alarming new law?

[Douglas Laycock]

  I agree it's pablum.  I also agree that Congress should not be
passing such resolutions, about Christianity or any other religion.
But once a sponsor pushes such a resolution forward, it is
politically very difficult for politicians to vote against it.  So
this kind of thing will keep passing, even if 90% of members of
Congress think it's a bad idea. Condemning it is a bit like King
Canute telling the waves to stop.

  Given that this sort of thing will always pass, the only redeeming
virtue is to do it for any religion that asks.  I therefore find it
bizarre to suggest that one religion, the religion of a majority of
the country, should be a priori excluded from the practice.  That
would make things worse, not better.

  As for Rev. Klingenschmitt's claim that the right tolerates all
religions, nonsense. There are tolerant folks and bigots on both
sides. For the intolerant right, look at the anti-Mormon hostility to
Mitt Romney in Republican primaries; recall the protests when a Hindu
gave the prayer in Congress. In a restroom remodeling project at the
University of Michigan at Dearborn, they put in footbaths for the
large body of Muslim students who washed their feet before prayers
(and who were damaging the fixtures trying to wash their feet in wash
basins attached to the walls); an angry wave of protest from the right
complained about -- get this -- an Establishment Clause violation! 
First Establishment Clause violation many of those complaining have
ever noticed.

  It is true that sensible religious leaders, including many on the
right, have decided the right thing to do both ethically and
strategically is to defend religious liberty for all faiths. (Some of
them are still having trouble with defending the religious liberty of
nonbelievers.)  But they have not come close to selling that message
to the rank and file yet.  It is also true that on the left there is
a significant body of bigoted hostililty to all religions.

  Quoting Jean Dudley <jean.dudley at gmail.com>:

>
> One and the same, actually;  I can't find a resolution on Islam. 
Of 
> all three, this one is the closest to the current Christmas  
> resolution;  However, it makes little mention of the (non)
prominence
>   of Islam in America, no boastful numbers of how many there are on 
> our  shores.  In fact, it leaves out the fact that Islam is one of 
> the  world's fastest growing religious bodies.  Further, it
doesn't 
> mention specific religious beliefs to the degree that the
Christian/
> Christmas resolution does.  Finally, it was not passed  
> "unanimously".  42 representatives couldn't even stand up honestly 

> and say "no".  They voted "present".  42, compared to 9 who stood  
> against the Christian/Christmas resolution.
>
> I remain unconvinced, Mr. Dougherty.  None of the resolutions you  
> cited are analogous to the recent HR resolution.  They strike me
as 
> gracious acknowledgments of other peoples and religions, or a  
> condemnation of religious persecution in the case of the first
one.   
> Once Islam overtakes Christianity as the dominant religion in the
US,
>   and they pass a resolution regarding Christmas, THEN we will see  equality.
>
* * *

  It strikes me hubris pure and simple that a legal body
>   comprised mostly of self-identified Christians pass a resolution
to 
> honor their own holiday.   If that's "PC", then I am proud to be
PC. 
>   My grandmother would call it being polite.
>
> Jean

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071216/d84d2198/attachment.htm