Commenter Boethius asks: "Science classes might not need the story about "the two naked kids with the apple" but how about literature classes?"
This is actually something I've wondered about for a while. Supposefor a moment that some monolithic "The Left" and "The Right" gottogether, and The Left proposed a deal: Creationism/ID would be keptout of science curricula, but in exchange, every literature curriculumwould be modified to include extensive study of the Bible. Personally,I'd be amenable to this. The Bible is, after all, probably the mostimportant and influential text in the history of Western civilization.My preference would be for additional study of the Torah (i.e. not justthe New Testament), Qur'an, and other religious texts, but let's sayfor a moment that those aren't dealbreakers. Would The Right take thedeal?
My instinct is "No," and here's why. I, like Ezra, am no Matt Yglesias. But I do dabble in enough philosophy to be familiar with something called the use/mention distinction, and I think something like it is at play here. Many religious conservatives - for example, the Ten Commandments display advocates - like to say that god is the source of our laws, values, and rights. With this, they justify injecting it into our schools and courthouses. But of course, this claim can’t be literally true. Personally, I’m an atheist-leaning agnostic. Can this mean I bear no rights? Am I just fortunate (a) that the government can’t tell I’m a non-believer, or (b) that god has seen fit to endow me with rights even though I don’t believe he’s there? Both of these propositions seem unreasonable, and neither seems like somethingthe state ought to be endorsing. At the same time, it does just seem objectively true that America’s legal system, and the values it relies on, have some major foundations in religious thought.
The disconnect here is this: The existence of religious roots in ourlaws and values is not a function of god, but a function of faith. They exist because the men who birthed our nation believed in a higher power, regardless of whether one actually exists. In other words, it is not god, but "god," that is at least partially the source of our laws and values. This distinction may seem trivial, but I think it holds the key to a lot of the conflict we see today between traditional religious values and traditional notions of secularism. One side wants to acknowledge the importance of god; the other side doesn’t. But can’t either side acknowledge the importance of faith? It seems like this reading could satisfy people on both sides who won't take "ceremonial deism" for an answer.
