|
In a message dated 1/30/2005 5:21:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems to me that the inclusion or failure to include language I find this persuasive, but
not completely so. There's a wide gap, in my estimation, between the
"recognition of the havoc that governmental connections to religion might
produce" and avoiding any mention of the community's connection to (and
dependence upon) divine authority in any way at all. Indeed, is it unimaginable
that suitable language could not been formulated to express both the
commitment to religious liberty (in the original document) and "the
recognition of the havoc that governmental connections to religion might
produce"?
That said, Alan's post
raises a potentially more interesting question, namely, just how
do we assess the level of religiosity of the founding generation.
There are actually two problems here: (1) How do we assess the level of
religiosity of any community at any time at all? Isn't religiosity one of
those systematically complex attitudes, motives, and reasons that while not
precluding assessment in principle, is notoriously difficult to assess? I recall
hearing that in colonial Virginia, Jews were required to attend Sunday Church
services. (I can't vouch for the truth of this recollection.) If so, can
that be a factor in assessing the level of religiosity among the population. I
doubt it. And how often do people engage in the most apparent forms
of expressing religiosity, for example, attending religious services,
and in the modern era answering a pollster by saying one is religious, even very
religious, when one is not? Justified or not our culture has embraced
religious devotion as an indication that one is a good person (although not of
course to the same degree throughout our history). Just how truly
devotional Americans are seems quite elusive. (2) I think there are special
problems arising when making this assessment of a past community. But
I'm not a historian and will say no more about this now.
I think there are just some
aspects of human society that are too complex to sift through with any
reliability, especially when this requires putting aside one's own substantive
normative views on the issue. But perhaps this is too far afield from the
purpose of this List.
My own hunch is that
explaining the omission of divine authority in the Constitution says something
important about the founding generation. But I'm not sure that our usual
explanations get to the heart of the matter. But, as I said, that's just my
hunch.
Bobby
Robert Justin
Lipkin
Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware |
_______________________________________________ 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.
