“nones”? Huh. I knew that was a thing, but didn’t really expect to see it here.
Steve On Jun 9, 2014, at 4:49 PM, mallamud <malla...@camden.rutgers.edu> wrote: > I agree with Alan's statement below, stated better than I did. I would add > that we now do/should include the nones within the system. > > Jon > > On 2014-06-08 22:36, Alan Brownstein wrote: >> If divisive means that people will be upset by a substantive decision >> than Eugene is clearly correct. I have always thought the issue was >> whether a decision was one that provoked political divisions along >> religious lines in the sense that if government could promote religion >> (or interfere with religion) religious groups would have an additional >> incentive to organize and mobilize as religious groups in order to >> make sure that it was their faith that the government promoted and >> that it was not their faith that was subject to government >> interference. Placing a church-state issue beyond the scope of >> political decision-making by subjecting it to constitutional >> constraints avoided (or at least mitigated) these kinds of >> political/religious divisions. >> >> There is probably a better term for this concern than divisiveness. >> >> Alan Brownstein >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene >> [vol...@law.ucla.edu] >> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 4:54 PM >> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> Subject: "Divisiveness" >> >> I agree very much with Tom on this point. In most >> controversies, both sides are acting in ways that could plausibly be >> labeled as "divisive." Government religious speech may be seen as >> "divisive," because it may alienate members of other religious groups; >> but prohibitions on such speech, or litigation seeking such >> prohibition, may be as divisive or more so. A pro-Hobby-Lobby >> decision might be divisive, but an anti-Hobby-Lobby decision might be >> divisive. Indeed, academic criticism of a pro-Hobby-Lobby decision >> (or an anti-Hobby-Lobby decision) might be divisive -- and so was the >> implementation of the mandate without a broad religious exemption, as >> Tom points out. The Employment Division v. Smith regime can be seen >> as divisive -- but the RFRA regime, or the Sherbert regime, which >> makes controversial judicially implemented religious accommodations >> possible, can apparently be divisive, too. >> >> Indeed, in my experience, most people -- I speak generally >> here, and not with a focus on this list -- can easily see the >> potential "divisiveness" of decisions they dislike on substantive >> grounds, but don't even notice the divisiveness of decisions they >> think are sound. After all, if one thinks a decision is sound, it's >> easy to view those who disagree as just unreasonable, so that their >> feelings of alienation don't really count (since they deserved to >> lose, and are now just being sore losers). >> >> Of course, >> >> Eugene >> >> Tom Berg writes: >> >>> I get those arguments, but they don't really seem to rest on a ruling for >>> Hobby >>> Lobby being "divisive"--they rest on it being (assertedly) substantively >>> wrong. >>> One could just as easily charge the Obama administration with being >>> "divisive" >>> (undermining "harmony," to use Jon's term) by adopting the mandate in the >>> first >>> place. (See Rick Garnett's piece on why arguments about divisiveness should >>> do >>> only very limited work in religion cases.) >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://sdjlaw.org Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime, Therefore, we are saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; Therefore, we are saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. Therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own; Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness. Reinhold Neibuhr _______________________________________________ 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.
