thanks, Marc. Sorry about that -- the opinion states that the fact that "school facilities are *principally* available for public use on Sundays* *results in an unintended bias in favor of Christian religions."
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Marc Stern <ste...@ajc.org> wrote: > The rule in bronx household is that schools can be rented whenever not in > use. They are less frequently in use on sundays, but lots of schools can be > rented on Saturday or Friday nights. > Marc > > *From*: Marty Lederman [mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com] > *Sent*: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:54 PM > *To*: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > > *Subject*: Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public > forum? > > What if, as is likely the case, New York's purpose in opening its schools > for private uses on Sundays is not "to encourage a diversity of views from > private speakers," but instead simply to generate income, whether the uses > are for speech or otherwise? > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu>wrote: > >> Well, the state constitutional defense for the exclusion >> was raised in *Widmar* as well and rejected; and the worship-nonworship >> line was rejected, too. So I don’t think the play-in-the-joints argument is >> consistent with *Widmar*.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *Davey*’s response to *Rosenberger *was simply that, “The >> purpose of the Promise Scholarship Program is to assist students from low- >> and middle-income families with the cost of postsecondary education, not to >> ‘encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.’ Our cases dealing >> with speech forums are simply inapplicable.” I’m skeptical about this >> analysis; but even accepting it, as we must, this case is on the * >> Rosenberger*/*Widmar* side, not the *Davey* side, because according to >> traditional public forum analysis one purpose of parks is precisely to >> “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.”**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Eugene**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Bezanson, Randall P >> *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2011 8:32 AM >> >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> *Subject:* RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public >> forum?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> You are quite right about Locke, Eugene, but I'm not sure that that >> settles the matter. Washington justified its exclusion of those studying >> for the ministry on grounds of its own constitutional guarantee of >> separation of church and state, and the Court accepted that this fell within >> the State's power via the religion clauses' room in the joints. Logically, >> that seems analogous. I remember in the old days when I was serving as >> counsel and then VP at the U of Iowa, that our position was that rooms for >> religious groups to gather were fine, but holding church services wasn't >> because it crossed the EC line. I also realize that that was over 30 years >> ago and much water has gone over the dam, maybe enough to make my old view >> nothing but a quaint relic. **** >> >> **** >> >> I didn't look specifically at Widmar when I offered the room in the joints >> thought, so perhaps I'm just tilting at windmills. Yet the logic via Locke >> seems apt.**** >> >> **** >> >> Randy**** >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [ >> vol...@law.ucla.edu] >> *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2011 9:45 AM >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> *Subject:* RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public >> forum?**** >> >> I’m not forgetting that, but my sense is that *Locke*treated >> a financial subsidy for the benefit of listeners as quite different >> from the *Widmar *et al. scenario of access to government property for >> speakers and listeners. It certainly didn’t say anything to suggest that it >> was cutting back on *Widmar*. Or am I missing something there? (*Widmar >> *et al. after all also involved “old-time separationist view[s],” whether >> “respectable” or not; but the Court rejected that view there, and even many >> “old-time separationist[s]” signed on to the rejection.)**** >> >> **** >> >> Eugene**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: >> religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Bezanson, Randall P >> *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2011 3:51 AM >> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >> *Cc:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu >> *Subject:* Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public >> forum?**** >> >> **** >> >> Well ... Don't forget Rehnquist's "play in the joints" from Locke v. >> Davey, also a Washington case, by the way. Te state's position seems like a >> perfectly respectable old-time separationist view.**** >> >> **** >> >> Randy Bezanson**** >> >> U Iowa >> >> Sent from my iPad**** >> >> >> On Aug 14, 2011, at 11:24 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> >> wrote:**** >> >> Any thoughts on this incident? It sounds to me like the >> church should win in *Widmar v. Vincent* – if a university can’t exclude >> religious worship from a designated public forum, it surely can’t exclude it >> from a traditional public forum, no? Indeed, the baptism would presumably >> involve not just speech but also the immersion of a person in water (if >> that’s the kind of baptism that’s involved); but I take it that this is >> expressive conduct, and expressive conduct that isn’t being limited because >> of some harms that supposedly flow from its physical properties (such as the >> risk of drowning or some such). Or am I missing something here?**** >> >> **** >> >> Eugene**** >> >> **** >> >> *Feed:* Religion Clause >> *Posted on:* Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:46 AM >> *Author:* Howard Friedman >> *Subject:* Washington State Denies Permit For Baptism Ceremony At State >> Capitol Park**** >> >> **** >> >> In Olympia, Washington, Heritage >> Park<http://www.ga.wa.gov/visitor/Parks/HP.htm>is a 24-acre state-owned park >> next to the state capitol campus. The state >> will issue permits for events to be held at the park. Today's Bellingham >> (WA) >> Herald<http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/08/13/2141468/state-rejects-olympia-churchs.html>reports >> that the state's Department of General Administration has given >> Reality Church of Olympia a permit for a barbecue and picnic to be held >> today, but has denied its request to conduct a baptism along with the event. >> The Department, deciding an appeal of an initial denial, said that the >> state constitution bars the use of public property for religious worship. >> The church had argued that its free speech and free exercise rights were >> infringed by the denial.**** >> >> *Error! Filename not specified.***** >> >> >> View >> article...<http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2011/08/washington-state-denies-permit-for.html> >> **** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
