|
In a message dated 6/18/2004 11:11:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks, Jim. You just proved my argument. That YOU don't see the coercion doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It merely shows that if you are a part of the majority (I know, I know, "Define it" "OK, here, a member of monotheistic faith" b/c we have "under God" not "under Gods"), which I assume you are, then you lack the capacity to emphasize with those who object to this practice, i.e., the inclusion of a statement of religious belief in the Pledge. That was a trifle unkind, but you simply don't see coercion or force because for you it just doesn't exist in this situation. At some level, I suppose that clarifies the matter: you are not
engaged in a constitutional adventure at all, but a philosophical one. As
to the capacity for empathy, unless you have been told, as I was, by a junior
high school teacher, that I should not bring my preferred religious text to
school for reading during free time, and unless you have been told, as I was, by
my high school freshman honors World Civilization teacher, that my faith was
fairly puny if it could not stand up to some comparative inspection alongside
other "great faiths," then I suggest you don't have an information base adequate
to make the judgment about my empathic abilities.
I empathize entirely with minority religious groups. But empathic
abilities do not determine text or meaning. Unless text and meaning are
variable according to the perspective of the observer. And I suppose at
some level they are: Humpty Dumpty insisted words meant precisely what he
said they meant (even though Alice failed to recognize any of the words in the
way that Humpty used them).
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ 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
