Sandy makes a good argument for the topicality of this thread,
but I wonder if it might nonetheless be a little too far removed. There
are certainly lots of possible analogies between religious controversies
and legal controversies; but it seems to me that this list (as opposed
to others, which have a different focus) is at its best when it deals
with the law *of* government and religion, rather than with broader
questions of constitutional interpretation that are pretty far afield
from the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, the Religious
Test Clause, and so on.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:33 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Prof. Levinson/Lofton/Alito/Oaths
>
>
> Interesting, very discerning mention by Prof. Levinson of
> Alito, the possibility he is an institutional "catholic"
> inasmuch as he ultimately gives more weight to what the
> magesterium (i.e., prior Supreme Courts) have said than to
> the original gospel (i.e., the written Constitution) might
> best be interpreted to mean?
>
> This reminded me of a brief conversation I had in the Star
> Chamber (11/12/03) with persecuter Alabama Atty. Gen. William
> Pryor (also a Catholic) during a break from his badgering of
> Roy Moore abt whether, if re-instated, he (Moore) would
> (gasp!) continue to acknowledge God. Chatting casually with
> Pryor, I told him I was not sure what the problem would be
> if all judges were like Moore: Biblically-literate, taking
> God's Word seriously, judging man's law by God's Law. (Pryor
> and others had talked abt the terrible example Moore had set
> and the horrors tht would occur if all judges behaved as he did.)
>
> Pryor then says to me, who he does not know, that we'd
> probably disagree on something very important. He says: "I
> think the Reformation was not a good thing." I say something
> like, well, in many ways, in America, we're all Protestants
> now, aren't we? He says: "But not our courts. They are
> Catholic" and the Supreme Court is "the magisterium."
> Interesting. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com,
> neo-Puritan, Calvinist, Postmillennial, Reformed Protestant,
> recovering Republican.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
