But the Court did not say he was not coerced-it said coercion did not matter. And it is plainly not true that an employees cannot be coerced to participate in religious services.HTEre are any number of cases holding that they can. Indeed ,Warnock plainly was required(=coerced)to attend prayers by his employers. Marc Stern
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:06 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Warnock I have been thinking that in Warnock the Circuit Court (8th) focusses on endorsement because it was unlikely that the teacher could be coerced or indoctrinated by the religious activity of the Principal at the meetings. Indeed the facts belie it (he complains avidly, the court call him "strong willed" and he is an adult) That apparently makes a difference. The court saw this as a case where the govt actions at the meetings 'clearly endorsed' the particular religious position (as in Lynch) and that was enough to void it. The court really wants to make a workable rule here -- arguing that it is too hard determine when a particular individual (adult) will or could reasonably feel subjective coercion. Susanna Peters In Warnock v. Archer(6th Cir.8/24/2004),the Sixth Circuit held that a > teacher's rights were violated when he was as compelled to attend teacher > training courses that began with prayers. The Court emphasized that the > violation was not in the coercion to be present when prayers were offered, > but because, on the facts, the prayers constituted an endorsement of > religion. I am puzzled by the court's insistence that coercion was not > the > violation, because I thought it settled that coercion to participate in > official prayers was unconstitutional. > The case also contains a discussion of the right of public employees to > display religious items in their offices. > > Marc Stern > PS-On the power of school officials to exclude religious murals from a > school construction site (in the school building, see yesterdays;' 11th > Circuit decision in Bannon V. School District(03-13011). I had filed an > amicus brief in support of the School District. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:19 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Cert granted in Cutter > > Well, I can't speak for DOJ here, because I doubt that I've read all their > briefs, but I think the answer is "no." Section 3 does not have an > "individualized assessment" provision that instantiates Sherbert/Lukumi, > nor > any of the other section 5 provisions found in section 2(b) of the > land-use > section. Unless I'm misremembering, it is exclusively (and expressly) a > Spending/Commerce provision -- thus, a plaintiff must either show that the > agency receives federal funds, or that the substantial burden on religious > exercise affects (or its alleviation would affect) interstate commerce. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:05 PM > Subject: RE: Cert granted in Cutter > > >> Marty---I haven't really been following the prison side on RLUIPA. Has > the DOJ been arguing--as on the land use side of RLUIPA--that it merely > mirrors existing Free Exercise doctrine? >> >> Marci >> _______________________________________________ >> To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw >> >> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
