Judges speak
The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.
If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.
The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments.
Beautiful. Compare the ruling in FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION v OBAMA:
However, religious expression by the government that is inspirational and comforting to a believer may seem exclusionary or even threatening to someone who does not share those beliefs. This is not simply a matter of being “too sensitive” or wanting to suppress the religious expression of others. Rather, as explained in a recent book by the Provost of Princeton University and the Dean of the University of Texas School of Law, it is a
consequence of the unique danger that religious conduct by the government poses for creating “in” groups and “out” groups:
Then quoting:
Religious affiliation typically implicates an expansive web-of-belief and conduct, and individuals often feel and are seen as “in” or “out” of such webs. In a variety of ways the perceived and actual stakes of being within or without these webs of belief and membership can be very high: being fulfilled and redeemed or eternally damned; being welcomed as a member of the community or shunned. Moreover, it is in the nature of religion that persons outside a given faith will on occasion fail to understand or appreciate matters internal to that faith, and so will be inappropriately indifferent, suspicious, or even repelled and hostile to beliefs and practices central to that faith. These are matters of sociological fact, and they justify distinct constitutional concern that governmental conduct will valorize some beliefs at the cost of disparaging others, and further, that in the course of such conduct, government will valorize some citizens at the cost of disparaging others.
Christopher L. Eisgruber and Lawrence G. Sager, Religious Freedom and the Constitution, 61-62.
The Supremes will throw it out, of course, but it’s a great ruling all the same.
As I was falling asleep last night it occurred to me that Lord Justice Laws’ [what a beautifully appropriate name for a top judge] judgement regarding the Christian counsellor case should become a locus classicus as to what ‘secular’ means, this statement in particular:
What a clear statement of why religious beliefs, qua religious beliefs, must be excluded from public decision making. Of course, then religious people will try to sneak their principles back in under the guise of consequentialist arguments regarding the public good, which are often vacuous. But, at least it means that their particular religious beliefs are being pushed onto the margins of social discourse, where they belong. Unfortunately, of course, they will push their marginal justifications with all the zeal that religious faith can furnish. Here in Canada (and in the US too, I shouldn’t wonder) the new arguments opposing abortion – which everyone thought was a dead issue (in Canada, anyway) – are being raised in the place where religious arguments once held pride of place, and secularists once again are being put on the defensive. Progressives will simply have to learn how to cut through all the extraneous argumentation to expose the heart of the opposition, pulsing with religious hysteria.
I have been searching around the net for the complete judgement, but seem unable to find it. Anyone have any more luck?
There’s a link in my post about it.
[On the subject of nominative determinism, my sister teaches law, but changed her name from “Counsell” when she got married.]
It was Laws who also granted Simon Singh leave to appeal.
Eric,
You can find the full judgement here.
h/t to Russell Blackford who has the link on his blog.
Ah thanks Damian. And hilarious about your sister!
Judge Laws and Stephen Law should form a comedy act or something.
And Carey kept on whining, wilfully misusing (in this context) ‘secular’ as a lazy synonym for ‘irreligious’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/29/religion-gay-rights
… as, I belatedly see, OB, you have already nailed in the ‘deeply unedifying’ thread. Sorry.