Law, context, and religious speech

[Michael deHaven Newsom]

Respect has to be earned.

"Volokh, Eugene" wrote:

>
>
>         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/20010702/2ab93309/attachment.htm