Southworth v. Board of Regents requires viewpoint neutrality in these programs.
Given that, any University that lets students distribute these funds on an ad
hoc basis is hanging a big "Sue Me" sign on its back.
Quoting Ed Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A very interesting lawsuit has been f
A very interesting lawsuit has been filed by Students for Life, a recognized
student group, against Wayne State University over the denial of student
activity funds for a weeklong event the group wanted to put on. The obvious
precedent is Rosenberger, but I don't know if the facts fit perfectly her
Either religious or sacreligious. Either meant to be taken literally and
seriously, or meant to invoke God's name in vain. But the Court will never be
absolutist about this, and these slogans are in no danger.
Quoting Christopher Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Responding to Professor Conkle's
Responding to Professor Conkle's post, there certainly are definitional
problems. For me the hardest are the symbol cases * does the Ten Commandments
along with a number of secular displays really convey a religious message?
Doug Laycock's amicus brief in Van Orden, I think, is the best attemp
I think there is a lot of merit in what both Chris and Eugene are saying. It is
hard to evaluate the political divisiveness issue without including some kind
of temporal reference. Restrictions on the exercise of majority prerogatives in
the name of minority rights will often produce a substanti
Professor Lund wrote: "Perhaps candidates in local elections would start to
run on prayer-related questions." (It's already happening!)
Professor Volokh wrote: "A few people care fairly deeply; most don't. What's
more, the battles happen in relatively few places."
Actually, so many people
Chris Lund writes in part as follows: "if the Supreme Court lets government
speak religiously, there is a natural push for people to want it to speak
religiously as much as possible, and in the particular way they want.
Eventually, someone in the government (whether the courts or otherwise) wi
It's true that the battles over the secondary questions have been
limited (although some, like Hinrichs v. Bosma, have been the source of
some controversy). But part of it may be that nothing has reached the
Supreme Court yet, and so there's no nation-wide, high-profile
definitive rule that people
But the battles over secondary questions, as best I can tell,
tend to be quite low-profile. A few people care fairly deeply; most
don't. What's more, the battles happen in relatively few places. A
Supreme Court decision invalidating legislative prayer everywhere in the
country, notwithst
I appreciate Professor Esenberg's clarification of his position, although I
disagree with it in important respects. I tend to agree with Dan Conkle that
coercion and government proselytizing are part of the story, but other concerns
also have to be taken into account. Certainly, religious equali
I think there is also a difference between legislative prayer at the State or
congressional level and prayer at the city council or school board level. The
latter is more up close and personal and has far more coercive implications for
citizens (as opposed to legislators). It may be that Marsh i
Maybe also because Marsh did not want to go into what the compromise
actually was (i.e., the ambiguity in Marsh as to whether "sectarian"
legislative prayer is constitutional). And maybe also because
compromises are hard for people to accept when they don't really see any
underlying principle behi
I agree with this, but your account only talks about the divisions
caused by the first decision. Striking down legislative prayer would
indeed be controversial, more so than approving it. I think that may be
part of why Marsh took the road it did.
But, as we've seen, approving legislative prayer
I think the interesting question in regard to Marsh -- for
the sake of the argument presuming it has failed -- is why it has
failed: because sectarians are willing to use it as a means of coercing
others into accepting their religious prayers and pronouncements, or
because secularists are unwillin
If the Establishment Clause was indeed supposed to prevent
"political divisions along religious lines," what do we think would
cause more such divisions -- legislative prayer allowed under Marsh
(which irks many law professors, but likely a small minority of
conservative Christians and a sm
As Professor Esenberg suggests, coercion is a highly relevant consideration in
addressing religious expression in governmental settings, but there are other
important considerations as well--whether the expression is sectarian or
nonsectarian, whether it is worshipful or nonworshipful, whether t
My own personal reaction to invocations is often as Professor Friedman
describes and my concern about the asymmetric treatment of government speech
that makes religious dissenters feel like outsiders is more acutely presented
in cases involving curricular speech, private speech that can be deem
"That kind of jockeying for government recognition of particular
denominations-- or for an implicit government statement rejecting
supposed antireligious views-- seems to be just the kind of political
divisions along religious lines that the Establishment Clause was
supposed to prevent."
Yes indee
I think we need to ask why so much passion is expended on the question of
invocations to begin meetings of government bodies. I find it hard to believe
that proponents feel legislators will make significantly different decisions if
the form of prayer at the beginning of their meeting is slightly
19 matches
Mail list logo
