Context and how the law should treat "white Protestant"denominations

[Michael deHaven Newsom]

Eugene Volokh wrote:

>         Of course, no-one can argue against considering context in the abstract.
> But much of law relates to which contextual factors a decisionmaker must
> ignore.  For instance, Religion Clauses law says that a judge or juror
> generally may not consider as part of the context (1) whether he thinks a
> religious belief is theologically correct, (2) whether it matches his own
> belief, (3) whether he sees it as internally consistent, or (4) whether he
> believes that it's supported by a sound reading of the believer's scripture.
> I think this is fairly uncontroversial, but even if one can quarrel with one
> or another of these items in some situations (for instance, perhaps internal
> consistency is relevant to a judgment of sincerity, though I personally
> doubt it), I take it we'd agree that certain aspects of a religion may not
> be considered as part of the context.

See my article on Protestant Empire.  It explains quite clearly what I mean by
context.  What I mean by that term bears no relation to your suppositions and
hypotheticals.

>
>
>         Likewise, I take it that we'd all agree that "The claimant is a Jew and
> Jews have a long history of being standoffish from other religious and
> ethnic groups" or "The claimant is a Catholic and Catholics have a long and
> unfortunate history of oppressing other religious groups" or "The claimant
> is an atheist and look what officially atheist Stalinists did in Russia" are
> not properly considered as part of the context in a Religion Clauses claim.
> In fact, we'd probably say that any judge or juror that does take these
> considerations into account when resolving a Free Exercise Clause claim or
> an Establishment Clause claim is engaging in unconstitutional religious
> discrimination, and possibly in religious prejudice.

If you think that I would disagree with the foregoing then you have failed to take my
argument on its own terms, rather than yours.  Read my article on Protestant Empire.

>
>
>         Unfortunately, I find it hard to figure out exactly what Prof. Newsom is
> driving at in his posts, but as best I can tell, he thinks that the fact
> that a claimant belongs to a "white Protestant" denomination (any
> denomination, big or small, mainstream or fringe) should be part of the
> "context" that it is "relevant" for courts consider.  Since courts
> presumably shouldn't consider items that cannot influence their decision
> (e.g., the claimant's astrological sign), I take it that he means that the
> claimant's status as a matter of a "white Protestant" denomination *should*
> influence the courts' decisions, at least in some situations.

Again, the wrong question.  As I have suggested in an earlier post, pay some attention
to the claim made and the remedy sought by the religious objectant.  Put them in
historical context of the sort that I suggest in my article.  There are some claims
that essentially amount to this:  It is a violation of the Religion Clauses to deny me
the right to lord it over religious minorities and vaunt my views and majoritarian
status in the way or ways that I used to be able to do so, and, as a consequence, I
want a remedy that restores that right to me.  I view such claims with utter contempt,
Eugene, whether you like it or not.

>
>
>         In some situations, then, a claimant who belongs to such a denomination
> should lose, presumably because of some "past oppression" perpetrated by
> other white Protestants through our "colonial and national history" (again,
> I'm guessing here, but this is the best conjecture I can draw from Prof.
> Newsom's posts).  Claimants who belong to other denominations --
> non-Protestants or nonwhite Protestants -- that are not held responsible for
> the "past oppression" should win.  After all, if this isn't so, if the
> person's status as a member of a white Protestant denomination should never
> affect the outcome, then it wouldn't make much sense to consider it as a
> "relevant" part of the "context."

Again, you get it all wrong.  See my earlier comments about the cry of the frustrated
majoritarian.  I lay out the predicate for this in my article on Protestant Empire.

>
>
>         Now again, I'm guessing a lot here, and I would love to hear a
> clarification of exactly what Prof. Newsom means when he suggests that a
> claimant's status as a member of a "white Protestant" denomination should be
> considered as a part of the context.  But my tentative interpretation is
> that, notwithstanding Prof. Newsom's earlier "no," the necessary implication
> of his claims is indeed that "Religion Clauses jurisprudence should treat
> claims made by white Protestant denominations worse than those made by other
> religious groups" (or else their white Protestant status wouldn't be
> "relevant").

