Re: 21st Century Zorach
If the state sponsored chess or other meaningful activity during the release time, then there would be parents complaining about discrimination because their students who were released for religious training are missing out on some instruction. If the state continued classroom instruction, then the reading groups or math groups would have some who have had an extra 90 minutes of instruction. (Are any of these programs really only one hour? 15 minutes each way for travel, one hour for instruction, makes at least 90 minutes.) I remember a lot of "head on the desk" and "keep quiet" sort of instruction. Some teachers resented those of us who remained behind because they could not take the Wednesday morning break. So we were sometimes herded together to one room and I seem to recall doing dodgeball once during this time. So ending class early one day per week for students to go to some non-school sponsored activity, as suggested by Chip, would not be a problem -- but some parents would still complain about being forced to choose between religious education and soccer practice, I'll warrant. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "Example is always more efficacious than precept." Samuel Johnson, 1759 ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
What happened to Sunday School? Parents don't bring their kids there so they churches want the captive audience. When I was a kid we had "Wednesday School" -- Wed. morning release time -- with about double the attendance as at Sunday School -- even worse ratio during hunting season, of course. I remember vividly the first year our church did not have Wednesday school -- and I was "stuck" at school with a few other misfit heathens and wondered why I was being singled out and punished. This was second grade, I think. Eventually the Prestbyterian church got its act together and belated started its standard Wednesday school late that year. A year or two later the entire release program was dropped due to establishment concerns and busing costs -- which had been borne by the school district and which was looking for ways to save money, even back then in the late 50s, early 60s. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar "When I grow up, I too will go to faraway places, and when I grow old, I too will live by the sea." "That is all very well, little Alice," said her grandfather, "but there is a third thing you must do." "What is that?" "You must do something to make the world more beautiful." from "Ms. Rumphius" by Barbara Cooney ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
Of course schools teach religious values all the time -- just not ones identified by name with a particular religion. Truth, fairness, the everything-I-need-to-know-I-learned-in-kindergarten values. Steve On Friday, February 18, 2005, at 02:06 PM, Scarberry, Mark wrote: A possible argument for having release time only for religious programs is that parents who wish to have religious values taught to their children are just about the only ones who cannot seek to have the public schools inculcate their chosen values. Those who wish to have environmental values, healthy lifestyle values, multicultural values, or patriotic values can seek to have their values taught by the school. The Establishment Clause prohibits schools from inculcating religious values not because those values are unimportant or disfavored or damaging, but because such inculcation is to be left to parents and private organizations, who are guaranteed the right freely to exercise religion. Where the school steps out of the way to allow parents to have such inculcation done by private groups, both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses are honored. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Lupu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:50 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: 21st Century Zorach Released time has several problems in addition to trapping the left- behind students in a dead hour (Rick, high schoolers may have study halls, but 2nd graders usually don't, so this is a sham argument): 1. Why is released time only for religious studies? Why shouldn't it be for any activity of educational or civic value (Scouts, chess, or music lessons away from school, etc.)? I have never heard a good argument for religion-only released time. 2. Why should the school be releasing time from its curriculum in the first place? If school is longer than need be, shorten it. If parents want religious education for their children, why not send them for it before or after school? 3. In communities in which the vast majority of children go to Bible study during release time, there is pressure on other children to conform and ask parental permission to go too. (Someone wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in the past week or so, describing this exact situation as part of her childhood.) Conformity pressures are always present among children, of course, but here (as in Engel), the school is creating the context in which conformity pressures are highlighted. Being "left behind" in class is a more visible nonconformity than going off on one's own after school. (In my grade school days, the only children who left my public school for release time were Catholic; there weren't many, and the program spotlighted them as in a religious minority in the public school and as too poor to attend Catholic school as most of their fellow Catholics did.) Chip Lupu On 18 Feb 2005 at 10:13, Rick Duncan wrote: Forwarded by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwarded to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date forwarded: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:00:39 EST/EDT Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:13:30 -0800 (PST) From: Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: 21st Century Zorach Send reply to: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> But isn't a study hall something constructive? Public schools have study halls all the time, and they count toward the mandatory school attendance requirement. No? I thought the point that someone, maybe Doug, made was that parents are coerced into granting their consent for released time unless the school provides some meaningful activity for those who remain on campus. I doubt if very many parents would choose an off-campus religious program they oppose over a supervised study hall for children who remain on campus. Now, if children not participating in the release time program were required to clean the school's toilets or wash and wax its floors, we would have some coercion to talk about. But a study hall seems to me both a legitimate and a meaningful alternative to participation in the released time program. Study is good. Children need to do more of it. And, if I were putting the program together, I would also allow any parent who objected to the study hall to request that his or her child be released into his or her custody during the released time period. This would ensure that no one need remain on campus during the released time period. Spending time with parents is good. Children need to do more of it. Rick Duncan --- Marc Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Marty's point as I understand it is not that students choosing to participate in released time programs are coerced to believe. It is that students who do not participat
