Maggie Gallagher has a column today that links the riots in France to "France's religious oppression."
Here is a money excerpt, in which she quotes Seamus Hasson of Becket Fund:
Meanwhile, he says what France should have learned from its repression of religious minorities, but hasn't yet, is "it always backfires."
Hasson is the founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which defends religious _expression_ as a basic human right here and around the world. The Becket Fund recently sponsored an exhibit at the U.S. Capitol, "Bodies of Belief," that included the French ban on religious symbols in public schools as one of many examples of worldwide religious repression. "It would be simplistic to say they banned headscarves in public schools, and now there are riots," notes Hasson. "But the underlying reason the French found it necessary to ban headscarves is what's responsible: a hard secularism that says religion is like second-hand smoke, something you can indulge in in private, but it's the government's job to protect you from it in public."
France, he argues, has "oppressed believers of all stripes for centuries and is once again reaping the whirlwind." Separation of church and state is the problem; religious liberty is the solution.
Any thoughts? Any lessons here for America" For UW?
Rick Duncan
"Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alan: I'm not sure what the rule would be as to government
selection of speakers in a lecture series. But let me ask you this,
which doesn't involve the government's own speech: We know that the
government may deny the charitable tax exemption to organizations that
engage in lobbying. See Taxation With Representation v. Regan. May the
government deny the charitable tax exemption to organizations that
engage in religious speech?
I assume the answer is no, because that would be discrimination
against a religious practice, and unconstitutional under the Free
Exercise Clause, see Lukumi and McDaniel. Yet content-based (though
viewpoint-neutral) discrimination against political partisan activity is
constitutional under the Free Speech Clause, see Taxation With
Representation. If I'm correct, then this means that religious speech
is at lea! st sometimes protected against governmental discrimination
based on religiosity even where political speech is not protected
against government discrimination based on its content.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan
> Brownstein
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 4:55 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Free Exercise Clause and government employees
>
>
> I'm not sure that it does, if we are talking about speech.
>
> For example, in Forbes the Court lists several government
> decisions involving editorial discretion, e.g. picking
> speakers for a lecture series etc. There are also many
> decisions that are not listed that would involve similar
> discretionary functions, e.g. acquiring books for a public
> library.! The court suggests that even viewpoint
> discriminatory decisions in these contexts should not be
> subject to rigorous review under the free speech clause.
>
> If the official choosing speakers for the lecture series, for
> example, rejects several possible speakers because their
> viewpoints are deemed unacceptable, speakers expressing
> secular messages could not challenge this decision under the
> free speech clause. Do you think a speaker expressing a
> religious message would have a free exercise claim here, Eugene?
>
> Alan Brownstein
>
>
>
> Finally, Alan's Free Exercise Clause / Free Speech
> Clause is an interesting one, but I wonder how far it would
> go. After all, if the Free Exercise Clause has an
> antidiscrimination component, wouldn't it necessarily end up
> protecting religious speech (as well as religious
> conduct) against discrimination based on religiosity, even in
> situations where the Free Speech Clause doesn't protect
> secular speech against discrimination based on its content?
>
> Eugene
>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
_______________________________________________
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.
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
_______________________________________________ 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.