I still say "no."  You misrepresent what I have said.

>
>
>         And as you might gather, I very strongly disagree with any suggestion that
> any "history" of "past oppression" by some white Protestants should affect
> the rights of other white Protestants -- just as I would disagree with any
> assertion that a worldwide history of oppression by some Catholics should
> affect the rights of other Catholics, or that the slaughter of millions by
> some officially atheist regimes should affect the rights of other atheists.

I take it that you want to ignore history in the name of some formalist "equality"
that does nothing more than provide a smokescreen for and privileges the rich and the
powerful.  That is what I take your remarks here and in other instances to mean.

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with your mischaracterization of my arguments.
We do not start from the same first principles, obviously.  Your aproach leads to far
more discrimination and oppression than mine does.

Your insensitivity to status and psychological harm visited by majorities on
minorities boggles my mind.  So the truth of the matter is that the indefensible
arguments come from you, not from me.  Maybe that explains why you keep harping on
this.  You have no place to hide except behind distortions of my views.

Shame on you.

>
>
>         Eugene
>
> Michael Newsom writes:
>
> > I am not suggesting that anybody ignore the uniqueness of a
> > group.  But I do not
> > understand the Protestant majority to be merely "theoretical."
> > Finally, I am
> > not sure that I am arguing for the privileging of the oppressed,
> > rather I think
> > that I am arguing for adequate forward-looking remedies for past
> > oppression.
> >
> > Context is everything, something that I have said over and over
> > again.  Context
> > is relevant here as well.  I mean no more, and I mean no less.
> > Oppression has
> > clear patterns, forms and dynamics over the course of our
> > colonial and national
> > history.  I would simply remind us not to forget that fact.
> >
> > "David E. Guinn" wrote:
> >
> > > I'm afraid I disagree.  I too find the homoginization of Protestant
> > > diversity more than a little troubling.  While I am sympathic
> > to arguments
> > > arising out of a politics of difference (which is where I assume Michael
> > > grounds his "religious minority" analysis - a priveleging of
> > the oppressed)
> > > I am very uncomfortable with a perspective that ignores the
> > uniqueness of
> > > any group simply because they share a characteristic of a theoretical
> > > majority (i.e. they are "white" - they are "protestant" etc.)
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael deHaven Newsom" <mnewsom at LAW.HOWARD.EDU>
> > > To: <RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: The point of view of the religious minority
> > >
> > > > You're harping.
> > > >
> > > > Eugene Volokh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >         I look forward to Michael's message alerting me to the
> > > publication of his
> > > > > future article.  In the meantime, though, I continue to be somewhat
> > > > > troubled.
> > > > >
> > > > >         On this list, we've seen a good deal of criticism
> > from Michael
> > > of
> > > > > Protestantism and the Protestant influence in American law and life.
> > > Now
> > > > > this may be perfectly apt criticism -- I certainly do not
> > think that any
> > > > > religious group should be immune from criticism.  But I've
> > also seen, as
> > > I
> > > > > mentioned, in a thread where he said that the Establishment
> > Clause focus
> > > > > should stress "the point of view of the religious
> > minority," a statement
> > > > > that Michael finds "the very idea of white Protestant
> > American religious
> > > > > minority oxymoronic."  This seemed to me to suggest that white
> > > Protestant
> > > > > religious denominations should not qualify as religious
> > minorities whose
> > > > > views get considered in his analysis -- that his Religion Clauses
> > > framework
> > > > > would require the courts to in some measure treat white Protestant
> > > American
> > > > > groups worse than other religious groups.
> > > > >
> > > > >         To clarify this, I asked whether Michael would indeed "treat
> > > claims made by
> > > > > white Protestant denominations worse than those made by
> > other religious
> > > > > groups," since that struck me as the most plausible
> > interpretation of
> > > his
> > > > > earlier comments.  The answer he gave was just "No," with no
> > > qualification
> > > > > or explanation, even though (as I've said) he does seem to
