RE: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Douglas Laycock]

Of course I think prohibiting free exercise out of indifference is as harmful 
as prohibiting free exercise out of hostility.  But that is not the point of 
this post.  Whatever the merits of the distinction between hostility and 
indifference, the distinction is fuzzy in the real world.  There are many cases 
of hostile indifference -- I didn't know I was interfering with your religious 
when I wrote this regulation, but now that I know, I don't care and I refuse to 
think about the problem.  These religious people should modernize instead of 
living in the past and always whining for an exception.
 
 
 
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Steven Jamar
Sent: Tue 3/8/2005 4:00 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Protestants and non-Protestants




On Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 08:01 AM, Brad Pardee wrote: 


In the end, if the government prohibits what my faith commands or 
commands what my faith prohibits, does it really make a difference whether the 
government was openly hostile or simply didn't care? 


To you? Apparently not. 
To the law and the broader community -- absolutely. 

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar 

"I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the 
hills." 

Gandhi 

<>___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Steven Jamar]

On Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at 08:01  AM, Brad Pardee wrote:

In the end, if the government prohibits what my faith commands or commands what my faith prohibits, does it really make a difference whether the government was openly hostile or simply didn't care?

To you?  Apparently not.
To the law and the broader community -- absolutely.

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW	mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar

"I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills." 

Gandhi


___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Richard Dougherty]

Good question.  I think it doesn't matter in practice, for the moment, but may 
in the longer term.  That is, indifference may simply be a sign of lack of 
reflection on the matter, and leaves open the possibility of changing policy or 
interpretations by persuasion; if hostility is the motivation, you're far less 
likely to be successful in getting a change.

-- Original Message --
From: "Brad Pardee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
Date:  Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:01:49 -0600

>I wonder, though, to the believer (in any faith), if the ultimate effect is 
>any different whether the government is actively hostile or simply 
>indifferent.  I think Stephen Carter's book, "The Culture of Disbelief", 
>gives some good examples (including non-evangelical Christian examples) of 
>people whose faith was simply dismissed on the grounds of what might be 
>termed "the public good".
>
>In the end, if the government prohibits what my faith commands or commands 
>what my faith prohibits, does it really make a difference whether the 
>government was openly hostile or simply didn't care?
>
>Brad Pardee
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Richard Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>But I think it also simply a matter of fact that there are many in the 
>government, including the judidicary, who are hostile to religion, and to 
>deny that is to miss what I thought was gimme.  That is not to deny that 
>some believers are hostile to non-believers; indeed, I take that as a fact 
>as well.  I suppose I could have been more precise and avoided saying that 
>there is a "governmental" movement that is hostile to religion, instead of 
>saying there are some in government who are so moved (I think it means the 
>same thing, but could have been clearer). 
>
>___
>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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Brad Pardee]

I wonder, though, to the believer (in any faith), if the ultimate effect is 
any different whether the government is actively hostile or simply 
indifferent.  I think Stephen Carter's book, "The Culture of Disbelief", 
gives some good examples (including non-evangelical Christian examples) of 
people whose faith was simply dismissed on the grounds of what might be 
termed "the public good".

In the end, if the government prohibits what my faith commands or commands 
what my faith prohibits, does it really make a difference whether the 
government was openly hostile or simply didn't care?

Brad Pardee
- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

But I think it also simply a matter of fact that there are many in the 
government, including the judidicary, who are hostile to religion, and to 
deny that is to miss what I thought was gimme.  That is not to deny that 
some believers are hostile to non-believers; indeed, I take that as a fact 
as well.  I suppose I could have been more precise and avoided saying that 
there is a "governmental" movement that is hostile to religion, instead of 
saying there are some in government who are so moved (I think it means the 
same thing, but could have been clearer). 

___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Richard Dougherty]

Alan:
I think I agree with everything that you say.  I was not trying to make an 
argument, but simply stating what I thought was an obvious fact -- that many 
people think government is hostile to religion.  (I don't think  I said that 
"most Americans" think that, or that "most Americans" are hostile to religion.) 
 I agree that people of good will and sound mind can disagree on these issues, 
and thus of course I would not suggest that Doug or Tom -- or Alan! --are 
hostile to religion. It seems to me, for instance, that religious groups ought 
to be more interested in whether or not their adherents know what the Ten 
Commandments are, and abide by them, than whether or not they can be displayed 
on public grounds.

But I think it also simply a matter of fact that there are many in the 
government, including the judidicary, who are hostile to religion, and to deny 
that is to miss what I thought was gimme.  That is not to deny that some 
believers are hostile to non-believers; indeed, I take that as a fact as well.  
I suppose I could have been more precise and avoided saying that there is a 
"governmental" movement that is hostile to religion, instead of saying there 
are some in government who are so moved (I think it means the same thing, but 
could have been clearer).

But even those who defend religion in the public square do it largely as 
something other then religion --it's our history, or it's free speech, or it's 
economic activity, etc.  I understand that is a tactical decision, meant to get 
legislation passed and win court cases, but the need to resort to such claims 
is part of the reason some people think "the government" is hostile to religion.

The Tocqueville point, again, was simply an observation; if one reads 
Tocqueville on religion, it is hard to see America in 2005 there.  But that 
strikes me now as an off-list topic, so I'll not pursue it.

