Congressional resolutions: threat or menace?

[Esenberg, Richard]

"My evangelistic brethren confuse an objection to compulsion with an objection to religion. It is possible to hold a faith with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar."

It's a worthy distinction and one that might apply just as well to religious and moral arguments from the left. I may regard concern for the poor and sharing of my wealth as a religious and moral duty, but not believe (at least beyond a certain level) that it ought to be a matter of state compulsion.

Although it does not undercut Douglas Laycock's observation about the nine, I should point out, for the record, that Pete Stark has "come out" as an atheist.<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/14/MNG7BOKV111.DTL> (He's the Unitarian.)

For those who keep it, Merry Christmas


Rick Esenberg
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Marquette University Law School
Sensenbrenner Hall
1103 W. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
(o) 414-288-6908
(m)414-213-3957
richard.esenberg at marquette.edu




From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:55 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Congressional resolutions: threat or menace?

This reminds me of Justice Jackson's dissent in Zorach, where he reacted with eloquence and anger to Justice Douglas' suggestion in his majority opinion that the only way to justify opposition to the released-time program was anti-religious bigotry:

"As one whose children, as a matter of free choice, have been sent to privately supported Church schools, I may challenge the Court's suggestion that opposition to this plan can only be antireligious, atheistic, or agnostic. My evangelistic brethren confuse an objection to compulsion with an objection to religion. It is possible to hold a faith with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar."

Coincidentally, I just used that quote in an article on a new released-time program today.

Ed Brayton

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:26 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Congressional resolutions: threat or menace?


I don't know anything about the intensity or sincerity of their personal faith, but these nine alleged anti-Christian bigots include a Baptist, two AME (African Methodist Episcopal), two Presbyterians, two Episcopalians, one Unitarian, and one Jew. So 7 are Christian and at least 3 (the Baptist and AME) are probably evangelical Christians.  There are reasons other than anti-Christian bigotry for these votes, like the greater religious content in the Christmas resolution.

PC does exist, and there is anti-Christian animus, but it is not lurking behind every disagreement.

Quoting Will Linden <wlinden at panix.com>:

>
>   I have learned of yet another threat to our inclusive society
>
>
>> Dec 12, 2007 - Bill Action
>> <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj110-15>Scheduled</horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.govtrack.us%2Fcongress%2Fbill.xpd%3Fbill%3Dhj110-15%3EScheduled> for
>> Debate: H.J.Res. 15: Recognizing the contributions of the Christmas tree
>> industry to the United States...
>> This bill has been added to a schedule of legislation to be considered for
>> debate, or has been recommended by a committee to be considered.
>> (You are seeing this event because you are tracking
>> <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/subjects.xpd?type=crs&term=Religion>Religion</horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.govtrack.us%2Fcongress%2Fsubjects.xpd%3Ftype%3Dcrs%26term%3DReligion%3EReligion>)
>
>    This was passed on Monday. It went by voice vote, so those THEOCRATS
> who want to FORCE everyone to buy live-cut trees (it praises them right in
> the "Whereas", so we know what THEY are really after) did not even have to
> put their names on record.
>     If we raise the alarm, it may wake up those people who waste their
> priorities worrying about triviality like the Protect America Act, so we
> can make sure that the Senate buries this outrage as it did last year.
>
>   Meanwhile, Get Religion notes:
>   "Of the nine representatives, all Democrats, who voted against the
> Christmas resolution, seven supported both the Ramadan and Diwali measures.
> Those seven were Reps. Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke, both of New York;
> Diana DeGette of Colorado; Jim McDermott of Washington; Bobby Scott of
> Virginia; and Pete Stark and Lynn Woolsey, both of California. Rep. Alcee
> Hastings of Florida did not vote on the Diwali resolution, and Rep. Barbara
> Lee failed to record a vote on the Ramadan measure."
>    Of course, this could not possibly mean anything, since PC does not
> exist and there is no anti-Christian animus anywhere.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw</horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Freligionlaw>
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>


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/20071220/8d92b040/attachment.htm