I'm not letting ADD completely get in the way of things around here. I'm trying to keep my hair on and vindicate my one overarching New Year's Resolution: Routine and Regularity Replace Risk
( Read more... )
An interesting piece, I'll have to read more of this article. I think he has a good interpretation of the current misapprehension of what "Freedom of Religion" or what the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" means.
As I see it and apparently Mr. Laycock, it means that People should exercise their religion freely without contraint of Congress and that Congress shall not enact legislation mandating any one religion over any other. Not that Congress or government has the right to restrict religious expression in the name of equal representation.
I wish I could republish the article, but honestly, it is history of the Reformation, Counter-Reformation with particular attention to the English experience that you probably know off the top of your head. It may be available on the net somewhere -- it's actually amazing how much lawyers pay for Westlaw and Lexis and much of what they want is wandering around for free. My librarian friends tell me the problem is that much of it's almost impossible to find without the search engines, however.
Laycock takes the historical conflicts I listed in my comment to soliano above, given that these would have been strong influences on the Framers, and asks what evil the clauses must have been aiming, and notes that there are two different and widely held views, both of which, inconveniently, probably have at least some truth to them
( ... )
I"m following your discussions with Sollano rather voraciously as I'm finding it a good overview of the basis for the two general schools of thought regarding religion in the US from a politico/legal standpoint.
And his bottom line is that the English experience is what counts, anyway, because it is what would have most influenced the Framers.Quite possibly, however one must not ignore the influence of the Pennsylvania and New York Dutch/Germans who had endured similar persecutions as both Protestant (Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians) and as Roman Catholics (Orange Free Staters) undougtedly there is (although I don't recall any literature to the effect) at least some argument counter-argument and subsequent compromise regarding these various views and the influences of the temporal powers of organized churches and their hierarchies over the various states that produced the religious refugees who sought the distance and comparative safety of colonial life from those states and feuding churches. The French had little influence in
( ... )
Laycock does not fit in this dichotomy. He’s a true libertarian. I taught his article, "Religious Liberty as Liberty" to my students this past fall, which showed that the guarantee of religious liberty is nothing more than a guarantee of liberty in another aspect of individual and communal life (as to the “communal life” part, there are better sources than Laycock, who is derivative of the original work of others, but I’ll outline here the argument of three folks who essentially feed off each other
( ... )
He also makes the sort of argument libertarian Republicans should make more often to the religious right: that if we don’t recognize agnosticism and atheism as religions, they could be “established,” because nothing says they can’t
( ... )
You do realize that atheism and agnosticism are at least recognized as "religious preferences" with their own particular symbols for military graves
( ... )
You do realize that atheism and agnosticism are at least recognized as "religious preferences" with their own particular symbols for military graves.
I didn't know that, but I did know federal courts went very far when applying the statutory or regulatory definition of "religion" in the conscientous objection exception to the selective service law during the Vietnam war -- probably farther than I would, and I'm pretty open to these things. They were a good example of claims many would have scoffed at (and the military did -- understandably, BTW), but the body of law that resulted is very helpful even for constitutional claims where the definition is more rigorous.
In point of fact they are indeed belief systems just as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism or Jainism are more belief systems than religions per se.Agreed -- And I think you are right to start by analogizing to these other belief systems, but if these were just "belief systems" as opposed to "religions" that would be one of the strongest arguments for not including
( ... )
I think those are religions, however, and I'll be candid that I'm not sure I have a good reason for it. Buddhists don't exactly worship the Buddha, do they (you are revealing my ignorance -- I guess reading Siddhartha to impress that guy did no good)? On the other hand, when did someone say a "religion" was about "worshipping someone?"
Apparently your reading to impress was correct. Although Buddha is venerated (sometimes bordering upon worship) he is not worshipped as a deity but venerated as would be a saint in your own professed religion where such veneration sometimes can border upon worship.