Richard Dougherty

-- Original Message --
From: "A.E. Brownstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:30:55 -0800

>Richard,
>
>I understand that some religious people think that government today is 
>hostile to religion, but I think this is a singularly unhelpful way to 
>understand current church-state issues   - and it tells us very little 
>about the actual relationship between government and religion in our society.
>
>I say this for several reasons:
>
>1.  It is also the case that many non-religious people believe that 
>government is hostile to non-religious beliefs and individuals -- and that 
>government demonstrates obvious preferences for religion. I suspect there 
>is more unanimity among non-religious people on this point than there is 
>unanimity among religious people that government is hostile to religion 
>(although the latter group is larger because many more people are religious 
>than non-religious in our society).
>
>2.  The same governmental actors (including judges) take positions that, 
>depending on one's perspective, are both helpful and hurtful to religion. 
>(See, e.g. Justice Kennedy condemned as hostile to religion in cases like 
>Boerne, Lawrence, and Lee v. Weisman but praised as supportive of religion 
>in Lukumi Babalu Aye, his dissent in County of Allegheny, and his apparent 
>position in the Ten Commandments cases.)
>
>3. The simple reality is that people who can not be fairly or reasonably 
>characterized as hostile to religion take some positions that some people 
>view as hostile to religion. In the recent discussion on this list 
>regarding the Ten Commandments cases both Doug Laycock and Tom Berg were 
>critical of government expressing religious speech through prayer and 
>religious displays. People may disagree with their position on this issue, 
>but it would be absurd to suggest that either of these scholars is hostile 
>to religion.
>
>4. Many church-state issues involve costs to, and benefits for, religion 
>however the issue is resolved. The fact that many people add these plusses 
>and minuses up differently reflects differences in judgement and 
>differences in values (often based on different religious perspectives) -- 
>but that is very different than hostility toward religion.
>
>5. Of course, there are some people who are primarily hostile to religion. 
>And there are some people who are primarily hostile to non-religious 
>beliefs or the beliefs of particular faiths.  But most individuals and 
>institutions have more complex reasons for what they do -- and we 
>accomplish little by subsuming government or "most Americans" into either camp.
>
>Alan Brownstein
>UC Davis
>
>
>
>
>At 01:04 PM 3/7/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>>I think it's fairly safe to say that Tocueville would not recognize the 
>>role religion plays, or doesn't play, in modern America.  That there is no 
>>active governmental movement that is hostile to religion would surprise 
>>quite a few people, on the left and right.
>>
>>-- Original Message --

Re: Protestants and non-Protestants

[RJLipkin]

Why isn't the 
hostility charge simply a strategic means to put one's 
opponent on the defensive?  Granted many people feel hostility. 
But feeling hostility and judging that one's opponent actually is hostile are 
two different things. With intimate and deeply felt matters such as 
religion, it is understandable why one would tend to feel as if the government 
was expressing hostility when it is not.  However in my view it is just too 
easy and almost always misleading to respond to a perceived loss for one's side 
by equating it with hostility.  There needs, of course, to be an 
independent test for distinguishing between loss and hostility. And I suspect 
that would be a psychological test not a legal one.
 
Bobby
 
Robert Justin 
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of 
LawDelaware
___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[A.E. Brownstein]

Richard,
I understand that some religious people think that government today is 
hostile to religion, but I think this is a singularly unhelpful way to 
understand current church-state issues   - and it tells us very little 
about the actual relationship between government and religion in our society.

I say this for several reasons:
1.  It is also the case that many non-religious people believe that 
government is hostile to non-religious beliefs and individuals -- and that 
government demonstrates obvious preferences for religion. I suspect there 
is more unanimity among non-religious people on this point than there is 
unanimity among religious people that government is hostile to religion 
(although the latter group is larger because many more people are religious 
than non-religious in our society).

2.  The same governmental actors (including judges) take positions that, 
depending on one's perspective, are both helpful and hurtful to religion. 
(See, e.g. Justice Kennedy condemned as hostile to religion in cases like 
Boerne, Lawrence, and Lee v. Weisman but praised as supportive of religion 
in Lukumi Babalu Aye, his dissent in County of Allegheny, and his apparent 
position in the Ten Commandments cases.)

3. The simple reality is that people who can not be fairly or reasonably 
characterized as hostile to religion take some positions that some people 
view as hostile to religion. In the recent discussion on this list 
regarding the Ten Commandments cases both Doug Laycock and Tom Berg were 
critical of government expressing religious speech through prayer and 
religious displays. People may disagree with their position on this issue, 
but it would be absurd to suggest that either of these scholars is hostile 
to religion.

4. Many church-state issues involve costs to, and benefits for, religion 
however the issue is resolved. The fact that many people add these plusses 
and minuses up differently reflects differences in judgement and 
differences in values (often based on different religious perspectives) -- 
but that is very different than hostility toward religion.

5. Of course, there are some people who are primarily hostile to religion. 
And there are some people who are primarily hostile to non-religious 
beliefs or the beliefs of particular faiths.  But most individuals and 
institutions have more complex reasons for what they do -- and we 
accomplish little by subsuming government or "most Americans" into either camp.

Alan Brownstein
UC Davis

At 01:04 PM 3/7/2005 -0600, you wrote:
I think it's fairly safe to say that Tocueville would not recognize the 
role religion plays, or doesn't play, in modern America.  That there is no 
active governmental movement that is hostile to religion would surprise 
quite a few people, on the left and right.