Re: 21st Century Zorach
And I will end by saying that the non-theists in one sense are right about lack of intelligibility (most theists do not really claim to understand what God is, thus the term mystery); so one person's lack of intelligibility is another person's mystery. Yes, the problem of suffering is real, and the answers are not easy. No, I do not think the theist even remotely has to get pushed into circular reasoning. Finally, the theist has the psychological comfort (or in some cases the psychological fear) that the universe has meaning. The non-theist, I think, has to believe that best explanation is that the universe is meaningless. William James's contention is interesting: I..e., the agnostic has a choice of opting for the view that the universe is meaningful rather than meaningless. James chose the former; I'm not sure how he dealt with the problem of evil, however. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/19/2005 11:17:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The perspective I mention need not and should not suggest that there is no humanist non-theistic basis for loving human beings. What makes up the "image and likeness of God" is lovable apart from theistic language. The theist would say that the non-theist account is incomplete. Let me end my participation in this thread by saying that Steve's right about the "incompleteness" charge. However, the theist's attempt at completion fares no better. Indeed, the theist's attempt arguably suffers from a lack of intelligibility, circularity, and typically collides with the problem of suffering. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
In a message dated 2/19/2005 11:17:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The perspective I mention need not and should not suggest that there is no humanist non-theistic basis for loving human beings. What makes up the "image and likeness of God" is lovable apart from theistic language. The theist would say that the non-theist account is incomplete. Let me end my participation in this thread by saying that Steve's right about the "incompleteness" charge. However, the theist's attempt at completion fares no better. Indeed, the theist's attempt arguably suffers from a lack of intelligibility, circularity, and typically collides with the problem of suffering. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
The perspective I mention need not and should not suggest that there is no humanist non-theistic basis for loving human beings. What makes up the "image and likeness of God" is lovable apart from theistic language. The theist would say that the non-theist account is incomplete. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/18/2005 11:42:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A theistic democrat could believe that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and that they deserve to be loved because of this and in specific cases are loved because God is seen in them, i.e., as a part of their essence. I don't think this helps. For one reason, it's difficult to understand just what it means to characterize God's love of human beings or God's presence in human beings "as part of their essence." Does this mean we could not understand discourse about human beings without invoking this idea? Or does it mean characterizations of human beings are conceptually or morally incomplete without appealing to God's love or His presence in people? This contention leaves unexplained why God's love or His presence in human beings should have this power of rendering them proper objects of love, and, it seems to me, that there's a potential circularity about insisting that this is so. That aside, such a view still renders reasons for loving others, conceptually and morally, /dependent/ upon God (in this case, God's love or His presence in human beings). If this is merely a rhetorical attempt to explain the inherent value of human beings, then okay. But if it is seriously meant as the reason for loving others, then it faces the following objection. Is God's presence in people a necessary condition for loving them? If so, the explanation for loving others is conceptually independent of the mere fact that they are persons or human beings, and depends upon some other value. Such an argument seems to imply that if God did not exist or if He did not love human beings or if His presence was not in human beings, one would have no reason to love others, or at least one would have to find another reason for loving others. My conception of constitutional democracy, by contrast, needs no further reason for loving (or developing the appropriate moral attitude toward) others. Both Mark and Steve explain (or justify) loving others as a three relational value: God, oneself, and others. Moreover, it is a three relational value in which the first value is qualitatively superior to the other two, and drives the relation of loving others. Again with absolutely no disrespect toward those who believe in this three relational value, it impoverishes (for me) the idea of loving others. In my view, the appropriate moral attitude toward others is a two relational value in which both values are equal. That's why it better comports with the constitutional democrat's world view, or so I would argue. Of course, some theists might say that human beings are blessed precisely because God's love or His presence is part of our make-up, and that without this love or presence, we do not have inherent value or, for that matter, any value at all. Predictably, this is a position I vehemently reject. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
