With regard to politicians attempting to gain favor with religious groups, I was interested to learn that we may have a Bill of Rights only because a particular politician did so.
Without Madison's efforts in the first House of Representatives, there might not have been a Bill of Rights. Madison faced a "tough election campaign" in a "district with an anti-federalist majority." McConnell, Garvey & Berg, Religion and the Constitution 73. Madison sought and received the support of the Baptists in his district by writing a letter to a Baptist minister stating that he would support provisions (apparently constitutional amendments) protecting "essential rights." See id. In part as a result of a political rally held at a Baptist church -- complete with an address from the Baptist minister who had received the letter -- the Baptists shifted their support to Madison, and he won the election. Id. With regard to Rep. DeLay, I have heard that he was helpful to Jewish "refusedniks" in the old Soviet Union. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -----Original Message----- From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:46 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Rick Perry and separation of church and state This "reasonable Texan" has the impression that only Christians are treated as "friends" by the Governor of Texas and that public policy will be made in a way that conforms with the tenets of those the Governor deems Christians. But, then, like Homer Plessy, I'm undoubtedly too quick to take offense, and I should realize that I'm being treated equally even if I'm most definitely in the back of Rick Perry's particular bus. (Though, in fairness to Perry, if I were a right-wing Republican like a member of our synagogue in Austin, who eagerly collaborated with the DeLay gerrymander, I'm sure I'd be welcome into the inner sanctum. Just as I doubt that Jim Wallis is one of the "Christian friends" of Rick Perry.) Sandy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 3:29 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Rick Perry and separation of church and state I agree that giving a sermon at a church isn't identical to signing a bill at a religious gathering. But the only "official" effect of signing a bill flows from its having been signed. Perry's signing it at a religious gathering in no way affects the contents of the bill, or any other legal obligation that anyone possesses. The choice of where and how to sign the bill is a political decision, aimed at sending a political message to a political constituency. Both a sermon and the signing convey the impression that the governor holds certain religious views, and thinks they are right. Neither the sermon nor the signing should, I think, lead a reasonable person to conclude that the State of Texas -- as an entity, as opposed to a group of people -- holds certain religious views, whatever that might mean. And to say that Perry is conveying the impression that he holds certain religious views "in the course of an official act" still seems to me unresolved: Why, as a matter of constitutional law or constitutional spirit, should we care whether a political official is trying to strengthen his bonds with a politically influential religious group, in the course of a signing ceremony as opposed to in the course of a sermon? In both instances, it seems to me, the message ("I'm a Christian, and I'm trying to win more favor from a particular subgroup of Christians") is the same. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven K > Green > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:51 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Rick Perry and separation of church and state > > > Eugene continues to equate Perry's action with other quasi-official/ > quasi-private acts such as a governor giving a sermon at a church or > Bush speaking at a religious pro-life rally. I agree that these > latter events are of a political nature and will usually be perceived > as such. I may be offended by them, but they are probably too close > to the partisan/private roles of an official to transgress the EC in a > real sense. But Perry's act is clearly different -- it is primarily > official, and as such, he as the chief state official is giving the > impression of favoring Christianity in the course of an official act. > So he meets Eugene's #1 and probably #2 (as governments frequently > speak through their officials, particularly when one represents the > entire state). > > > Steve Green > Willamette University > > > > Sandy Levinson writes: > > > >> As to spirit, why not try "avoid using one's official position to > >> give needless offense to persons with different religious views by > >> making them feel marginal members of the community" (which > I take it > >> is close to, but not the same as, O'Connor's "endorsement" > position). > >> The problem as several postings are making clear, is what > it means to > >> "use one's official position." There are no bright lines, > but I find > >> Mark Tushnet persuasive that bill signing and the hoop-la > >> attached to such is more "official" than a sermon on Sunday > >> commenting on a bill-signing that occurred in a state > >> building in Austin. > > > > Hmm -- even as spirit goes, that's a pretty amorphous > term. Many > > people are offended when the government -- either the courts or > > government agencies, such as (most recently) the L.A. City > Council as > > to the L.A. city seal -- excises religious components from > government > > speech. Some people are, I suspect, offended if it there > were a norm > > that politicians could do signing ceremonies in front of > every group > > with which they want to cement political bonds (feminist, > > environmentalist, pro-life, pro-choice, and so on) except religious > > groups. > > > > How can these be distinguished under Sandy's > definition? One way > > might be to say that these people would be offended but > wouldn't "feel > > marginal members of the community," presumably because > they're members > > of a majority group (Christians, religious people, and so on). But > > it's far from clear to me that this would be right, either > > legally/ethically or empirically: Presumably many Christians or > > religious people may still feel "marginal" either because they see > > themselves as members of a smaller subgroup (e.g., especially devout > > evangelicals) or because they feel that while they're the > majority in > > government, they are being made marginal by legal elites. > > > > Another might be to stress the "needless" -- excluding > religious > > materials from government speech may offend some, but > there's a "need" > > for such exclusion (presumably avoiding offense to others). But if > > that's so, then I take it Rick Perry could make similar arguments: > > There's a "need" to reach out to an important religious group that > > feels alienated from the legal system on certain issues, because of > > what it sees as elite hostility to its views (on abortion, > evolution, > > and so on). And this is only if one limits need to good-government > > need; if one includes a politican's political needs or > desires, then > > cementing bonds with an important political group surely qualifies. > > > > Eugene > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
