:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005
4:57 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Religious Neutrality
and Voluntarism
I was
making a more historical, sociological point. There is a parallel
historical development between the development of the disestablishment
doctrine
Title: Re: Religious Neutrality and Voluntarism
Both Marci and Tom have been using the terms “good” and “public good” throughout their dialogue. It seems to me that what one considers the “public good” is going to drive one’s views on other matters. For example, if I think that I have good
I take it, Tom, that you have conceded my major point, which was that it is not fruitful to compare regulation at the time of the founding with regulation today to compare burdens on religious entities. You say that prohibitions on child abuse and spousal abuse and discrimination were consistent w
RFRA and RLUIPA are the antithesis to acceptable accommodation -- for two reasons. First, they are blind accommodation, i.e., they were granted with no inquiry by representatives on what would serve the public good independent of serving the religious entity's good. It is positively mind-boggling
L PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 3/5/2005 4:08 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Religious Neutrality and Voluntarism
Tom-- I actually think the argument about increasing regulation taking the
air out of religious belief is something of a red herring in this arena. A
gr
s like a negative or doubting attitude toward religious advocacy
to me.
Tom Berg
_____
From: Steven Jamar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 3/5/2005 6:16 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Religious Neutrality and Voluntarism
Even if Marci won't I wil
hide more than they illuminate.
Marci
what constitutes religious neutrality and
voluntarism becomes more complicated in an atmosphere of active, pervasive
government. First, while religious life has been vital even without
government promotion of religion in public schools etc., I suspect th
bate that point?
Tom Berg, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 3/5/2005 3:57 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Religious Neutrality and Voluntarism
I was making a more historical, sociological point. There
cla.edu
Subject: Re: Religious Neutrality and Voluntarism
I was making a more historical, sociological point. There is a parallel
historical development between the development of the disestablishment
doctrine toward a nonendorsement principle and an explosion in diversity.
The two reinforce ea
Tom-- I actually think the argument about increasing regulation taking the
air out of religious belief is something of a red herring in this
arena. A great deal of regulation is what makes people free, e.g., laws
that prohibit child abuse, or spousal abuse, or discrimination on any number of
Alan-- I do agree. I actually made this point (perhaps even ad
nauseum) in my article Free? Exercise.
Marci
I would think that the reference to religious "intensity of
belief" that thrives in an environment of religious neutrality may relate to
the inspiration and energy many rel
I was making a more historical, sociological point. There is a
parallel historical development between the development of the
disestablishment doctrine toward a nonendorsement principle and an explosion in
diversity. The two reinforce each other, and the fact of such diversity
makes the ar
he government. This principle
surely lies at the heart of America's disestablishment decision, and it has
borne out in experience.
I would only comment that what constitutes religious neutrality and
voluntarism becomes more complicated in an atmosphere of active, pervasive
government. First, whil
13 matches
Mail list logo
