Is this any different than creating chapels or worship/reflection spaces on a state university campus, in a county hospital, or on a military base? What holds these examples (including the airport) together is the desire to accommodate the worship needs of patrons/participants who have no ready alternative available (they are far from home, perhaps trapped physically for a long time, and perhaps under unusual stress). So government may make these spaces available, but may not encourage or promote their use. Eugene's airport example may just reflect the likely "gerrymandering" of traditional chapel space in the design associated with Christian worship.
We would think very differently about all this if the government set up a program for helping nonprofits more generally (like schools or social service providers) construct new space, and permitted the construction of worship spaces within such a program. That would go to the core of the Establishment Clause prohibition on government financial support for salary of clergy or the building of churches. What Nyquist and Tilton said about that seems to me quite good law still, and it has nothing to do with denominational neutrality. On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > A blog reader asked me about this, and I thought I’d pose > the question to the list. Orlando Airport is apparently spending $250,000 > to build a “reflection room” where Muslim travelers can more conveniently > pray, especially given the expansion of the airline Emirates at the > airport. See > http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-orlando-international-airport-reflection-room-20150808-story.html > . The reflection room is in addition to “the small, nondenominational > chapel tucked away on Airside B, just past the security checkpoint,” where > Muslim travelers sometimes now go (and where there are some prayer rugs > available for them). The reflection room would be open to all religious > groups, as I understand it, but will be primarily designed with Muslim > travelers in mind. > > > > Now I don’t think this should be a problematic > accommodation, any more than serving kosher meals (or halal meals) in those > government cafeterias in which there is sufficient demand. But I wonder > whether there might nonetheless be a First Amendment problem under the > 1970s cases barring the use of government funds for physical places where > religious services will be held. (I realize the issue arises as to > “reflection rooms” more broadly as well.) What do people on the list think > about it? Thanks, > > > > Eugene > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- 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" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014)) 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.