-- Original Message --
From: Ed Darrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:40:03 -0800 (PST)
>It seems to me that by the standards deTocqueville used, and especially 
by the standards cited by Justice Brewer's opinion in Holy Trinity, we 
are much more tolerant of religious expression than in the past.  For 
example we now have "In God We Trust" on our coins, and also as an 
official motto of the nation.  Most of the attempts to formalize school 
prayer took place after 1945.  The placement of the Ten Commandments 
monuments, regardless the ultimate disposition of the cases on their 
legality, were almost without exception after the release of DeMille's 
movie, "The Ten Commandments," in the early 1950s.
>
>Certainly there is no active move on the part of government to be 
hostile to religion, and there are many tiny moves to go overboard in 
accommodation to the point of violating the establishment clause.  I 
think a careful analysis would show no hostility toward religion, but 
instead an accommodation of religious expression that occasionally strays 
into establishment.
>
>About the only thing that's changed from deTocqueville's visit is that 
despite a broader tolerance of religious expression, a substantial 
minority of people claim they are being discriminated against because 
they want more than the law has yet allowed.
>
>Ed Darrell
>Dallas
>
>Richard Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, yes, but not in a political order where the government -- 
especially the judiciary -- is seen by many as openly hostile to 
religion; this is a very different America from the one Tocqueville observed.
>
>Richard Dougherty
>

___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Steven Jamar]

All the active movement I see are from religious groups pushing to establish religion by putting their religion in the public face or demanding that their religion be front and center rather than simply be accommodated.

Of course there are too many instances of teachers and principals on school boards not accommodating in some instances.  But even that is not the same as active hostility.

On Monday, March 7, 2005, at 02:04  PM, Richard Dougherty wrote:

I think it's fairly safe to say that Tocueville would not recognize the role religion plays, or doesn't play, in modern America.  That there is no active governmental movement that is hostile to religion would surprise quite a few people, on the left and right.
-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar   vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/

"Example is always more efficacious than precept."

Samuel Johnson, 1759
___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Richard Dougherty]

I think it's fairly safe to say that Tocueville would not recognize the role 
religion plays, or doesn't play, in modern America.  That there is no active 
governmental movement that is hostile to religion would surprise quite a few 
people, on the left and right.

-- Original Message --
From: Ed Darrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Sat, 5 Mar 2005 15:40:03 -0800 (PST)

>It seems to me that by the standards deTocqueville used, and especially by the 
>standards cited by Justice Brewer's opinion in Holy Trinity, we are much more 
>tolerant of religious expression than in the past.  For example we now have 
>"In God We Trust" on our coins, and also as an official motto of the nation.  
>Most of the attempts to formalize school prayer took place after 1945.  The 
>placement of the Ten Commandments monuments, regardless the ultimate 
>disposition of the cases on their legality, were almost without exception 
>after the release of DeMille's movie, "The Ten Commandments," in the early 
>1950s.  
> 
>Certainly there is no active move on the part of government to be hostile to 
>religion, and there are many tiny moves to go overboard in accommodation to 
>the point of violating the establishment clause.  I think a careful analysis 
>would show no hostility toward religion, but instead an accommodation of 
>religious expression that occasionally strays into establishment.
> 
>About the only thing that's changed from deTocqueville's visit is that despite 
>a broader tolerance of religious expression, a substantial minority of people 
>claim they are being discriminated against because they want more than the law 
>has yet allowed.
> 
>Ed Darrell
>Dallas
>
>Richard Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, yes, but not in a political order where the government -- especially the 
>judiciary -- is seen by many as openly hostile to religion; this is a very 
>different America from the one Tocqueville observed.
>
>Richard Dougherty 
>

___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Newsom Michael]

The great movement for prayer in the
common schools took place between the 1890s and the 1930s, if one takes the
timing of the cases challenging such prayer seriously.  Post-World War II
events merely confirmed and deepened what was already in place.

 

-Original Message-
From: Ed Darrell
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, March
 05, 2005 6:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law &
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Protestants and
non-Protestants

 



 

Most of the attempts to formalize school prayer took
place after 1945.  





 





Certainly there is no active move on the part of
government to be hostile to religion, and there are many tiny moves to go
overboard in accommodation to the point of violating the establishment
clause.  I think a careful analysis would show no hostility toward
religion, but instead an accommodation of religious _expression_ that
occasionally strays into establishment.





 





About the only thing that's changed from
deTocqueville's visit is that despite a broader tolerance of religious
_expression_, a substantial minority of people claim they are being discriminated
against because they want more than the law has yet allowed.





 





Ed Darrell





Dallas

Richard Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:





Well, yes, but not in a political order where the
government -- especially the judiciary -- is seen by many as openly hostile to
religion; this is a very different America from the one Tocqueville observed.

