I doubt very much that Justice Scalia could be naive enough to think that there is a uniform approach to church state relations in Europe. I suspect that he meant France when he referred to Europe, but, as a highly placed member of the United States government, he probably didn't want to cause a diplomatic problem by publicly criticizing another country on its approach to an internal matter. It is easy to criticize an agglomeration like "Europe" without such concern; it was simply code.
David Waddilove Adjunct Professor UALR Bowen School of Law P.O. Box 2060 Little Rock, AR 72223 On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The comparative issues are even more complicated than previously suggested. > I don't think there is a european approach to separation. In this arena, > each country abides by disestablishment to different degrees. Compare > France to Germany to Britain. To the extent that Justice Scalia is > comparing the US to a monolithic European approach, there is a fundamental > flaw in his reasoning. > > Marci > > Marci Hamilton > Visiting Professor of Public Affairs > Princeton University > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Marc Stern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:41:16 > To:"Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Subject: RE: Drift of the Court on religion > > > But based on those subsidies, the UK has forbidden religious schools > receiving government aid to tell students that homosexual > behavior is sinful (although they can teach that the church is opposed to > homosexual behavior). And under its laws regarding sexual orientation > equality, it has forbidden a Catholic school to fire a headmaster (a lovely > English term) who had a same sex partner. Moreover, the British have at > least proposed that religious schools be required to accept a portion of > students of differ faiths to avoid religious segregation.( I don't know off > hand whether the proposal was adopted.)Thus, the question of whether the > religious subsidies advance religious freedom is more complicated than > Alan's post suggests-even before we get to the questioned of whether the > nominal Christianity of public schools in England is itself any boon to > religion. > Marc Stern > > ---------------- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brownstein, Alan > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 1:35 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Drift of the Court on religion > > > > > Sorry, Eugene. I can't help you on the question you asked about Justice > White. But on the question of whether Justice Scalia's arguments about the > Establishment clause are sound, I am somewhat perplexed by his apparent > belief that Europe is committed to the separation of church and state and > that religious expression is excluded from the public square throughout the > continent. I'm not an expert on comparative law – but, to cite just one > example, it certainly seems to me that European countries are far more > likely to permit government subsidies of religious schools and far more > willing to permit religious teaching and prayer in the public schools than > the United States. > > Alan Brownstein > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 10:18 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Drift of the Court on religion > > I'm sure Justice Scalia is not credible to lots of people, just as any > Justice is not credible to lots of people. But I take it the question > should be whether his arguments about the Establishment Clause -- the > question he seemed to be discussing -- are sound, a matter that is logically > quite independent of whether one thinks his (and Justice Stevens', > Rehnquist's, Kennedy's, White's, and Harlan's) view on the Free Exercise > Clause was sound. > > Incidentally, speaking of the drift of the Court on religion -- has > anyone studied why Justice White provided the fifth vote for the Smith > majority? He did originally vote with Harlan in dissent in Sherbert v. > Verner, but then seemed to accept the constitutionally compelled exemptions > regime -- not joining, for instance, Rehnquist's and Stevens' expressions of > skepticism on the subject -- and in Bowen v. Roy took the most pro-claimant > view of any Justice. Yet in Smith he changed his view. Any thoughts on why > he so concluded? Was he, for instance, persuaded by his thirty years of > experience dealing with the constitutionally compelled exemptions regime > that Scalia's critique was correct? Or did he always take the view that the > regime was unsound and should be jettisoned at the first opportunity, but > that while it continued it should be enforced relatively rigorously? > > Eugene > > > ---------------- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad & Linda > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:57 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Scalia Decreis Drift of Court On Religion > > I'm not sure the author of the majority opinion in Employment Division V > Smith is the most credible voice to criticize the Court's handling of > religion. > > > > Brad Pardee > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Joel Sogol <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Religionlaw <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 6:44 PM > > Subject: Scalia Decreis Drift of Court On Religion > > > Scalia > Decries Drift of Court On Religion - June 2, 2008 - The New York Sun < > http://www.nysun.com/national/scalia-decries-drift-of-court-on-religion/79084/ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
