ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Mirror of Justice

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Religion & Law

: Mirror of Justice

Stanley Fish on the Mojave Cross case

ADVERTISEMENTS

Here's Fish, in the Times, writing about the recent decision in Salazar:

It has become a formula: if you want to secure a role for religious symbols in the public sphere, you must de-religionize them, either by claiming for them a non-religious meaning as Kennedy does here, or, in the case of multiple symbols in a park or in front of a courthouse, by declaring that the fact of many of them means that no one of them is to be taken seriously; they don?t stand for anything sectarian; they stand for diversity. So you save the symbols by leeching the life out of them. The operation is successful, but the patient is dead.

The game being played here by Kennedy (and many justices before him) is ?let?s pretend.? . . .

My distaste for Kennedy?s opinion has nothing to do with its result. In general, and for the record, I have no problem with the state accommodating religious symbols and I am not bothered by the thought of a cross standing in a remote part of the Mojave desert even if the land it stands on is owned by the government. I do have a problem with reasoning that is patently dishonest and protests too much about its own motives and the motives of those it defends. But that is what the religion clause drives you to when in one of its clauses ? the free exercise clause ? it singles out religion for special positive treatment, and in the other clause ? the Establishment Clause ? it places a warning label (watch out for this stuff; it?s trouble) on religion. It?s no wonder that the justices who try to deal with this schizophrenia tie themselves in knots and produce opinions that are as unedifying as they are disingenuous.

I think there's a lot to this.  (I think Fish is probably too quick to insist that Congress's motive in preserving the cross is to preserve it as a religious symbol, but put that aside.)  In my view, if it is constitutionally permissible for the government to display religious symbols it is not because the symbols are not religious.  It is, instead, because the display of a religious symbol is not an "establishment" of religion.

Full post as published by Mirror of Justice on May 04, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0039 secs (from cache 10/31/26 10:03:18)