Richard Dougherty 

>And isn't that exactly what deTocqueville said he found?
> 
>Ed Darrell
>Dallas
>
>"A.E. Brownstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>Marci, of course, is more than capable of speaking for herself. But I would

>think that the reference to religious "intensity of belief" that
thrives in 
>an environment of religious neutrality may relate to the inspiration and 
>energy many religious groups experience in a regime of religious 
>voluntarism -- where the success of faith-based congregations and 
>communities depends on the personal commitment of religious individuals and

>associations and the power of their beliefs, rather than their ability to 
>use the government to communicate self affirming messages or to subsidize 
>their activities.
>
>
>
>Alan Brownstein
>UC Davis
>
>
>At 04:33 PM 3/4/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>>Tom: I like the term, and I don't think it's so ugly as you suggest.
>>
>>Marci: Do you think it is empirically true that, as you say, "The
more the 
>>government is constrained to be neutral with respect to religion over the

>>years, the more diversity and intensity of belief this society 
>>expresses"? I suppose I might agree with the diversity point, but 
>>intensity I would agree with only in a very limited sense. Thus, I
think 
>>Tom is right about the secularizing "slippery slope," if you
will (to use 
>>a favored phrase of our esteemed moderator). In addition, much of the 
>>public square agitating is clearly a response to what are taken to be 
>>hostile governmental -- let's face it, mostly judicial -- rulings.
>>
>>Richard Dougherty
>>
>>

___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Ed Darrell]

It seems to me that by the standards deTocqueville used, and especially by the standards cited by Justice Brewer's opinion in Holy Trinity, we are much more tolerant of religious _expression_ than in the past.  For example we now have "In God We Trust" on our coins, and also as an official motto of the nation.  Most of the attempts to formalize school prayer took place after 1945.  The placement of the Ten Commandments monuments, regardless the ultimate disposition of the cases on their legality, were almost without exception after the release of DeMille's movie, "The Ten Commandments," in the early 1950s.  
 
Certainly there is no active move on the part of government to be hostile to religion, and there are many tiny moves to go overboard in accommodation to the point of violating the establishment clause.  I think a careful analysis would show no hostility toward religion, but instead an accommodation of religious _expression_ that occasionally strays into establishment.
 
About the only thing that's changed from deTocqueville's visit is that despite a broader tolerance of religious _expression_, a substantial minority of people claim they are being discriminated against because they want more than the law has yet allowed.
 
Ed Darrell
DallasRichard Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, yes, but not in a political order where the government -- especially the judiciary -- is seen by many as openly hostile to religion; this is a very different America from the one Tocqueville observed.Richard Dougherty >And isn't that exactly what deTocqueville said he found?> >Ed Darrell>Dallas>>"A.E. Brownstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:>Marci, of course, is more than capable of speaking for herself. But I would >think that the reference to religious "intensity of belief" that thrives in >an environment of religious neutrality may relate to the inspiration and >energy many religious groups experience in a regime of religious >voluntarism -- where the success of faith-based congregations and >communities depends on the personal commitment of religious individuals and
 >associations and the power of their beliefs, rather than their ability to >use the government to communicate self affirming messages or to subsidize >their activities.Alan Brownstein>UC Davis>>>At 04:33 PM 3/4/2005 -0600, you wrote:>>Tom: I like the term, and I don't think it's so ugly as you suggest.Marci: Do you think it is empirically true that, as you say, "The more the >>government is constrained to be neutral with respect to religion over the >>years, the more diversity and intensity of belief this society >>expresses"? I suppose I might agree with the diversity point, but >>intensity I would agree with only in a very limited sense. Thus, I think >>Tom is right about the secularizing "slippery slope," if you will (to use >>a favored phrase of our esteemed moderator). In addition, much of the
 >>public square agitating is clearly a response to what are taken to be >>hostile governmental -- let's face it, mostly judicial -- rulings.Richard Dougherty___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Richard Dougherty]

>Does it matter that the government is not actually openly hostile to 
>religion?  Or is the relevant inquiry really "is seen by many"?
>
>Steven Jamar

Yes, it would matter, if it were true; but that is a debate for another 
setting.  Here the relevant question, though, is what motivates many religious 
people, and that many think the government is hostile to religion I think is 
not much contested.

Richard Dougherty


>
>On Saturday, March 5, 2005, at 09:12  AM, Richard Dougherty wrote:
>
>> Well, yes, but not in a political order where the government -- 
>> especially the judiciary -- is seen by many as openly hostile to 
>> religion; this is a very different America from the one Tocqueville 
>> observed.
>>
>> Richard Dougherty
>>
>-- 
>Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  
>202-806-8017
>Howard University School of Law   fax:  
>202-806-8428
>2900 Van Ness Street NW
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Washington, DC  20008   
>http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar
>
>"Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. 
>There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked 
>solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."
>
>- Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love", 1963
>
>
>
>
>
>
___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Steven Jamar]

Does it matter that the government is not actually openly hostile to religion?  Or is the relevant inquiry really "is seen by many"?

Steven Jamar

On Saturday, March 5, 2005, at 09:12  AM, Richard Dougherty wrote:

Well, yes, but not in a political order where the government -- especially the judiciary -- is seen by many as openly hostile to religion; this is a very different America from the one Tocqueville observed.

Richard Dougherty 

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law   fax:  202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW	mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar

"Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think."

- Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love", 1963


___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Richard Dougherty]

Well, yes, but not in a political order where the government -- especially the 
judiciary -- is seen by many as openly hostile to religion; this is a very 
different America from the one Tocqueville observed.