In a message dated 2/18/2005 11:42:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A theistic democrat could believe that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and that they deserve to be loved because of this and in specific cases are loved because God is seen in them, i.e., as a part of their essence. I don't think this helps. For one reason, it's difficult to understand just what it means to characterize God's love of human beings or God's presence in human beings "as part of their essence." Does this mean we could not understand discourse about human beings without invoking this idea? Or does it mean characterizations of human beings are conceptually or morally incomplete without appealing to God's love or His presence in people? This contention leaves unexplained why God's love or His presence in human beings should have this power of rendering them proper objects of love, and, it seems to me, that there's a potential circularity about insisting that this is so. That aside, such a view still renders reasons for loving others, conceptually and morally, dependent upon God (in this case, God's love or His presence in human beings). If this is merely a rhetorical attempt to explain the inherent value of human beings, then okay. But if it is seriously meant as the reason for loving others, then it faces the following objection. Is God's presence in people a necessary condition for loving them? If so, the explanation for loving others is conceptually independent of the mere fact that they are persons or human beings, and depends upon some other value. Such an argument seems to imply that if God did not exist or if He did not love human beings or if His presence was not in human beings, one would have no reason to love others, or at least one would have to find another reason for loving others. My conception of constitutional democracy, by contrast, needs no further reason for loving (or developing the appropriate moral attitude toward) others. Both Mark and Steve explain (or justify) loving others as a three relational value: God, oneself, and others. Moreover, it is a three relational value in which the first value is qualitatively superior to the other two, and drives the relation of loving others. Again with absolutely no disrespect toward those who believe in this three relational value, it impoverishes (for me) the idea of loving others. In my view, the appropriate moral attitude toward others is a two relational value in which both values are equal. That's why it better comports with the constitutional democrat's world view, or so I would argue. Of course, some theists might say that human beings are blessed precisely because God's love or His presence is part of our make-up, and that without this love or presence, we do not have inherent value or, for that matter, any value at all. Predictably, this is a position I vehemently reject. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
<> Yes, as in Thomas Jefferson's plan for public education in Virginia. A plan that placed the burden of funding education on the public, the education of every child, all the way through the primary grades. After that public funding for the education of a meritorious few, private funding for all others. Jim "Shrinking Government on the Jefferson Plan" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
Everything Michael Newsome says could be true. But why the persistent failure to account for the overwhelming competitive advantage obtained through the 1-2 punch of compulsory attendance (not compulsory learning or compulsory education, we should note) and confiscatory taxation, without relief to those who lift the burden of educating their own off the shoulders of their neighbors through private initiatives. Complaints about how release time is designed to advantage a sickly and weakened church community sound alot like complaints from coca cola that free samples of Snapple are designed to draw their clientele off toward a less popular beverage. The obvious answer, "Doh!", leaves me still wondering where the constitutional violation is found. And as for those who pity the left behinders, the idle timers, welcome to the reality of gifted students in the average school, welcome to the reality of many young boys in any structured classroom environment, in a word, welcome to government school Jim "No unfair advantage to religion, no unfair burdening either" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
Mark's perspective is not the only theistic perspective. A theistic democrat could believe that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and that they deserve to be loved because of this and in specific cases are loved because God is seen in them, i.e., as a part of their essence. Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/18/2005 3:19:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: loving others because of God's love for you and because God loves them as well, etc. I find Mark's remark to be committed to an /instrumental/ love of others, a love deriving from the relationship between God and others not between oneself and others. Instead, love (or whatever is the appropriate moral attitude toward others) should be based on the inherent value of other people. Indeed, for constitutional (democratic) republican purposes the second kind of love seems far more appropriate. The appropriate attitude democrats should have toward one another is derived from the inherent value of others, and not contingent on the love of a "third party" (and I mean no disrespect to those who believe in God by using this term). That's why equality is a salient feature of normative democratic theory. The inherent value of citizens is posited as the best explanation and justification of democratic citizenship as a first principle of a theory of democracy. If you ask for a justification of the inherent value of human beings without invoking God, my reply is simply that it is a first principle just as your invocation of God to explain the instrumental value of human beings is a first principle. Neither God as a first principle nor equal inherent value as a first principle can be disproved as first principles. The meaning that each gives to the lives of their adherents is what rules the day. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
