It might also be relevant to note that at least for many congregations, pre-schools -- which typically have playgrounds -- are very important sources of revenue for the house of worship at which they are based. Alan
Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 17, 2016, at 11:16 AM, "Graber, Mark" <mgra...@law.umaryland.edu> > wrote: > > For the record, my reform temple regularly held religious activities in the > playground. A playground is a very good place for making religious points > for 6 and 7 year olds. > ________________________________ > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] > on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu] > Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:46 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits > > I suppose it’s possible, but it doesn’t seem that likely. From > what I’ve seen, the springy recycled-tire surface tends to be used by swing > sets, monkey bars, slides, and the like – not the optimal place for an “’old > time religion’ tent revival” or even an Easter Sunrise Service. A soccer > field, a baseball diamond, or tennis courts might be a better place, but I > think they generally don’t use rubber surfaces (since that would throw off > the play of the game). > > But in any event, if such a service is held on a resurfaced > playground, the resurfacing would have done little to help the service; the > service can be held on all kinds of surfaces. Resurfacing is important when > kids are running, climbing, and tumbling, not when they’re standing still. > > Eugene > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman > Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 9:22 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits > > without getting too far into the details here; there are many times when > religions hold outdoor services, most obviously and Easter Sunrise Service. > A playground might be just the place for that, or for an "old time religion" > tent revival. > > > ****************** > Paul Finkelman > Ariel F. Sallows Visiting Professor of Human Rights Law > College of Law > University of Saskatchewan > 15 Campus Drive > Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A6 > CANADA > paul.finkel...@yahoo.com<mailto:paul.finkel...@yahoo.com> > c) 518.605.0296 > and > Senior Fellow > Democracy, Citizenship and Constitutionalism Program > University of Pennsylvania > > > > > > Call > Send SMS > Call from mobile > Add to Skype > You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype > > > ________________________________ > From: "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> > Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 6:25 PM > Subject: RE: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits > > I’m not sure how upgrading the playground will make it > materially more usable as space for worship and religious instruction. Few > institutions, I expect, want to do worship and religious instruction on > playgrounds, rather than more familiar places. But those that do probably > don’t care about rubber vs. gravel surfaces when using a space for worship > and religious instruction, which rarely involves tumbling and running around. > Indeed, the improved surface is important for everyday playground physical > safety, and not really important for the very rare worship/religious > instruction on the playground. > > And a building that’s more earthquake safe, or that has asbestos removed, or > that has a security guard, or lacks dangerous mosquitoes outside, actually is > slightly more attractive as space for worship and religious instruction: > Some people might be more willing to send their kids to a school or a church > that’s earthquake-safe, asbestos-remediated, mosquito-free, or well-guarded > than to a church or school that seems dangerous. The effect won’t be vast, > but again it’s not like the extra benefit of a rubberized surface for worship > and religious instruction is vast, either. > > Indeed, an earthquake-safe/asbestos-remediated/well-guarded/mosquito-free > church or religious school building surely will be used for religious > purposes, right? One can imagine a religious school or preschool that > doesn’t use its playground for religious purposes – indeed, I’d think that’s > quite common – but a church or a school definitely would use the safer > buildings for religious purposes. Chip, under your proposal, wouldn’t a > state therefore be equally free to say that “play in the joints” lets it deny > all those safety grants (otherwise generally available to all other > institutions) to religious institutions? > > Eugene > > Chip writes: > > From: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu > Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 12:14 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> > Subject: Re: Excluding religious institutions from public safety benefits > > Neither Eugene's or Alan's questions invite quick or easy answers, but here's > a start: > > 1. Eugene's examples all involve health and safety. None can be diverted to > religious use; all make religious use, and all other uses of the property, > healthier or safer. Compare Mitchell v. Helms -- in-kind aid to schools, > public and private, in poor areas. The aid included things like computers, > books, AV equipment, etc. Plurality said that neutral distributional > criteria (public and private schools, no sectarian discrimination) is all you > need. Dissent said divertibility of aid to religious use is fatal. > Controlling opinion, SOC-SB, said the Establishment Clause concern is actual > diversion, not divertibility, so the program is OK because it contains > adequate (and non-entangling) safeguards against religious use. That is the > Establishment Clause right now. > > Trinity Lutheran Church seems to me to fall between Eugene's examples and > Mitchell. The playground will be safer for play, but it will also be more > useable as space for worship and religious instruction. Improving the > playground sufficiently would be (imperfectly) analogous to adding a new > classroom to a religious school. Divertible to religious use -- without > safeguards, unconstitutional. Missouri could reasonably conclude that a > grant to churches and church schools for playground surfaces would require > safeguards that would indeed entangle the church and the state (how do you > enforce the restriction on religious instruction on the playground in a > pre-school?) So, whether or not the grant would ultimately violate the First > Amendment, it would present a problem of direct government support for > religious instruction, and Missouri wants to avoid that federal and state > constitutional problem. There's the play in the joints. This is not how > Missouri argued this case below, but it is how it should argue in the Supreme > Court.... > > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Volokh, Eugene > <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote: > Two quick question for list members about Trinity Lutheran, if > I might. Say that the government offered grants to schools and day care > centers, on a largely nondiscretionary basis, for the following: > > 1. Removing potentially cancer-causing asbestos. > > 2. Retrofitting for earthquake safety. > > 3. Hiring security guards to prevent gang violence (and > intercede in mass shootings and the like). > > 4. Eradicating mosquitos on the property that carry some > dangerous virus (e.g., West Nile Virus). > > (Assume all the grants came with the usual penalties for misuse of state > funds, including criminal penalties for willful misuse.) But say that the > government expressly stated that religious institutions – and thus the > children who go to those institutions – can’t benefit from such grants. > > If you think that the exclusion in Trinity Lutheran is > constitutional, do you think all these exclusions would be, too? > > If you think that the exclusion in Trinity Lutheran is actually > mandated by the First Amendment, do you think all these exclusions would be, > too? > > 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<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. _______________________________________________ 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.
