Finding Shared Values in a Diverse Society: Lessons from the Intelligent Design Controversy
Alan E. Garfield
Widener University - Delaware Law School
January 1, 2008
Vermont Law Review, Vol. 33, p. 225, 2008
One of the nation’s more profound and volatile ideological divides is between fundamentalist religious adherents and secular members of society. This divide has been particularly salient in recent years as issues challenging traditional religious morality – abortion, gay marriage, and stem-cell research – have been exploited as wedge issues for political gain.
In this Article, I join the efforts of other scholars to find a way to bridge the gap between religious and secular Americans. By focusing on one particularly contentious front in the religious-secular wars – the teaching of intelligent design – I am able to identify a value shared by both religious and secular Americans. What I discover is that both sides in the evolution/intelligent debate are committed to the sanctity of human dignity, but each fiercely disagrees about the source of this commitment.
I argue that religious and secular Americans can celebrate this shared commitment to human dignity through the vehicle of the neutral, but widely revered, U.S. Constitution. I say this not because of the Constitution’s inherent perfection but because of what this imperfect document symbolizes fro Americans. This secular document – one that never mentions God – symbolizes our nation’s religious-like commitment to the sanctity of human dignity. It represents a brazen decision by “We the People” to treat people as sacred, even though we may never as a society agree on whether God exists, whether people are divinely created, or whether our commitment to human dignity is part of a larger divine plan. This view of the Constitution can be shared by fundamentalists and moderate secular Americans alike and can be a source of common values that transcends faith, race, and origin.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 57
Keywords: constitutional law, constitution, intelligent design, religion, secularism
JEL Classification: K1, K10
Date posted: April 20, 2010
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.203 seconds