Degrading religion

[Volokh, Eugene]

	So sorry -- I wasn't claiming he was being insincere, only that
he didn't try to focus his arguments on a common theme. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: marty.lederman at comcast.net [mailto:marty.lederman at comcast.net] 
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:52 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Law & Religion 
> issues for Law Academics
> Cc: Volokh, Eugene
> Subject: RE: Degrading religion
> 
> 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.
> 
>