The law and religion make for interesting mixture but the mixture tends to evoke the strongest of emotions. The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago. Remembering that fact appears to offer the most effective solutions to these problems once the easier cases are disposed of. For example, if a preacher is committing fraud and it can be shown, even if he is a preacher, he should be stopped. But if we just think people are ignorant or stupid for giving their money for a blessing, that is a different matter. No one should not [sic.] be able to oppressively require a student to participate in religious activities against their will, but if a student on his or her own chooses to express him or herself in religious terms, that should not be prohibited. Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act. I do not mean to make very complex, emotional issues too simplistic. But some of these issued do not need to be as complicated as they have become if people deal with each other with respect and even reverence.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Miers On Church-State In 1993
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has made available to the Senate Judiciary Committee a number of her speeches from the early 1990's when she was president of the Texas Bar Association. The Washington Post today reports on them. Part of a 1993 speech to Executive Women of Dallas focused on church-state issues. ProLifeBlogs has posted the full text of that speech. Here is part of her remarks: