ZONING AGAINST CHRISTIANITY

[Robert Justin Lipkin]

In a message dated 9/30/2002 11:03:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
davideguinn at HOTMAIL.COM writes:


> My only question is how anyone could seriously think they
> could discriminate in this way in the first place after Lukimi.

       As I understand it, Lukumi involves a secular (perhaps with some
traditional religious support) attack on a minority religion. This case is a
conflict between two religions. As such, it represents one of (conceivably)
many conflicts between religions with conflicting practices.  In these cases,
any choice the government makes will favor a particular religion or group of
religions and disfavor others--though the public rationale (or court
decision) might not explicitly say so. Indeed, in this case, couldn't one
argue that practicing the spiritualist's religion requires protecting "cosmic
harmony" and therefore permitting other religions is an attack on the
spiritualists or at least is unequal (and unfair?) treatment of the
spiritualists because it disallows "cosmic harmony"?  I ask list members, who
I'm sure have forgotten more than I'll ever know in this area, what principle
can resolve conflicts between conflicting practices between religions.  And
if there is such a principle won't it require an "overlapping consensus" of
religions which might exist in the United States, but certainly doesn't exist
throughout the world?

Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20020930/715e457f/attachment.htm