Re: [asa] Constitutional legitimacy of Phil. Sci. in US public schools (was Re: [asa] The fight in Texas over evolution training in schools)

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Date: Sat Mar 28 2009 - 17:38:18 EDT

A person more versed in constitutional law would might state this
differently & more precisely, but I think the simplest way to say it is that
it's OK to teach "about religion" but not to"teach religion." In other
words, the ways in which religious beliefs, church bodies &c have influenced
& continue to influence culture (including science), society, politics &c is
a quite legitimate topic for instruction. For that matter it would be OK to
teach something like comparative religions (though there you might run into
problems with some claiming their beliefs weren't being represented) What
you can't do is to promote a particular religion or religious view.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 4:21 PM
Subject: [asa] Constitutional legitimacy of Phil. Sci. in US public schools
(was Re: [asa] The fight in Texas over evolution training in schools)

> Hi folks,
>
> Excuse my ignorance on the "religion in schools" issue in the US, but as I
> read the various remarks on treating philosophy of science in US public
> schools I wonder...
>
> Why would it be acceptable to introduce religion into public schools under
> the heading of "philosophy of science" as opposed to introducing it under
> "science"?
>
> I mean, if one wanted to address, in a US public school, the question of
> the extent to which Christianity has influenced the development of modern
> science why would this not be a violation of the Constitution in exactly
> the same way as is the teaching of creationism?
>
> I can understand that introducing Christianity in the context of a subject
> on history, philosophy, or religion would be less contentious than
> introducing it in the science class. But I'm interested in the legalities
> and not the potential for controversy. So even if the majority were quite
> happy to see the role of religion in science relegated to a philosophy of
> science context, would it not still be, if even only technically, a
> violation of church-state separation?
>
> I suppose that it might well boil down to the question of motive: i.e.
> whether or not one had a religious motive? If so, would it follow that
> those on the list who advocate the introduction of Christianity into
> public school philosophy of science discussions are guilty of the same
> sort of Constitutional infraction as those YEC's who advocate "equal
> treatment"?
>
> I should say, I'm not trying to imply anyone's motives are dubious, and
> certainly not trying to start a flame-war, I'm simply curious as to how
> the Constitutional issues might play out here.
>
> Anybody care to comment?
>
> Murray
>
> --
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Chairman, Executive Committee, ISCAST Vic <www.iscast.org>
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
> ----
> 139 Highfield Rd,
> Camberwell East,
> Victoria, Australia, 3124
> ----
> muzhogg@netspace.net.au
> Home: +61 03 9836 6063
> Mobile: 04 14 848 475
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 28 17:39:09 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 28 2009 - 17:39:09 EDT