FACULTYTALK Archives

December 2005

FACULTYTALK@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Susan Rogers <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
Date:
Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:26:36 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
I saw it differently...that it was not about "giving ID a black eye" so
much as it was insuring it stayed in the religious realm, which seemed
very appropriate.  Possibly it was giving those who want to bring religion
into government run schools a black eye, but personally I've never seen
separation of church and state as much of a "judicial activist" issue.

After all, if the Constitution doesn't mean that religion stays out of
government, would it not also mean that government stays out of religion? 
How would the ID proponents feel about a law which mandated churches must
give equal time on Sunday to the Darwin Society to preach evolution?



> On a quick read, it seems to me that the judge was right about the
> establishment clause, which unfortunately suffers from, pardon the pun,
> God-awful jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, and was right about the
> provenance of the Pandas book, which unfortunately was handled
> pathetically by the school board's witnesses. &nbsp;The horrid thing is
> that the court gives a lengthy dissertation about whether ID generally
> is &quot;science,&quot; which seems unnecessary to the specific factual
> issue before the court concerning Dover's particular policy, and which
> in any event is pathetically inadequate and misinformed about the
> history and philosophy of science. &nbsp;By wading into the broader
> debate, the court unfortunately injected more divisiveness into an
> already divisive issue. &nbsp;But this case was never about a particular
> &quot;case or controvesy&quot; -- it was about giving ID a black
> eye.David W. OpderbeckAssistant Professor of Business LawBaruch College,
> City University of New York(646)
> [log in to unmask]&nbsp;Keith Maxwell
> &lt;[log in to unmask]&gt;Sent by: &quot;Academy of Legal Studies in
> Business (ALSB) Talk&quot;
> &lt;[log in to unmask]&gt;12/20/2005 03:24 PM PSTPlease
> respond to &quot;Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk&quot;
> To: [log in to unmask] cc:  bcc:  Subject: Elitist Judge (in
> Dover)? &nbsp;As near as I can tell from an initial cursory reading of
> the 139-pageopinion, Judge Jones (M.D. Pa.) banned ID in Dover--but only
> from thebiology curriculum--without relying on a single penumbral
> emanation! (Phew!)oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooKeith
> A. MaxwellNat S. and Marian W. Rogers ProfessorProfessor of Legal
> Studies and EthicsSchool of Business and LeadershipUniversity of Puget
> SoundTacoma, WA 98416Office Phone:
> 253.879.3703www.ups.edu/faculty/maxwell/home.htmooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ATOM RSS1 RSS2