|
One issue that has be
intimated but not stated explicitly, I think, is that the students are acting
lawlessly. Is that the message that we want to send our children and other
students? That it's OK when you have conscientious beliefs to violate laws and
societal norms just because you think you should?
The majoritarian issue
obscures this. If a minority of Muslim students acted this way they would
be just as culpable as a majority of Christian students. Of course, the
point where the majority issue is pertinent is whether the group will be able to
get away with its lawless conduct.
This issue, of
course, is one of many in the battle over control of the public
square. Some want a relatively neutral public square, not in any
philosophical sense, just in the practical sense of barring as many sectarian
perspectives from formal _expression_ as possible. Opponents content
that this relative neutrality is in reality smuggling in a particular "liberal"
sectarian point of view. I disagree with the view that a practical sense of
"neutrality" as opposed to a conceptual, philosophical, or political
theoretical sense is impossible. But that's where the controversy
should be joined?
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware |
_______________________________________________ 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.
