Alito v. the Grinch: Was Hostility Thread
Whatever the constitutional cognoscenti believe about the Court's EC jurisprudence and religious hostility, many ordinary citizens reasonably view this body of law (including O'C's endorsement test) as hostile toward religion. I don't think Alito's opponents want to fight a confirmation battle over passive displays of Nativity Scenes, Ten Commandments monuments, and the Pledge of Allegiance. On these issues, Alito is likely to be directly in the center of the mainstream of the American public. Even student-initiated, voluntary prayer at football games is not an issue that will cause the American public to rise up against Alito. This is a great time to be having this debate, because we are about to enter the season in which local governments are pressured by the ACLU and similar organizations to ban Christmas celebrations--even quite modest ones--in the public schools and public parks. For many people, the beginning of the Christmas season is the Friday after Thanksgiving. Not for me. I know that Christmas is upon us when I hear of the first lawsuit filed against a Nativity display in a public park or to enjoin a Christmas celebration in a public school. That's when I and the rest of Clan Duncan break out the egg nog, throw another log on the fire, and sing Silent Night. Rick Duncan Francis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I dont want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying impression of hostility, not necessarily hostility. So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says impression, and Marty says misperception. A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one.I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. FrankOn 11/4/05 4:31 AM, "Marty Lederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04confirm.htmlAlito believes that the Court's doctrine "really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious _expression_" and that "the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual _expression_ of religion"? Even after Widmar and Mergens and Lamb's Chapel and Good News Club and Rosenberger, etc.? To be perfectly honest, I find this a bit disturbing -- particularly because it plays into the all-too-common public misperception that the Court's modern doctrine has been hostile to private religious _expression_. Nothing, of course, could be further from the tru! th. (Indeed, I think it's fair to say that the Court has done more to protect private religious _expression_ over the last 25 years than just about any other form of private _expression_.) What Alito appears to be getting at, of course, is not private _expression_, but govenmental speech (or government preferences for religious speech). In particular, he appears to have sent Cornyn signals that he thinks Santa Fe was wrongly decided -- which, if true, is very unfortunate, IMHO. Further evidence, I think, that one of the very first and most dramatic shifts of doctrine in the move from SOC to Alito will be w/r/t the Religion Clauses. Nominee Is Said to Question Church-State Rulings By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - Senators of both parties said Thursday that Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. , President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court, had told them he believed the court might have gone too far in separating church and state.Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that Thursday in a private meeting Judge Alito expressed empathy for "the impression that the court's decisions were incoherent in this area of the law in a way that really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious _expression_."Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia , said after his own meeting with the judge that he, too, was "very satisfied" that Judge Alito had said he believed the court had e! rred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual _expression_ of religion."He indicated that people have a right, a very distinct right, to express their religious views," Mr. Byrd said.Although the senators said Judge Alito had not told them how he would rule in specific cases, their comments were the first indication of his views concerning one of the most contentious issues before the court.Many liberals and religious minorities view the court's jurisprudence on separation of church and state over the last 50 years as a bedrock principle of American life. But anger over the court's rulings against school prayer, government displays of the Ten Commandments and other public forms of religious _expression_ also played a major role in the birth of a conservative Christian
Re: Alito v. the Grinch: Was Hostility Thread
The problem with this debate is that those arguing for "hostility to religion," mean "hostiltity toward their religion, Christianity." O'Connor's endorsement test is sensitive to those who are religious (or not) and are not in the favored majority. So her test in fact is not hostile to religion, but rather makes room for a wide variety of believers. In the end, it is more respectful of religious belief than the "hostility to religion" view. The American people need to be educated on this crucial difference, and come to understand that the message they are receiving is a message about the right to dominate the public square vs. the requirement government remain sensitive toward all religious believers (in a country where the right to believe anything one wants is constitutionally absolute). While the public debate has been dominated in