Degrading religion

[marty.lederman at comcast.net]

My apologies, as well; I didn't mean to be snippy.  I simply meant to suggest that Madison might actually have thought that mixing state and church would threaten each (and every one!) of the problems he identifies; and that the M&R is noteworthy for many things other than an (alleged) lack of focus.  In any event, the argument that Andy identifies certainly plays a central, even if not singular, role, in Madison's arguments:  It's plain he genuinely did worry about what would happen to religions if they became dependent upon, or entangled with, the state.

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
> 	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.
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.