There was a time -- say, 1776 or so -- when there was widespread agreement that education was a virtue of itself. There is probably still widespread agreement that literature, math, geography and history are useful, and there's no inherent reason kids who don't participate in released-time programs couldn't get further instruction in those areas. And when talk turns to choice, it may be sobering to recognize that about 83% of America's school kids attend public schools because their political ancestors chose to set up such systems. A significant number would choose public schools in any case. Those choices deserve no less respect than the small minority of dissidents who want out. Ed Darrell DallasEd Brayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't there something to be said for accommodation? Here comes big old bully State, grabs parents by the lapels, and threatens life, liberty and property unless child is put in a school setting from age 5 to as late as age 20, for as many as 7 to 8 hours a day, for at least 180 days in the year, including all weekdays. The interposition, of course, is welcomed by parents who are daunted by the process of educating their own children, or who lack skills necessary to do so. But it is an interposition by force of law. And its impact is not lessened by the fact that some parents choose to spend extra money on top of their property taxes to school their children in private schools or at home. So bully State is pushing parents around, and one small accommodation of need for religious training is made. What constitutional provisions other than the religion clause have been interpreted to allow (not require) accommodation?Would I be out of line to suggest that if schools allowed release time only for students to go and study Islam at a local mosque, and left non-Muslim students behind to sit and twiddle their thumbs until they come back, you likely would not be fuming about the "bully state" coming in to take away parents' rights?Ed BraytonNo virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease n! ote 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
In a message dated 2/18/2005 3:19:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: loving others because of God's love for you and because God loves them as well, etc. I find Mark's remark to be committed to an instrumental love of others, a love deriving from the relationship between God and others not between oneself and others. Instead, love (or whatever is the appropriate moral attitude toward others) should be based on the inherent value of other people. Indeed, for constitutional (democratic) republican purposes the second kind of love seems far more appropriate. The appropriate attitude democrats should have toward one another is derived from the inherent value of others, and not contingent on the love of a "third party" (and I mean no disrespect to those who believe in God by using this term). That's why equality is a salient feature of normative democratic theory. The inherent value of citizens is posited as the best explanation and justification of democratic citizenship as a first principle of a theory of democracy. If you ask for a justification of the inherent value of human beings without invoking God, my reply is simply that it is a first principle just as your invocation of God to explain the instrumental value of human beings is a first principle. Neither God as a first principle nor equal inherent value as a first principle can be disproved as first principles. The meaning that each gives to the lives of their adherents is what rules the day. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
I, of course, agree with Tom that true school choice is the real solution to the culture wars being fought in government schools. Only school choice affirms religious liberty, freedon of thought and belief, and tolerance for all children. And only it avoids all "captive audience" issues. But I still see nothing wrong with schools honoring the requests of religious parents to let their children go one hour a week. And I don't see well-supervised study halls as any more a "prison" than the rest of the mandatory government school day. Zorach was correctly decided. There is no EC problem when public schools separate themselves from religious children one lousy hour per week. Rick Duncan Red State Lawblog (www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
I thoroughly agree that the school should not stick the other students
(those not attending religious instruction) in a wasted time period or in
other ways structure the program so as to push students toward religious
instruction. Because of the difficulty of setting up a religion-only
release-time program that doesn't create such an incentive, I agree with
others that more across-the-board programs, like a general earlier release
with after-care options, are better.
However, I don't we should let pass Chip's claim that compulsory schooling
that must not have religious content (unless you can afford to pay
private-school tuition for it) imposes no burden on religious students and
families. When you combine 6-7 hours a day of classes with 1-2 hours (or
more in upper grades) of required homework each night, schooling can take up
as much as three-quarters of a student's waking hours during the week. I
don't believe that the degree of state-imposed burden to justify a
legislative/administrative accommodation necessarily has to be as much as
would warrant a constitutionally mandated accommodation -- again, as long as
the program does not create incentives to go to the religious instruction
(as these programs apparently often do).
Finally, of course, release-time programs do not accommodate the religious
need of some families to have religious instruction integrated into other
academic subjects rather than in a separate course. Only school choice
programs that include religious schools can address that problem. I view
release time as something of a distraction from the main issue.
Tom Berg
University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
---
Thomas C. Berg
Professor of Law
University of St. Thomas School of Law
MSL 400 -- 1000 La Salle Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2015
Phone: (651) 962-4918
Fax: (651) 962-4996
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
-Original Message-
From: Lupu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:53 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: 21st Century Zorach
Accommodation is only a legitimate argument or concern if the state
is creating a burden on religious freedom. But there is no conflict
between compulsory education and religious education, because
there are ample days and hours in which parents are free to
educate their children in the ways of their faith. The only state-
imposed burden in this story is the one imposed on the students left
behind.Released time is an anti-accommodation to the students
who don't participate.
