[Phys-L] Re: judge rejects i.d. in PA case

[John Clement <clement@HAL-PC.ORG>]

I think the usual definition of a religious fundamentalist is one who
believes in a literal interpretation of their holy book or scripture, and a
belief that this is the only correct interpretation.

Orthodox Jews can fall into this category, as can many evangelicals.  Most
mainline Christians do not.  I think the correct label for fundamentalists
who lie and cheat to achieve their ends is hypocrites, or even criminals.
The problem is that fundamentalism can readily breed the idea that those who
do not agree are not worthy or even subhuman.  They obviously are not taking
their own scriptures seriously about not lying or cheating.  The most
obvious Christian writing which they are ignoring is the parable of the good
Samaritan.  It essentially makes the point that you need to be good to your
neighbor and that this means everyone, not just your group.  I understand
that the Moslem human bombers are ignoring the very traditional prohibition
against suicide, and also prohibitions against taking innocent life.  But
fundamentalists do not behave this way if they truly take the moral lessons
of their scriptures seriously.

These people are also not considering that the shoe can be on the other
foot.  What would they say if the school board tried to enforce a particular
interpretation of the bible, under the guise of teaching history?  Actually
this has been done.  I know of a school superintendent that denied
employment to a Roman Catholic in NC because he didn't want her teaching
history.  She left teaching and became a secretary.  This was over 30 years
ago before the current laws outlawing discrimination.  Of course this was a
case where a member of the Protestant majority forced their interpretation
of history over a small minority group.  I have also talked to non Mormon
parents whose children were taught Mormonism in the Utah public schools.

The curious part of this case is that the school board was far more
concerned with upholding their religious interpretation of the bible, but
not with upholding moral values.  Would they condone cheating by students?
Yet, they stand as an example that cheating is all right if it achieves the
ends you desire.  Of course they are just following some examples from the
top.

One thing that I wonder about is the possibility of perjury prosecutions.  I
realize that this is a civil case, so would punishment be criminal, or would
it be civil in the form of compensation given to the other side?  And then
would the school district be liable to cough up any further damages?  In
either case I would suspect that the plaintiffs would get compensation for
expenses incurred in the case.  I also suspect that they would not want
damages because it would come from the school.  However, could the current
school board sue the previous members for personal damages to be paid to the
school system, because they engaged in "criminal" fraud?  It the previous
school board was made personally liable, enthusiasm for such actions would
be dampened.  Similarly if the CEO of a company were made automatically
financially liable for the companies' failure, perhaps they would be more
responsible.  Perhaps the captain should go down with the ship!!!

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> It seems to me that religious fundamentalists distinguish themselves
> very clearly from "normal" religious folks in a number of obvious
> ways one of which I provided in my first message--"an unshakeable
> willingness to let THEIR ends justify ALL means."
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l