And France clearly pushes a form of universalism as a national value in a way this country has not for some time.
On Apr 12, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Finkelman, Paul <paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu> wrote: > The french experience with intolerance is very different than ours and thu > leads to different outcomes and paths. > > Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless > > > -----Original message----- > From: "Friedman, Howard M." <howard.fried...@utoledo.edu> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Sent: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 03:10:57 GMT+00:00 > Subject: RE: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against EstablishmentClause > challenge > > It is interesting to compare reactions in Europe to similar situations. In > 2010, French politicians strongly criticized a restaurant chain that decided > to serve only halal meat in 8 of its restaurants with a large Muslim > clientele. Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire said: "When they remove all > the pork from a restaurant open to the public, I think they fall into > communalism, which is against the principles and the spirit of the French > republic." > See: > http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/02/french-politicians-criticize-restaurant.html > > In 2007 in Britain, a primary school in Kingsgate attempted to accommodate > religious needs of its growing Muslim student body by serving only Halal meat > in its lunch menus. A number of parents objected, arguing that the school was > forcing their children to to conform to "someone else's culture." > See > http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/02/british-parents-protest-halal-menus-in.html > > > Howard Friedman > > -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Volokh, Eugene > Sent: Wed 4/11/2012 7:46 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against EstablishmentClause > challenge > > I agree entirely; I mention this partly because I > occasionally hear pork bans as examples of quintessential violations of the > Establishment Clause, though I don't think they would be. > > To be sure, a general pork ban might have a different motivation than a > prison decision not to serve pork. But at the same time even a general pork > ban could certainly be an attempt to accommodate a religious group by > minimizing the risk that its members will accidentally ingest pork (or that > its members might be put in a position where their employment would require > the handling or even sampling of pork). And just as the state of California > is free to ban the sale of horsemeat for human consumption (as it did in > 1998), so it should be free to ban the sale of pork - not that I'd ever > endorse that as a policy matter! > > Eugene > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:32 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against Establishment Clause > challenge > > Is this outcome surprising in any way? Does anyone on the list believe that > the court got this wrong? (I certainly don't). > > If Congress overrode HHS and eliminated pregnancy prevention services from > mandatory coverage by employers under the Affordable Care Act, wouldn't the > analysis be just the same (imposition of a uniform policy to avoid religious > conflict, avoid any need to create controversial exceptions for religious > entities, avoid piece-meal litigation, and ease administration of the overall > scheme), even though the impetus for change derived from a demand by some for > religious accommodation? > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Volokh, Eugene > <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote: > River v. Mohr (N.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2012), > http://volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/RiversvMohr.pdf . > > Eugene > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to > Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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. > > > > -- > Ira C. Lupu > F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law > George Washington University Law School > 2000 H St., NW > Washington, DC 20052 > (202)994-7053 > My SSRN papers are here: > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg > > _______________________________________________ > 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided man." - Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love", 1963
_______________________________________________ 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.
