Wouldn't the Justices know all this? And, especially given this, why would the Justices be that upset at the possibility that - of the money that goes to religious institutions - 1% would go to madrasa child care centers and 99% would go to seemingly nice church/synagogue/etc. child care centers?
Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 9:13 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: Re: Funds for madrasas I of course agree with Eugene and his examples. The real question I was asking was whether a lawyer should emphasize the implications of broadening state subsidies to religious institutions re funding Moslem schools and whether the judges, at least privately, will think of these implications in the present state of American politics. Sandy Sent from my iPhone On Jan 15, 2016, at 6:46 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote: It seems to me that taxpayers routinely subsidize speech the majority disapproves of: 1. Saudi-funded madrasas, like other religious schools - and other nonprofits - get a subsidy through tax exemptions. The same goes, of course, for educational nonprofits that distribute secular ideas that many people find repulsive. If the government sought to exclude pernicious doctrines from these benefits, I take it that this would violate the First Amendment, yes? 2. Saudi-funded pernicious Wahabi materials get the same post office subsidies (media mail, the old second-class mailing rate) that any other media materials do. 3. Pernicious Wahabi speech can't be excluded from benefit programs such as the one in Rosenberger - and I take it that even the dissenters would have agreed that an exclusion of funding for pernicious viewpoints (as opposed to all religious viewpoints) would have violated the First Amendment. If a Wahabi school is getting pretty massive tax benefits (property tax exemptions, income tax deductibility of contributions), why should we balk at the Wahabi school getting funding to keep its - however perniciously taught - children from injuring themselves on gravel playgrounds? Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 4:31 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: Re: Cert Granted in Blaine Amendment case Why does the particular subsidy matter? It obviously frees up funds that can be used for sectarian purposes. Sandy ... Sent from my iPhone To what extent is it either required or ethically questionable to point out, if one is objecting to conclusion "a" above, to point out that any such doctrine would require "sovereign states" to pony money up to Moslem schools, including, say, madrasas funded by Saudi Arabia in order to teach various pernicious Wahabi doctrines? As Donald Trump might put it, I'm just asking, though, as with Trump, I'm confident that a lot of Evangelical Christians who will not be happy with an argument that their tax dollars have to go to fund Islamic schools. sandy ... _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.