The privatization principle or norm does not get at the problem of religious practices which may be the subject of some police power prohibition. It really is more a matter of driving those practices underground and the prospect of turning some people of faith into lawbreakers, a very real issue confronting the Drys during their push for National Prohibition, for example. Did they really want to turn Episcopalian – and Catholic – clergy into lawbreakers. An Episcopal Journal published some time in the 1910s at least one article calling on Episcopalian priests to break any law that did not exempt the religious use of wine, and continue to use wine in celebrating Holy Communion. An article in a Catholic journal published in the same time period urged pretty much the same thing. I am not sure what the considered opinion of Jews and Eastern Orthodox on the point was. But my guess would be that they would have taken the same position.
-----Original Message-----
Isn't the attitude Alan's identifies as "the idea that religious people will somehow stop existing" better stated as the idea that religion should be privatized? Many who hold the latter view sincerely believe in a robust and well-defended area of religious worship, conduct, and _expression_. Indeed many believe that such privatization is precisely the point of the religion clauses in the First Amendment. This idea contends that it is constitutionally a mistake to think that religion should be privatized and (with privatization) have (arguably) special protections while at the same time be considered an equal regarding governmental benefits.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin |
_______________________________________________ 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.