Whether or not that distinction is sound as an empirical matter – and, given the tradition of using religious invocations for ceremonial purposes, for national mourning, and other similar reasons, it’s hard to see all or most political use of religious talk as “crassly instrumental [and] low-political” – I take it that this is not a distinction that constitutional law can easily draw, no?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Using religion for government purposes May I respectfully suggest that one difference between Lincoln and perhaps) all of his successors is that he was a profoundly serious man who was not using religion for crassly instrumental low-political purposes. Sandy
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] 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.
