I'm not forgetting that, but my sense is that Locke treated a
financial subsidy for the benefit of listeners as quite different from the
Widmar et al. scenario of access to government property for speakers and
listeners. It certainly didn't say anything to suggest that it was cutting
back on Widmar. Or am I missing something there? (Widmar et al. after all
also involved "old-time separationist view[s]," whether "respectable" or not;
but the Court rejected that view there, and even many "old-time
separationist[s]" signed on to the rejection.)
Eugene
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bezanson, Randall P
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:51 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum?
Well ... Don't forget Rehnquist's "play in the joints" from Locke v. Davey,
also a Washington case, by the way. Te state's position seems like a perfectly
respectable old-time separationist view.
Randy Bezanson
U Iowa
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 14, 2011, at 11:24 PM, "Volokh, Eugene"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Any thoughts on this incident? It sounds to me like the church
should win in Widmar v. Vincent - if a university can't exclude religious
worship from a designated public forum, it surely can't exclude it from a
traditional public forum, no? Indeed, the baptism would presumably involve not
just speech but also the immersion of a person in water (if that's the kind of
baptism that's involved); but I take it that this is expressive conduct, and
expressive conduct that isn't being limited because of some harms that
supposedly flow from its physical properties (such as the risk of drowning or
some such). Or am I missing something here?
Eugene
Feed: Religion Clause
Posted on: Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:46 AM
Author: Howard Friedman
Subject: Washington State Denies Permit For Baptism Ceremony At State Capitol
Park
In Olympia, Washington, Heritage
Park<http://www.ga.wa.gov/visitor/Parks/HP.htm> is a 24-acre state-owned park
next to the state capitol campus. The state will issue permits for events to
be held at the park. Today's Bellingham (WA)
Herald<http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/08/13/2141468/state-rejects-olympia-churchs.html>
reports that the state's Department of General Administration has given
Reality Church of Olympia a permit for a barbecue and picnic to be held today,
but has denied its request to conduct a baptism along with the event. The
Department, deciding an appeal of an initial denial, said that the state
constitution bars the use of public property for religious worship. The church
had argued that its free speech and free exercise rights were infringed by the
denial.
View
article...<http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2011/08/washington-state-denies-permit-for.html>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
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 [email protected]
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.
