Government displays protesting
DLaycock at law.utexas.edu
Fri Jul 8 06:44:55 PDT 2005
I don't agree with much of Jim's argument, but a city could put up a display that makes that argument. Jim's argument is about the Court, and religion is only one element. In Eugene's hypothetical, the city was unhappy only about the religious display cases, and it made that point by putting up a predominantly religious display.
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of JMHACLJ at aol.com
Sent: Fri 7/8/2005 5:58 AM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Government displays protesting againsttheSupremeCourt'sEstablishment Cla...
In a message dated 7/7/2005 6:58:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, DLaycock at law.utexas.edu writes:
It is implausible because no political actor wants to do this independently of either wanting to promote the faith or believing that a substantial block of his constituents want him to promote the faith. There is simply no motivation sufficient to overcome inertia independent of the religious motivation. It is naive to believe otherwise. A desire to protest the decisions is also largely derivative of a desire to promote the faith. And even if we take protest seriously as a secular motivation, McCreary County appears to require that the secular motivation be primary. And if we get over that hurdle, the display still likely has a principally religious effect.
I realize that I am just me, and Doug is, well, Doug. I wonder why his remarks are self-proving? Antipathy toward a court that has run amok is a constant underlying stream of American political faith, having nothing in particular to do with religion.
Here is a court that invites a nation to forget its history, its founding. Here is a court that sustained the durability of the practice of human slavery. Here is a court that sustained the practice of segregation for nearly four score years. Here is a court that arrogated to itself the power to invalidate acts of Congress on the purported ground of facial unconstitutionality despite having been denied thrice in the Constitutional Convention the very role in a committee of review. Here is the court that fails to care sufficiently about the facts in any particular case that it uses a fraudulently ginned up case to strike down the abortion statutes of virtually every state. Here is a court that tells communities that it can take a woman's home, grind it into dust, and transfer her property to another private individual for commercial uses.
Trust Doug's assurance if you want, that no motivation but a religious one is sufficient to overcome inertia. And continue to be blissfully unaware of how the court is inviting the spite of a nation. To be sure, not every person cares about every issue. Not everyone takes the same side. But the court is fairly subject to antipathy across a broad swath of the "main" stream. And from my perspective, the antipathy is real, deep, and abiding, in quantities sufficient to sustain such defiant behavior.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw