Law, context, and religious speech

[Volokh, Eugene]

        I regret that Prof. Newsom does not respect (or doesn't respect
much) my views on this subject, but it seems to me that the position set
forth in my earlier messages remains, in my view, sound.  I thus don't think
that I can really concede anything much here.  And since I've said pretty
much all that I can on the subject, I think I'll try to let the matter rest.

        Eugene


Michael Newsom writes:

> If, on the other hand, you were to argue that the "secular government" was
> free to decide for itself what the Mass was or was not, then we have
> precisely what you claim to oppose -- the government making theological
> judgments.  Now the truth of the matter is that the government makes such
> judgments all of the time.  I propose nothing more than putting these
> judgments on the table, bringing them out into the open, rather than
> hiding them behind empty forms.  Regulating the use of sacramental bread
> and wine is, without a doubt, a religious undertaking, informed by
> theological judgment.  This is so because the regulation presupposes that
> word and action in the Mass can be separated, even though Roman Catholics
> deny that.  Not to put too fine a point on it, Eugene, your argument is
> one that is rooted in Protestant or "word religion" assumptions about
> liturgy.  That is religious judgment.  It is not secular judgment.  It is
> not a "neutral" judgment.  That is all that I am trying to say, and I wish
> that you would recognize the theological implications of your views.  I
> could respect them more, if you were to concede that point.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20010701/0d9a3798/attachment.htm