It seems to me that anyone who supports the constitutional legitimacy of "prophylactic rules" should find the "actual use" of religion highly relevant. Better to suppress a future Lincoln than to give a green light to faux-religious politicos.
Sandy ________________________________ From: [email protected] To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Fri Mar 27 11:51:06 2009 Subject: RE: Using religion for government purposes 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.