Richard Dougherty 

>And isn't that exactly what deTocqueville said he found?
> 
>Ed Darrell
>Dallas
>
>"A.E. Brownstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Marci, of course, is more than capable of speaking for herself. But I would 
>think that the reference to religious "intensity of belief" that thrives in 
>an environment of religious neutrality may relate to the inspiration and 
>energy many religious groups experience in a regime of religious 
>voluntarism -- where the success of faith-based congregations and 
>communities depends on the personal commitment of religious individuals and 
>associations and the power of their beliefs, rather than their ability to 
>use the government to communicate self affirming messages or to subsidize 
>their activities.
>
>
>
>Alan Brownstein
>UC Davis
>
>
>At 04:33 PM 3/4/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>>Tom: I like the term, and I don't think it's so ugly as you suggest.
>>
>>Marci: Do you think it is empirically true that, as you say, "The more the 
>>government is constrained to be neutral with respect to religion over the 
>>years, the more diversity and intensity of belief this society 
>>expresses"? I suppose I might agree with the diversity point, but 
>>intensity I would agree with only in a very limited sense. Thus, I think 
>>Tom is right about the secularizing "slippery slope," if you will (to use 
>>a favored phrase of our esteemed moderator). In addition, much of the 
>>public square agitating is clearly a response to what are taken to be 
>>hostile governmental -- let's face it, mostly judicial -- rulings.
>>
>>Richard Dougherty
>>
>>

___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Ed Darrell]

And isn't that exactly what deTocqueville said he found?
 
Ed Darrell
Dallas"A.E. Brownstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marci, of course, is more than capable of speaking for herself. But I would think that the reference to religious "intensity of belief" that thrives in an environment of religious neutrality may relate to the inspiration and energy many religious groups experience in a regime of religious voluntarism -- where the success of faith-based congregations and communities depends on the personal commitment of religious individuals and associations and the power of their beliefs, rather than their ability to use the government to communicate self affirming messages or to subsidize their activities.Alan BrownsteinUC DavisAt 04:33 PM 3/4/2005 -0600, you wrote:>Tom: I like the term, and I don't think it's so ugly as you suggest.>>Marci: Do you think it is empirically true that, as you say, "The more the
 >government is constrained to be neutral with respect to religion over the >years, the more diversity and intensity of belief this society >expresses"? I suppose I might agree with the diversity point, but >intensity I would agree with only in a very limited sense. Thus, I think >Tom is right about the secularizing "slippery slope," if you will (to use >a favored phrase of our esteemed moderator). In addition, much of the >public square agitating is clearly a response to what are taken to be >hostile governmental -- let's face it, mostly judicial -- rulings.>>Richard Dougherty>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>Tom-- Thanks very much for your thoughtful answer. I completely agree >with you on the first point. As a matter of fact, I think there is very >little likelihood that this society can be secularized by government or >any other entity. The more the governmen!
 t is
 constrained to be neutral >with respect to religion over the years, the more diversity and intensity >of belief this society expresses. The public square (which is to be >distinguished from government space) is filled with religious ideas, >political activity, and lobbying.>> Thus, I view the "secularization" thesis (used to justify government > financial and other support for religion) as a myth at best, and a cover > for intense political activity at worst, which is why I asked for > clarification on what you meant by artificial secularization.>>Marci>Tom-- Thanks very much for your thoughtful answer. I completely agree >>with you on the first point. As a matter of fact, I think there is very >>little likelihood that this society can be secularized by government or >>any other entity. The more the government is constrained to be neutral
 >>with respect to religion over the years, the more diversity and intensity >>of belief this society expresses. The public square (which is to be >>distinguished from government space) is filled with religious ideas, >>political activity, and lobbying.Thus, I view the "secularization" thesis (used to justify government >>financial and other support for religion) as a myth at best, and a cover >>for intense political activity at worst, which is why I asked for >>clarification on what you meant by artificial secularization. Marci>>(1) The belief that government is having this secularizing effect, and >>that it⠙s a problem, is (rightly or wrongly) held by people across >>varying faiths, not just by evangelical Protestants. (2) To ensure that >>a secular government doesn⠙t secularize society, government can take >>steps to preserve a
 vigorous private sector in religion.>>___>>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/religionlawPlease 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.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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 ot

Re: Protestants and non-Protestants

[A.E. Brownstein]

Marci, of course, is more than capable of speaking for herself. But I would 
think that the reference to religious "intensity of belief" that thrives in 
an environment of religious neutrality may relate to the inspiration and 
energy many  religious groups experience in a regime of religious 
voluntarism  -- where the success of faith-based congregations and 
communities depends on the personal commitment of religious individuals and 
associations and the power of their beliefs, rather than their ability to 
use the government to communicate self affirming messages or to subsidize 
their activities.


Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 04:33 PM 3/4/2005 -0600, you wrote:
Tom: I like the term, and I don't think it's so ugly as you suggest.
Marci: Do you think it is empirically true that, as you say, "The more the 
government is constrained to be neutral with respect to religion over the 
years, the more diversity and intensity of belief this society 
expresses"?  I suppose I might agree with the diversity point, but 
intensity I would agree with only in a very limited sense.  Thus, I think 
Tom is right about the secularizing "slippery slope," if you will (to use 
a favored phrase of our esteemed moderator).  In addition, much of the 
public square agitating is clearly a response to what are taken to be 
hostile governmental -- let's face it, mostly judicial -- rulings.

