I agree with Robert Lipkin that there is a thing called religion as difficult
as it may be to define. Certainly, there are things that we can confidently say
is not it.
What I have a problem with is the notion that government can be neutral among
religions or between religion or irreligion. In particular, I am skeptical that
a useful test for whether it has done so - or has managed to come as close as
it ought to be expected to come - is captured by whether it has managed to
avoid explicitly religious language. The state lost the Sklar and Montgomery
cases because it started to talk theology (theology toward which I have a
certain amount of sympathy) but I can't see why the insult to those who read
their faith differently would be any less exclusionary or stigmatizing for the
avoidance of such language. If I am a conservative evangelical who regards
biblical injunctions against homosexuality as authoritive, I don't know why I
would regard myself as not being made a disfavored member of the political
community or not believing that the state has acted to disapprove my religious
beliefs because it has avoided theological language. To the con!
trary, if the state engages my sacred text (even, by my lights, erroneously),
it has treated me with more respect than if it dismisses my views as bigotry.
This is why, I think, the whole defamation against religion concept is an idea
at war with itself. Those who promote the idea seem to want to say that, for
example, the relatively mild criticisms of Islam by Mark Steyn (if you want a
different villain than CAIR, try Bill Donahue) should bear legal sanction, But,
if they are right, we need to know why secular messages that are far more
inconsistent with or dismissive of integral religious presuppositions, e.g.,,
assertions by the San Francisco Board of Examiners about Catholic teachings on
homosexuality and the moral authority of the Church.
Rick Esenberg
Marquette University Law School
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:45 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
Insisting there is no religion--it doesn't exist--but "religion" can
nevertheless be used intelligibly (as a bracket term). suggests that one has an
elaborate argument that no matter how much it might vary from ordinary
intelligent discourse, he or she wants to impose on you. I think I'll pass on
examining that argument, but go right ahead and articulate anyway.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
Ratio Juris, Contributor: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/
Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief
http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/
In a message dated 8/1/2008 10:33:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] writes:
In point of fact, strictly speaking, there is no such thing that actually
exists that is called "religion." That's why I put it in quotes. "Religion" is
an abstract category that no one actually practices any more than someone plays
"sports" or eats "food." Thus, I do not believe you can "trivialize" that which
does not actually exist. As for creating "conceptual and practical confusion,"
I believe this happens when one talks about unreal things as if they are real.
In any event, if someone denies that all governments are "religious" in origin,
and based on some kind of "religion," let's test what I say. Name me a
government that you say is not "religious" and I'll show you how it is. Thank
you.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
"Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are
those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ."
-- John Calvin.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 6:52 am
Subject: Re: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
This certainly trivializes the concept of "religion." A government that
persecutes theists, defames religion in general, and so forth is religious? I
suppose the argument is that such a government simply adopts the "wrong"
religion. I suppose similarly each individual is religious no matter what that
person's view is about the existence of God or the practice of religion. Taking
this route, however, creates both conceptual and practical confusion, but one
is, of course, free to take it. To what end?
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
Ratio Juris, Contributor: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/
Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief
<http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/>
http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/
In a message dated 7/31/2008 5:38:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] writes:
ALL government is "religious." The only question is: Which "religion" will a
government be based on.
<http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/>
________________________________
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy
Football
today<http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>.<http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
<http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/>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.
<http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/>
________________________________
The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the TMZ Toolbar
Now<http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014>!
<http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/>
_______________________________________________
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.
________________________________
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy
Football today<http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020>.
_______________________________________________
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.
