I'm not sure quite how offensive this is; it strikes me as
little different from "giv[ing] a sermon celebrating that some piece of
legislation that [the Governor] signed represents 'Christianity in
action.'" How offensive one finds that depends on the usual questions
about the proper role of religious beliefs -- including publicly stated
religious beliefs -- in legislation.
But even if it is "truly offensive," isn't there something of a
leap from that to a violation of the Establishment Clause? Choosing to
sign a bill in a particular place is a political act on the governor's
part; the location has no significance to the legal meaning or the
effectiveness of the bill. I take it that the Establishment Clause
argument would be that the symbolism of the act endorses religion, but I
don't see that as materially different from the sermon that Sandy would
acknowledges is permissible. I take it that Sandy thinks the sermon is
not unconstitutional because it's the governor's personal endorsement,
and not the State of Texas's endorsement; the same seems to me true of
the signing ceremony.
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford
Levinson
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 7:49 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Rick Perry and separation of church and state
You will find below the first sentence of a story that will appear in
tomorrow's New York Times. Rather amazingly, incidentally, the
Governor's staff is claiming that it was an ecumininal gathering because
the benediction was given by a "Jew for Jesus."
In any event, is one being "oversensitive" to believe that this makes a
travesty of the Establishment Clause? I have no argument with the
proposition that the Governor can attend whatever church he wants and
even give a sermon celebrating that some piece of legislation that he
signed represents "Christianity in action." But isn't there something
truly offensive about turning a bill-signing into a religious rally?
Assume, incidentally, that the governor announces well in advance that
he's going to sign a bill in a Christian church, at which, by
stipulation, Jews might not feel altogether comfortable inasmuch as the
church in question rather publicly endorses the view that Jews are
damned because of our refusal to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. (I
would be rather surprised if that is not in fact the view of the
"evangelical school" in question.) Is there a non-frivolous argument
that a court should enjoin the signing? (But of course Gov. Perry, no
doubt, would probably like nothing more than such a display of "judicial
overreaching," especially if it's from the despised federal judiciary,
inasmuch as he is getting ready to run for re-election against Sen. Kay
Bailey Hutchinson, who in Texas counts as a distinctly moderate and
sensible Republican (who would receive lots of Democratic support).)
sandy
_______________________________________________
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.
