yes, thank you howard for the very rich and detailedsatiricalpiece...here here

[Howard Schweber]

When Christian Scientists lobby for those exemptions, they can 
rightfully be criticized, and frequently are.  The statement that 
"evangelical Christaians have acted no differently than any other 
religious group in politics" is empirically false, however.  
Particularly in the 1980s, the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition 
and other groups have made much more ambitious attempts than those of 
the Christian Scientists, not only to achieve specific goals but to take 
control of national parties.  These organizations both sought and 
claimed the power to determine electoral outcomes by "delivering" blocs 
of voters.  In the 1990s the focus shifted to some extent, and these and 
other organizations focused on getting their candidates elected to local 
office, but that strategy continued to be part of a highly organized, 
national strategy aimed at reshaping American politics on a large 
scale.  At various times the Catholic Church has acted both 
independently and in concert with these Protestant groups to achieve 
more specific policy outcomes (e.g. with respect to abortion, same-sex 
marriage, direction of public funds to religious charitable 
organizations, etc.).  I am not aware of a Catholic equivalent to the 
attempts by evangelical Protestant groups to become major institutional 
players in American politics generally.  Historically, of course, the 
Church has held tremendous amounts of political authority in certain 
places (e.g. Boston).

All of this is entirely the prerogative of the various actors involved 
within constitutional limits (Larkin v Grendel's Den -- the state cannot 
give the Catholic Church authority to determine who gets a liquor 
license) -- but opens them to public consideration, criticism, and satire.


hs




hamilton02 at aol.com wrote:
> My point was that the evangelical Christians have acted no differently than any other religious group in politics. When the Christian Scientists lobby for medical neglect exemptions they are trying to impose their religious world view on public policy.  What is the difference?
> Marci
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Schweber <schweber at polisci.wisc.edu>
>
> Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 12:53:06 
> To: <hamilton02 at aol.com>
> Cc: <conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu>; Scarberry, Mark<Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>; CONLAWPROFS professors<conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
> Subject: Re: yes, thank you howard for the very rich and detailed
>  satiricalpiece...here here
>
>
> Of course.  And RFRA was also supported by lots of non-religious 
> liberals who believe in the idea that religion is specially valuable to  
> peoples' lives just as it is specially dangerous as a basis for 
> lawmaking.  (That's the old First Amendment view:  that religion is a 
> special case.  The new view is the version of neutrality that says that 
> religion should be treated just like any other expression of an idea -- 
> the move to incorporate speech doctrine into religion clause doctrine.)  
> So RFRA did not represent the imposition of any specific religious doctrine.
>
> Go back to Rawls.  What Rawls actually said was not that the majority 
> should not impose its values, nor even that the majoritarian imposition 
> of values should not be justified by appeals to religious and 
> non-religious comprehensive doctrines.  What he actually said was that 
> majoritarian imposition of values cannot be justified *solely* by appeal 
> to religious or non-religious comprehensive doctrines.  This is the 
> famous "proviso" from "Public Reason Revisited":  that comprehensive 
> doctrines may be appealed to as justifications for lawmaking only if 
> there are also other reasons that we can reasonably expect persons who 
> do not share our comprehensive doctrines to be able to accept.
>
> So of course majorities try to impose their values, and within 
> constitutional limits that exactly what is supposed to happen.  When 
> groups get into that business of value-imposition, they become fair game 
> for criticism.  In the case of the U.S., since the early 1980s 
> conservative Christaian churches and organizations have made concerted 
> efforts to use "the machinery of the state" to advance their agendas in 
> a way that no other American religious groups  have attempted.  It is 
> therefore neither surprising nor disturbing that they should be targets 
> for satirical commentary to a greater extent than those other religious 
> groups.
>
> hs
>
>
>
>
> hamilton02 at aol.com wrote:
>   
>> So what is your assessment of the Coalition of religious groups that demanded RFRA?  Each of them had a political agenda underneath the supposed push for benign religious liberty.  That was a much broader group than any one or religious traditions.  They all lobby for their advantage in light of their religious convictions.  That is just a fact.
>> Marci
>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Howard Schweber <schweber at polisci.wisc.edu>
>>
>> Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 12:15:05 
>> To: Scarberry, Mark<Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
>> Cc: CONLAWPROFS professors<conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
>> Subject: Re: yes, thank you howard for the very rich and detailed satirical
>>   piece...here here
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090509/129dc30b/attachment.htm>