Chip ("every government promotion of religion can be conveniently
labelled an accommodation") Lupu
Jim Henderson wrote:
Isn't there something to be said for accommodation? Here comes
big old bully State, grabs parents by the lapels, and threatens life,
liberty and property unless child is put in a school setting from age 5
to as late as age 20, for as many as 7 to 8 hours a day, for at least
180 days in the year, including all weekdays. The interposition, of
course, is welcomed by parents who are daunted by the process of
educating their own children, or who lack skills necessary to do so.
But it is an interposition by force of law. And its impact is not
lessened by the fact that some parents choose to spend extra
money on top of their property taxes to school their children in
private schools or at home.
So bully State is pushing parents around, and one small
accommodation of need for religious training is made. What
constitutional provisions other than the religion clause have been
interpreted to allow (not require) accommodation?
Jim "Religion Can't Be Different Only When You Want to Squish
Religionists" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
I guess that this thread catches me at a moment of deepest cynicism.
Lupu is, of course, absolutely correct in everything that he says below.
However, there are some who see denying some people the instrumental
assistance, either direct (done in by Engel et al.) or indirect
(preserved by Zorach et al.), of the state in proselytizing their
religion is a burden on their religious freedom -- or as an earlier post
of mine suggests, casts an unwanted spotlight on their deficiencies as
parents.
-Original Message-
From: Lupu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:53 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: 21st Century Zorach
Accommodation is only a legitimate argument or concern if the state
is creating a burden on religious freedom. But there is no conflict
between compulsory education and religious education, because
there are ample days and hours in which parents are free to
educate their children in the ways of their faith. The only state-
imposed burden in this story is the one imposed on the students left
behind.Released time is an anti-accommodation to the students
who don't participate.
Chip ("every government promotion of religion can be conveniently
labelled an accommodation") Lupu
Jim Henderson wrote:
Isn't there something to be said for accommodation? Here comes
big old bully State, grabs parents by the lapels, and threatens life,
liberty and property unless child is put in a school setting from age 5
to as late as age 20, for as many as 7 to 8 hours a day, for at least
180 days in the year, including all weekdays. The interposition, of
course, is welcomed by parents who are daunted by the process of
educating their own children, or who lack skills necessary to do so.
But it is an interposition by force of law. And its impact is not
lessened by the fact that some parents choose to spend extra
money on top of their property taxes to school their children in
private schools or at home.
So bully State is pushing parents around, and one small
accommodation of need for religious training is made. What
constitutional provisions other than the religion clause have been
interpreted to allow (not require) accommodation?
Jim "Religion Can't Be Different Only When You Want to Squish
Religionists" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
Yes, it does seem a bit ridiculous to have released time chess club or swimming lessons as opposed to 4 p.m. Thursday afternoon chess club or swimming lessons and likewise for sectarian out-of-school activities. Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Associate Professor Department of Educational Leadership Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 ___ 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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
But isn't the whole point of released time (1) to provide an unfair advantage of a captive audience to those religious groups that will seek it and (2) potential coercion (by way of stigma and isolation)? If one really wanted to address these concerns then those parents who want their children to have religious training during the week should see to it that their children attend appropriate religious programs AFTER school has been dismissed at venues OFF CAMPUS. But, again, the sad truth seems to be that (1) too many parents can't seem to control their children when it comes to religious training without enlisting the aid of the state, and (2) too many parents don't seem to care if their children bully, ostracize and stigmatize children who (together with their parents and families) hold to different religious traditions than the parents referred to in point (1). This is why, of course, Zorach was a terrible decision. This is also why Zorach won't be overruled anytime soon. It really is all about irresponsible, overreaching, incompetent and intolerant parents who, apparently, make up a huge slice of the American adult population, and who also tend to support a particular political agenda that finds favor with a majority of the Court. Each takes care of the other in its own fashion. -Original Message- From: Steven Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:26 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: 21st Century Zorach Alan is correct about the need for non-religious alternatives. Good News was premised, in part, on the fact that the immediately after-school time was available to a host of groups (though no other group had exercised that right). As Doug recommended, release time should occur after the school day so as not to provide an unfair advantage to the religious groups of a potential captive audience (not to mention potential coercion or endorsement perceptions), and the opportunity must be extended to non-religious groups. -- Steven K. Green, J.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor Director, Center for Law and Government Willamette University College of Law 245 Winter St., SE Salem, OR 97301 503-370-6732 ___ 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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
