|
Mark, we may disagree as to the
facts. I take evangelical Protestantism seriously enough to have faith,
if that be the word, in the desire of its adherents to proselytize all of the
rest of us. The unique history of the English Reformation -- perhaps better
described, as I have elsewhere, as the Anglo-American Reformation -- gives
evangelical Protestantism its distinctive character. Evangelicals have
been exasperated, for centuries now, by the fact of Anglicanism, and their
inability to turn Anglicanism into “purified” evangelical
Protestantism. The desire to “purify” English or
Anglo-American Protestant religion lies at the core of the spirit and force of
evangelical Protestantism. I cannot accept, therefore, without
ignoring almost 500 years of history, the notion that CLS is not interested in
doing what Anglo-American evangelical Protestants have wanted to do for 500
years – covert everybody to their religion, “purify”
Protestantism, Anglicanism in particular, but, while we are at it, Catholicism,
Orthodoxy, and various and sundry non-Christian religions. This constant,
steady and unyielding desire to “purify” is precisely the “overweening
importuning” to which I referred. It doesn’t end with the
posters, to which you referred. It merely begins with them.
Furthermore, I cannot believe that something that has been deeply engrained in
a religion for half a millennium has somehow dissipated, or, as the Bard might have
put it, thawed, melted and resolved itself into a dew. CLS is not just like a chess club or a
drama club or the Young Republicans or Young Democrats. One has to
overlook history to argue that CLS is somehow analogous to these other groups. Resistance does connote hostility.
But you draw a conclusion that finds no warrant in American history or
experience. Those of us who are satisfied with our
non-evangelical Protestant religion (or lack thereof) and have no interest in
being “purified” are, I think, entitled to be hostile to persistent
efforts to convert us to a religion that we do not want. If evangelicals
would leave us alone the level of hostility should decrease substantially.
But it is not, I am afraid, in the nature of evangelical Protestantism to leave
non-members alone. And, to make sure that we keep this within the
parameters of this listserv, it is not in the nature of evangelical
Protestantism to eschew the use of the law, legal institutions and public
institutions in its endeavor to “purify” the rest of us. Put affirmatively,
evangelical Protestants have pressed and pressed – persistently -- to
gain as much room as the law will allow in their efforts to “purify.”
The doctrines that some on this listserv defend are doctrines that give
evangelical Protestants more room than they had as a result of the discrete
historical developments that started no later than with the Scopes Trial and
the collapse of National Prohibition. Don’t you think that this
persistence would, in the natural order of things, engender resistance and hostility?
Consider the following. If you were
a Catholic parent who objected to your children, enrolled in public school,
being compelled to participate in what are essentially evangelical Protestant
prayer services or reading of the KJV of the Bible, wouldn’t you have been
somewhat hostile to the persistent effort to subject your child to this “overweening
importuning?” And, perhaps, might you not have brought a lawsuit to
try to stop these religious practices. And note, the Catholic parent has
not said that public school children should be subjected to Catholic religious
services. The whole thrust of the litigation, Mark, is that the resisters
merely wanted to be left alone, left to their own devices in tending to the
spiritual formation of their children. The truth is, for better or worse,
evangelical Protestants engender a lot of hostility. They believe, as
their religion teaches them, that they have to run that risk because they
believe that they are called upon to evangelize, to proselytize, to “purify.”
That’s fine as far as it goes. But it only goes so far, and the
result is, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, a continuing pattern of
persistence and resistance. Their persistence, in a word, generates
conflict. Some of us are tired, and have been tired
for well over a century now, of evangelical Protestants trying to convert us to
their religion. Whether we are hostile or not, we want to be left alone.
Evangelicals might view our desire to be left alone as an imposition on their
religion, and I am sure that some do. But if it is an imposition, our
religious freedom requires it. Evangelical Protestants have no special
privileges – or maybe they believe that they do because they believe in
the continuing reality, hope, and promise of the Protestant Empire. In real world terms, the privileges that
evangelical Protestants seek are unique and special because no other religion seeks
them. (Mormons are the only possible exception to this.) In real world
terms, given the theology of evangelical Protestantism, it has no choice but to
seek special privileges. It can point to the reality of the Protestant Empire
as some kind of warrant for those privileges. Those of us who want to be
left alone, resist those privileges. And if we are serious about our
resistance, we also object to the Protestant Empire. You might say, not entirely without
reason, that we want something more than to be left alone. The problem
is, however, that if we want to be left alone, how else can be obtain that
objective than to “impose” on evangelical Protestantism, and restrain
its “overweening importuning?” If evangelical Protestants cannot, at some
level, respect our right to be left alone, then what are we to do? Review the cases that have been brought
over the last 150 years. Which ones came out more or less right, and
why? What is your grand understanding of the law as it has developed both
before and after Incorporation? Should the Catholic parents have
won? Did the strict separation cases, like Engel and Schempp, come out
wrong? How should the law deal with this
continuing pattern of persistence and resistance? From: Scarberry, Mark
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I have to disagree with my friend Michael.
As I understand it, what the Christian Legal Society chapters generally want is
to be able to form a group of persons who have a common commitment, to be able
to reserve a place to meet, and to be able to put up posters advertising their
meetings, just like any other college campus group. I don't understand how that
constitutes a kind of "overweening importuning" that should be
resisted. Resistance seems to me to evidence hostility, not a desire on the part
of the resisters "simply to be left alone." Perhaps Michael's
complaint is about other demands of evangelical Protestants - perhaps the
demand to have equal access to community facilities as in Lamb's Chapel? Mark S. Scarberry -----Original Message----- Alan, I agree with you
that the issues here are, at a theoretical level, very complicated
indeed. Several interests, most or all of which are constitutionally
protected to one degree or another are in collision with each other. But
I think that, underlying this obvious conflict, there is a battle of norms and
prescriptions. The ASU case is just another outcropping of the culture
wars. As far as controlling
principles are concerned, assuming that there are any, Dale would suggest that
the principle of free association trumps the anti-discrimination
principle. Also, given cases like Good News, the principle of free
speech, combined with a curious "anti-discrimination against [certain,
i.e. evangelical Protestantism] religion" principle (an
anti-discrimination principle that has preferred status as compared with
"anti-discrimination" against various and sundry minorities), trumps
the nonestablishment principle. This ordering of
principles applies across the board to the facts that you supposed, I think,
for it serves and advances the goals and purposes of organizations like this
campus Christian group at ASU, an evangelical Protestant group, I'd
wager. And that, I am afraid, is the whole point, principled or
otherwise. (I know that I am beating
what many on this listserv think is a dead horse. But the fact of the
matter is that this strange atextual free speech-anti-discrimination principle
has been invoked only to serve the interests of evangelical Protestants, and
perhaps Mormons as well. I am not aware of it being used to advance the
interests of any other religion, largely because these other religions have not
sought to do so. Most religions, with the obvious exception of
evangelical Protestants, and perhaps Mormons, simply want to be left alone,
free from the overweening importuning of evangelical Protestants.
Evangelical Protestants and perhaps Mormons, if one is to believe the cases and
news accounts, are the only religions that are seeking to use the law to extend
their reach and influence. Like it or not, that is the way that the world
is working these days. The right way to think about all of this, I think,
is to view it as a question of persistence (evangelical Protestants) versus
resistance (everybody else). There is NO parity or equality between those
who persist and those who resist, although the rhetoric of many would suggest
otherwise. For a fuller discussion see my article on Common School
Religion, particularly its rather lengthy conclusion.) |
_______________________________________________ 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.