> > argue that
> > > > > there's something special about white Protestant American
> > denominations,
> > > > > even small ones, that keeps them from qualifying as
> > religious minorities
> > > (a
> > > > > status that would seemingly confer certain benefits in his proposed
> > > legal
> > > > > framework).
> > > > >
> > > > >         Imagine that we'd seen similar statements about a Jewish
> > > Influence or a
> > > > > Catholic International Power as opposed to a Protestant
> > Empire.  I think
> > > > > we'd like to know a bit more about just what the legal
> > implications of
> > > this
> > > > > criticism of Jews and Catholics might be, even if we
> > thought that the
> > > > > factual basis for the criticism was at least possibly
> > sound.  When we
> > > then
> > > > > saw (1) suggestions that a certain body of law should
> > stress "the point
> > > view
> > > > > of X" coupled with (2) statements that "the very idea of
> > [Catholic or
> > > Jewish
> > > > > groups qualifying as X is] oxymoronic," I think we'd also
> > like to hear a
> > > bit
> > > > > more explanation of just what this might mean, even before
> > the full law
> > > > > review article is completed.
> > > > >
> > > > >         Now perhaps I'm the only one on this list who takes
> > this view,
> > > in which
> > > > > case I'll be glad to stop harping on this.  But I do think that this
> > > might
> > > > > be helpful to figure out.
> > > > >
> > > > >         Eugene
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > > > > > [mailto:RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Michael deHaven
> > > > > > Newsom
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 1:48 PM
> > > > > > To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu
> > > > > > Subject: Re: The point of view of the religious minority
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eugene, you asked the wrong question.  Hence my laconic response,
> > > > > > a response that you
> > > > > > usually direct to my questions, by the way.  Your refusal to
> > > > > > answer my questions is at
> > > > > > least as troubling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The issue is not whether white evangelical Protesatnt groups
> > > > > > should be treated worse
> > > > > > than other religious minorities, but rather in light of history
> > > > > > and experience, how
> > > > > > they should be treated.  This invites a discussion into what
> > > > > > constitutes a religious
> > > > > > minority, I suppose.  It would take a lengthy law review article
> > > > > > adequately to answer
> > > > > > the question.  I wrote one -- or at least a draft of one,
> > > > > > assuming that it gets
> > > > > > published -- which begins to answer it.  If it gets published, I
> > > > > > will be sure to let
> > > > > > you know.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eugene Volokh wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >         I always appreciate people being laconic, but I confess
> > > > > > I'm a bit troubled
> > > > > > > here.  Michael often talks about Protestant Empire, and in ways
> > > > > > that seem to
> > > > > > > suggest that he's quite troubled not just by it but by the
> > > continuing
> > > > > > > influence of Protestant denominations in American life.  Then he
> > > also
> > > > > > > says -- in a thread where he said that the Establishment Clause
> > > > > > focus should
> > > > > > > stress "the point of view of the religious minority" that he
> > > > > > finds "the very
> > > > > > > idea of white Protestant American religious minority
> > oxymoronic,"
> > > which
> > > > > > > seems to suggest that white Protestant religious denominations
> > > > > > should not
> > > > > > > qualify as religious minorities whose views get considered in
> > > > > > his analysis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >         But then when asked whether he would "treat claims made
> > > > > > by white Protestant
> > > > > > > denominations worse than those made by other religious groups,"
> > > > > > the answer
> > > > > > > given is just "No," with no qualification or explanation, even
> > > though he
> > > > > > > does seem to argue that there's something special about white
> > > Protestant
> > > > > > > American denominations, even small ones, that keeps them from
> > > > > > qualifying as
> > > > > > > religious minorities.  I guess I'm more than a bit
> > puzzled by all
> > > this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >         Eugene
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > > > > > > > [mailto:RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of
> > Michael deHaven