Rick asks, "Would you support a released time program in your local public schools if it were broad enough to allow children to be released to attend religious or secular programs? I would?" I would too. I would want it at the end of the day so that parents who wanted to could opt to just have their kids come home (something that is harder to arrange in the middle of the day). Placed at the end of the day, with coming home as an alternative, having supervised study hall (essentially after school care) for latch key kids makes some sense too. This is pretty much what Doug suggested in his earlier post. It doesn't differ a whole lot from just having school end a bit earlier on release time days. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 12:36 PM 2/18/2005 -0800, you wrote: I wonder how many of the critics of released time programs truly want a meaningful released time experience for all students? Or is that merely a convenient means to attack any kind of released time program? Are some of you opposed to released time solely because it is an attempt to accommodate religious parents and their children from the kinds of problems they suffer in public schools. I think Mark does a good job of explaining the kinds of problems experienced by many religious families who feel coerced, by the way educational benefits are structured, into sending their children to secular public schools. Would you support a released time program in your local public schools if it were broad enough to allow children to be released to attend religious or secular programs? I would. Rick Duncan --- "Scarberry, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The values that are central to the faith of many > people cannot be taught in > public schools, such as the importance of praying, > devotionally reading the > Bible or other holy scriptures, attending religious > services, maintaining an > attitude of thankfulness to God, loving others > because of God's love for you > and because God loves them as well, etc. > > > > Of course Marty has just given us a good argument > that public schools > violate the religion clauses; inasmuch as he reveres > them, it seems that > they are an object of worship. Perhaps a sacred cow? > (I should note that I > send my youngest daughter to a public elementary > school, even though I do > not worship it.) > > > > Mark S. Scarberry > > Pepperdine University School of Law > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Marty Lederman > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:38 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: 21st Century Zorach > > > > A small clarification: The Constitution does not, > as such, prohibit the > teaching in public schools of most "values" that are > central to, and derived > from, religion. See, e.g., Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 > U.S. at 612-13, 621. > What it prohibits are "specifically religious > activities," id. at 621, i.e., > teacher-led or -encouraged prayer, religious > proselytization, and teaching > of specifically religious tenets and beliefs. And > it prohibits specifically > antireligious activities, too, such as teaching or > encouraging students to > adopt atheism. Obviously, the Constitution might > prohibit the teaching of > some beliefs (e.g., creationism) that are central to > certain religious > traditions -- but the dichotomy between "religious > values" on the one hand, > and "environmental," "healthy lifestyle," > "multicultural" and "patriotic" > values, on the other, is misleading, I think. > > > > But hey, what do I know? Seeing as how I not only > welcome, but revere, the > public school system, apparently I am (in Jim > Henderson's view) a parent who > is either "daunted" by the process [read; prospect] > of educating my > children, or who "lack[s] skills necessary to do > so." > > > ___ > 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. = Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
Re: 21st Century Zorach
As I understand it, Steve Shiffrin's suggestion presents
nonparallelism between religious "courses" and school-offered
courses -- that is, the former are taught by religious personnel off-
site, and the latter are taught by public employees on-site. If the
offerings are sufficiently rich, this takes care of the "dead time"
problem. (Cf. the Cleveland voucher case and the question whether
Cleveland voucher students had secular school options equivalent
to their religious school options). But it will be very difficult for courts
to determine that sufficiency (what principles will do the job, other
than market preference -- either all parents are satisfied, or they are
not).
And there remain other problems -- one is the truancy/coercion
problem that I noted in my last post. Another is that parents can
select their own religious teacher, but cannot select their own
teacher in the other course offerings. And that means the religion-
choosing parents get more control over the content of their child's
"course" than the other parents. (I must say I don't understand why
we should be twisting ourselves into pretzels to design something
which is entirely unnecessary in a world in which there are plenty of
non-school hours for religious education.)
Chip
On 18 Feb 2005 at 15:51, Steven Shiffrin wrote:
Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 15:51:40 -0500
From: Steven Shiffrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject:Re: 21st Century Zorach
Send reply to: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
<mailto:religionlaw-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<mailto:religionlaw-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Suppose instead of defending a Zorach program in terms of
> accomodation, a school board says that religious education in specific
> religious or ethical traditions is valuable and arguably best taught
> by believers in the relevant tradition. At the same time it does not
> believe chess is as valuable (therefore no release for chess) and
> worries that if it taught courses in particular traditions it would be
> too expensive and raise even more serious establishment clause
> concerns. Suppose further that it offers course options, not "jail"
> for those who do not choose to leave the building for religious or
> ethical instruction. Should this violate the Establishment Clause?
