No apologies necessary, Alan. All of the points in your recent post -- that the Town of Greece prayer policy raises structural issues as well as coercion/liberty issues , and that many on (and off) this list are quite selective in the religious liberty concerns with which they sympathize -- are extremely well taken. Rick Garnett brought your MOJ post to the list, and I am genuinely curious whether he and others at MOJ agree with your assertion (and mine) that the Town of Greece prayer policy raises very serious questions of whether the Town (quite independent of coercion) had unconstitutionally aligned itself with Christianity.
Thanks. Chip On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Alan Brownstein <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu> wrote: > I apologize to Chip for not responding earlier to his post. I think Chip > makes a very important point. There are profoundly important structural > arguments that justify challenging the Town of Greece's prayer policy. I > did not intend to suggest otherwise in my blog post. In addition to these > structural concerns, I also think the Town's policy violated constitutional > norms of religious equality (see, e.g. Larsen v. Valente). Through its > invitation policy, the Town discriminated in favor of established religions > in the community and against members of minority faiths who worshiped in > adjoining towns and residents who are spiritual but unaffiliated with any > organized religious congregation (close to 20% of Americans in recent > studies.) > > > > But I also think there is an independent and direct burden on religious > liberty when citizens who are seeking benefits from government > officials, or who are petitioning government officials on matters directly > impacting their lives, livelihood or property, or who are having disputes > resolved through administrative decision-making or litigation are asked > first to bow their heads, stand, and join in state sponsored prayers that > are being publicly offered in their names. I think that is inherently > coercive and is a direct abridgement of religious liberty, > notwithstanding the other constitutional failings of the Town of Greece's > policy. > > > > It was this latter religious liberty concern that was the focus of my blog > post. This is the concern which I believe can be meaningfully analogized to > the Hobby Lobby litigation and related cases. I certainly know colleagues > and acquaintances who find this argument about coercion and religious > liberty compelling in Town of Greece, but who are far less sympathetic to > the religious liberty claims of plaintiffs in Hobby Lobby and related cases. > > > > Alan > -- Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, Religious People" (forthcoming, summer 2014, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.) 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.
