Rick Duncan wrote:
Believe it or not, Rick, I mostly agree with this. I've written scathingly of the religious clothing policy in France and of their warped idea of secularism in general. But I think America is quite different. Secularism in France means that even entirely private decisions about religion, like choosing to wear a cross or a headscarf, is viewed as a public act subject to regulation. In America, the courts and legislatures have gone to great lengths to enforce teh free exercise clause (and rightly so). We aren't perfect in this regard, of course, but we do tend to make a distinction between government endorsement of a religious practice and an individual's choice to engage in a religious practice. And even those who are the most staunch in making sure that there is no government endorsement of religion are generally in favor of protecting the individual's right to practice their religion even when it is inconvenient to do so and even when it bothers other people considerably. And if people began to push the kind of policies that France has in this regard in America, you would find that fairly strict separationists like me will be right by your side in battling those policies in the legislatures and the courts. Ed Brayton |
_______________________________________________ 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.