Sandy: that comment was directed at my comment, not yours. :') On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Levinson, Sanford V < slevin...@law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> I confess I'm ignorant. I assumed that the Church modified the practice. > I'll look into it. > > Sandy > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 1, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Doug Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu> wrote: > > Offlist: Has it done away with selling them? If so, you might want to > clarify. > > > > Douglas Laycock > > Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law > > University of Virginia Law School > > 580 Massie Road > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > 434-243-8546 > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Rick Garnett > *Sent:* Friday, May 01, 2015 12:14 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Religious organizations, tax-exempt status and same-sex > marriage > > > > Dear Michael, > > > > This does not contradict your point but, as it happens, and for what it's > worth, the Catholic Church has not done away with indulgences. See, e.g.: > > > > > http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-grants-indulgences-for-world-youth-da > > > > That said, there was recently some confusion over the question whether > Pope Francis had *really* told people that following him on Twitter was a > way to obtain them: > > > > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/07/18/no-the-pope-isnt-tweeting-indulgences-to-his-followers/ > > > > =-) > > > > All the best, > > > > Rick > > > Richard W. Garnett > > Professor of Law and Concurrent Professor of Political Science > > Director, Program on Church, State & Society > > Notre Dame Law School > > P.O. Box 780 > > Notre Dame, Indiana 46556-0780 > > 574-631-6981 (w) > > 574-276-2252 (cell) > > rgarn...@nd.edu > > > > To download my scholarly papers, please visit my SSRN page > <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=342235> > > > > Blogs: > > > > Prawfsblawg <http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/> > > Mirror of Justice <http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/> > > > > Twitter: @RickGarnett <https://twitter.com/RickGarnett> > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Michael Worley <mwor...@byulaw.net> > wrote: > > To emphasize two policy changes in the LDS faith is legitimate; however > the centrality of traditional sexual norms to the LDS faith is extremely > more central than those changes. > > It is like saying to a Catholic "because you did away with indulgences, > you'll eventually deny that Christ's blood is literally in the sacrament." > I think that would be offensive to all Catholics. LDS teachings on > marriage in this regard are just as central to our faith as the doctrine > of Transubstantiation is to Catholics. > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Levinson, Sanford V < > slevin...@law.utexas.edu> wrote: > > Isn't it foolish in the extreme to assert that "time and culture" are > not part and parcel of the history of all religious movements, even if one > concedes, perhaps for reasons of tact, that they are not "simply" such > products. (I frankly have no idea what secularists actually mean by that > concession. Some may be agnostics, genuinely open to the unproven > possibility of revealed religion.). For starters, though, look at the LDS > renunciation of polygamy in 1890 (not to mention the later renunciation of > an all-white priesthood), the Protestant critique of selling indulgences > (and the response of the Catholic Church), or the 11th century decision of > Ashkenazik Jews to ban polygamy even as Sephardi Jews living in Islamic > cultures stuck with it, some until the 20th century. I could obviously go > on and on. I have no doubt whatsoever that some adamantly opposed to same > sex marriage religious groups will change their collective minds in the > next decades. Can anyone seriously doubt that? > > > > This is much like debates between committed legal "internalists" who take > everything the Supreme Court says with full seriousness (including > Roberts's assertion on Tuesday that judges aren't "politicians") and > committed legal realists who see ONLY politicians in robes. The truth may > be somewhere in between, both for law and religion as systems of practices > always striving to maintain their legitimacy within the wider culture. > > > > Sandy > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On May 1, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Alan: Thank you for that very thoughtful and candid reply. > > > > I apologize if my wording in response to Eugene's post was infelicitous, > or insensitive, in any way. I was trying to be very careful *not* to > suggest that all religious objectors would "change their minds." I agree > with you that some will not. > > > > And I certainly did not write, and did not mean to suggest in the > slightest, any of the following: > > > > -- that religious beliefs are "simply" a "product of time and culture" > > > > -- "that religious beliefs opposing same-sex sexual relationships are > purely an irrational bias" > > > > -- that religious beliefs on this question are dependent upon, or > necessarily reflect, "bigotry" (or "animus," for that matter) > > > > -- that anyone "misunderstands" their own religion > > > > or > > > > -- that conservative Christian teachings about sex have the same place in > the church that former teachings about race did. > > > > Indeed, I don't *believe *any of those things to be true, and so I surely > would not argue for them or intend to suggest them in this thread. > > > > Of course, as your response acknowledges, religious beliefs of many > individuals (not all)--and of many religious institutions--do change as a > result of shifts in social practices, which tend to be followed by shifts > in understandings of human nature. These shifts sometimes occur even with > respect to theological commitments that have long been viewed as based in > transcendent truth. The