You may be right, in a technical sense. The Court limited itself to the RFRA claim. But the case suggests to me that the Court would probably not be receptive to a claim on the (landmarks preservation) merits made by the Church. I am not remembering the aftermath of the case very well, but it seems to me that the Church basically lost, on the merits. Finally, if I am remembering the cases correctly, objections to landmarking by churches usually fail, even though landmarking imposes burdens on the churches.
-----Original Message----- From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:26 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church I'm not sure I quite understand -- why would it answer that question? If I recall correctly, this issue wasn't passed on by the Court. Eugene > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Newsom Michael > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:18 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church > > > Doesn't Boerne answer the question posed in your second paragraph? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:59 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church > > Marty makes an excellent point here. I think (though I'm > not sure that Marty does) that it would be outrageous if, > when a state *does* rebuild all buildings, or help rebuild > them, or provides other services short of rebuilding (e.g., > taxpayer-paid internal sprinkler installation, partly > subsidized earthquake retrofitting, etc.), it nonetheless > excluded churches, synagogues, homes that are used for > regular synagogue meetings or Bible study, and the like. Yet > surely there is a risk here that the state is indeed > preferring religious buildings; even if there's no deliberate > desire to help religion because religion is somehow good, > many people who are trying to evaluate a building's > "historic" status may well be understandably influenced by > that building's being religious, since religious buildings > are often seen as especially important to a community and to > the community's history. > > Yet would this go the other way, too? Would landmarking > ordinances that *burden* the property owner, by barring it > from reconstructing the building, thus be per se > unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause when applied > to churches and the like, on the theory that there's no > neutrality here? > > Eugene > > > > Marty Lederman writes: > > Nevertheless, even if the sort of "formal neutrality" rule > espoused in Thomas's Mitchell plurality becomes the governing > doctrine, as I think it will, these cases are still > difficult, because there's nothing neutral, or objective, > about the decision to fund the rebuilding of the Pilgrim > Baptist Church. Illinois presumably does not rebuild all > buildings destroyed by fire, or all "community services" > buildings, or all churches, for that matter. The decision to > rebuild this particular structure is very subjective, and > discretionary. I suppose it's possible that the decision to > fund would be made completely without regard to the > building's status as a church, but that seems unlikely, > no?: Isn't it at least a strong possibility that the state > would not pledge a million dollars if the building had never > been a synagogue and church? And if its religious status is > part of the reason for the pledge, isn't that a form of > religious favoritism that is problematic under the EC, even > if the Thomas view prevails? > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
