"not implausible"?
OK, so imagine that certain public elementary and
secondary schools, notwithstanding Engle and Schempp and
Santa Fe, continue to engage in prayer before classes and football
games (indeed, I've been told that such practices do, in fact, continue in
many school districts, although I've never investigated the truth of such
assertions); but the school officials claim that the purpose of the prayer is
not to convey any religious beliefs or sentiments, but instead "merely" to
protest what they consider to be the wrongly decided SCOTUS school-prayer
decisions.
"Not implausible"?
P.S. Even if, in some strange alternative
universe, the officials' objectives genuinely were not religious, then I think
the harm to religious liberty would be all the greater, for the reasons Doug
Laycock has repeatedly and eloquently explained w/r/t the so-called
"secularization" of the "under God" pledge and the erection of religious
monuments.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics"
<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 6:24 PM
Subject: Government displays protesting against the
Supreme Court'sEstablishment Clause jurisprudence
documents that have religious themes -- say, the ones cited in Justice
Scalia's McCreary dissent -- with an introductory posting that says:
"The City Council of [name] condemns the Supreme Court's decisions
striking down the display of religious symbols in government buildings.
These decisions go against centuries of American tradition, as well as
against the views of the Framers. Throughout American history,
governmental bodies have repeatedly acknowledged God, and should
continue to be free to do so. We post just a few samples of such
acknowledges of God, which we believe should be constitutional." And
let's say that this indeed sincerely reflects the City Council members'
purpose -- not implausible, since I suspect that quite a few government
officials would like to do this sort of thing.
Would this be constitutional? Should it be? Rereading McCreary
County led me to think that this sort of purpose is part of what was
going on as to the second and third displays, though I would think only
a part. I'm curious what would happen if this was really the
government's purpose.
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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
