Duncan v. Koppelman debate

[Stephen Safranek]

I disagree that religious discrimination is less prevalent today than it was before.  Instead, I think it is more prevelant than it was in 1964.  Instead, I think that fewer persons espouse strong religious beliefs or actions and thus fewer actual conflicts exist.

However, people who are serious about their religion are generally considered wacko.  Look at the way the media has portrayed the "religious right" and look at the way the media has portrayed the Catholic Church especially on television.  For instance, nobody can really say that Mother Teresa was anything other than someone who gave immensely of her life in Calcutta.  But during her funeral, a commentator on television started vilifying her personally.  It was shocking to anyone and farrrrrrrrrr worse than anything done to Kennedy during his Presidential run.  The only comparison I can think of would be if someone said on television or in print that Kennedy's womanizing was a response to the guilt complex due to his Catholic upbringing.

We can all do a thought experiment,  ask yourself if you do not in general think of yourself as smarter than someone in your faith who is very religious?

Stephen Safranek
Professor of Law
Ave Maria School of Law

>>> Marc Stern <MSternAJC at AOL.COM> 10/21 5:17 PM >>>
We shouyld be careful of not forgetting that time passes and hte
justification for a law may erode over time.No doubt religious discrimination
was more prevalent in 1964(to pick the date pfhte federal enactment) than it
is today--although it plainlconmtinues top exist.And at least as to religious
discrimination there are exemptions for bfoq's and religious organizations.
Marc Stern