Richard Dougherty
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom-- Thanks very much for your thoughtful answer.  I completely agree 
with you on the first point.  As a matter of fact, I think there is very 
little likelihood that this society can be secularized by government or 
any other entity.  The more the government is constrained to be neutral 
with respect to religion over the years, the more diversity and intensity 
of belief this society expresses.  The public square (which is to be 
distinguished from government space) is filled with religious ideas, 
political activity, and lobbying.

 Thus, I view the "secularization" thesis (used to justify government 
financial and other support for religion) as a myth at best, and a cover 
for intense political activity at worst, which is why I asked for 
clarification on what you meant by artificial secularization.

Marci
Tom-- Thanks very much for your thoughtful answer.  I completely agree 
with you on the first point.  As a matter of fact, I think there is very 
little likelihood that this society can be secularized by government or 
any other entity.  The more the government is constrained to be neutral 
with respect to religion over the years, the more diversity and intensity 
of belief this society expresses.  The public square (which is to be 
distinguished from government space) is filled with religious ideas, 
political activity, and lobbying.

Thus, I view the "secularization" thesis (used to justify government 
financial and other support for religion) as a myth at best, and a cover 
for intense political activity at worst, which is why I asked for 
clarification on what you meant by artificial secularization.  Marci
(1) The belief that government is having this secularizing effect, and 
that it⠙s a problem, is (rightly or wrongly) held by people across 
varying faiths, not just by evangelical Protestants.  (2) To ensure that 
a secular government doesn⠙t secularize society, government can take 
steps to preserve a vigorous private sector in religion.


___
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.

Re: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Richard Dougherty]

Tom: I like the term, and I don't think it's so ugly as you suggest.
Marci: Do you think it is empirically true that, as you say, "The more
the government is constrained to be neutral with respect to religion over
the years, the more diversity and intensity of belief this society expresses"? 
I suppose I might agree with the diversity point, but intensity I would
agree with only in a very limited sense.  Thus, I think Tom is right
about the secularizing "slippery slope," if you will (to use a favored
phrase of our esteemed moderator).  In addition, much of the public
square agitating is clearly a response to what are taken to be hostile
governmental -- let's face it, mostly judicial -- rulings.
Richard Dougherty
 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom-- Thanks very much for your thoughtful answer.  I completely
agree with you on the first point.  As a matter of fact, I think there
is very little likelihood that this society can be secularized by government
or any other entity.  The more the government is constrained to be
neutral with respect to religion over the years, the more diversity and
intensity of belief this society expresses.  The public square (which
is to be distinguished from government space) is filled with religious
ideas, political activity, and lobbying.
 Thus, I view the "secularization" thesis (used
to justify government financial and other support for religion) as a myth
at best, and a cover for intense political activity at worst, which is
why I asked for clarification on what you meant by artificial secularization.
 
Marci
 
 
Tom--
Thanks very much for your thoughtful answer.  I completely agree with
you on the first point.  As a matter of fact, I think there is very
little likelihood that this society can be secularized by government or
any other entity.  The more the government is constrained to be neutral
with respect to religion over the years, the more diversity and intensity
of belief this society expresses.  The public square (which is to
be distinguished from government space) is filled with religious ideas,
political activity, and lobbying.
Thus, I view the
"secularization" thesis (used to justify government financial and other
support for religion) as a myth at best, and a cover for intense political
activity at worst, which is why I asked for clarification on what you meant
by artificial secularization.  Marci  
(1)
The belief that government is having this secularizing effect, and that
it’s a problem, is (rightly or wrongly) held by people across
varying faiths, not just by evangelical Protestants.  (2) To ensure
that a secular government doesn’t secularize society, government
can take steps to preserve a vigorous private sector in religion.
 

___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Hamilton02]

Tom-- Thanks very 
  much for your thoughtful answer.  I completely agree with you on the 
  first point.  As a matter of fact, I think there is very little 
  likelihood that this society can be secularized by government or any other 
  entity.  The more the government is constrained to be neutral with 
  respect to religion over the years, the more diversity and intensity of belief 
  this society expresses.  The public square (which is to be distinguished 
  from government space) is filled with religious ideas, political activity, and 
  lobbying.  
Thus, I view the "secularization" thesis (used to justify government 
financial and other support for religion) as a myth at best, and a cover for 
intense political activity at worst, which is why I asked for clarification on 
what you meant by artificial secularization.
 
 Marci  
 
 
(1) The belief that government is having this secularizing 
  effect, and that itâs a problem, is (rightly or wrongly) held by people across 
  varying faiths, not just by evangelical Protestants.  (2) To ensure that 
  a secular government doesnât secularize society, government can take steps to 
  preserve a vigorous private sector in 
religion.

 
___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Sisk, Gregory C.]

Very well said Tom.

 

-Original Message-
From: Berg, Thomas C.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005
11:25 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Protestants and
non-Protestants

 

Marci – Maybe I
should be proud to coin a term, although it’s likely too ugly to catch
on.  I just meant to refer to the idea that when the Court bans or removes
government-sponsored religious symbols or ideas, while leaving secular symbols
and ideas intact, this makes government more secular than the society is. 
If government is a major player in _expression_ in society, then government can
have a real effect of secularizing society.  You can make the case that
this is true with respect to public education, when the government plays such a
huge role in forming children day after day.  If public schools promote
various secular ideas to children but not religious ideas, this creates the
danger of skewing them toward the secular.  As I said, I don’t think
that the answer to this is to maintain government sponsorship of religion or
particular religious ideas; such sponsorship has many problems, and there are
usually better alternatives.  But my points were that:  (1) The
belief that government is having this secularizing effect, and that it’s
a problem, is (rightly or wrongly) held by people across varying faiths, not
just by evangelical Protestants.  (2) To ensure that a secular government doesn’t
secularize society, government can take steps to preserve a vigorous private
sector in religion.