> > > > > > > > Newsom
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:27 PM
> > > > > > > > To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: The point of view of the religious minority
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eugene Volokh wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I really want to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding
> > > > > > this -- is the
> > > > > > > > > claim that Religion Clauses jurisprudence should
> > treat claims
> > > > > > > > made by white
> > > > > > > > > Protestant denominations worse than those made by other
> > > > > > religious groups
> > > > > > > > > (e.g., nonwhite Protestant denominations, or white
> > > non-Protestant
> > > > > > > > > denominations)?  If so, I'd like to hear what others on this
> > > > > > > > list think of
> > > > > > > > > this approach.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >         Eugene
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > > > > > > > > > [mailto:RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Michael
> > > deHaven
> > > > > > > > > > Newsom
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:39 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: The point of view of the religious minority
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have interlineated my responses.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eugene Volokh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >         I'm a bit puzzled by Michael's response
> > here.  His
> > > > > > > > > > bottom line analysis
> > > > > > > > > > > might actually be correct, but the curious
> > thing is that it
> > > > > > > > > > nowhere mentions
> > > > > > > > > > > "the point of view of the religious minority"
> > that Michael
> > > > > > > > thinks is so
> > > > > > > > > > > central.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >         I take it that the creationist would
> > say something
> > > like
> > > > > > > > > > this:  "True, to
> > > > > > > > > > > the majority, and especially to professional
> > educators, the
> > > > > > > > teaching of
> > > > > > > > > > > evolution might look like 'instruction'.  But we in the
> > > > > > > > > > minority experience
> > > > > > > > > > > it as indoctrination, because evolution is taught and
> > > creation
> > > > > > > > > > science is
> > > > > > > > > > > not, because even though evolution is taught just as a
> > > > > > > > > > 'theory', students
> > > > > > > > > > > know that the teachers actually endorse this theory, and
> > > > > > > > because of the
> > > > > > > > > > > decades-long history of hostility towards creationism --
> > > > > > > > > > especially in the
> > > > > > > > > > > educational establishment and other elites -- in this
> > > > > > > > > > jurisdiction (e.g.,
> > > > > > > > > > > New Jersey or Berkeley or wherever).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >         "Surely this repeated oral teaching, in
> > the context
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > a class, is at least
> > > > > > > > > > > as much indoctrination, at least from our
> > religious minority
> > > > > > > > > > perspective, as
> > > > > > > > > > > signs saying 'God Bless America' would be.  What's more,
> > > > > > > > > > whenever someone in
> > > > > > > > > > > the religious majority uses notoriously malleable
> > > > > > distinctions like
> > > > > > > > > > > 'instruction vs. indoctrination,' we know that the
> > > > > > > > application of the
> > > > > > > > > > > distinction necessarily rests on the majority's
> > > understanding.
> > > > > > > > > > You have to
> > > > > > > > > > > recognize that we in the religious minority may draw the
> > > line
> > > > > > > > > > in a different
> > > > > > > > > > > place."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >         How do we say no to a claim such as
> > this?  If the
> > > > > > > > > > religious minority says
> > > > > > > > > > > that it experiences the teaching of evolution as
> > > > > > > > indoctrination and not
> > > > > > > > > > > education, at least from their own point of
> > view, how do we
> > > say
> > > > > > > > > > "No, from
> > > > > > > > > > > your own point of view, it isn't indoctrination"?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that the line between instruction and
> > > > > > > > > > indoctrination is "notoriously
> > > > > > > > > > malleable."  I am not aware that the Court has said such a
> > > thing.
> > > > > > > > > >  Indeed, in
> > > > > > > > > > connection with religion in the common schools,
> > the Court has
> > > > > > > > > > said just the opposite
