RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance

[Alan Brownstein]

I realize I’ve fallen behind on this thread. But to answer your questions, Brad, -- in my 25 years of teaching, no student has ever initiated a conversation with me that would justify my exhorting them to accept the tenets of Judaism. Indeed, I’m hard pressed to imagine a situation where this might occur. In response to questions, I have told students who asked me where in town they could go to attend High Holy Day services – but that doesn’t constitute exhortation.   As for the officer who suggests to subordinates that “real” men drink and chase women, that may be stupid and insensitive, but it probably does not raise constitutional concerns. Religion is special.  Exhorting a subordinate about religion is like exhorting a subordinate to support a political candidate. It’s off limits because the government, and particularly the military, can not endorse specific religious faiths or political parties.   Basically, I think public school teachers, public university professors, military officers, and other government officials are given considerable discretionary power over students and subordinates. Along with that power goes a corresponding responsibility. No one subject to such power should have to worry that their religious or political affiliation will influence the way that power is exercised.   I think Chip is absolutely correct that government officials acting in their official capacity have no authority to teach, exhort, or persuade citizens to adopt the official’s religious beliefs – and that such teaching or exhortation would violate the First Amendment. Further, the risk of abuse in these hierarchical situations is so great that a prophylactic rule is entirely appropriate.   Alan Brownstein UC Davis           From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 4:40 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance   Alan, I think it would all depend on the nature of the relationship.  I can look to my own experience on this.  While in high school, it was a teacher who first shared the gospel with me.  Some would consider that impermissable.  In hindsight, though, I can say without question that, when my parents divorced six months later, I would have undoubtedly killed myself, so I would say that she saved my life.  I had a friendship with her, though, that made such a conversation permissible.  There were other teachers with whom I was not friends, and in those cases, the conversation would not have been permissible.  I think that's the problem with one-size-fits-all solutions which fail to take into account the differing nature of relationships between different persons. Another significant point is that you say you would never initiate a conversation.  Suppose, however, in the course of casual conversation, the subject comes up, initiated by the student.  Would you still consider it impermissible? Finally, I don't think it should be that difficult to lay down guidlines to ensure that any subordinate is free to be as willing or unwilling as they wish to be.  Suppose, as a hypothetical, that an officer makes it clear that he thinks a "real man" goes into town on weekend liberty to go drinking and chasing women.  Would the subordinate have a claim if he didn't feel free to be "unwilling" to hear the officer's exhortations? If not, then why would the subordinate have a claim when the subject is religion?  If so, then that speaks poorly about the internal strength of the people in our military forces. Brad Alan Brownstein wrote: Brad,   Would you agree that in a situation where one individual is in a position of authority over another that attempts to “exhort or persuade” are impermissible. As a law professor at a public university, I would never initiate a conversation with one of my students in an attempt to “exhort or persuade” him to change his religious beliefs. In the military, the situation is much more coercive. An allegedly “willing” subordinate who is exhorted to adopt the religious beliefs of a superior officer may not have felt free to be “unwilling” to hear the officer’s exhortations.   Alan Brownstein UC Davis

_______________________________________________
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.