"The Devil Went Down to Georgia"

[Alan Brownstein]

I think there is another problem here in addition to issues of offense
and the setting up of an alternative religion that Doug describes.
Arguably, the state is not simply passively reflecting the
secularization of a practice or image with a religious origin. It is
actively contributing to the dilution of the religious meaning of the
image or practice. With regard to images of Satan, the argument would be
that the state contributes to people not taking a supernatural force for
evil seriously. The state is debunking a supernatural reality by
trivializing it. With regard to Santa and the reindeer, the state
dilutes the religious significance of Christmas by describing it in
commercial and spiritually empty terms. 

 

There is something of a chicken and the egg problem here (how much does
the state reflect private secularization of the image and how much does
it contribute to it). And as I said earlier, I doubt courts would accept
the argument that there is an Establishment Clause violation in these
situations. But I think part of the complaint here is separate from the
idea of establishing an evil religion. It has to do with the state
distorting the religious meaning of things. 

 

Alan Brownstein

 

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:52 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: "The Devil Went Down to Georgia"

 

    The general problem in these cases is when to say that a practice or
image with undoubtedly religious origins has become so secularized that
we can now ignore the religious component, and let government sponsor
the practice or use the image, even though a minority still see it as
religious.  It is not an easy problem.

 

    One plausible and generally workable definition of religion is a
claim about the supernatural.  The devil is a supernatural figure;
worship of the devil could be a religion.  (Satanism is a religion, but
those who profess it rarely view it as worship evil.)  The general
amused reaction to these devil cases arises from the fact that hardly
anyone among elites takes devil images literally.  The song is meant as
a tale or a joke; the athletic mascots are meant to convey an image of a
tough and dangerous fighter.  Wake Forest, a seriously Baptist school,
is the Demon Deacons.  They obviously don't mean satanic Deacons or
devilish-in-any-religious-sense Deacons, and neither Duke nor Cal Davis
means for their Blue Devil mascot to be satanic.

 

    But if you do take these references literally, it is setting up an
alternate religion, a glorification of the Devil.  Folks who take these
references literally do not merely claim offense to their religion; they
claim establishment of an alternative and evil religion.

 

    The same disparity underlies the disputes over Halloween.  We might
have similar disputes about Valentine's Day, but the strictest
separationists seem not to take it as a literal invocation of St.
Valentine.  A similar disparity in perception underlies disputes about
"secular" celebrations of Christmas, where one side says lights or
reindeer or even Christmas trees are secular, and the other side says
they are intrinsically tied up with a plainly religious holiday.

 

    

 

 

Douglas Laycock

University of Texas Law School

727 E. Dean Keeton St.

Austin, TX  78705

   512-232-1341 (phone)

   512-471-6988 (fax)

 

 

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 8:30 PM
To: doughr at udallas.edu; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: "The Devil Went Down to Georgia"

It's not just songs that raise this issue. The Davis High School
football team is the Blue Devils. In theory, this is supposed to refer
to some highly decorated regiment during World War I. But the insignia
the school uses looks pretty much a conventional image of the Devil  --
as in Satan.

 

Every few years, some Christian parents protest the name and insignia.
They do not receive a lot of support. (For what it is worth, I supported
them  -- but that did not help very much.) I tend to see the issue the
same way I see public school celebrations of Holloween (the problem here
is witches, not pumpkins). Some religious families find those activities
to be religiously offensive and problematic. I have no problem with
Halloween, but I think public schools should avoid gratutious programs
that cause problems for religious minorities in a community --
particularly when doing so will not have any negative impact on the
educational mission.

 

Drawing the line between rules of governmental etiquette in a
religiously diverse community and constitutional law isn't always clear.
But I doubt the Blue Devils will be held to violate the Establishment
Clause. 

 

As for music, public school programs that include religious music that
reflects diverse religious traditions can satisfy both etiquette and
constitutional concerns. The problem is that most schools don't even try
to achieve that kind of diversity. Again, most courts don't find a
violation of the Establishment Clause when schools put on music programs
that exclude all religious traditions but that of the majority.

 

Alan Brownstein

UC Davis

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20051018/3418f36b/attachment.html