Using religion for government purposes

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I appreciate the weight of Madison's authority.  But the fact is that American government has throughout American history, from the Declaration of Independence to the Virginia Bill for Religious Freedom to the Northwest Ordinance and on down, used "Religion as an engine of Civil policy" at least in the sense that it has taken advantage of broad religious rhetoric and appeals to people's religious faith as a means of supporting patriotism, law-abidingness, and other civic values.  I don't think that one political argument, even from Madison, is enough to rebut that.

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira (Chip) Lupu
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 10:18 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Using religion for government purposes
> 
> 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.