recent years by those who equate "religion" with "particular Christian religion," and they have set the agenda to date, there are many indications that this equation is beginning to be challenged. It's a great time to have a debate about whether this is a country that believes in inclusion and respect for all beliefs or the imposition on all of a particular religious group's views. If Alito's nomination spurs that kind of debate, it's good for everyone. Marci -Original Message-From: Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:35:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Alito v. the Grinch: Was Hostility Thread Whatever the constitutional cognoscenti believe about the Court's EC jurisprudence and religious hostility, many ordinary citizens reasonably view this body of law (including O'C's endorsement test) as hostile toward religion. I don't think Alito's opponents want to fight a confirmation battle over passive displays of Nativity Scenes, Ten Commandments monuments, and the Pledge of Allegiance. On these issues, Alito is likely to be directly in the center of the mainstream of the American public. Even student-initiated, voluntary prayer at football games is not an issue that will cause the American public to rise up against Alito. This is a great time to be having this debate, because we are about to enter the season in which local governments are pressured by the ACLU and similar organizations to ban Christmas celebrations--even quite modest ones--in the public schools and public parks. For many people, the beginning of the Christmas season is the Friday after Thanksgiving. Not for me. I know that Christmas is upon us when I hear of the first lawsuit filed against a Nativity display in a public park or to enjoin a Christmas celebration in a public school. That's when I and the rest of Clan Duncan break out the egg nog, throw another log on the fire, and sing Silent Night. Rick Duncan Francis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying "impression of hostility," not necessarily "hostility." So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says "impression," and Marty says "misperception." A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one.I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. FrankOn 11/4/05 4:31 AM, "Marty Lederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04confirm.htmlAlito believes that the Court's doctrine "really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious _expression_" and that "the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual _expression_ of religion"? Even after Widmar and Mergens and Lamb's Chapel and Good News Club and Rosenberger, etc.? To be perfectly honest, I find this a bit disturbing -- particularly because it plays into the all-too-common public misperception that the Court's modern doctrine has been hostile to private religious _expression_. Nothing, of course, could be further from the tru! th. (Indeed, I think it's fair to say that the Court has done more to protect private religious _expression_ over the last 25 years than just about any other form of private _expression_.) What Alito appears to be getting at, of course, is not private _expression_, but govenmental speech (or government preferences for religious speech). In particular, he appears to have sent Cornyn signals that he thinks Santa Fe was wrongly decided -- which, if true, is very unfortunate, IMHO. Further evidence, I think, that one of the very first a
Re: Alito v. the Grinch: Was Hostility Thread
But Marci, O'C's endorsement test is not inclusive with respect to religion. It excludes all religious beliefs from being celebrated in the public square, while permitting all secular beliefs to be celebrated. You don't show respect for all religious beliefs by throwing them out of the house. In any event, I am sure Alito's supporters would be delighted to have his confirmation turn on on his views about the EC going a bit too far in the direction of excluding religion from the public square. I can just see Sen. Kennedy protest that "Sam Alito's America is an America in which nativity scenes are permitted in public parks and schoolchildren are permitted to pledge allegiance to one Nation under God." If the argument against Alito is "Bah, humbug," Alito wins. Cheers, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem with this debate is that those arguing for "hostility to religion," mean "hostiltity toward their religion, Christianity." O'Connor's endorsement test is sensitive to those who are religious (or not) and are not in the favored majority. So her test in fact is not hostile to religion, but rather makes room for a wide variety of believers. In the end, it is more respectful of religious belief than the "hostility to religion" view. The American people need to be educated on this crucial difference, and come to understand that the message they are receiving is a message about the right to dominate the public square vs. the requirement government remain sensitive toward all religious believers (in a country where the right to believe anything one wants is constitutionally absolute). While the public debate has been dominated in recent years by those who equate "religion" with "particular Christian religion," and they have set the agenda to date, there are many indications that this equation is beginning to be challenged. It's a great time to have a debate about whether this is a country that believes in inclusion and respect for all beliefs or the imposition on all of a particular religious group's views. If