years.
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 10:13 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum?
thanks,
puzzling
nature of the distinction that Locke draws.
Eugene
From: Marty Lederman [mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:54 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum?
12:54 PM
> *To*: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>
> *Subject*: Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public
> forum?
>
> What if, as is likely the case, New York's purpose in opening its schools
> for private uses on Sundays is not "to en
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum?
What if, as is likely the case, New York's purpose in opening its schools for
private uses on Sundays is not "to encourage a diversity of views from private
speakers
issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum?
Well, the state constitutional defense for the exclusion was
raised in Widmar as well and rejected; and the worship-nonworship line was
rejected, too. So I don’t think the play-in-the-j
n, Randall P
> *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2011 8:32 AM
>
> *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> *Subject:* RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public
> forum?
>
> ** **
>
> You are quite right about Locke, Eugene, but I'm not sure
iversity of views from private
speakers."
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Bezanson, Randall P
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 8:32 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, thou
-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 8:02 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum?
I suppose I should have written "religious worship services standing alone."
If I re
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum?
I’m not forgetting that, but my sense is that Locke treated a
financial subsidy for the benefit of listeners as quite different from the
Widmar et al. scenario of access to go
I suppose I should have written "religious worship services *standing alone*."
If I recall correctly, the premise of the CTA2 decision in *Bronx Household
* is that if -- unlike in *Widmar* -- a state generally treats religious
expression and nonreligious expression equally, and imposes a restrict
the rejection.)
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Bezanson, Randall P
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:51 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Widm
I agree entirely that it matters what grounds the state gives,
and grounds 1 and 2 might well have been adequate - but as Marty points out,
the state's grounds were not either 1 or 2, but simply that the group was
engaging in religious worship.
But as to whether
I guess facts matter. I didn't see anything in the article that said the
church baptizes by immersion, and certainly not all Christians do. Moreover,
the description of the park makes mention of amenities such as steps to the
lake permitting people to watch events on the lake--suggesting that publi
May members of the church group join in prayer during the picnic/barbecue?
It's hard to see why baptism would be different (from the state's point of
view re: devoting public resources to worship), unless Marty is correct that
the body of water is not open for swimming or wading (and no one on the
: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum?
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, uns
cent redux, though in a traditional public forum?
I can imagine at least two grounds on which the use of the park for the baptism
could be prohibited without raising serious legal question:
1. I suspect that the river or stream or pond in the park is not generally
open to the public for immersio
I can imagine at least two grounds on which the use of the park for the
baptism could be prohibited without raising serious legal question:
1. I suspect that the river or stream or pond in the park is not generally
open to the public for immersion or swimming -- and if so, prohibiting the
baptism
Well ... Don't forget Rehnquist's "play in the joints" from Locke v. Davey,
also a Washington case, by the way. Te state's position seems like a perfectly
respectable old-time separationist view.
Randy Bezanson
U Iowa
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 14, 2011, at 11:24 PM, "Volokh, Eugene"
mailto:vo
Any thoughts on this incident? It sounds to me like the church
should win in Widmar v. Vincent – if a university can’t exclude religious
worship from a designated public forum, it surely can’t exclude it from a
traditional public forum, no? Indeed, the baptism would presumably in
19 matches
Mail list logo
