Doug
Laycock writes that "the willingness to treat atheism as a religion
is very encouraging."
I agree
that, for certain purposes, including rights of _expression_, religious
views and anti-religious views need to be treated equally.
On the
other hand, it has always seem
I think Perry is correct that there are good, normatively compelling
reasons for exempting only believers - but I wouldn't say "of course"
this is so. I often respond to the argument that there is no reason to
treat religion differently than secular beliefs for the purpose of
creating conscience ba
I must admit having some sympathy for Perry's position.
In my book FAITH ON TRIAL, I advanced the following argument supporting an
expansive protection of religious exceptions that would justify attention to
traditional religions:
1 Law regulates behavior based upon social utilitarian grounds (
Atheism and agnosticism should be considered religions for free exercise
purposes because, as Doug has argued in print, we would regard them as
religions for establishment purpose -- if the government set up a Temple of
Atheism or schools taught officially that God does not exist. If one takes
the
In a message dated 3/1/2007 4:06:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Atheism and agnosticism should be considered religions for free exercise
purposes because, as Doug has argued in print, we would regard them as
religions
for establishment purpose
It might be t
Sure, one denies certain propositions in physics, but as with any
science--for that matter any field of study--conceptual, paradigmatic
propositions when
denied eviscerate that field either to replace it with another paradigm and
field or to let it drift asunder as in the case of alchemy.
A question for those who argue that government endorsement of
religion violates the Establishment Clause on the grounds that such
endorsement makes those who don't adhere to the favored religion -- or
to religion generally -- feel like outsiders, and less than full members
of the political
I'm not sure what "the denial of physics" means. Doesn't one deny (or
affirm) a particular proposition or set of propositions about physics?
Similarly, it seems to me that there is a recognizable usage of "religion"
that includes varying positions on the ultimate questions such as the
existence of
I am sitting out this discussion because I have an oral argument
tomorrow (on a remedies case of no interest to this list). I don't
think that plausible claims to exemption by nonbelievers arise very
often, and objections to killing may comprise all or most of the list.
But neither do I think
Doug Laycock writes:
> I am sitting out this discussion because I have an oral
> argument tomorrow (on a remedies case of no interest to this
> list). I don't think that plausible claims to exemption by
> nonbelievers arise very often, and objections to killing may
> comprise all or most of
10 matches
Mail list logo
