I will return Richard's compliment about hitting the nail on the head. The deep irony is that it the religious, at least in their legal rhetoric , who are making ultra-relativistic arguments that non- foundational liberals have no good reply to other than prudentialism.
Sandy Sent from my iPhone On Jul 5, 2014, at 11:24 AM, "Richard Dougherty" <dou...@udallas.edu<mailto:dou...@udallas.edu>> wrote: I think Sandy has hit the nail on the head here, but I would add a twist to it. Perhaps I am missing something, but what is the preferred alternative today to accommodation? Isn't it using the non-religious standard to judge the religious claim? Or simply majority rule? (Public opinion polls are all over the place, of course, but many suggest sympathy for the Hobby Lobby position.) But where does that leave the right to free exercise of religion? The twist I would put on Sandy's question is this: the "independent scrutiny" can only be undertaken by someone who is a foreigner to the religious claim. But the success of one's claim doesn't mean it is an irrational claim, or that arguments can't be made for it, only that those arguments will not be persuasive to those who are not sympathetic with the first principles at work. Thus Locke's toleration, as he himself notes, cannot extend to Catholics or Muslims. The triumph of post-modernism can in fact leave us without a basis for making assessments of reasonable claims. The danger, though, is not only over-accommodation (a real danger, I readily admit) -- on the other side it can be under-accommodation, or simply the exercise of power. Richard Dougherty University of Dallas On Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Levinson, Sanford V <slevin...@law.utexas.edu<mailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu>> wrote: Let me tendentiously suggest that "accommodationist" is synonymous with "irrationalist" if in fact one can't subject the proffered arguments to some kind of "independent" scrutiny. Of course, this may represent the ironic triumph of post-modernism, inasmuch as it taught many of us that there is in fact no truly independent vantage point from which to police claims. But, also of course, one can be certain that Wheaton and other religious claimants have no sympathy for post-modernist anti-foundationalism. Sandy Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
