The 2d Cir does not disagree with the equal access point, but rather says  
that the School Dist is prohibiting an activity, not expression per se.  In  
fact, prayer, religious instruction, expression of devotion to God, and the 
 singing of hymns are not prohibited.  What is excluded is full-scale  
worship services with all that entails.  Worship services are not "student  
groups", but rather collections of adults and children.  
 
If a student group engaging in proselytizing activities a la  Rosenberger 
were the equivalent of a worship service,  Eugene might be correct.  The 2d 
Cir. is saying that there is no such  equivalence here.  
 
On the confusion point, I would think that you are more likely to have  
confusion about government endorsement when a school is transformed into a  
church for a full day each week than when you have a short prayer announced at  
graduation.  Yet, the latter is unconstitutional under Lee v.  Weisman.  
The disclaimer proposal is insufficient to forestall  children and everyone 
else, actually, from thinking that P.S. 151 is in fact  Evangelical,  or 
Buddhist, or whatever, when it is the worship home for a  congregation.    
 
I don't know if you  have noticed, but it is a fact that politicians  
routinely favor their own religion, so it is perfectly reasonable to conclude  
that a school board opening the door to a particular religious group for their 
 most important religious activity, worship, is an endorsement of that 
religious  group.  And the school board's rejection of a particular religious 
group's  application, even if based on neutral principles, also would raise 
serious  questions about endorsement. Thus, the prohibition is necessary to 
avoid an  Establishment Clause violation.
 
Marci
 
 
In a message dated 8/15/2011 12:40:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
vol...@law.ucla.edu writes:

But this  possibility that a few people might be confused, even when the 
government  makes clear that all it’s offering is equal access – just like 
the equal  access offered to religious groups in many contexts, such as tax 
exemptions,  the use of GI Bill grants, and so on – doesn’t strike me as 
reason enough to  reject equal access. 

_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to