When people are asking government officials to exercise their discretion in a
way that seriously impacts their important interests in a courtroom, at an
administrative proceeding, in a government bureaucrat's office, in a classroom
, or at the town hall meeting in a small town, I think it is intrinsically
coercive for the officials or the "chaplain" they designate to ask the
petitioners to stand, bow their heads and join them in collective prayer.
Indeed, I cannot imagine anyone not feeling pressured and coerced in that
situation -- just as I believe there is a significant likelihood that a member
of the small audience remaining seated while everyone else stands or leaving
the room as the prayer begins will have an adverse influence of the officials
who are being asked to exercise their discretion.
Alan
________________________________
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 11:07 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: On a different strand of the seamless web
I’m not a fan of official prayers. But it seems a plausible
view of religious liberty that (1) people should have exemptions, when
possible, that let them practice their religion, but (2) government
institutions should have considerable latitude to include religious speech in
their programs – so long as they don’t force people to pray – especially given
longstanding American traditions approving of some such inclusion. (In
particular, being in the audience while a chaplain is praying strikes me as not
that much to “endure,” and I say this as someone who is irreligious; while
being required to participate would be wrong, I think, being required to simply
be present in the room, or to briefly leave the room for the occasion, seems to
me as quite a different matter.) The view I describe here may not be
everyone’s view of religious liberty, but it seems to me quite coherent, and
has something to recommend it.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 9:51 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: On a different strand of the seamless web
I very much appreciate Doug's post and his reference to Town of Greece. The
Becket Fund, which has very ably represented Hobby Lobby and others in the
contraceptive cases, insists that it is committed to "religious liberty."
(Likewise many on this list.) But in Town of Greece, the Becket Fund filed an
amicus brief on the side of the Town; it was aligned not with religious
liberty, but rather with the power of government to shove prayer in the face of
citizens who wanted to interact with elected officials without having to endure
a worship exercise for someone else's faith. If this is our constitutional
tradition, as many argued, it is not a tradition of religious liberty.
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Douglas Laycock
<dlayc...@virginia.edu<mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu>> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:02:00 -0700
"Scarberry, Mark"
<mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu<mailto:mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>> wrote:
* * * *
Christians died rather than burn a pinch of incense to the emperor.
Yes they did. A point they entirely forget as they impose brief Christian
prayer services on their fellow citizens at public meetings, and insist that
it's no big deal to go through of motions of praying to a God you don't believe
in.
Douglas Laycock
Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Virginia Law School
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
434-243-8546
_______________________________________________
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" (forthcoming, summer 2014, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.)
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
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.
