RE: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
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.essentiallyco
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/_ (http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief _http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ (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/_ (http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) _ Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief _ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) _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=aolspr000520) _._ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu) _ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see _ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) _http://lis ts.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw_ (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=aolcmp000514) _!_ (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
Re: LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
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/ ? 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. Ratio Juris, Contributor:? http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/ Essentially Contested America,?Editor-In-Chief 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. ? 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. Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. ___ 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.
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/_ (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. **Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr000520) ___ 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.
LOFTON / Re: Defamation of Religion
ALL government is "religious." The only question is: Which "religion" will a government be based on. 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: CAROL MOORE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:34 pm Subject: RE: Defamation of Religion And if this discussion doesn't make one want to dig up James Madison and kiss his molding corpse for penning "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." I don't know what would. With all due respect to those who profess belief, government and religion should have separate bedrooms, if not separate houses, with no conjugal visits. This trend puts Nixon's domino theory in a new light. Carol Moore Gentle Reader ___ 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.
