For what it is worth, I find
much to agree with in Rick's thoughtful posting below. The most
fundamental question is at what point a society becomes so "pluralistic" and
fragmented that it can no longer really be viewed as "our society," but, rather,
a congeries of increasingly isolated
Yes. But I think I have been consistent with my comments on the religionlaw
list in arguing for a more limited and traditional role for the public
schools. Public schools should not be the source of all learning.
But I'm not sure that it is the expansion of what is taught in school (sex
I'll try to answer your question, Eugene. But, with respect, I'm not sure
they are responsive to my point about using even difficult-to-apply tests
to accomplish our goals -- if they are the best that we have. It seems to
me the right question to ask is whether we are willing to accept the worst
The facts are what they are. Many American students have been driven
away from the natural sciences because of the overreaching of some
religionists.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:01 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Folks: No matter how much one thinks that the other side's
arguments are pap and drivel, there's no benefit -- to one's own
persuasiveness or to the level of list discourse -- in descending to
insults like that, even when the insults are ostensibly used to describe
arguments rather than
Unfortunately, it seems likely that many students who are religious have
been driven away from the sciences (in particular the biological sciences)
by the anti-religious attitudes of some scientists. See, e.g., some of the
statements quoted in today's NY Times at
I don't want to belabor the point since no one else is joining this thread
--- but let me take one more shot at explaining why I don't get Eugene's
point -- despite his very good efforts to help me understand his position.
Then I'll give him the last word and end the dialogue.
Eugene writes:
Do Title VII and the religion clauses (the latter of course applied only
to governmental employers) permit an employer to fire an employee for
engaging in conduct that offends his religious beliefs? For an extreme
example that answers the question no, see Venters v. City of Delphi, 123
F.3d 956
In 2003 the Justice Department investigated a report of religious discrimination at Texas Tech University, where a popular and tough biology professor required students to pass his classes in biology before he'd write them a recommendation to medical school. He also required kids to explain
Ed,
We discussed that Texas Tech case at length
on this list, IIRC (or it might have been on conlawprof). The professor required
that students affirm a personal belief in evolution. He did not just require
that they understand it.
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of
To follow up and agree with Eugene's argument, it seems to me that the text
of Title VII requires that the employment action, to give rise to
liability, must be based on the employee's religion rather than the
supervisor's religious motive: the text prohibits discrimination against
any
Didn't mean to kick off a different fight. Yes, I know what Dini's website said originally -- quickly worded, and open to opportunistic misinterpretation by a publicity-seeking legal firm, but the fact remains that Dini asked only that kids explain the scientific version of evolution to indicate
Alan:
I agree with most everything you say here, and especially with your
identification of some of the root problems which lead to making overwhelming
demands on the public school sysytem. I ask, then, only because I don't know,
when you would have been going through the school system that
13 matches
Mail list logo