> > > > > > > > > > See Schempp.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Now the more interesting question is what are we
> > to do with a
> > > > > > > > > > claim that all
> > > > > > > > > > instruction -- at least on a certain topic -- is
> > > indoctrination.
> > > > > > > > > > We have to look at
> > > > > > > > > > the claim from the point of view of the religious
> > minority to
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > > sure.  The question
> > > > > > > > > > becomes what happens if we agree with the claim.
> > What is the
> > > > > > > > > > remedy?  The teaching of
> > > > > > > > > > creationism alongside evolution?  Well that is a
> > lousy remedy
> > > > > > > > > > because creationism is,
> > > > > > > > > > clearly, an evangelical Protestant notion.  Those
> > who are not
> > > > > > > > > > evangelical Protestants
> > > > > > > > > > are thus subjected to what they can fairly claim, ex
> > > hypothesi,
> > > > > > > > > > to be religious
> > > > > > > > > > indoctrination.  Perhaps we teach nothing on the
> > subject at
> > > all.
> > > > > > > > > > That is also a lousy
> > > > > > > > > > answer for the national security reasons that I have
> > > mentioned.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Now there is another approach which requires some
> > teaching,
> > > but
> > > > > > > > > > also some "openness."
> > > > > > > > > > I should have mentioned this before, but my
> > suggestion goes
> > > > > > > > > > something like this.  The
> > > > > > > > > > common schools cannot teach definitively on a host of
> > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > However,it does not
> > > > > > > > > > follow that the common schools have to remain
> > entirely silent
> > > on
> > > > > > > > > > those questions
> > > > > > > > > > either.  Other private or religious institutions can be
> > > invoked
> > > > > > > > > > or called upon to teach
> > > > > > > > > > -- or to indoctrinate -- on these questions.  I
> > suppose that I
> > > > > > > > > > envisage a cooperative
> > > > > > > > > > venture between the common schools and other non-public
> > > > > > > > > > institutions in connection with
> > > > > > > > > > the teaching of certain subjects.  But
> > cooperation is a far
> > > cry
> > > > > > > > > > from silence.  So I
> > > > > > > > > > suppose the question turns on one of remedy.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let me take the case that I would have supposed
> > that Eugene
> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > have proposed: a
> > > > > > > > > > religion that practices or wishes to practice
> > ritual murder:
> > > how
> > > > > > > > > > do we take the
> > > > > > > > > > minority religious viewpoint into account in this case.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Actually, it is fairly easy.  We can trump the religious
> > > > > > > > > > viewpoint only if there are
> > > > > > > > > > awfully good reasons for doing so.  The problem
> > is that making
> > > > > > > > > > religious majorities
> > > > > > > > > > feel good, or to help religious majorities lord it over
> > > religious
> > > > > > > > > > minorities are lousy
> > > > > > > > > > reasons.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >         Michael also mentions some other points; a few
> > > > > > > > > > responses to that:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >         1)  I'm not sure that the majority of the U.S.
> > > consists
> > > > > > > > > > of "evangelical
> > > > > > > > > > > Protestants," but even if it does, what of it?
> > I am pretty
> > > > > > > > > > sure that only a
> > > > > > > > > > > small minority of the U.S. belongs to religious
> > > denominations
> > > > > > > > > > that perceive
> > > > > > > > > > > evolution as disapproval of their religious views.  We
> > > > > > all know the
> > > > > > > > > > > tremendous diversity of denominations within
> > Protestantism
> > > > > > > > -- in fact,
> > > > > > > > > > > that's the hallmark of Prostants.  Surely we
> > can't say that
> > > any
> > > > > > > > > > group that
> > > > > > > > > > > happens to be formally Protestant does *not*
> > get their view
> > > > > > > > > > considered under
> > > > > > > > > > > Michael's test, simply because ostensibly they belong
> > > > > > to a broader
> > > > > > > > > > > "Protestant" majority, albeit one that may disagree with
> > > > > > > > them on many
> > > > > > > > > > > doctrinal points.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not at all sure that you are right on the demographic
> > > facts,
> > > > > > > > > > but no matter.  (As an