 



---

Thomas C. Berg

Professor of Law

Co-Director, Terrence J.
Murphy Institute


for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy

University of St. Thomas
School of Law

MSL 400 -- 1000 La Salle
Avenue

Minneapolis, MN 
55403-2015

Phone: (651) 962-4918

Fax: (651) 962-4996

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

 

 

 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005
8:53 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Protestants and
non-Protestants

 





Tom-- 
What is "artificial secularization"?  I've never heard that term
before.  





 





Marci





 





 





In a
message dated 3/2/2005 8:10:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:





think
that we avert our eyes to reality if we don't acknowledge that
traditionalist believers from different faiths now very often share the
belief that removal or barring religious symbols from public events or
institutions is a form of artificial secularization that is not consistent
with the Religion Clauses.  This is not just a fundamentalist or
evangelical
Protestant thing.  As to whether that belief is correct, my own view is
that
removing these influences does raise real concerns about artificial
secularization, but that usually the far better approach is to welcome
private religious speech of various groups into the public square and public
institutions, rather than have the state sponsor what will typically be
watered-down majoritarian practices.  But the point is that the belief is
there among people of various faiths.







 








___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Berg, Thomas C.]

Marci – Maybe I
should be proud to coin a term, although it’s likely too ugly to catch
on.  I just meant to refer to the idea that when the Court bans or removes
government-sponsored religious symbols or ideas, while leaving secular symbols
and ideas intact, this makes government more secular than the society is. 
If government is a major player in _expression_ in society, then government can have
a real effect of secularizing society.  You can make the case that this is
true with respect to public education, when the government plays such a huge
role in forming children day after day.  If public schools promote various
secular ideas to children but not religious ideas, this creates the danger of
skewing them toward the secular.  As I said, I don’t think that the
answer to this is to maintain government sponsorship of religion or particular
religious ideas; such sponsorship has many problems, and there are usually better
alternatives.  But my points were that:  (1) The belief that
government is having this secularizing effect, and that it’s a problem,
is (rightly or wrongly) held by people across varying faiths, not just by evangelical
Protestants.  (2) To ensure that a secular government doesn’t
secularize society, government can take steps to preserve a vigorous private
sector in religion.

 



---

Thomas C. Berg

Professor of Law

Co-Director, Terrence J. Murphy Institute

 for Catholic
Thought, Law, and Public Policy

University of St. Thomas School of Law

MSL 400 -- 1000 La Salle Avenue

Minneapolis, MN  55403-2015

Phone: (651) 962-4918

Fax: (651) 962-4996

E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---

 

 

 



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005
8:53 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Protestants and
non-Protestants

 





Tom-- 
What is "artificial secularization"?  I've never heard that term
before.  





 





Marci





 





 





In a
message dated 3/2/2005 8:10:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:





think
that we avert our eyes to reality if we don't acknowledge that
traditionalist believers from different faiths now very often share the
belief that removal or barring religious symbols from public events or
institutions is a form of artificial secularization that is not consistent
with the Religion Clauses.  This is not just a fundamentalist or
evangelical
Protestant thing.  As to whether that belief is correct, my own view is
that
removing these influences does raise real concerns about artificial
secularization, but that usually the far better approach is to welcome
private religious speech of various groups into the public square and public
institutions, rather than have the state sponsor what will typically be
watered-down majoritarian practices.  But the point is that the belief is
there among people of various faiths.







 








___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Hamilton02]

Tom--  What is "artificial secularization"?  I've never heard 
that term before.  
 
Marci
 
 
In a message dated 3/2/2005 8:10:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
think 
  that we avert our eyes to reality if we don't acknowledge 
  thattraditionalist believers from different faiths now very often share 
  thebelief that removal or barring religious symbols from public events 
  orinstitutions is a form of artificial secularization that is not 
  consistentwith the Religion Clauses.  This is not just a 
  fundamentalist or evangelicalProtestant thing.  As to whether that 
  belief is correct, my own view is thatremoving these influences does raise 
  real concerns about artificialsecularization, but that usually the far 
  better approach is to welcomeprivate religious speech of various groups 
  into the public square and publicinstitutions, rather than have the state 
  sponsor what will typically bewatered-down majoritarian practices.  
  But the point is that the belief isthere among people of various 
  faiths.

 
___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants calling for various things

[Scarberry, Mark]

To follow up on Eugene's point:

Historically, most of the attempts to obtain public funding of religious
education have been by Catholics. A lot of people (not including me) have
seen such attempts as serious assaults on the religious liberty that is
maintained by strong non-Establishment norms. 

Protestants are not alone in attacking strict separationism, though they
typically attack different manifestations of it than do Catholics. (Of
course, there are also Protestants who support strict separationism. See,
e.g., Rev. Barry Lynn of the group formerly known as Protestants and Other
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.)