> Steve
>
> Lupu wrote:
>
> >Accommodation is only a legitimate argument or concern if the state
> >is creating a burden on religious freedom. But there is no conflict
> >between compulsory education and religious education, because there
> >are ample days and hours in which parents are free to educate their
> >children in the ways of their faith. The only state- imposed burden
> >in this story is the one imposed on the students left behind.
> >Released time is an anti-accommodation to the students who don't
> >participate.
> >
> >Chip ("every government promotion of religion can be conveniently
> >labelled an accommodation") Lupu
> >
> > Jim Henderson wrote:
> >
> >Isn't there something to be said for accommodation? Here comes
> >big old bully State, grabs parents by the lapels, and threatens life,
> > liberty and property unless child is put in a school setting from
> >age 5 to as late as age 20, for as many as 7 to 8 hours a day, for at
> >least 180 days in the year, including all weekdays. The
> >interposition, of course, is welcomed by parents who are daunted by
> >the process of educating their own children, or who lack skills
> >necessary to do so. But it is an interposition by force of law. And
> >its impact is not lessened by the fact that some parents choose to
> >spend extra money on top of their property taxes to school their
> >children in private schools or at home.
> >
> >So bully State is pushing parents around, and one small
> >accommodation of need for religious training is made. What
> >constitutional provisions other than the religion clause have been
> >interpreted to allow (not require) accommodation?
> >
> >Jim "Religion Can't Be Different Only When You Want to Squish
> >Religionists" Henderson
> >Senior Counsel
> >ACLJ
> >
> >
> >Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
> >F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
> >The George Washington University Law School
> >2000 H St., NW
> >Washington D.C 20052
> >
> >(202) 994-7053
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
RE: 21st Century Zorach
If a public school system wanted to end the school day one hour early on one day a week, and release the students to their parents/guardians' custody (from which the students could remain home, go to religious school, attend soccer practice, or do anything else their parents/guardians permitted), I would have no objection whatsoever. But I wouldn't call that "released time," because the state's compulsion would end at the time school ended. Recall that in Zorach, a child who "skipped" religion class was truant and subject to a coercive response from state truant officers. That was state-enforced "released time", and it fares no better under the Establishment Clause than state-enforced tax contributions to the faith of your own choosing. Chip Lupu On 18 Feb 2005 at 12:36, Rick Duncan wrote: > I wonder how many of the critics of released time > programs truly want a meaningful released time > experience for all students? Or is that merely a > convenient means to attack any kind of released time > program? Are some of you opposed to released time > solely because it is an attempt to accommodate > religious parents and their children from the kinds of > problems they suffer in public schools. > > I think Mark does a good job of explaining the kinds > of problems experienced by many religious families who > feel coerced, by the way educational benefits are > structured, into sending their children to secular > public schools. Would you support a released time > program in your local public schools if it were broad > enough to allow children to be released to attend > religious or secular programs? I would. > > Rick Duncan > > --- "Scarberry, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > The values that are central to the faith of many > > people cannot be taught in > > public schools, such as the importance of praying, > > devotionally reading the > > Bible or other holy scriptures, attending religious > > services, maintaining an > > attitude of thankfulness to God, loving others > > because of God's love for you > > and because God loves them as well, etc. > > > > > > > > Of course Marty has just given us a good argument > > that public schools > > violate the religion clauses; inasmuch as he reveres > > them, it seems that > > they are an object of worship. Perhaps a sacred cow? > > (I should note that I > > send my youngest daughter to a public elementary > > school, even though I do > > not worship it.) > > > > > > > > Mark S. Scarberry > > > > Pepperdine University School of Law > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Marty Lederman > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:38 AM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: Re: 21st Century Zorach > > > > > > > > A small clarification: The Constitution does not, > > as such, prohibit the > > teaching in public schools of most "values" that are > > central to, and derived > > from, religion. See, e.g., Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 > > U.S. at 612-13, 621. > > What it prohibits are "specifically religious > > activities," id. at 621, i.e., > > teacher-led or -encouraged prayer, religious > > proselytization, and teaching > > of specifically religious tenets and beliefs. And > > it prohibits specifically > > antireligious activities, too, such as teaching or > > encouraging students to > > adopt atheism. Obviously, the Constitution might > > prohibit the teaching of > > some beliefs (e.g., creationism) that are central to > > certain religious > > traditions -- but the dichotomy between "religious > > values" on the one hand, > > and "environmental," "healthy lifestyle," > > "multicultural" and "patriotic" > > values, on the other, is misleading, I think. > > > > > > > > But hey, what do I know? Seeing as how I not only > > welcome, but revere, the > > public school system, apparently I am (in Jim > > Henderson's view) a parent who > > is either "daunted" by the process [read; prospect] > > of educating my > > children, or who "lack[s] skills necessary to do > > so." > > > > > ___ > > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get > > p
Re: 21st Century Zorach
Suppose instead of defending a Zorach program in terms of accomodation,
a school board says that religious education in specific religious or
ethical traditions is valuable and arguably best taught by believers in
the relevant tradition. At the same time it does not believe chess is as
valuable (therefore no release for chess) and worries that if it taught
courses in particular traditions it would be too expensive and raise
even more serious establishment clause concerns. Suppose further that it
offers course options, not "jail" for those who do not choose to leave
the building for religious or ethical instruction. Should this violate
the Establishment Clause?
