Using religion for government purposes

[Anthony Decinque]

Re: Madison's Remonstrance

Isn't that the distinction?

Let's go back to the hypothetical from earlier, the one about the "anti
homosexual" sign versus the "Christians welcome" sign.  I thought that was a
strong hypothetical that really hit to the heart of the issue.  Why can the
government do A but not B?

The answer, I think, is the one given by Madison.  Government *might* be
able to decide whether homosexuality is bad or good.  In reality, this
question seems too tied up in religion and innate response for government to
do very well, but government *could* take an empirical (Enlightenment!)
approach to the issue.

Turning to religion, however, government doesn't seem to have the same
ability.  The framers were standing at the end of centuries of religious
strife that had settled *nothing*.  Instead, there had just been decades and
decades of bloody majority-rule.  Religious questions do not lend themselves
to earthly resolution.

I think the framers decided that religious endorsement by government would
never be anything more than thinly-veiled majoritarian oppression.  That's
certainly a debatable proposition, but I think it was a conclusion that was
well informed by history.

Based on that conclusion, religion was ruled off limits.



Anthony
(My first post after months of silent lurking!)

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Ira (Chip) Lupu <iclupu at law.gwu.edu> wrote:

> Perhaps it would be useful to quote the following from Madison's Memorial
> and Remonstrance (a document that some would claim has constitutional
> significance, though of course that is contested):
>
> "5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a
> competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an
> engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the
> contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the
> second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
>
> Chip
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:51:06 -0700
> >From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
> >Subject: RE: Using religion for government purposes
> >To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> >
> >
> >               Whether or not that
> >   distinction is sound as an empirical matter – and,
> >   given the tradition of using religious invocations
> >   for ceremonial purposes, for national mourning, and
> >   other similar reasons, it’s hard to see all or
> >   most political use of religious talk as “crassly
> >   instrumental [and] low-political” – I take it
> >   that this is not a distinction that constitutional
> >   law can easily draw, no?
> >
> >
> >
> >   From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> >   [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On
> >   Behalf Of Sanford Levinson
> >   Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:37 AM
> >   To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> >   Subject: Re: Using religion for government purposes
> >
> >
> >
> >   May I respectfully suggest that one difference
> >   between Lincoln and perhaps) all of his successors
> >   is that he was a profoundly serious man who was not
> >   using religion for crassly instrumental
> >   low-political purposes.
> >
> >   Sandy
> >________________
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
> Ira C. Lupu
> F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
> George Washington University Law School
> 2000 H St., NW
> Washington, DC 20052
> (202)994-7053
>  _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090327/e0c7d667/attachment.htm>