I think most of the problems stemmed from the typical (herein comes group slander) political hack attorneys often hired by school boards not for their constitutional acumen, but for their political connections. They did not know nor care to learn the law in this admittedly arcane area and so they gave the wrong "conservative counsel" sort of advice.
There has been in my experience a lot more of the prayer in school advocacy than the exclusion of religious activity. And a lot more ban the book activity by religious groups than ban the religion activity. But these are, of course, just impressions, based on what is at best spotty news coverage and where one lives.
And I hope Eugene was tongue in cheek on his conspiracy stuff.
Steve
On Saturday, March 5, 2005, at 07:04 PM, Berg, Thomas C. wrote:
Marci -- I agree that some religious activism in, say, public schools is an attempt to promote a religious orthodoxy and discourage religious diversity, perhaps in response to a perceived loss of cultural power. Daily school-sponsored prayers were an attempt to do that on behalf of a generic theism or "Judeo-Christian" theism. (Official graduation prayers look less like a systematic orthodoxy precisely because are one-time rather than repeated events, but even an orthodoxy at one important event is an orthodoxy.)<image.tiff>
But we can't also deny that some religious anger at the public schools stems from a real pattern of suppression of individuals' religious practices in the name of a secular orthodoxy. For example, the Equal Access Act was a reaction to repeated instances of schools forbidding religious student groups to meet while allowing a host of other groups to meet. Even after the Act passed, it took another decade of Supreme Court decisions to forbid such exclusion of private religious activity in situations outside the spectific terms of the Act. These were not just isolated instances, but a widespread pattern of suppression by people who mischaracterized free religious activity in a public setting as a brand of "establishment." Do you debate that point?
Tom Berg, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]--
Sent: Sat 3/5/2005 3:57 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Religious Neutrality and Voluntarism
I was making a more historical, sociological point. There is a parallel historical development between the development of the disestablishment doctrine toward a nonendorsement principle and an explosion in diversity. The two reinforce each other, and the fact of such diversity makes the arguments for a "Christian" culture or even a "Judeo-Christian" culture increasingly hollow.
I'm not sure what the disagreement is on intensity. By most sociological markers, the U.S. has a more intense set of religious citizens than Europe, to state it mildly. It is also more intense than the U.S. observed at the time of the framing. Statistically, more people attend church and more people profess religious belief (though, of course, those beliefs cover a far broader spectrum). There is quite fertile sociological and anthropological work to be done on the co-presence of these three factors: diversity, disestablishment or nonendorsement, and a religious culture that is quite enthusiastic and devout.
The public square "agitating" is not in my view solely or even largely a response to the courts but rather a political play of power. It is more of a reaction to diversity and the reduction in numbers and proportional power of Christians and in particular Protestants. Within several years, Protestants will no longer constitute over 50% of the country. As with all religious movements, a felt loss of power can trigger a lot of political activity.
Marci
Marci: Do you think it is empirically true that, as you say, "The more the
>government is constrained to be neutral with respect to religion over the
>years, the more diversity and intensity of belief this society
>expresses"? I suppose I might agree with the diversity point, but
>intensity I would agree with only in a very limited sense. Thus, I think
>Tom is right about the secularizing "slippery slope," if you will (to use
>a favored phrase of our esteemed moderator). In addition, much of the
>public square agitating is clearly a response to what are taken to be
>hostile governmental -- let's face it, mostly judicial -- rulings.
<ATT915010.txt>
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/
"No place affords a more striking conviction of the vanity of human hopes than a public library."
Samuel Johnson, 1751
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
