I'll Pass

An interesting discussion on calling someone "a Jew."

At the same blog, someone I clashed with on religious issues in the past is excited about a new book on religion in American society.  Andrew Koppleman, who has a different view of things, is cited as also enthused. No matter. Koppelman has repeated found serious fault with the stance taken. Not surprising going by the summary provided at Amazon, including how the current jurisprudence in this area has led to:

The negative consequences are visible today in the incoherence of religion clause jurisprudence and the intense culture wars in American politics.

The view Prof. Smith puts forth would strengthen the power of religiously motivated institutions to be separate dissenting voices, including if it results in  burdens on third parties. Not just churches and the like. Those who incorporate and sell hobby equipment (yes, we now go on to familiar ground) will be able to deny employees a government benefit of coverage of contraceptives.  The perversion that results is noted by a reply:

The institutions seeking exemption from the Contraception Mandate are not voluntary associations but nonprofit and for-profit corporations. They are not composed of voluntary members uniting around a common religious vision; they are composed of employers and employees. Of course, it is possible that some employees view themselves as participating in a collective religious enterprise. But many of them do not. Instead, many do not share their employer’s faith and they show up for work in order to earn a living. They include factory workers, nurse’s aides, store managers, sales associates, drivers, food packers, custodial staff, and administrative assistants, among others, who depend on their paycheck and benefits to take care of themselves and their families. For many, their job is not a religious experience but a way to survive. Whatever may be said about voluntary members and religious associations, it does not translate to employees and corporations.

As noted there, many of these people have their own religious beliefs that they find advanced by the coverage in question. Denying them this benefit has "intensified cultural wars" today more than the alternative, which works hard to balance various competing interests, including those of religious institutions and diverse believers. I'm sure the scholar in question provides some useful insights, but with apologies, his stance here (and as critiqued by someone who apparently respects him) makes me rather wary. This includes other works criticizing secularism.

There has not been a "decline" of "American religious freedom" contrary to the title of his book. The issue is complex and we can point to some concerns most likely. But, as a whole, there is more religious freedom in action in various respects today. The ability of people to marry those who they love of the same sex, e.g., is repeatedly a matter of religious faith.  In the past, certain religions were more favored here. I'm clear of the compelling problem of a few random bakers and the like who don't want to sell cakes to same sex couples, but many more in the past quite honestly felt God supported not integrating.  In what direction have we traveled?

Glad you liked the book. I'll pass. Meanwhile, the USSC dealt with a footnote in the contraceptive mandate exemption wars. Marty Lederman, who has done yeoman work covering the overall issue, sees the brief order as a "Solomonic judgment" that ends things for the time being with a whimper.  Scotusblog has somewhat more to say. It is somewhat better than the "we say so" stay order to the 10th Circuit as to same sex marriage, but it still isn't very helpful -- it has a "one time only" feel -- "based on all of the circumstances of the case" without saying what.

As ML notes, the big game is yet to come.