Skip to main content

Something I Don't Claim to Understand


 I can't really claim to understand this, but I'll link to it here because some of you might.  So maybe you can explain it to me.

I believe that the Supreme Court has in recent terms (since the Baker/Gay-Weddings thing -- actually since further back) in essence erased everything on the blackboard with regard to free exercise of religion law. And perhaps establishment law, too. Since then, instead of trying to put some new coherent guidelines up on the blackboard, they have been going in a very ad hoc way through the cases that get to them, deciding everything on the basis of spit polish and gut feelings and hoping that at some point it will add up to a coherent doctrine. 

It hasn't yet. Some day it might. Stranger things have happened.   

Anyway, the thing I don't claim to understand is the judgment, and cluster of decisions in Harvest Rock Church and South Bay United Pentecostal.    The court seems split several ways: I don't grok the alignment. 

(That's Alito above, by the way.) 

Labels:

Comments

  1. upmypcFebruary 26, 2021 at 3:54 AM

    I really enjoy reading your post about this Posting. This sort of clever work and coverage! Keep up the wonderful works guys, thanks for sharing MathType Crack

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJune 9, 2021 at 1:08 AM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownJune 19, 2021 at 12:26 AM

    This article is so innovative and well constructed I got lot of information from this post. Keep writing related to the topics on your site. Windows Movie Maker Crack

    ReplyDelete
  4. aliSeptember 18, 2021 at 12:46 AM

    CCleaner Pro Crack
    Acronis True Image Crack
    Cracks
    Mcafee Livesafe Crack
    Wise Folder Hider Pro Crack
    Utorrent Pro Crack

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more