examples are legion--within my faith, the Catholic > Church, the LDS, etc.; I know I don't need to belabor the point. The Notre > Dame video, making great efforts to attract LGBT students, is merely the > latest example. But it's of a piece with many, many other, similar > trends. Even so, I agree with you that after a rapid change in the views > of most people, some portion of the population is likely to maintain its > religiously grounded views about homosexuality. (Your 20% seems like a > reasonable guess about that number.) > > > > The point I was trying to make, however, was not about the cause, or the > rate, of changes in individuals' religious beliefs. What I wrote was that, > if and when antidiscrimination laws are extended more broadly to sexual > orientation, "very few" of today's religious *organizations* will be > "legally and socially marginalized" because "they will have voluntarily > ended *their discriminatory practices*." Indeed, as I emphasized in > later posts, even today there are very few such organizations that openly > engage in such discriminatory practices (other than as to ministerial > positions). And that number will only diminish--probably to a small > handful--by the time Congress gets around to amending Title VII and Title > IX to cover sexual orientation. > > > > I hope that better explains what I was getting at. I certainly did not > mean to disparage or trivialize anyone's sincerely held religious beliefs. > > > > Best, > > > > Marty > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Alan Hurst <alan.hu...@aya.yale.edu> > wrote: > > Thanks to Marty and everyone else for the discussion here. I'm finding > it very informative. > > > > I wanted to respond briefly, however, to Marty's wager below: > > > > And Eugene, I'd be willing to wager that very few of today's > conservative Christians' organizations will be "legally and socially > marginalized" at that point, because by then they, too, will have > voluntarily ended their discriminatory practices. > > > > I have two quick thoughts about this. First, I think you should consider a > bit more carefully how that argument sounds to someone whose religious > beliefs include the rejection of same-sex sexual relationships as immoral. > "You shouldn't worry about the long run because your religions will just > change their minds on this issue anyway" suggests at least one of the > following two ideas: > > > > --that religious beliefs are simply a product of time and culture, with no > basis in any transcendent truth and no capacity to resist broader cultural > movements. > > > > --that religious beliefs opposing same-sex sexual relationships are purely > an irrational bias and, like religious opposition to interracial marriage, > will gradually vanish as gay marriage becomes commonplace and believers' > aversion to gay relationships is worn down by familiarity. > > > > You may in fact believe these two ideas, and although I don't, I'm > certainly not going to change your mind here. But I do hope you'll consider > for a moment how they sound to believers who disagree with you. In essence, > when you say, "Your religion will change on this issue," you're saying > either, "The beliefs you've built your life on have no basis in reality" or > "Your bigotry has led you to misunderstand your own religion." True or > false, these two thoughts are quite the opposite of comforting to a > believer who worries about this issue. They do as much as anything to > persuade believers that people like you really don't understand religion > and really are out to get them. > > > > Second, if I were a betting man, I'd take your wager. Partially I'd take > it because, well, the analogy between religious racism and religious > heteronormativity is at most superficially accurate. Conservative Christian > teachings about sex just have a much different place in the church than > American Christians' teachings about race ever did--theologically, > functionally, socially, historically, etc. These things are simply not the > same. Douthat wrote briefly (but I think accurately) about this here: > http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/rosss-douthat-interview-with-a-christian.html?_r=0 > > > > And partially I'd take your wager because religion has always been an > international phenomenon, and like everything else it's getting to be more > so. The heart of Christianity is moving from Europe and North America to > Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Within a few decades, China may be home to > more Christians than any other country. American Catholicism has never been > centrally important to the Catholic church, and even we Mormons now have > more members outside the U.S. than inside. Unless the gay marriage movement > catches on in a lot of places where it's not yet had much traction, I think > these Christians abroad are going to give some ballast to American > Christian opposition to gay marriage. To some extent it's already > happened--see, for example, the ties springing up between conservative > American Episcopalians and African Anglicans. > > > > My prediction? I think religious opposition to gay marriage is going to be > like religious opposition to premarital sex. The polls will move more > rapidly than anyone once thought possible, and in a decade or two only 20% > of Americans will think gay marriage is immoral. And then the graph will > bottom out, and you're going to have about 20% of Americans still thinking > that for a long time. > > > > So, no, I don't think these issues are going away. > > > > Best, > > > > Alan > > > > (My apologies, but I took an hour that I didn't really have to write this, > and I don't know when I'll be able to post again. But Marty, if you > respond, I promise I'll get back to you eventually.) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > > > -- > > Michael Worley > > J.D., Brigham Young University > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Michael Worley J.D., Brigham Young University
_______________________________________________ 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.
