene

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

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Steven Jamar

On Aug 2, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote: But maybe I'm naive to think that the hostility to any possibility of the supernatural in some realms of the scientific community can be overcome.  Brad Pardee__There are many scientists who also believe in god.  That does not make intelligent design science.But there are also many scientists and others who dismiss the supernatural entirely. And a few who are, as you put it, hostile to it.But rejection of ID as valid science does not imply hostility to the supernatural.  There is a range of belief about the supernatural or god among scientists as among those in any walk of life.  Some are believers, some are agnostics, some are athiests, some are hostile.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/  ___
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

2005-08-02 Thread ArtSpitzer


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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Francis Beckwith

Title: Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

But given incorporation, it would follow that no one shall make no law. In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expands religious liberty by banning discrimination based on religion in the workplace (if involved with interstate commerce), would be unconstitutional under your construal.

I cant out-flag-wave you, however. :-)

Frank

On 8/2/05 12:24 PM, Ed Darrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

But isn't that exactly what the First Amendment means when it says Congress shall make no law? It's not odd at all, to me. It is historically, patriotically, and liberty-confirmingly comforting.

Ed Darrell'
Dallas

Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ed:

Frank

___
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

Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design

2005-08-02 Thread Steven Jamar

There is a difference between grants of power and limits on that power, isn't there?  At least with respect to what Congress can address.  Merely because something is within the Beckwithian concept of "federal concern" does not give Congress the power to act.  Even when Congress has the power to act, e.g., 14th Amendment, the Court has indicated a willingness, nay desire, to limit the scope of that power.Congress has been granted no such power in the First Amendment.Any power touching on religion exercised by Congress would need to come under some other grant, such as equal protection or commerce clause.  And if Congress did act under one of its powers in the area of religion, then its actions would be limited by the first amendment.  Title VII is a commerce clause power bit of legislation -- and banning discrimination on the basis of religion in the workplace seems not a lot like establishing religion, though it could limit the free exercise of employers in some instances (free to avoid being "unevenly yoked" or to use the Bible as the business operating manual or to require employees to be exposed to employer's witnessing, etc.).SteveEd:  Cause and effect correlations are extremely complicated on issues such as these, since there are a variety of reasons that American students may “under perform.”  I’m always suspicious of the use of such data, regardless of who offers it. Having said that, I believe that the Supreme Court is in fact a branch of the federal government, and if it touches a matter, no matter how small or insignificant in a local setting, it elevates the issue to a federal one. After all, in order to reach its holding it must appeal to federal principles and make the argument that those principles apply in this local case.  So, Congress may address the issue if it so chooses, since by the court addressing it the court is in fact saying that the issue is of federal concern.  It would be odd, to say the least, that it is a matter of federal law but feder! al lawmakers cannot address it.    Frank  --  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  "Years ago my mother used to say to me... 'In this world Elwood' ... She always used to call me Elwood... 'In this world Elwood, you must be Oh So Smart, or Oh So Pleasant.' Well for years I was smart -- I recommend pleasant.  You may quote me." --Elwood P. Dowd  - Mary Chase, "Harvey", 1950  ___
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