EthicsWalk addresses
spiritual care as an ethical enterprise.
It explores why relationships between
spiritual care providers and those
they serve need protection, and
examines what that protection entails. PlainViews invites
our readers to share their responses
to each EthicsWalk column,
which will be published in the
following issue.
If you’d like to respond to EthicsWalk,
please send a comment of no more
than 100 words. You can use the
e-form below (click on "hearing
from you," link) or submit
your commentary to the editors
in the body of an e-mail (or
as a Microsoft Word attachment)
sent to Info@PlainViews.org.
Please put the phrase “EthicsWalk”
in your subject line.
We look forward to hearing
from you.
Theology, Science, and The First Amendment
Intelligent Design, Darwin, And Religious Freedom
Part 2: Contextualizing the Conflict
Religious people disagree about many faith issues, beginning with the naming and worshiping of Divinity. Yet no doctrinal issue in contemporary American religion is as contentious as the Intelligent Design (ID) controversy.[1]
Spiritual care providers may work with patients and families who feel strongly about ID’s merits. Hence the importance of understanding the constitutional issues raised by affirming ID in public schools (last month’s column); the historical context of the contention (this month’s column); and the relatively peaceful coexistence in American society of other controversial religious doctrines (next month). Such understanding may facilitate open listening and respectful ministering to patients and colleagues.
The U.S. constitution constrains teaching religiously grounded doctrines as “fact” or, for that matter, denigrating them as “fiction” in public schools. Some hope to read Federal Judge John E. Jones’ December 20 decision [2] in Kitzmiller as permitting ID discussions in elective philosophy or religion classes [3] even though his holding specifically forbids ID in science classes. [4] Cases winding their way through courts in Kansas and Georgia may determine whether ID discussions are ever permissible in public schools.
Within weeks of Jones’ decision, a California school district cancelled an elective “Philosophy of Design” class to settle a law suit.[5] It promised “never again to offer a course that promotes or endorses creationism, creation science or intelligent design.” [6] Its decision reflects Kitzmiller’s finding that ID “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,” rooted in nineteenth century American Protestant Fundamentalism. [7] The activist history of the particular religious antecedents illuminate ID’s troubles.
Christian Fundamentalists' efforts to block teaching evolution in public schools were far-reaching until halted by the Scopes [8] “monkey trial.” After Scopes, creation proponents campaigned for “balanced treatment” laws giving equal time to biblical creation accounts. When those failed constitutional scrutiny, they adopted “scientific-sounding language” [9] and lobbied schools to teach “creation science” or “scientific creationism” as an evolution alternative. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled this also unconstitutional. [10] Hence, the impact on ID of Kitzmiller’s holding that it is simply another form of creation science.
The cancelled “Philosophy of Design,” unlike Kitzmiller, was not mandatory or a science class. Complainants sued because the “course was motivated by primarily religious purpose as reflected in the course description,” the original Syllabi which listed 23 of 24 videos produced by religious organizations promoting ID [11] and the teacher’s statement “I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach.” [12] The course may have been constitutionally doomed by purpose rather than content.
This controversy’s passion is unique to the U.S. where European immigrants remembering religious tyranny created constitutional guarantees for freedom of religious belief and prohibited state endorsed religious teaching. [13] They offered no guidance for reconciling zealous belief with political neutrality. [14]
Spiritual care providers are well situated to mediate reflective peace. Disciplined to witness, without judging, patients’ struggles to name and claim personal faith identities, spiritual care providers might bring the same non-anxious presence to discussions of species origins. The key is disengagement from cultural judgementalness. We all need to refrain from desire to reconfigure religion as science or sacramentalize science into religion.
I welcome any comments you might want to submit in response to these articles.
[1] Abortion distinguishes itself as an “act,” about which some people of faith feel strongly rather than a “doctrine” grounded in a religious tradition as is ID.
[2] Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 04cv2688, Judge John E. Jones III, December 20, 2005. Held the policy of Dover Area School District requiring ID be taught along with evolution in a public school science class unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
[3] Jones wrote: “ …we do not controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.” Id. at 137.
[4] The Judge ruled that ID is not a science noting that “Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society, organization that endorsed ID as science.” Id. at 70.
[5] Hurst v. Newman, United States District Court Eastern District of California, filed January 10, 2006 and settled out of court January 17, 2006. Information about this case is from plaintiff’s complaint available at www.au.org.
[6] Associated Press wire news reported in Portland Press Herald, Portland, Maine January 18, 2006.
[7] Kitzmiller, 136.
[8] Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105 (1927) criminal prosecution of public school teacher for teaching evolution.
[9] Kitzmiller, 8.
[10] Edwards v. Arkansas, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)
[11] Hurst Complaint, p. 4.
[12] Associated Press quoted in note 6.
[13] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Amendment I, U.S. Constitution (1791).
[14] Historically, the nation’s ethos simultaneously embraces difference but demands conformity to specific understanding and expression of “acceptable” difference. Dualistic thinking, either/or dichotomies, black/white categorizations characterize both political conservatives and liberals (a limited two party system is illustrative) as well as those who call themselves religious or secular. Strong judgments about the “other” and fear of penetration of the often fragile and frequently rather artificial boundary separating them operate across the spectrum.
Anne Underwood has an undergraduate
degree in religious studies, a
master’s degree in rural sociology
and a mid-life law degree obtained
after working over a decade as
a college administrator. She has
mediated for the Maine family courts
since 1983. Currently she serves
as an advisor to the ethics commissions
of ACPE, APC, the CCAR (Central
Conference of American Rabbis),
and NAJC, and consults with a variety
of Protestant faith communities
on issues of power, fair process,
and congregational conflict management.
Her articles on mediation and restorative
justice have appeared in the ACPE
News, The APC News and on the ACPE
web site. Articles on clergy accountability
and judicatory processes are published
by the Alban Institute and The
Journal on Religion and Abuse.
A
chapter, “Clergy Sexual Misconduct:
A Justice Issue,” appears in Body
and Soul: Rethinking Sexuality
as Justice-Love
, Marvin Ellison
and Sylvia Thorson-Smith, editors,
The Pilgrim Press, 2003.
.gif){kind=spacer}
.gif){kind=spacer}
.gif){kind=spacer}
