The sort of "golden rule" argument you are offering
cuts both ways. For example, I could argue in the following way if I were
an atheist:
I would hope that I live in a society in which religious liberty is viewed as one of many fundamental rights that I possess by virtue of the sort of being I am, and that these rights are not contingent upon human insitutitons or human desire, but rather, are grounded in an enternal unchanging mind. Now, as an atheist, I don't believe any of that stuff. I don't believe that there are such things as immaterial moral properties that human beings have by nature, because I am a materialist who believes that things like "natures," "moral properties," etc. have no ontological status whatsoever. However, I am grateful that others believe otherwise. So, I support the recitation of the Pledge because it reinforces notions of liberty that makes it easier for me to be an atheist. So, like the Christian who must tolerate the distracting presence of nudy bars on our interstates as he or she makes her way to church on Sunday mornings, I tolerate the Pledge every morning prior to the start of the school day, and I particularly like the "under God" part, for it puts the "fear of God" in the hearts of those who want to take away my right to believe and practice atheism. Seems like a good bargain to me.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in Newdow
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:37 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in Newdow
In a message dated 6/18/04 5:02:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The "lunatic fringe" certainly seems to include a lot of intelligent scholars:
As human beings so frequently demonstrate, intelligence (is there a pun in here somewhere?) can certainly be misused in the service of "bad" ends.
And, Jim Henderson, your sarcasm does little to advance your argument.
"Actually, with respect to the pledge. . . perhaps the Supreme Court retrenched and I missed that case. . . . But I'm left to shrug my shoulders and give a constitution-bound sigh."
What I find lacking, especially in those who would argue for a weak Establishment Clause, is any honest attempt to put into practice some of what I consider the two related but fundamental religious/moral principles: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Both of which exhort us directly or indirectly to empathize with/put ourselves in the position of the person not like ourselves. And incidently I find are related to Rawls' notion of "design a legal system as if you didn't know your place in society."
I often wonder how many who argue for a weak Establishment Clause/the discarding of any Establishment Clause test other than coercion (and that with coercion narrowly defined)/making the Establishment Clause inapplicable to state governments (a la Judge Roy Moore) are members of minority religions or nonreligious themselves. It is a great irony that the Baptists argued so fiercely for
separation of church and state when their faith was weak and they were outsiders now that they are in a position of strength argue against the very separation that allow their churches/denomination to flourish--see The Churching of
America. I write this with the knowledge that some Baptists continue in
their denomination's historic opposition to government "entanglement" with
religion.
In the context of religion clause jurisprudence "do onto others" and "love your neighbor," mean that religious people actually put themselves in the shoes
of adherents of minority religious or in the shoes of the nonreligious individuals, which is even more difficult, and look at the law, policy, or practice through their eyes. It means truly and honestly making a good faith effort (not merely paying lip service) to put oneself in the place of the person unlike yourself and consider the effect of the law, policy, practice on you in your new persona.
Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.
Associate Professor (school law)
Department of Educational Leadership
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
_______________________________________________ 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
