Back during the period when the death penalty was regularly in play with the Supremes, Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan published standard dissents in which they very briefly proclaimed the death penalty to be at odds with the constitution.
George Will has a similar idea for what he thinks should be majority opinions in religious display cases. It's a gem:
"Because the display on public grounds does not do what the establishment clause was written to prevent -- does not impose a state-sponsored creed or significantly advantage or disadvantage one sect or sects -- the display is constitutional."
When you're right, you're right.
11 comments:
I'm afraid that the Founders would agree with Will virtually to a man. I don't think you'd find a historian to rebut me on that.
Yeah, Tlaloc, that's what they want. You hadn't noticed?
What I'd like to know, Tlaloc and Anonymous, is this: What is the basis for your preference for complete religious/irreligious neutrality regardless of history? Can you state one and then tell me why I should respect it?
"Why on earth would you not accept a neutral government that makes it possible for everyone to believe and worship as they want?"
Posting the 10 commandments does not impede anyone's right to worship or believe. However, forcing Catholic Charities to pay benefits to homosexual couples does, which is a position defended by the liberal-neutral-state people.
"Do you really need to push your religion on others so badly?"
Acknowleding Western civilization's religious roots in its jurisprudence is not pushing religion. In fact, those religious roots are the basis for religious liberty. After all, for Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Witherspoon, etc., religious liberty is grounded in the proper role of the state in relation to the religious community. What they gave were theological, not secular, arguments, for religious non-establishment.
Pragmatism is the low road. Hunter should believe in religious liberty because it is good, not because its absence could be used against him.
The conservative anonymous stated it very well. But my original question is still problematic, Tlaloc. You have set out freedom (and spiritual freedom) as the authorizing value. What is that based upon? Why shouldn't a group of like-minded individuals impose their will on others? What would make that wrong?
I'm driving at something here. I suppose you can see it.
Right, if everyone's belief is equally valid because non-proveable, then a group should be able to organize and impose what they believe through purchase or force. That's what you've endorsed. Your philosophy is a dead end.
No, no, no. This is your weak point. I'm trying to communicate with you about the larger point you are making. You are claiming a transcendent level of importance for a value for which you are unable to provide any transcendent foundation. You are completely unable to explain why anyone should honor your emphasis on the individual spiritual search.
It doesn't matter whether anyone is offended by a government's posting of a religious screed. It doesn't matter if a majority supports it. It doesn't matter if the coercion is not great.
Government does not have that right. The Constitution is offended. Majority doesn't rule in this case. Even a hint of coercion is too much.
There is no well of authority from which any government can claim to draw a delegation of power from citizens to act in religion. There is no such delegation in any Article of the Constitution, nor in any amendment. No state has made such a delegation, nor could it.
I don't think any of the founders would agree with Will. Not a one called for the posting of any religious screed. George Washington avoided mentioning the name "Jesus" in public (and in private, for that matter).
Doesn't anyone read the Memorial and Remonstrance anymore, or the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom?
I'm starting to think you haven't.
You don't claim it, but a transcendent justification is the only thing that would trump other personal agendas. Relativism just doesn't work. Ask the victims of female circumcision, for instance.
Most philosophers think they're the only ones who've read a thing, when they've only got a copy on the shelves and have never had to defend it before a hostile judge and jury.
Whatever Mr. Baker thinks, the fact remains there is no well of authority for a government to dip into to get the power to take a religious position. Corporations are faux citizens, but not governments.
Post a Comment