Alito's nomination spurs that kind of debate, it's good for everyone. Marci -Original Message-From: Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:35:28 -0800 (PST)Subject: Alito v. the Grinch: Was Hostility Thread Whatever the constitutional cognoscenti believe about the Court's EC jurisprudence and religious hostility, many ordinary citizens reasonably view this body of law (including O'C's endorsement test) as hostile toward religion. I don't think Alito's opponents want to fight a confirmation battle over passive displays of Nativity Scenes, Ten Commandments monuments, and the Pledge of Allegiance. On these issues, Alito is likely to be directly in the center of the mainstream of the American public. Even student-initiated, voluntary prayer at football games is not an issue that will cause the American public to rise up against Alito. This is a great time to be having this debate, because we are about to enter the season in which local governments are pressured by the ACLU and similar organizations to ban Christmas celebrations--even quite modest ones--in the public schools and public parks. For many people, the beginning of the Christmas season is the Friday after Thanksgiving. Not for me. I know that Christmas is upon us when I hear of the first lawsuit filed against a Nativity display in a public park or to enjoin a Christmas celebration in a public school. That's when I and the rest of Clan Duncan break out the egg nog, throw another log on the fire, and sing Silent Night. Rick Duncan Francis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't want to be too picky here, but Alito is saying "impression of hostility," not necessarily "hostility." So, in a sense, he does not disagree with Marty. Alito says "impression," and Marty says "misperception." A misperception is in fact an impression, but an inaccurate one.I do think that Alito is correct that there is an impression of hostility. Now whether that impression is justified is ever or always justified is another question. But clearly Alito is justified in saying that many ordinary people in fact have that impression. FrankOn 11/4/05 4:31 AM, "Marty Lederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04confirm.htmlAlito believes that the Court's doctrine "really gives the impression of hostility to religious speech and religious _expression_" and that "the court had erred by going too far in prohibiting government support for religion at the risk of hampering individual _expression_ of religion"? Even after Widmar and Mergens and La
Re: Alito v. the Grinch: Was Hostility Thread
Marci wrote: It's a great time to have a debate about whether this is a country that believes in inclusion and respect for all beliefs or the imposition on all of a particular religious group's views. If Alito's nomination spurs that kind of debate, it's good for everyone. Marci, The only problem with this is that "inclusion and respect for all beliefs" are so often defined in practice as never saying anybody's wrong (unless a person is an evangelical, in which case it's always open season). The fact is, though, that different religions teach things that are mutually exclusive. For instance, as a Christian, I believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead on the third day. It's the center point of all that my faith teaches. However, not every religion believes that. For them to be intellectually honest, both with themselves and with me, they need to freely say that they believe Christianity is wrong on this point, and there's no problem with that. Simply believing that Christianity is wrong is not disrespectful. If they went on to say, "And consequently, anybody who thinks Jesus rose from the dead is an idiot", that would be disrespectful, but simply saying, "I think Christianity is wrong" is an honest statement of disagreement. Similarly, I'm not being disrespectful if I say that I believe that those who deny the resurrection are wrong. If I go farther and say, "And consequently, anybody who doesn't think Jesus rose from the dead is blind fool," that would be disrespectful and quite worthy of condemnation. This isn't to say that every Christian (or professed Christian, anyway) is respectful. The examples Prof. Finkelman gave of the child who said, "I don't hold the door for Jews" or the person who disrupted their services by hollering that they need to accept Jesus are reprehensible at the very least. There are others who have given equally disturbing examples of utterly unacceptable behavior. But disrespect and disagreement are not the same, and quite often, being honest about our disagreements is the most respectful thing we can do. That's why, as an example, when I attend Mass with my wife, I don't receive communion, even though I could probably get away with it and few people would know the difference. But because I don't believe in transubstantiation, I'm not going to make believe that I do. That would be disrespectful of those who do believe it is the actual body and blood of Christ. I don't ask to be included in the Eucharist celebration because I disagree, and I respect the Catholic Church too much to go through the motions. If the debate that spurred by Judge Alito's nomination makes the distinction between genuine disrespect and simple disagreement, so much the better. However, if it fosters the idea that nobody is wrong and every religion is right, that only diminishes respect for all religions by rendering our different understandings of God meaningless. Brad___ 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.
