conduct described in the Legal Affairs article?
I have always found the Yoder case difficult precisely because of the considerations raised in the Douglas dissent. The case is really a struggle over who gets to mold the child, the parents or the state. There is no real consideration for the autonomy interests of the child him/herself. My main point has been "empirical," so to speak: If the Amish were generally viewed in the terms of the Legal Affairs article, I think that Yoder would have come out differently. As to whether I would prefer the different outcome, I'm still torn inasmuch as I do believe that cultural pluralism is an important value in a "multi-cultural society," which means allowing groups that I find quite repugnant in some ways to flourish.
Or, how about the Kiryas Joel case. You contrast the
Amish with "the Satmar Hasids, who most definitely are remarkably skilled
politicians." Do you think that your opinion of the political streength of
the Satmars is relecant to the decision in the Kiryas Joel
case? In other words, if the school district was drawn in a way that
benefitted Amish, who you believe are not political, do you think there is less
of an establishment
concern?
____________________________________________________________
I find Kiryas Joel a difficult case also. I'm not convinced that it violated the Establishment Clause, at least if one accepts at face value the assurances that the schools themselves had no religious content. I'm not inclined to view the actuality of Satmar political influence as constitutionally relevant. Again, I was making more of an empirical observation than a normative one.
In the end, aren't you just substituing your opinions, beliefs,
biases, experiances, etc for those of another - such as C.J.
Burger?
_______________________________________
Of course, but what else exactly could I be doing?
sandy levinson
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
