Degrading religion

[marty.lederman at comcast.net]

Or, just maybe, he actually believed what he was writing.
 
 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
> 	My sense of the Memorial and Remonstrance is that it is
> noteworthy chiefly for the absence of any central theme.  The M&R speaks
> of protection of individual conscience, equality, perversion of religion
> for civil ends, lack of necessity, danger of promoting emigration,
> prevention of political tyranny, first step towards the Inquisition,
> political divisiveness, undermining of the force of civil laws, and
> more.  My casual guess is that Madison knew that he was speaking for a
> mixed audience, and wanted to throw in as many arguments as he could,
> hoping that each would be persuasive to at least some.
>  
> 	Eugene
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> > [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of 
> > marty.lederman at comcast.net
> > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:03 AM
> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; 
> > religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> > Subject: Re: Degrading religion
> > 
> > It is, of course, perhaps the central theme of the Memorial 
> > and Remonstrance, especially in the warning that "to employ 
> > Religion as an engine of civil policy" would be "an 
> > unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."
> > 
> > If there's a thorough treatment of the M&R out there, perhaps 
> > that would be a place to start.
> > 
> > 
> >  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: Douglas Laycock <laycockd at umich.edu>
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   It's a frequent theme in the work of many separationists, but I 
> > > don't know of a piece devoted to it.  I have made the argument on 
> > > occasion, and believe it to be true, but I haven't explore its 
> > > history.
> > > 
> > >   Quoting Andrew Koppelman <akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu>:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >> The Supreme Court has sometimes held that the reason for 
> > enforcing
> > > 
> > > >> the establishment clause is to protect religion from degradation
> > > by
> > > >> contact with the state.  Justice Black's formulation in Engel v. 
> > > >> Vitale is typical:
> > > >
> > > > When the power, prestige and financial support of government is 
> > > > placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect 
> > coercive 
> > > > pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing 
> > > > officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes 
> > underlying 
> > > > the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and 
> > > > most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of 
> > > > government and religion tends to destroy government and 
> > to degrade 
> > > > religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both
> > > in
> > > > England and in this country, showed that whenever government had 
> > > > allied itself with one particular form of religion, the 
> > inevitable 
> > > > result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and
> > > even
> > > > contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. That same history
> > > showed
> > > > that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had 
> > > > relied upon the support for government to spread its faith. The 
> > > > Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on
> > > the
> > > > part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too 
> > > > personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed
> > > perversion'
> > > > by a civil magistrate.
> > > >
> > > > Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431-32 (1962).
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone written a history of this idea?  I'm quite sure that 
> > > > "degradation" means something different to Roger Williams than it 
> > > > does to James Madison, and that Hugo Black has a different
> > > conception
> > > > still, if only because the three men had such different 
> > ideas about
> > > 
> > > > what religion is affirmatively supposed to be.  I haven't 
> > found any
> > > 
> > > > source that engages this question.  If anyone knows of such a
> > > source
> > > > (absolutely including if you've written such a work yourself), I'd
> > > be
> > > > very grateful for a reference.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Andrew Koppelman
> > > > John Paul Stevens Professor of Law
> > > > and Professor of Political Science
> > > > Northwestern University School of Law
> > > > 357 East Chicago Avenue
> > > > Chicago, IL  60611-3069
> > > >
> > > > (312) 503-8431
> > > > mailto:akoppelman at northwestern.edu
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 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.