> > > > > > > > > > aside, the formalist that you are, I should have
> > thought that
> > > > > > > > > > Protestantism as a matter
> > > > > > > > > > of form would be unobjectionable to you.)  I do
> > not make the
> > > > > > > > > > formalist claim, but I do
> > > > > > > > > > make the historical claim regarding the meaning and
> > > significance
> > > > > > > > > > of evangelical
> > > > > > > > > > Protestantism in shaping this country of ours.
> > Protestants
> > > may
> > > > > > > > > > disagree about
> > > > > > > > > > somethings, but they agree mightily on others,
> > and it is that
> > > > > > > > > > agreement that matters.
> > > > > > > > > > For historical reasons, I find the very idea of white
> > > Protestant
> > > > > > > > > > American religious
> > > > > > > > > > minority oxymoronic.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >         2)  If the teaching of evolution (and only
> > > evolution,
> > > > > > > > > > with no creation
> > > > > > > > > > > science accompaniment) in K-12 public schools
> > is justified
> > > by a
> > > > > > > > > > "national
> > > > > > > > > > > security interest" that may trump whatever Establishment
> > > Clause
> > > > > > > > > > right is at
> > > > > > > > > > > stake here, then surely this right is singularly easy to
> > > trump.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Not after September 11, 2001 is it "singularly
> > easy to trump."
> > > > > > > > > > (Nor was it singluarly
> > > > > > > > > > easy to trump in connection with WWII, the Cold
> > War, Vietnam
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > the like.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > One could
> > > > > > > > > > > equally argue that teaching children that patriotism is
> > > > > > > > > > divinely sanctioned
> > > > > > > > > > > is at least as strongly connected to a "national
> > > > > > security interest."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No, I disagree that it is in any meaningful sense "equal."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >         3)  As most list members know, I take
> > the view that
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Free Exercise
> > > > > > > > > > > Clause does not require exemptions from generally
> > > > > > > > applicable laws, so I
> > > > > > > > > > > think the Mozert result is correct.  But if a religious
> > > > > > > > freedom regime
> > > > > > > > > > > (whether under the Free Exercise Clause, under a state
> > > > > > > > constitutional
> > > > > > > > > > > provision, or under a state RFRA) were to indeed require
> > > > > > > > strict scrutiny
> > > > > > > > > > > here, then I think Mozert should come out the
> > other way; I
> > > > > > > > would find it
> > > > > > > > > > > hard to justify the Mozert result under strict scrutiny.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Recall the problem of remedy.  Mozert still comes out the
> > > > > > same way.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  But in any event,
> > > > > > > > > > > my point here wasn't about the Free Exercise Clause,
> > > > > > but about the
> > > > > > > > > > > Establishment Clause, or at least the
> > Establishment Clause
> > > as
> > > > > > > > > > applied under
> > > > > > > > > > > an approach that really does focus on the religious
> > > minority's
> > > > > > > > > > viewpoint.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again, to focus on that viewpoint is not to say that that
> > > > > > > > > > viewpoint always prevails.
> > > > > > > > > > Rather, it is to say that it takes a powerful and
> > compelling
> > > > > > > > > > reason to trump that
> > > > > > > > > > viewpoint.  I do not understand that this is your
> > position.
> > > But
> > > > > > > > > > it is mine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >         4)  As to "may trump your claimed
> > religious war in
> > > > > > > > > > which a creationist
> > > > > > > > > > > minority is beset by a horde of heavens knows what?," I
> > > > > > > > just don't quite
> > > > > > > > > > > understand what this clause refers to.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Heaven" should have been in the singular.  That
> > is a typo.
> > > My
> > > > > > > > > > point merely is that
> > > > > > > > > > you make much to much of a religious war.  But
> > then, you and I
> > > > > > > > > > understand the
> > > > > > > > > > significance of evangelical Protestantism differently.  We
> > > ought
> > > > > > > > > > to leave it at that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >         Eugene
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> >