Prof. Jamar, I am just a poor lurker here, but I'd like a word. I am a strict separationist, because I believe in self-preservation. It is my opinion that endorsement (let's please call it what it is) ought to be excised from the rituals, mechanism and business of government and its laws. Religion of the state is already excluding others -- atheists and other dissenters. This so-called "civil religion" this absurd chimerical "ceremonial deism" which is the poor disguise temporarily adopted by Christianity, not only does not represent me and exclude me, but punishes me by forcing me to pay to support beliefs, rituals and acts I know are untrue and harmful. While we might hope that the slow creep of imposition will stall, we know it will not, and it has already excluded non-co-religionists from jobs, contracts, participation, education and so on.
Remember your history; we have been down this road before, religion, politics, government and war wearing each others clothes and marching arm-in-arm. All civilizations, Hebrews, Romans and Crusaders have traveled it, and so have Renaissance monarchs, and Puritans, and more modern despots. Now our own great arbiters of the Law of the Land have chosen sides, and once again things don't look good for liberty of conscience. Soon the heirs of Dick and Cade will govern Blackheath, and all lawyers know, or should know, what plans they had for you. Your profession needs to shine brightly now, or it will burn brightly. I certainly know what their plans are for this poor atheist, and will find a more civilized country just as soon as it is practical. Len Zanger ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Jamar" <stevenja...@gmail.com> To: "Law Religion & Law List" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 6:10:01 PM Subject: Re: Supreme Court Decides Town of Greece As I said, continuing doctrinal chaos. I find it curious that anyone could treat “tradition and history” as truly meaningful, substantive guidelines. International Shoe “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”, right to bear arms, incorporation, defining the line between state and federal — all these and more have purported to rely on some version of history and tradition — often while doing bad history, being painfully selective in traditions, and not recognizing that tradition and history are at least as often the problem to be moved away from as the guiding light to be moved toward. For religious freedom, history and tradition are particularly ill-suited insofar as the only result can be to constitutionalize the status quo – whatever it may be. And so Christian prayers which by their inherent nature exclude and when done in a public forum at the start of official governmental meetings are not an endorsement of religion because of our history and tradition. “In God We Trust” on money is an endorsement, of course, but one that is allowed. I personally don’t mind if these things go on and I don’t care if the constitution is interpreted to allow them under the accommodation-becoming-endorsement approach of the court at this point because I am not a strict separationist — I don’t think religious values should be excised completely from public discourse or actions — but I do wish that those who do these things and push these things would indeed recognize that them for what they are — endorsements of religion by the state in a way that excludes others. The minority adherents must tolerate a lot of this sort of action by private and public players — that is our current constitutional doctrine — the majority can impose on us quite a bit. But, one would hope that this imposition will not keep creeping to the point of actions excluding non-co-religionists from jobs, contracts, participation, education and so on. These decisions are not neutral. They are not cost free. I wish the court would address that with more candor, but it feels it must keep up the pretense of an external, neutral guideline to seem on paper at least to not be choosing sides. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://sdjlaw.org “It’s all about you, using your own mind, without any method or schema, to restore order from chaos. And once you have, you can sit back and say, ‘Hey, the rest of my life may be a disaster, but at least I have a solution.’ ” Marcel Danesi, in an interview about his book, “The Puzzle Instinct: The Meaning of Puzzles in Human Life.” _______________________________________________ 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.
