Volume 91 Special Online Issue: A Reflection, Redemption, by Alan StieglerINTRODUCTIONApril 23, 2007 My name is Alan Stiegler. I am a 1950 graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School. I became a member of its Law Review in 1947 and had several recent cases published in its 1948 edition. Upon the start of my senior year, I was assigned to write a note on the McCollum case decided in 1948 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that government was forbidden to encourage religion. Upon examination of the prominent law reviews, I decided that the case's legal impact had been widely discussed and that I probably would not add anything of value. My advisor, Professor Rottschaeffer, agreed; however, he suggested that another discipline, philosophy, had a great deal to say on this subject and that a law review article, from that point of view, would be worthwhile. Upon reflection I agreed and spent the next year on my research. Upon completing my first draft of the note, I met with the note Editor and began reviewing my argument that the Supreme Court decisions were inconclusive and that the science of philosophy makes a more valuable contribution to the subject. The philosophers argue that governments should impartially promote religion since religion serves as a teacher and regulator of public morals, which government cannot reach of itself. Moreover, since morality is not self enforceable, society has a clear interest in promoting "religion," which does teach and enforce morality. Furthermore "religion" has a source of power to force the individual to conform to a moral life—divine anger and the prospect of hell. It should also be clear that a particular religious view is useless to any individual unless it inspires him internally. But as no one religious view appeals to all men, no one religious sect can claim to have a monopoly on truth. It was at this point in my dissertation that my note Editor rose, slapped his hand on the table proclaiming: "I am Catholic. It is the one true religion. This note will never be published." My appeals to the powers that be were ignored and for the past fifty-seven years my work lay hidden in my desk. Over these many years, I tried many times to interest someone to right the wrong, but to no avail. By some miracle, last March, on a whim, I called the University of Minnesota Law Review, and to my surprise the present editor of the Law Review answered. I briefly told her this story, and she immediately asked to meet me with the incoming editor for the 2008 edition. At that meeting they pledged to right this wrong. I presently have five members of the Law Review working with me to check my multitude of citations. They assure me that this is a worthwhile project, and it will be published on the Internet. My response has been "Justice is mine—Thus sayeth the Lord!!!" A Reflection: Redemption |
|
