I haven't yet read the new book by Garry Wills, Head and Heart: American Christianities, but I think he takes this as his theme.
Christine Corcos LSU Law Center ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 10:28 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Degrading religion It's a frequent theme in the work of many separationists, but I don't know of a piece devoted to it. I have made the argument on occasion, and believe it to be true, but I haven't explore its history. Quoting Andrew Koppelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> The Supreme Court has sometimes held that the reason for enforcing >> the establishment clause is to protect religion from degradation by >> contact with the state. Justice Black's formulation in Engel v. >> Vitale is typical: > > When the power, prestige and financial support of government is > placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive > pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing > officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes underlying > the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and > most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of > government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade > religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in > England and in this country, showed that whenever government had > allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable > result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even > contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. That same history showed > that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had > relied upon the support for government to spread its faith. The > Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the > part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too > personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed perversion' > by a civil magistrate. > > Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431-32 (1962). > > Has anyone written a history of this idea? I'm quite sure that > "degradation" means something different to Roger Williams than it > does to James Madison, and that Hugo Black has a different conception > still, if only because the three men had such different ideas about > what religion is affirmatively supposed to be. I haven't found any > source that engages this question. If anyone knows of such a source > (absolutely including if you've written such a work yourself), I'd be > very grateful for a reference. > > > > > ________________________________________ > > Andrew Koppelman > John Paul Stevens Professor of Law > and Professor of Political Science > Northwestern University School of Law > 357 East Chicago Avenue > Chicago, IL 60611-3069 > > (312) 503-8431 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________ Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713
_______________________________________________ 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.
