Bob Park, author of the irreverent What's New weekly newsletter from the American Physical Society, is soliciting suggestions for questions to ask Harriet Miers about her views on science.
1. SUPREME IRONY: SHOULD NOMINEES BE QUESTIONED ABOUT SCIENCE? After nominating Harriet Miers for a seat on the Supreme Court, President Bush sought to reassure religious conservatives by stressing Miers' evangelical Christian roots. Bush said it's part of who she is. He's right, but traditionally the personal religious views of nominees are not taken up in the confirmation process. If the First Amendment is upheld, it shouldn't matter. So forget religion. Far more important in the Twenty-First Century is the nominee's views on science. There are, after all, few cases that come before the courts today that do not have a scientific component. Scientists must construct a list of basic questions that would give some insight into the nominee's views on science. For example: do all physical events result from earlier physical events, or can they be caused by clasping your hands, bowing your head, and wishing? Send your suggestions to What's New. WN will print the best of them.
Suggestions can be sent to whatsnew@bobpark.org, although you're welcome to leave them in the comments here as well. In other news at the intersection of religion and politics, Eugene Volokh clears up a question that I know has been bugging me for quite some time. (Prompted by an actual complaint!)
For those curious about whether [a public high-school marching band] playing The Devil Went Down to Georgia would be an Establishment Clause violation, the answer is no; though some songs that mention God (or for that matter the Devil) may in some contexts be seen by a reasonable person as endorsements of religion, this song wouldn't be.
I think it's true that the Charlie Daniels song couldn't reasonably be taken as an endorsement of Satanism. Because, you know, the Devil gets his ass kicked in that song. (Devil's advocate here.)
