So, Marci, do you think it does harm to the women who want to go to Planned Parenthood, or harm to the public interest, if the women have to wait an extra 5 or 10 minutes for driver #2 to pick them up? I'm not asking about 2 or 3 hours.
Art On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 4:05 PM, <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: > Thanks to Paul for his thoughtful response to my longer post from this > morning. I'm not sure we are on different pages given his example below. > > For those who have not read my work, I have frequently said that > accommodation that does not harm others is appropriate and desirable. I > have never written that accommodation is always wrong. That is a caricature > of my views. In fact, I have praised accommodations with no victims or that > benefit the public good, e.g., peyote exemptions, the exemption of > sacramental wine during Prohibition, etc. > > Where I differ from those who think that accommodation is almost always a > public good is in my refusal to assume that because something is demanded by > a religious believer it is automatically good. Often it is not. That > equation is a false one. It is akin to the frequent failure of my > interlocutors to remember that I am deeply religious, and certainly not > anti-religious. > > My focus is on moving the discourse to talk about the larger picture for > every accommodation instead of the focus on the demands of the believer. I > am interested in ordered liberty, whether that is a sum or a picture or > both. It is my conviction that the mechanistic thinking and unexamined > presuppositions that factor into so much accommodation discourse need to be > challenged. > > The public interest should always enter into the discussion, no? So Paul's > example below cannot be answered with a "yes" or a "no." If we are > fortunate enough to have enough people to put their lives on the line in a > war, then I see no downside to conscientious objectors who do only office > work. But what happens when the background facts change and we need every > able-bodied adult to fight or the country is at extreme risk? Same > question, different answer I would think. > > Marci > > In a message dated 4/26/2011 11:57:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > phorw...@hotmail.com writes: > > But if we agree that society has a legitimate interest in its armed forces, > and the conscientious objector is interfering with this legitimate interest > by refusing to serve in the armed forces, wouldn't we be obliged to conclude > that he or she must serve? > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Arthur B. Spitzer Legal Director American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital 1400 20th Street, N.W., Suite 119 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel. 202-457-0800 Fax 202-452-1868 www.aclu-nca.org a...@aclu-nca.org artspit...@gmail.com *Confidentiality Notice*** ** * *This message is being sent by a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise legally protected from disclosure. If you are not a named addressee then you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of this message. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ 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.
