I tend to agree with Chip and Alan about permissible accommodations generally but share Sandy's concern about the proliferation of sect-specific "chapels." (Clearly government funds are used via airport bonds and other taxes via the quasi-governmental port authorities). I am reminded about entering the "interdenominational" chapel at Boston's Logan Airport many years ago and being taken aback by its orientation toward the Catholic Church (crucifixes, etc). These have often not been interdenominational in reality. Providing a new place for a faith that has previously felt excluded from a space, while commendable on one level, does not move us in the right direction. Airports should stick with one inclusive "reflection" room.
Steve -- Steven K. Green, J.D., Ph.D. Fred H. Paulus Professor of Law and Director Center for Religion, Law and Democracy Willamette University 900 State St., S.E. Salem, Oregon 97301 503-370-6732 On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Levinson, Sanford V < slevin...@law.utexas.edu> wrote: > Is it at all relevant that we’re talking about $250,000 instead of, say, > $25,000 for a more modest chapel. And it sounds as this is an attempt to > curry favor not only with Moslem passengers (perfectly appropriate), but > also specifically with the Emirate Airline, which one presumes is Islamic > in ownership. Could an airport eager to get El Al’s business promise a > lavish chapel for Jewish passengers (perhaps with suitably segregated > seating for the Orthodox), as against a specifically “Jewish chapel” to go > along with “Protestant” and “Catholic” and other denominational chapels > that might be provided? > > > > sandy > > > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Justin Butterfield > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:58 PM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport > > > > I agree that there's a possible accommodation approach that would allow > the reflection room as well. > > > > Setting aside accommodation, the Sixth Circuit rests pretty strongly on > neutrality as the guiding principle in holding that government funds may be > used to refurbish churches, which seems more like your hypothetical . *Am. > Atheists, Inc. v. City of Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth.,* 567 F.3d 278 (6th > Cir. 2009). In that opinion, the Sixth Circuit said, "Since *Tilton,* the > Court repeatedly has held that the Establishment Clause does not require > the government to exclude religious groups from participating in > open-access programs that make state-owned buildings available to all > comers, even if such groups use the property for 'religious worship and > religious discussion.' *Widmar,* 454 U.S. At 265, 270–75; *see Good News > Club,* 533 U.S. At 113–14, 119; *Lamb's Chapel,* 508 U.S. At 394–95; *see > also Rosenberger,* 515 U.S. at 839–46. What mattered in those cases was > not that religious activity took place in facilities that the State had > built and paid to maintain, but that the government provided access to > those facilities on equal terms to all, ensuring that whatever use the > groups made of them could not be chalked up to the State." *Am. Atheists,* 567 > F.3d at 299. > > > > Justin > > > > --- > *Justin Butterfield* > Senior Counsel > Liberty Institute > Tel.: (972) 941-4451 > Fax.: (972) 941-4457 > jbutterfi...@libertyinstitute.org > www.libertyinstitute.org > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > This electronic mail message and any accompanying documents contain > information belonging to the sender that is confidential and legally > privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual > or entity to whom it was sent. If you are not the intended recipient, any > disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the > contents of the information contained in this electronic mail message is > strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please > delete it immediately and call (972) 941-4451 to advise me that you > received it. Thank you. > PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY WORK > PRODUCT > > > > *From: *Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> > *Reply-To: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics < > religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Date: *Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:20 PM > *To: *Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > *Subject: *Re: Muslim-focused "reflection room" in airport > > > > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
