Defending American Religious Neutrality
Th e American law of freedom of religion is in trouble, because growing numbers of critics, including a near-majority of the Supreme Court, are ready to cast aside the ideal of religious neutrality. Th is book defends the claim, which unfortunately has become an audacious one, that American religiou...
| Main Author: | Andrew Koppelman |
|---|---|
| Format: | eBook |
| Language: | Bahasa Inggris |
| Published: |
Harvard University Press
2013
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
http://oaipmh-jogjalib.umy.ac.idkatalog.php?opo=lihatDetilKatalog&id=53096 |
| id |
oai:lib.umy.ac.id:53096 |
|---|---|
| recordtype |
oai_dc |
| spelling |
oai:lib.umy.ac.id:530962021-06-16T13:06:27ZDefending American Religious NeutralityAndrew KoppelmanChurch and state—United States, Freedom of religion—United States, Ecclesiastical lawTh e American law of freedom of religion is in trouble, because growing numbers of critics, including a near-majority of the Supreme Court, are ready to cast aside the ideal of religious neutrality. Th is book defends the claim, which unfortunately has become an audacious one, that American religious neutrality is coherent and attractive. Two factions dominate contemporary discussion of these issues in American law. One, whom I’ll call the radical secularists, tend to regard the law of the religion clauses as a fl awed attempt to achieve neutrality across all controversial conceptions of the good—fl awed because it is satisfi ed with something less than the complete eradication of religion from public life. Th e other, whom I’ll call the religious traditionalists, think that any claim of neutrality is a fraud, because law necessarily involves substantive commitments. Th ey believe that there is thus nothing wrong with frank state endorsement of religious propositions: if the state is inevitably going to take sides, why not this one? One side regards religion as toxic and valueless; the other is untroubled by the state’s embrace of an offi cial religion. Neither sees much value in the way American law actually functions. Yet America has been unusually successful in dealing with religious diversity. Th e civil peace that the United States has almost eff ortlessly achieved has been beyond the capacities of many other generally wellfunctioning democracies, such as France and Germany. Even if the American law of religious liberty were entirely incoherent, it might still be an attractive approach to this perennial human problem. Th ere is, however, a logic to the law that its critics have not understood.Harvard University Press2013eBookebook 632Bahasa Inggrishttp://oaipmh-jogjalib.umy.ac.idkatalog.php?opo=lihatDetilKatalog&id=53096 |
| institution |
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta |
| collection |
Perpustakaan Yogyakarta |
| language |
Bahasa Inggris |
| topic |
Church and state—United States, Freedom of religion—United States, Ecclesiastical law |
| spellingShingle |
Church and state—United States, Freedom of religion—United States, Ecclesiastical law Andrew Koppelman Defending American Religious Neutrality |
| description |
Th e American law of freedom of religion is in trouble, because growing
numbers of critics, including a near-majority of the Supreme Court, are
ready to cast aside the ideal of religious neutrality. Th is book defends
the claim, which unfortunately has become an audacious one, that
American religious neutrality is coherent and attractive.
Two factions dominate contemporary discussion of these issues in
American law. One, whom I’ll call the radical secularists, tend to regard
the law of the religion clauses as a fl awed attempt to achieve neutrality
across all controversial conceptions of the good—fl awed because it is
satisfi ed with something less than the complete eradication of religion
from public life. Th e other, whom I’ll call the religious traditionalists,
think that any claim of neutrality is a fraud, because law necessarily
involves substantive commitments. Th ey believe that there is thus
nothing wrong with frank state endorsement of religious propositions:
if the state is inevitably going to take sides, why not this one? One side
regards religion as toxic and valueless; the other is untroubled by the
state’s embrace of an offi cial religion. Neither sees much value in the
way American law actually functions.
Yet America has been unusually successful in dealing with religious
diversity. Th e civil peace that the United States has almost eff ortlessly
achieved has been beyond the capacities of many other generally wellfunctioning
democracies, such as France and Germany. Even if the
American law of religious liberty were entirely incoherent, it might still
be an attractive approach to this perennial human problem. Th ere is,
however, a logic to the law that its critics have not understood. |
| format |
eBook |
| author |
Andrew Koppelman |
| author_sort |
Andrew Koppelman |
| title |
Defending American Religious Neutrality |
| title_short |
Defending American Religious Neutrality |
| title_full |
Defending American Religious Neutrality |
| title_fullStr |
Defending American Religious Neutrality |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Defending American Religious Neutrality |
| title_sort |
defending american religious neutrality |
| publisher |
Harvard University Press |
| publishDate |
2013 |
| url |
http://oaipmh-jogjalib.umy.ac.idkatalog.php?opo=lihatDetilKatalog&id=53096 |
| isbn |
ebook 632 |
| _version_ |
1702748881468522496 |
| score |
14.79448 |