"Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up"

Fri Sep 7 08:14:25 PDT 2007

Is it "close-minded" to say that one is simply mystified by the notion of "revealed" religion, whether the reference is to the (purported) experience at Sinai, the "annunciation" to Mary, or the dictation of the Koran to Mohammed?  I suppose I'm "open-minded" enough to say that "although I see no reason to think so, perhaps at the end of time we will discover that these things really happened" rather than "this is all complete and utter nonsense," but in the meantime I do not credit arguments in which revelation is offered as an independent reason for doing (or not-doing) X.  Isn't this what makes free exerecise debates so difficult, that one cannot offer convincing reasons (other than a hermeneutics of suspicion) to reject the claim of someone who believes that smoking marijuana is essential to religious salvation even as we accept the claim of someone else to an exemption from an otherwise general and non-intentionally-discriminatory law because of its impingement on religious freedom?  Chief Justice Burger's comment in Thomas that "bizarre" religious views might justifiably be rejected has no purchase for those who view most religious claims as touching on the "bizarre."  By and large, it simply acts as a marker between older and established religions (even those, like LDS and the Jehovah's Witnessess, which were founded in the 19th century) and newcomers.  (Just for the record, I supported RFRA and believe tha Boerne was wrongly decided.)  

sandy

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Conkle, Daniel O.
Sent: Fri 9/7/2007 9:15 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: "Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up"

With apologies for the self-serving plug, I've written in some sympathy with what I take to be David's position, suggesting that, indeed, there are important similarities between certain types of closed-minded religious believers and certain types of closed-minded secularists.  Under the framework I suggest, the most important difference between the two competing perspectives is what falls within the zone of permissible argument/discourse/source of truth and what falls outside it:

Daniel O. Conkle, "Secular Fundamentalism, Religious Fundamentalism, and the Search for Truth in Contemporary America," 12 Journal of Law and Religion 337-70 (1995-96) (also available in Law and Religion: A Critical Anthology (Stephen M. Feldman, ed.; NYU Press 2000) and at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=911647) 

Daniel O. Conkle 
******************************************* 
Daniel O. Conkle 
Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law 
Indiana University School of Law 
Bloomington, Indiana  47405 
(812) 855-4331 
fax (812) 855-0555 
e-mail conkle at indiana.edu 
******************************************* 

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of David E. Guinn
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 9:32 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: "Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up"

I believe this distinction to be incorrect.  Both atheists and evangelicals adhere to particular ideological perspectives.  The atheist, as you posit him or her, does not believe in god because god cannot be proven by empirical means (i.e. "sufficient evidence.")  True.  But that assumes that science can either prove or disprove god.  That is like saying science (in the hard, empirical, lab-experimental sense) can prove or disprove love or morality or some other complex social phenomena.  It is not enough to say that the default in the absence of proof must be disbelief.  At best it should be agnosticism at something that is posited to exist outside of the materialist paradigm.  That is not the position atheists like Dawkins take.

I should add, my posts are not directed at an abstract, theoretical atheist, but rather at the public discourse surounding the neo-atheists (Harris, Dawkins, etc.)

David

________________________________

	From: RJLipkin at aol.com
	Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:57:10 -0400
	Subject: Re: "Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up"
	To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu

	David E. Guinn wrote:

	Third, to say atheists are not evangelical ignores the passion and furor around Harris, Dawkins, Hutchens et. al. and the best selling books they have written.

	        The distinction between evangelism and atheism should not be collapsed because both exhibit "passion" or that there is "furor" surrounding the work of some atheists.  The distinction is that the former eschews the kind of evidence that everyone, including evangelicals, rely upon in everyday dealings, personal and professional relationships, business, politics, and of course science. A principled, thoughtful atheist will renounce his or her position when confronted with sufficient evidence.  Evangelicals relying upon faith will not, or at least they claim that they will not because nothing for them can constitute sufficient evidence.

	Bobby

	Robert Justin Lipkin
	Professor of Law
	Widener University School of Law
	Delaware

	Ratio Juris, Contributor:  http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/ <http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/> 
	Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/ <http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/> 

________________________________

	Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com <http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982> .

________________________________

More photos; more messages; more whatever - Get MORE with Windows Live(tm) Hotmail®. NOW with 5GB storage. Get more! <http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_5G_0907>  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 10020 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070907/50f1bd08/attachment.bin 