On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:26:48 +0000 (UTC),
(Jason Spaceman) wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------------------------------
"An atheist committed to scientific materialism may study the Big
Bang, the laws governing the subsequent organization of matter and,
ultimately, the amphibian from which man is said to have evolved — all
without forfeiting his scholarship," they wrote in court papers. "But
Teresa must forfeit her scholarship if she wishes to discuss the
Uncaused Cause that created the stuff of the Big Bang, and the notion
that the laws that govern creation are not merely statistically
improbable but so irreducibly complex that the heavens proclaim the
glory of the Lord."
------------------------------------------------------------
The rest is at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/national/10SCHO.html?ex=1061092800&en=92bad7fd14508fc8&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
J. Spaceman
It is a stupid argument from a legal standpoint, AFAICT. The first part
seemingly trys to argue that "atheism" consists of scientific "materialism"
and that both/either of them constitute a form of "religion". The other
half clearly declares her study of theology to be religion-based, instead
of intellectually-based. An argument that science is as much religious as,
well, religion, and that if one is given support the other should be, is a
loser. The correct answer to that is, if science is religion, then the
state must stop funding it. That ain't gonna happen. On the other hand,
she is admitting her motives *are* religious.
All that isn't necessarily fatal to her case, but does introduce further
complications to already tangled issues. It makes me wonder if they are
out to win or just turn the issue into another claim of "discrimination"
against Christians.
I think the bigest problem for the states is an argument of "equal
accomodation". If they are "opening" the schools to "groups" of scholars
(by offering scholarships), they should do it on an equal basis. My first
reaction would be that it isn't a particularly strong position. The story
doesn't give enough detail to really evaluate the case, though.
Personally, I don't see any problem involving state funding of the
intelectual study of religion. The difficulty would be distinguishing such
studies from training for the ministry, the support of which would be,
IMHO, against the Establishment clause.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
A concise definition of legal ethics:
" . . . having been bought a lawyer is supposed to stay bought."
-- Louann Miller --
.
|
