Sorry, but I don't see any of this as demonstrable or even as really very relevant to the interpretation of or to a consideration of the value of the religion clauses.

1. Free exercise is a valuable thing regardless of a law insuring it which affects various groups differently. The different impacts could well have a lot more to do with the content of the religion than the content of the guarantee of freedom to do it. Some beliefs and practices are simply going to be less likely to be affected by state actions, and therefore less likely to need protection from those state actions. To say one group "benefits" more than another seems to me to be worse than irrelevant -- it seems to be missing the essential point and seems to be likely to stir up trouble. Equality-thinking gone nuts. Or govt-focused thinking gone way too far. Or even construing an insuring provision as a grant.

2. Non-establishment similarly affects various groups in various ways. But the only way to say one group benefits more is to posit that there is a normal group against which one can or should measure.

3. How can one compare religious freedom in one state against another, except in some very crude ways, or except by a priori defining one's values into the equation? Does Italy not have religious freedom? Are non-Christian religions harmed by Swiss law (at least pre-reform law)?

Simply non-starters for me.

Gathering info and discussing things in context is one thing. Positing general theories strikes me as beyond sensible. But I still have those old practice roots which have not fully withered away despite two decades in academia.

Steve

--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar

"Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."

- Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love", 1963    



_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Reply via email to