My beef is that Buddhism is about some interface with the transcendent, but atheism denies the transcendent and agnosticism does not care. An interesting point however Judaism is without doubt considered by the government to be a religion in every aspect and yet, some sects of Judaism do not believe in a transcendance but rather that life continues in memory and in the passing on of knowledge, good works and influencing others to do the
( ... )
I'm going to answer the abortion part of your comment in a full post, because you got me thinking about this more globally, and some of what I think is not directed at you and some has to do with things that have been coming up over and over.
I turn to a couple of little substantive points you raise that I am sorry to deal with here, but think should be mentioned. First, I understand the point about there always being some abortions. There will always be murder, but we have not legalized it. We have not even legalized a wide range of drug possession, use and sale. The point is that the criminal law does act as a deterrent to some degree. It is also a statement of society's values. "Statecraft as soulcraft," George Will called it. The question is whether we think the deterrent is needed or appropriate. In this case, one thing to consider is that we feel pretty good about the accuracy of abortion rates; even accepting the highest estimates from pre-1970, incidence has exploded since then
( ... )
There will always be murder, but we have not legalized it.Oddly enough we do have several forms of state sanctioned murder. Although we try to draw subtle differences in defining them, in hard cold truth they are the willful termination of an individual's existence. The first such example of this is capital punishment wherein the State for strictly defined reasons and in an institutionalized manner intentionally, willfully, with aforethought deliberately, openly and outrageously ends a person's life. Another is assasination which has been approved of as a means of political change by many States including the US at various points in time. This is murder on a retail level. Last but not least, we have war where murder occurs on a wholesale basis although again under strictly defined circumstances although anyone who has ever been in combat will tell you that the differences are a bit like arguing the number of angels that can dance upon the head of a pin. The State (Nation cultural/political/economic grouping) can and does indeed
( ... )
As I see it and apparently Mr. Laycock, it means that People should exercise their religion freely without contraint of Congress and that Congress shall not enact legislation mandating any one religion over any other. Not that Congress or government has the right to restrict religious expression in the name of equal representation.
Reply
Laycock takes the historical conflicts I listed in my comment to soliano above, given that these would have been strong influences on the Framers, and asks what evil the clauses must have been aiming, and notes that there are two different and widely held views, both of which, inconveniently, probably have at least some truth to them ( ... )
Reply
And his bottom line is that the English experience is what counts, anyway, because it is what would have most influenced the Framers.Quite possibly, however one must not ignore the influence of the Pennsylvania and New York Dutch/Germans who had endured similar persecutions as both Protestant (Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians) and as Roman Catholics (Orange Free Staters) undougtedly there is (although I don't recall any literature to the effect) at least some argument counter-argument and subsequent compromise regarding these various views and the influences of the temporal powers of organized churches and their hierarchies over the various states that produced the religious refugees who sought the distance and comparative safety of colonial life from those states and feuding churches. The French had little influence in ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I didn't know that, but I did know federal courts went very far when applying the statutory or regulatory definition of "religion" in the conscientous objection exception to the selective service law during the Vietnam war -- probably farther than I would, and I'm pretty open to these things. They were a good example of claims many would have scoffed at (and the military did -- understandably, BTW), but the body of law that resulted is very helpful even for constitutional claims where the definition is more rigorous.
In point of fact they are indeed belief systems just as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism or Jainism are more belief systems than religions per se.Agreed -- And I think you are right to start by analogizing to these other belief systems, but if these were just "belief systems" as opposed to "religions" that would be one of the strongest arguments for not including ( ... )
Reply
Apparently your reading to impress was correct. Although Buddha is venerated (sometimes bordering upon worship) he is not worshipped as a deity but venerated as would be a saint in your own professed religion where such veneration sometimes can border upon worship.
My beef is that Buddhism is about some interface with the transcendent, but atheism denies the transcendent and agnosticism does not care. An interesting point however Judaism is without doubt considered by the government to be a religion in every aspect and yet, some sects of Judaism do not believe in a transcendance but rather that life continues in memory and in the passing on of knowledge, good works and influencing others to do the ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment