(It’s the second “Odd Ball” – be patient)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Well, I only stuck with the title because I think Hitchens would see the humor and agree.
Doesn’t Louisiana have enough on its plate?
1 Aug, 2010 in Christianity, Church and State, Design arguments, Education, Evolution, Faith versus Reason, Religion Blog, ScienceI’m not sure this school board in Louisiana has thought this through.
Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed “critical thinking and creationism” in science classes.
Board Member David Tate quickly responded: “We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”
Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, “I agree … you don’t have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.”
Even though creationism in the minds of these school board members may not be the same thing as intelligent design, a Federal court already weighed in on this with a resounding verdict on the side of science, which in that instance fell on the side of evolution.
From The New York Times (Dec. 20, 2005):
A federal judge ruled today that a Pennsylvania school board’s policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a religious idea that advances “a particular version of Christianity.”
In the nation’s first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, Judge John E. Jones III dealt a stinging rebuke to advocates of teaching intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools.
The judge found that intelligent design is not science, and that the only way its proponents can claim it is, is by changing the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.
On p. 64 of the Court’s decision (pdf), the Court held that Intelligent Design (ID) was not science:
We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980′s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is
additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the
subject of testing and research.
It also seem apparent that the Livingston School Board has not passed the “Lemon” test. (No. Not that kind of “Lemon Law”.) Quoting again from the Dover case:
As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13. As the Lemon test is disjunctive, either an improper purpose or an improper effect renders the ID Policy invalid under the Establishment Clause.
The bigger catch here is that the there is something governmental that “inhibits” religion, namely, the First Amendment and the court cases that restrict religious education in public schools. But it’s not much of a snag. If the schools in question are parochial schools there’d be no issue at all. The smaller catch might be that if the school board does not encourage the teaching of other “scientific” views, they are harming their students. This is a clear secular purpose. But one would think the Dover case closed that avenue.
Doesn’t Louisiana have enough on its plate?
Am inspired by this prayer for the Gulf. Here is an excerpt from this litany of “I am’s”:
I am a fisherman and I worry about my livelihood.
Vast areas of the ocean are closed to fishing, and
now oil is creeping into the estuaries and marshlands
that serve as fish and shrimp nurseries.
Breath to breath, body to body, we are One.
So be it.I am a dolphin used to swimming freely around
the ocean oil rigs, but now when I dive
and surface I must go through layers of oil.
My pod and I cannot get away from it.
Breath to breath, body to body, we are One.
So be it.
This case in San Jose, CA is interesting. Briefly, the instructor at the community college discussed the origins of homosexuality. The Mercury News reports:
The student alleged that Sheldon said maternal stress caused male homosexuality, and that “there aren’t any real lesbians — that women just get tired of relationships with men.” Further, the student said that Sheldon told the class, “there are hardly any gay men in the Middle East because the women are treated very nicely.” The student also said that Sheldon added this advice: If men wanted a strong son, they should treat their wives nicely; if they wanted a “sensitive” son, they should abuse their wives.
The article quotes Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan on the free speech question.
“If Sheldon said, ‘Here is what scientists are thinking,’ that’s probably protected. But if she said ‘There aren’t any real lesbians or gay men in the Middle East,’ that isn’t protected.
As provocative as Sheldon’s alleged comments are, what’s interesting here is the line between offering opinions and storytelling versus discussing something that’s in a textbook.
We often tease out analogous events or issues when leading a discussion on a particular text. Making up a scenario or retelling a real episode or “story” often helps bring the point or question to life. Then there’s offering an opinion on something. I try not to do that, and if I do, I try to give a disclaimer that carefully distinguishes my view from, say, William James’ view. Then there’s constructing arguments from the text or the position the author is discussing (i.e., someone else’s argument) or is making himself. I try to analyze those arguments and draw them out. Both sides. Now we’re at a meta-meta discussion of the issue.
What I’m pondering is whether I’ve been guilty of the same behavior. I know, it’s highly unlikely, but I always like to “examine myself” when I’m tempted to engage in finger-pointing. I really don’t think I do what Sheldon is alleged to have done. I think it’s a reminder, though, to stay far away from this line lest one inadvertently cross it.
When I taught World Religions and had a component that encouraged students to visit other places of worship outside of their own tradition, I made it a point to remind students to read up on the religious etiquette. This takes it to another level, though, with travelers acting badly.
The daily almsgiving occupies a special place in the heart of this northern Laos town, where about 1,000 monks occupy nearly three dozen temples, and villagers rise each morning to participate in the ritual of giving them food. In the past several years, though, it has become a must-see item on visitors’ checklists. Now, hundreds of foreigners photograph, and sometimes even join in, the ceremony in ways that can degrade its sanctity, such as dressing immodestly, and standing in the way of the monks.
Someone once asked me, “Does everything have to be a theological issue?” I’ll let you guess what my answer was. But this development in 21st century worship does raise some thorny issues. I understand both sides. I think the technology can be quite useful but I also take seriously the “embodiment” or incarnational issues it raises.
Young is part of a new generation of pastors who can be in two places at one time. They are using technology — high-def videos, and even holograms — to beam their Sunday morning sermons to remote “satellite” churches that belong to their congregation.
It’s no doubt the “Trekkie” in me that sees no problem with holograms. Holodeck vacations anyone? If NASA, Buzz Lightyear, or anyone else manages to go to Mars or beyond, it might be nice to have a friendly worship service, say for healing, for death, for any number of events, while separated from home base. A more down to Earth example would be services beamed into remote military posts in Afghanistan or scientific posts in the Arctic.
On the other hand, the disembodiment, de-incarnational charge is legitimate, I think. Hermits and solitaries aside, most religions do factor in some corporate, communal elements. The question really is whether virtual community adequately fills this need. What’s the beer commercial? Great taste? Less filling? Perhaps the holo-vangelist experiment warrants a “yes” and a “no” to each of the two questions.
My concern here isn’t solely on the religious side of things. What I’m most interested in are the educational, or rather, the pedagogical issues this raises. Online learning. Can there really be such a thing? Once that question is asked, seriously asked, and even more seriously considered, one soon realizes that the answer is elusive. Social scientists, psychologists, cognitive scientists, education experts, and conflicting data notwithstanding, the matter may very well come down to where one stands on the nature, and thus, the purpose, of a human being.
See? And you didn’t think that everything had to be a theological issue.
In my mind, the issue now seems to be how long it will take for the “traditionalists” to head for Rome.
It is unclear how many people will leave the Church of England as a result of the July 12 vote, but some synod members said that defections are inevitable.
For some the central question is the biblical one, of course. But for others, the key question is the absence of equality. This is going to be an interesting discussion–at least I hope there is a discussion–within the African American church when, not if, when the Prop. 8 case arrives at SCOTUS-ville. The issue for the Church is one’s understanding of “biblical truth” and how it informs one’s vision of social justice. If that’s the paradigm, then there’s going to be some serious mental gymnastics one does on this issue. And as the pastor mentions, thinking that one has a lock on interpreting scripture can lead to an extreme case of hubris. There’s part of the rub, at least. One is sure that the Gospels, for instance, demand a certain action or attitude. A case of hubris or not?
And I thought I’d had my little rant for the day with my prior post about the Church of England and the subjugation of women. But now this. Oy.
The Vatican is preparing to update the 2001 norms that deal with priestly sex abuse of minors, in effect codifying practices that have been in place for several years.
At the same time, it will include the “attempted ordination of women” among the list of most serious crimes against church law, or “delicta graviora,” sources said.
It doesn’t make for happy reading.