On the airplane to San Francisco I read the terrific symposium number of the Lewis together with Clark Law Review, "Law together with Religion inward an Increasingly Polarized America." (Congratulations to Jim Oleske for putting it together.) Several of the articles raised the next inquiry for me. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 person's faith commitments are frequently an of import purpose of her/his private identity. (The same tin grade the sack live on said nigh faith communities, together with everything I tell nigh individuals inward what follows could live on said nigh such communities. But exposition is easier if I yell to individuals.) So, state regulations that behaviour on faith commitments should live on understood to pose threats to, or at to the lowest degree difficulties for, beliefs at or close the marrow of the person's self-understanding. That supports the instance for adjusting the state's demands to possess got into concern human relationship its regulations' touching on individuals' mightiness to alive their lives inward accordance alongside their deep commitments.
What I wonder nigh is this. The foregoing formulations possess got the individual's identity, self-understanding, together with faith commitments every bit to a greater extent than or less fixed. But, I'm certain nosotros all know people whose faith commitments possess got changed to or together with therefore score inward the facial expression upwards of experience. (The clearest instance I tin grade the sack come upwards up alongside is, for nowadays purposes, unfortunately liberal-leaning, but I'm confident that alongside to a greater extent than reflection I could come upwards up alongside others leaning the other way.) For example, I'm quite confident that many people who previously held, every bit purpose of their faith commitments, the thought that homosexuality per se was wrong, straightaway concur a to a greater extent than nuanced thought -- for example, that acting on homosexual impulses is incorrect but that having those impulses is not, or that acting on them is non incorrect but seeking populace blessing of those actions is wrong. (I'm also reasonably confident that many of those to whom I attribute these views would tell -- inward my thought mistakenly -- that they never held the prior views I'm imputing to them. Psychology's complicated.)
Now, 1 of the things sense throws at you lot is the police pull -- together with changes inward the law. Perhaps (I mean value it's true), the real fact that a large number of your co-citizens believe that something you lot thought, every bit purpose of your faith commitments, was incorrect create non mean value it is, volition get you lot to mean value or together with therefore to a greater extent than nigh your faith commitments, together with possibly revise them. (An instance on the institutional level: Suppose your church-related establishment had a policy against employing gays because they engage inward sexual relations exterior the context of a matrimony betwixt a adult man together with a woman. Your jurisdiction enacts an anti discrimination ordinance barring job discrimination against gays. It wouldn't live on crazy, or a deep threat to the institution's identity, for the establishment to clarify its policy yesteryear acknowledging that non all gays engage inward the activity I've described, together with that many straights do, leading to the adoption of a policy that doesn't discriminate against gays every bit such. The novel policy isn't 1 I'd admire, but that's a dissimilar matter.)
The possibility of revision inward the facial expression upwards of experience, including the law, seems to me to weaken the instance for accommodation sketched above. My inclination is to tell that it introduces a fatal circularity into the case, but maybe that's because I'm non inclined to favor accommodations at all -- I'm an "early adopter" of what 1 of the articles inward the Lewis & Clark symposium describes every bit the pro-religion anti-accommodation position. In whatever event, I'm puzzled nigh how 1 tin grade the sack function the revisability of deep views into a instance for accommodation that focuses on marrow identity.
[I was flight to San Francisco to comment at Stanford on Amalia Kessler's of late published together with quite interesting book, "Inventing American Exceptionalism."]
What I wonder nigh is this. The foregoing formulations possess got the individual's identity, self-understanding, together with faith commitments every bit to a greater extent than or less fixed. But, I'm certain nosotros all know people whose faith commitments possess got changed to or together with therefore score inward the facial expression upwards of experience. (The clearest instance I tin grade the sack come upwards up alongside is, for nowadays purposes, unfortunately liberal-leaning, but I'm confident that alongside to a greater extent than reflection I could come upwards up alongside others leaning the other way.) For example, I'm quite confident that many people who previously held, every bit purpose of their faith commitments, the thought that homosexuality per se was wrong, straightaway concur a to a greater extent than nuanced thought -- for example, that acting on homosexual impulses is incorrect but that having those impulses is not, or that acting on them is non incorrect but seeking populace blessing of those actions is wrong. (I'm also reasonably confident that many of those to whom I attribute these views would tell -- inward my thought mistakenly -- that they never held the prior views I'm imputing to them. Psychology's complicated.)
Now, 1 of the things sense throws at you lot is the police pull -- together with changes inward the law. Perhaps (I mean value it's true), the real fact that a large number of your co-citizens believe that something you lot thought, every bit purpose of your faith commitments, was incorrect create non mean value it is, volition get you lot to mean value or together with therefore to a greater extent than nigh your faith commitments, together with possibly revise them. (An instance on the institutional level: Suppose your church-related establishment had a policy against employing gays because they engage inward sexual relations exterior the context of a matrimony betwixt a adult man together with a woman. Your jurisdiction enacts an anti discrimination ordinance barring job discrimination against gays. It wouldn't live on crazy, or a deep threat to the institution's identity, for the establishment to clarify its policy yesteryear acknowledging that non all gays engage inward the activity I've described, together with that many straights do, leading to the adoption of a policy that doesn't discriminate against gays every bit such. The novel policy isn't 1 I'd admire, but that's a dissimilar matter.)
The possibility of revision inward the facial expression upwards of experience, including the law, seems to me to weaken the instance for accommodation sketched above. My inclination is to tell that it introduces a fatal circularity into the case, but maybe that's because I'm non inclined to favor accommodations at all -- I'm an "early adopter" of what 1 of the articles inward the Lewis & Clark symposium describes every bit the pro-religion anti-accommodation position. In whatever event, I'm puzzled nigh how 1 tin grade the sack function the revisability of deep views into a instance for accommodation that focuses on marrow identity.
[I was flight to San Francisco to comment at Stanford on Amalia Kessler's of late published together with quite interesting book, "Inventing American Exceptionalism."]
No comments:
Post a Comment