I don't think that your analogy holds up. It is one thing for the state to regulate, and quite another to spend money.
-----Original Message----- From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:48 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church I don't think Boerne can be read as even implicitly passing on this question. But if courts do end up rejecting these objections to landmarking, then my point (a response to Marty's point about neutrality) is that the same should apply to objections to government repair assistance. The mere risk that landmarking decisions might end up burdening religious institutions because of their religiosity (since maybe the authorities would be less likely to see a building as a landmark if it weren't a church) doesn't justify treating all such decisions as presumptively religiously discriminatory. Likewise, the mere risk that landmark repair assistance decisions might end up benefiting religious institutions because of their religiosity (since maybe the authorities would be less likely to repair a building as a landmark if it weren't a church) doesn't justify treating all such decisions as presumptive religious favoritism. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Newsom Michael > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:43 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church > > > You may be right, in a technical sense. The Court limited > itself to the RFRA claim. But the case suggests to me that > the Court would probably not be receptive to a claim on the > (landmarks preservation) merits made by the Church. I am not > remembering the aftermath of the case very well, but it seems > to me that the Church basically lost, on the merits. Finally, > if I am remembering the cases correctly, objections to > landmarking by churches usually fail, even though landmarking > imposes burdens on the churches. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:26 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church > > I'm not sure I quite understand -- why would it answer > that question? If I recall correctly, this issue wasn't > passed on by the Court. > > Eugene > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Newsom Michael > > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:18 AM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church > > > > > > Doesn't Boerne answer the question posed in your second paragraph? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:59 AM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church > > > > Marty makes an excellent point here. I think (though I'm > > not sure that Marty does) that it would be outrageous if, > > when a state *does* rebuild all buildings, or help rebuild > > them, or provides other services short of rebuilding (e.g., > > taxpayer-paid internal sprinkler installation, partly > > subsidized earthquake retrofitting, etc.), it nonetheless > > excluded churches, synagogues, homes that are used for > > regular synagogue meetings or Bible study, and the like. Yet > > surely there is a risk here that the state is indeed > > preferring religious buildings; even if there's no deliberate > > desire to help religion because religion is somehow good, > > many people who are trying to evaluate a building's > > "historic" status may well be understandably influenced by > > that building's being religious, since religious buildings > > are often seen as especially important to a community and to > > the community's history. > > > > Yet would this go the other way, too? Would landmarking > > ordinances that *burden* the property owner, by barring it > > from reconstructing the building, thus be per se > > unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause when applied > > to churches and the like, on the theory that there's no > > neutrality here? > > > > Eugene > > > > > > > > Marty Lederman writes: > > > > Nevertheless, even if the sort of "formal neutrality" rule > > espoused in Thomas's Mitchell plurality becomes the governing > > doctrine, as I think it will, these cases are still > > difficult, because there's nothing neutral, or objective, > > about the decision to fund the rebuilding of the Pilgrim > > Baptist Church. Illinois presumably does not rebuild all > > buildings destroyed by fire, or all "community services" > > buildings, or all churches, for that matter. The decision to > > rebuild this particular structure is very subjective, and > > discretionary. I suppose it's possible that the decision to > > fund would be made completely without regard to the > > building's status as a church, but that seems unlikely, > > no?: Isn't it at least a strong possibility that the state > > would not pledge a million dollars if the building had never > > been a synagogue and church? And if its religious status is > > part of the reason for the pledge, isn't that a form of > > religious favoritism that is problematic under the EC, even > > if the Thomas view prevails? > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
