Even in the rare case of government-sponsored prayer where no one is coerced to participate, the government is gratuitously telling citizens that its religion is true and their religion is false. Telling people what religious beliefs are true was one important element of the classic establishments.
But apart from all that, in the real world citizens who attend the meeting are forced to participate in the prayer. The government pressures religious dissenters directly in these situatins, and it creates the occasion for intense pressure on religious dissenters from their fellow citrizens. To deny or ignore all this, as the Court did in Greece, is simply out of touch with human reality. On Sun, 6 Jul 2014 21:57:27 -0700 "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > Sandy: I appreciate your point, and it is certainly a view > held by many serious scholars. But my point is simply that it isn't at all > obvious that this indeed involves an Establishment Clause violation - and > that, especially it isn't obvious that this involves religious liberty > (Alan's phrase, to which I was specifically responding), and indeed many > serious scholars think the two are quite different. Among other things, > being ordered to do (or not do) something strikes me as more clearly a matter > of "liberty" than hearing things from the government. > > Eugene > >From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu >[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Levinson, Sanford V >Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 1:31 PM >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics >Subject: Re: On a different strand of the seamless web > >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. 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 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.
