Professor Laycock,
The First Amendment eviseration of national congressional or governmental
power over both religion and speech in terms of either establishment of religion
or prohibiting of the free exercise thereof and the abridging of speech
is not questioned. Madison's point was Congress
Interesting piece from Mother Jones magazine about Baylor and the law
school:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/12/professing_faith.html
Ruthann Robson
Professor of Law
City University of New York (CUNY)
School of Law
65-21 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367 USA
718.340.4447
[EMAIL
I think I agree with both Ed and Doug. But I have a question about the
content of the category of statements in between Doug's dashes -- claims
about the supernatural, about the existence and nature of God, about God's
desires for humans. Those are the exclusively religious statements, out
Christopher C. Lund wrote:
I think I agree with both Ed and Doug. But I have a
question about the content of the category of statements in between
Doug's dashes -- "claims about the supernatural, about the existence
and nature of God, about God's desires for humans." Those are the
exclusively
I understand why science frightens (I'm not sure this is the right
word) some religious people too. But the ability of science to
threaten (again, I'm not sure this is the right word either) religion
is surely over-stated. To use Chris Lund's example, science might be
able to test the efficacy
Kent Greenawalt's recent article on Religion and the Rehnquist Court (99 Northwestern L.Rev. 145,161) contains a very funny typo. He is talking about potential Bush SCOTUS nominees, and he mentions "the much, and desevedly, admired writings of Michael McDonnell" Ouch! Heads must be rolling at
I once came across an article dealing President Jackson refused to make
proclamations of Thanksgiving, but I cannot find any thing using the Web.
Can anyone provide a cite?
Bob O'Brien
NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education
___
To post, send
If you ever do respond directly to the
matter, Ill forward it to Mr. Garman.
Larry Darby
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
11:25 AM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
We do not ban teaching that illness is caused by spiritual malaise or misalignment with the essence of the universe or any of a huge number of non-germ theories. That is the more close analogy to ID -- first causes or causes outside the realm of scientific explanation.I recall being taught the
Christopher C. Lund wrote:
I think Ed and I are agreeing, although initially I may have put
things sloppily. We agree that science cannot reject supernaturalism
altogether (how could it disprove that prayer has no other-worldly
effects?), but it can investigate claims about the supernatural
Government has not mandated that religious schools deny
ID or any form of creationism, but science programs at the state universities
have no need of that sort of information, and so they deny entrance to kids
trained in those topics.
Not quite. They deny entrance to
kids not trained in
I agree with Ed Brayton's posts on the limits of science. My take on
the line between science and religion in the Intelligent Design debate is
this: the defined task of science is to produce the best naturalistic
explanation possible. That explanation is random variation and natural
I think Doug has stated this well. But perhaps it understates the challenge presented by evolution -- if science can explain so much, then what is left? It also understates the challenge to the Biblical literalists -- if evolution is correct, then the Biblical story is wrong. If the Biblical
Douglas Laycock wrote:
I agree with Ed Brayton's posts on the limits of science. My take
on the line between science and religion in the Intelligent Design
debate is this: the defined task of science is to produce the best
naturalistic explanation possible. That explanation is
Agreed.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed
BraytonSent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:59 PMTo: Law
Religion issues for Law
I'm not sure I can add much to the discussion at this point --
it sounds like Alan and I have set out our positions pretty fully. I
wonder, though, whether it might be helpful to consider the practical
dimensions of Alan's proposal: What's the distinction between religious
speech that is
16 matches
Mail list logo
