Is it at all relevant that we're talking about $250,000 instead of, say, $25,000 for a more modest chapel. And it sounds as this is an attempt to curry favor not only with Moslem passengers (perfectly appropriate), but also specifically with the Emirate Airline, which one presumes is Islamic in ownership. Could an airport eager to get El Al's business promise a lavish chapel for Jewish passengers (perhaps with suitably segregated seating for the Orthodox), as against a specifically "Jewish chapel" to go along with "Protestant" and "Catholic" and other denominational chapels that might be provided?
sandy From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Justin Butterfield Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:58 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport I agree that there's a possible accommodation approach that would allow the reflection room as well. Setting aside accommodation, the Sixth Circuit rests pretty strongly on neutrality as the guiding principle in holding that government funds may be used to refurbish churches, which seems more like your hypothetical . Am. Atheists, Inc. v. City of Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth., 567 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2009). In that opinion, the Sixth Circuit said, "Since Tilton, the Court repeatedly has held that the Establishment Clause does not require the government to exclude religious groups from participating in open-access programs that make state-owned buildings available to all comers, even if such groups use the property for 'religious worship and religious discussion.' Widmar, 454 U.S. At 265, 270-75; see Good News Club, 533 U.S. At 113-14, 119; Lamb's Chapel, 508 U.S. At 394-95; see also Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 839-46. What mattered in those cases was not that religious activity took place in facilities that the State had built and paid to maintain, but that the government provided access to those facilities on equal terms to all, ensuring that whatever use the groups made of them could not be chalked up to the State." Am. Atheists, 567 F.3d at 299. Justin --- Justin Butterfield Senior Counsel Liberty Institute Tel.: (972) 941-4451 Fax.: (972) 941-4457 jbutterfi...@libertyinstitute.org<mailto:jbutterfi...@libertyinstitute.org> www.libertyinstitute.org<http://www.libertyinstitute.org/> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail message and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender that is confidential and legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it was sent. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in this electronic mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please delete it immediately and call (972) 941-4451 to advise me that you received it. Thank you. PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT From: Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu<mailto:icl...@law.gwu.edu>> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:20 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport Is this any different than creating chapels or worship/reflection spaces on a state university campus, in a county hospital, or on a military base? What holds these examples (including the airport) together is the desire to accommodate the worship needs of patrons/participants who have no ready alternative available (they are far from home, perhaps trapped physically for a long time, and perhaps under unusual stress). So government may make these spaces available, but may not encourage or promote their use. Eugene's airport example may just reflect the likely "gerrymandering" of traditional chapel space in the design associated with Christian worship. We would think very differently about all this if the government set up a program for helping nonprofits more generally (like schools or social service providers) construct new space, and permitted the construction of worship spaces within such a program. That would go to the core of the Establishment Clause prohibition on government financial support for salary of clergy or the building of churches. What Nyquist and Tilton said about that seems to me quite good law still, and it has nothing to do with denominational neutrality. On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote: A blog reader asked me about this, and I thought I'd pose the question to the list. Orlando Airport is apparently spending $250,000 to build a "reflection room" where Muslim travelers can more conveniently pray, especially given the expansion of the airline Emirates at the airport. See http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-orlando-international-airport-reflection-room-20150808-story.html . The reflection room is in addition to "the small, nondenominational chapel tucked away on Airside B, just past the security checkpoint," where Muslim travelers sometimes now go (and where there are some prayer rugs available for them). The reflection room would be open to all religious groups, as I understand it, but will be primarily designed with Muslim travelers in mind. Now I don't think this should be a problematic accommodation, any more than serving kosher meals (or halal meals) in those government cafeterias in which there is sufficient demand. But I wonder whether there might nonetheless be a First Amendment problem under the 1970s cases barring the use of government funds for physical places where religious services will be held. (I realize the issue arises as to "reflection rooms" more broadly as well.) What do people on the list think about it? Thanks, 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, 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" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014)) 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.
