« The Pleasures and Perils of Classes on the Workshop Model: A reply to Noah Sachs | Main | False "Facts", Free Speech, the First Amendment »

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Catholic Bishops + Stupak Amendment = Iran?

Michael Sean Winters writes, at America:

Timothy Stoltzfust Jost, a professor of law at Washington and Lee University, thinks issues of Church and State are involved. He writes: "For Congress to have to look to a particular church for permission to move legislation is frightening. Religious persecution is a very real issue for many throughout the world today. We have been very fortunate in the United States to have been largely spared its ravages. But the only guarantee that we will continue to enjoy religious freedom is the jealous protection of the separation principle. If any religion dominates politics, it has the power to dominate other religions as well. Let us not become another Iran." This is pure baloney. No one looked to the Church for "permission" and America is scarcely in danger of becoming another Iran.

Winters is right.  Simmer down, now.

Update:  The hits keep coming. Check out (and then groan at) this "animated cartoon" in The Washington Post.  What we are seeing in all this, I fear, is a re-emergence of Blanshard-ism.  Let's hope not.  The original doesn't deserve a re-make.

Posted by Rick Garnett on November 12, 2009 at 09:45 AM in Rick Garnett | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef01287588c389970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Catholic Bishops + Stupak Amendment = Iran?:

Comments

Anon -- just to be clear, it would indeed be "frightening" if Congress had to "look to a particular church for permission to move legislation". But, that is not (remotely) what happened here.

Posted by: Rick Garnett | Nov 13, 2009 8:27:07 AM

How about Eugene Volokh and Ilya Somin? Somin explicitly identifies himself as an atheist. Volokh has made clear that he is a non-believer, but I am not sure whether he would describe himself as an atheist, an agnostic or whatever.

Steven Gey, who has lamentably been forced to retire by terminal illness, is another open atheist.

Posted by: DNJ | Nov 13, 2009 1:08:08 AM

"For Congress to have to look to a particular church for permission to move legislation is frightening."

I appreciate that this might not be scary to the religious majority, but it is fairly frightening to some of us non-believers. I would suggest asking an out in the open atheist law professor to comment, but, sadly, I don't think any exist.

Posted by: anon | Nov 12, 2009 10:45:27 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.