tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post113816298305729888..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Calvani responds to the commentsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1138235392980124622006-01-25T17:29:00.000-07:002006-01-25T17:29:00.000-07:00Is Calvani's position the same as Justice Thomas's...Is Calvani's position the same as Justice Thomas's, that the establishment clause creates no individual rights at all? If so, please see this critique by Douglas Laycock (Univ. of Texas Law School):<BR/><BR/>http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2004-June/017048.htmlLippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1138233357506543172006-01-25T16:55:00.000-07:002006-01-25T16:55:00.000-07:00Of course Mr. Calvani doesn't want any of the stat...Of course Mr. Calvani doesn't want any of the states to establish theocratic governments. This is purely an academic argument on his part.<BR/>Yet, he denounces the supreme court for being tyrannical because it does not interpret the scope of the 14th amendment as he does!<BR/><BR/>Why such a harsh denunciation of the Supreme Court when there are no rights being infringed upon? Or does he really think states should have the right to establish theocratic style governments? And force religious teaching into the public schools? <BR/><BR/>It's difficult to understand why he thinks rights are being trampled upon by tyrants and then plead that he doesn't want to see those rights being practiced by the citizens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1138200479025782662006-01-25T07:47:00.000-07:002006-01-25T07:47:00.000-07:00It doesn't look like Calvani actually followed the...It doesn't look like Calvani actually followed the links in the comments and read any of the content referred to.<BR/><BR/>For me the key is his paragraph where he asks if England is without religious freedom because of the established freedom or if the Chinese ever leave Tibet will it be without religious freedom because the head of state is also the head of the church. He might also have asked whether Vatican City is without religious freedom because the head of the church is the head of state.<BR/><BR/>He's asking the wrong question. The question isn't are they *without any* religious freedom, but whether their religious freedom is less than we have in the United States. And the answer is clearly yes, it is less. When some citizens have their religion elevated to the status of official religion, those citizens who are not members of that religion are second-class citizens. In the case of the Church of England, it has decayed so much that the effect is negligible, but it points out an issue Calvani himself should be concerned about--the establishment of a state religion seems in many instances (throughout Europe) to have seriously damaged the religion.<BR/><BR/>Further, wouldn't Calvani be concerned if a state established atheism as an official religion? I would.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.com