I think that once one is "hearing from government" offensive theological views, 
the Establishment Clause is fully implicated. It is prudence, and nothing else, 
that "legitimizes" "In God We Trust."  (That's why the court had to invent an 
implausible standing doctrine to avoid deciding in Newdow's favor.)  But I 
think there's a role for prudence, as against all principle all the time.

Sandy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 6, 2014, at 2:26 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" 
<vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote:

               I take it that the authors of those briefs saw a law requiring 
someone to do something that they thought was sinful as different from a 
practice under which people end up hearing things from the government that they 
might find offensive or alienating.

               Eugene

From: 
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> 
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 11:10 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: On a different strand of the seamless web


I think Chip"s and Doug's key points in their posts are worth emphasizing. Many 
briefs supporting the town of Greece and the Court's opinion in that case 
treated the religious liberty arguments of plaintiffs with complete distain. 
The authors of many of those briefs and the same justices who wrote the opinion 
upholding coercive and discriminatory prayer practices  in Town of Greece 
insisted that the religious liberty of Hobby Lobby must be protected.



As Chip suggests, a tradition, or support for a legal regime, of religious 
liberty for me but not for you cannot be fairly described as a commitment to 
religious liberty.



An incidental, but not insignificant, result of this kind one-sided support for 
religious liberty is the burden it places on those of us who try to defend and 
promote religious liberty and equality for people on both sides of the culture 
wars.



Alan



_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to