We seem to be two ships passing in the night on this one.
Of course, official policy may conform to theological views opposing murder
and the like. My point is that there are other theological precepts, such
as beliefs about the existence, nature, and worship of G-d which have no
real secular counterparts. The state can not declare the truth of, or make
regulations relating to, these latter religious beliefs.
If the Governor stated that he would only invite individuals to bill
signing ceremonies whose beliefs about the existence, nature and worship of
G-d met his approval or that he would only hold bill signing ceremonies in
houses of worship of religions based on beliefs about the existence, nature
and worship of G-d that met his approval, I think that statement has
Establishment Clause implications.
If the Governor's communicates that message through his conduct, I think
that also has Establishment Clause implications.
I understand that it is more difficult to draw inferences from conduct than
speech. A one time bill signing ceremony is susceptible to multiple
interpretations. Continuing to hold official acts in houses of worship of a
particular religion, particularly when people of different faiths support
the legislation, or only inviting people of a particular religion to bill
signing ceremonies when there is support for the bills in question from
diverse religious and secular constituencies, sends a different message. I
take it that Eugene's position is that these practices only suggest that
the governor as an individual has special regard for this favored religious
community and wants to really cement his bond with it, not that this
religious community is held in special regard by the government. Perhaps he
also believes that this would be true if the governor expressed the
statements I mentioned above.
Two ships passing in the night on this one.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 12:20 AM 6/7/2005 -0700, you wrote:
I'm not quite sure exactly how the distinction between
"denominational religious beliefs" and "ethical religious precepts"
quite works here. The bills involved here, after all, dealt not with
abstract theology, but with matters that very much relate to ethical
religious precepts -- abortion and same-sex marriage.
Moreover, it seems to me that "the official policy" of many
jurisdictions *does* "conform[] to the views of people who hold specific
theological or denominational views." That's true as to bans on murder,
robbery, perjury, incest, prostitution, and more. Each such ban
conforms to the view of some people who hold theological or
denominational views that endorse such a ban (though it also conforms to
the views of other people who support the ban for other reasons, but I
take it that the same is true of the law that Perry was signing). Even
if Perry's signing ceremony suggested that this fact was indeed factual,
I don't see what's wrong with it.
Nor do I see how Perry's signing ceremony "suggest[s] that these
kinds of religious precepts and the communities that adhere to them are
held in special regard by government." Rather, it seems to me that it
suggests that a particular religious community is held in regard by
Perry, who wants to use this gesture of regard to cement his bond with
the community. (It may also remind the community of the fact that the
legal system in general reflects their views, but that doesn't mean that
the religious community is "held in special regard by *government*.")
Eugene
Alan Brownstein writes:
> I think there is a
> distinction
> between what we used to call sectarian religious beliefs and
> what we might
> call ethical religious precepts. Today, I would use the term
> distinctly
> religious or denominational, rather than sectarian, but the
> idea is the
> same. I am neither surprised nor offended if a governor who
> adheres to a
> religion that opposes same-sex marriage supports public
> policy consistent
> with his faith -- even though my religious beliefs support a contrary
> conclusion. People of various faiths or no faith may similarly oppose
> same-sex marriages. And the governor may make it clear that
> he is aligned
> with constituencies, religious or otherwise, that support his
> position on
> same-sex marriage.
>
> But I don't expect the governor to do things that suggest the
> official
> policy of the state conforms to the views of people who hold specific
> theological or denominational views -- or to perform official
> acts that
> suggest that these kinds of religious precepts and the
> communities that
> adhere to them are held in special regard by government. That raises
> Establishment Clause concerns.
>
> Is this a line that can always be easily identified? No. But
> I think there
> is a difference between the President singing a hymn at a
> Church service,
> delivering a sermon at a Church, and delivering the State of
> the Union
> address from the pulpit of a Church.
>
> And I think there is a difference between a Governor who
> invites various
> public and private leaders, religious or otherwise, to a bill signing
> ceremony at a government building -- and a governor who
> signs a bill in a
> house of worship surrounded by people of only one religious
> persuasion.
>
> Alan Brownstein
> UC Davis
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:57 PM 6/6/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> > But a sermon by the Governor, or other statements by the
> >Governor, would leave the same impression. Moreover, if one simply
> >knows that the Governor is a devout Christian who views
> Christianity as
> >an important guide to what is right and what is wrong, then it would
> >seem pretty likely from that alone that the Governor's public policy
> >will be made, generally speaking, in a way that conforms with the
> >tenets of those the Governor deems Christians. I'd assume that if a
> >governor were a deeply committed feminist, environmentalist,
> >libertarian, Marxist, or whatever else, I would get the
> impression that
> >public policy will be made in a way that conforms with those tenets
> >(subject to the unavoidable compromises created by the political
> >process). Why should I expect anything different if the
> governor is a
> >deeply committed Christian?
> >
> > And this, I think, ties to a broader point. People
> who belong
> >to religious minority groups known that they are in the
> minority. And
> >to the extent that religious views are tied to public policy
> >prescriptions -- quite likely when the religions deal with
> morality as
> >well as abstract theology -- those minority groups must
> surely realize,
> >even without the Governor's saying anything, that in their
> jurisdiction
> >public policy will generally be made in a way that conforms with the
> >tenets of the majority religious groups. So the impression
> mentioned
> >in the first sentence of Sandy's message would, I think, be
> there quite
> >independently of the governor's bill-signing practices; it's
> hard for
> >me then to see why these bill-signing practices are particularly
> >violative of the spirit of the Establishment Clause.
> >
> > One may well say that government officials should
> try to avoid
> >rubbing the minority's nose in this fact of politics. At the same
> >time, as I mentioned before, even government officials who
> would honor
> >this guideline, if all else is equal, may find that all else is not
> >equal, and that it's politically important -- both personally and to
> >their ideological projects -- to public convey kinship to a certain
> >politico-religious group even when it reminds the religious
> minority of
> >what I presume the religious minority has known all along.
> >
> > Eugene
> >
_______________________________________________
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.
