Some Storm Clouds On The Horizon For Liberal Secularists
Somebody by the name of Ed Darrell has started posting at Steve Hays' blog on the subject of separation of church and state. Steve has made some good points in response to him here and here.
I think Ed Darrell is the same person I debated often on America Online's A.C.L.U. forum in the middle of the 1990s. As I recall, he went by the screen name "EDarr" or something similar. If the person at Steve's blog isn't the same, then they must be two different people with close names, arguments, and writing styles.
It doesn't seem that Ed has changed much. As I recall, he would often change his arguments in the middle of a discussion, arguing at one point for secularism, then arguing at another point for religious pluralism. He would argue for a secular government, then, when presented with something like prayer before sessions of Congress or the proclamations for religious holidays issued by early American Presidents, he would argue that such activities are acceptable as long as they're religiously pluralistic. But religious pluralism isn't secularism. And citing recent Supreme Court decisions doesn't do much to further Ed's arguments if those decisions are themselves unreasonable.
The Ed I debated on America Online was also an evolutionist. It seems that the Ed at Steve's blog is similarly committed to evolution.
I don't know whether Ed will behave in the same manner in his discussions with Steve as he did in his discussions with me. But if his past behavior and his first responses to Steve are any indication, it looks as though he hasn't changed much. Thankfully, though, the Supreme Court is changing. So is evolution's credibility in our society, including in the scientific community. Ed is riding two sinking ships.
I think Ed Darrell is the same person I debated often on America Online's A.C.L.U. forum in the middle of the 1990s. As I recall, he went by the screen name "EDarr" or something similar. If the person at Steve's blog isn't the same, then they must be two different people with close names, arguments, and writing styles.
It doesn't seem that Ed has changed much. As I recall, he would often change his arguments in the middle of a discussion, arguing at one point for secularism, then arguing at another point for religious pluralism. He would argue for a secular government, then, when presented with something like prayer before sessions of Congress or the proclamations for religious holidays issued by early American Presidents, he would argue that such activities are acceptable as long as they're religiously pluralistic. But religious pluralism isn't secularism. And citing recent Supreme Court decisions doesn't do much to further Ed's arguments if those decisions are themselves unreasonable.
The Ed I debated on America Online was also an evolutionist. It seems that the Ed at Steve's blog is similarly committed to evolution.
I don't know whether Ed will behave in the same manner in his discussions with Steve as he did in his discussions with me. But if his past behavior and his first responses to Steve are any indication, it looks as though he hasn't changed much. Thankfully, though, the Supreme Court is changing. So is evolution's credibility in our society, including in the scientific community. Ed is riding two sinking ships.
posted by Jason Engwer at 2:32 PM
<< Home