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
 

-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 4:34 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Protestants and non-Protestants calling for various things

Well, Allegheny involved a creche donated by a Catholic group,
and a menorah.  There was also a Ninth Circuit involving a meonrah
display in a public park; I believe the Chabad people (quite Orthodox
Jews) put it up.  I'm not sure what "using religious arguments as
superior to positive law" means, but I'd guess that whatever Protestants
do here, many Catholics and probably many Jews do, too.  I can't speak
to precisely how often these things are done by Protestants and how
often by Jews or Catholics, but Allegheny at least shows that Catholics
and Jews are sometimes quite happy to push for religious symbolism.

Steve Jamar writes:

Ok, but I've not seen Catholics or Jews or Muslims pushing for:
prayers starting school
prayers at football games
using religious arguments as superior to positive law
young-earther anti-evolution creationism
creches

I do not recall seeing any Catholics or Jews pushing this as part of 
their agendas, either.

No doubt some, perhaps many, even most Catholics and perhaps many, 
perhaps most Jews support it -- but they are not the ones pushing it.  
I stand by my comment as made.
___
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: Protestants and non-Protestants

[Berg, Thomas C.]

In response to Steve:
 
Prayers starting school:  It's not much of a live issue now, but when the
original school prayer case came out, a number of Catholic bishops (most
notably Cardinal Spellman of NY) strongly criticized it on the ground that
it would secularize the public schools.  On other kinds of public school
prayer, Lee v. Weisman -- the graduation prayer case -- came from
Providence, Rhode Island, which is hardly a Protestant bastion, and I'm
willing to bet that graduation prayers were widespread throughout the
country, not just in Protestant-dominated areas.
 
Prayers at football games:  I can't think of examples, but that might say
more about how football is a religion in the South and the Midwest
(Protestant-dominated areas) than it does about Protestant vs. Catholic
attitudes toward public prayers.
 
Like Eugene, I don't understand Steve's reference to "using religious
arguments as superior to positive law."
 
Creches:  As Eugene and I pointed out, the creche in Allegheny was paid for
by a Catholic group.  
 
"Young earth" creationism:  Steve carefully qualifies the belief so that it
only applies to fundamentalist Protestants with their literal interpretation
of Genesis.  If you expand the challenge to evolution to include
intelligent-design theories that don't rely on the Bible, you will find
conservative Catholic groups supporting these challenges.  And I predict
that this will increase as the issues in the culture war more and more move
"traditionalists" of various faiths to line up against "progressives" of
various faiths.  On the website of the Thomas More Law Center,
http://www.thomasmore.org/resources.html
 , the conservative Catholic group
to which I referred earlier, there are petitions to support maintaining
religious imagery in a city seal and a cross on public property, and a
booklet emphasizing the rights of students to raise questions about how
evolution is taught in public schools.
 
I think that we avert our eyes to reality if we don't acknowledge that
traditionalist believers from different faiths now very often share the
belief that removal or barring religious symbols from public events or
institutions is a form of artificial secularization that is not consistent
with the Religion Clauses.  This is not just a fundamentalist or evangelical
Protestant thing.  As to whether that belief is correct, my own view is that
removing these influences does raise real concerns about artificial
secularization, but that usually the far better approach is to welcome
private religious speech of various groups into the public square and public
institutions, rather than have the state sponsor what will typically be
watered-down majoritarian practices.  But the point is that the belief is
there among people of various faiths.
 
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minnesota
 
 
 

  _  

From: Steven Jamar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 3/2/2005 5:55 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction



Ok, but I've not seen Catholics or Jews or Muslims pushing for: 

prayers starting school 

prayers at football games 

using religious arguments as superior to positive law 

young-earther anti-evolution creationism 

creches 


I do not recall seeing any Catholics or Jews pushing this as part of their
agendas, either. 


No doubt some, perhaps many, even most Catholics and perhaps many, perhaps
most Jews support it -- but they are not the ones pushing it. I stand by my
comment as made. 


On Wednesday, March 2, 2005, at 06:06 PM, Berg, Thomas C. wrote: 


I am not a supporter of 10 Commandments displays, and the following point,
in my view, does not fundamentally change the proper result in these cases.
But I don't agree with Steve Jamar's claim "that it is really just one sect,
protestants, that push to establish state sponsorship or endorsement of
religion" (by which I assume he includes 10 Commandments displays). 

  


-- 

Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 

Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 

2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ 


"I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it
for a time parts company with reality." 


Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941 

<>___
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.

Protestants and non-Protestants calling for various things

[Volokh, Eugene]

Well, Allegheny involved a creche donated by a Catholic group,
and a menorah.  There was also a Ninth Circuit involving a meonrah
display in a public park; I believe the Chabad people (quite Orthodox
Jews) put it up.  I'm not sure what "using religious arguments as
superior to positive law" means, but I'd guess that whatever Protestants
do here, many Catholics and probably many Jews do, too.  I can't speak
to precisely how often these things are done by Protestants and how
often by Jews or Catholics, but Allegheny at least shows that Catholics
and Jews are sometimes quite happy to push for religious symbolism.

Steve Jamar writes:

Ok, but I've not seen Catholics or Jews or Muslims pushing for:
prayers starting school
prayers at football games
using religious arguments as superior to positive law
young-earther anti-evolution creationism
creches

I do not recall seeing any Catholics or Jews pushing this as part of 
their agendas, either.

No doubt some, perhaps many, even most Catholics and perhaps many, 
perhaps most Jews support it -- but they are not the ones pushing it.  
I stand by my comment as made.
___
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.