Steve
Lupu wrote:
Accommodation is only a legitimate argument or concern if the state
is creating a burden on religious freedom. But there is no conflict
between compulsory education and religious education, because
there are ample days and hours in which parents are free to
educate their children in the ways of their faith. The only state-
imposed burden in this story is the one imposed on the students left
behind.Released time is an anti-accommodation to the students
who don't participate.
Chip ("every government promotion of religion can be conveniently
labelled an accommodation") Lupu
Jim Henderson wrote:
Isn't there something to be said for accommodation? Here comes
big old bully State, grabs parents by the lapels, and threatens life,
liberty and property unless child is put in a school setting from age 5
to as late as age 20, for as many as 7 to 8 hours a day, for at least
180 days in the year, including all weekdays. The interposition, of
course, is welcomed by parents who are daunted by the process of
educating their own children, or who lack skills necessary to do so.
But it is an interposition by force of law. And its impact is not
lessened by the fact that some parents choose to spend extra
money on top of their property taxes to school their children in
private schools or at home.
So bully State is pushing parents around, and one small
accommodation of need for religious training is made. What
constitutional provisions other than the religion clause have been
interpreted to allow (not require) accommodation?
Jim "Religion Can't Be Different Only When You Want to Squish
Religionists" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
I wonder how many of the critics of released time programs truly want a meaningful released time experience for all students? Or is that merely a convenient means to attack any kind of released time program? Are some of you opposed to released time solely because it is an attempt to accommodate religious parents and their children from the kinds of problems they suffer in public schools. I think Mark does a good job of explaining the kinds of problems experienced by many religious families who feel coerced, by the way educational benefits are structured, into sending their children to secular public schools. Would you support a released time program in your local public schools if it were broad enough to allow children to be released to attend religious or secular programs? I would. Rick Duncan --- "Scarberry, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The values that are central to the faith of many > people cannot be taught in > public schools, such as the importance of praying, > devotionally reading the > Bible or other holy scriptures, attending religious > services, maintaining an > attitude of thankfulness to God, loving others > because of God's love for you > and because God loves them as well, etc. > > > > Of course Marty has just given us a good argument > that public schools > violate the religion clauses; inasmuch as he reveres > them, it seems that > they are an object of worship. Perhaps a sacred cow? > (I should note that I > send my youngest daughter to a public elementary > school, even though I do > not worship it.) > > > > Mark S. Scarberry > > Pepperdine University School of Law > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Marty Lederman > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:38 AM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: 21st Century Zorach > > > > A small clarification: The Constitution does not, > as such, prohibit the > teaching in public schools of most "values" that are > central to, and derived > from, religion. See, e.g., Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 > U.S. at 612-13, 621. > What it prohibits are "specifically religious > activities," id. at 621, i.e., > teacher-led or -encouraged prayer, religious > proselytization, and teaching > of specifically religious tenets and beliefs. And > it prohibits specifically > antireligious activities, too, such as teaching or > encouraging students to > adopt atheism. Obviously, the Constitution might > prohibit the teaching of > some beliefs (e.g., creationism) that are central to > certain religious > traditions -- but the dichotomy between "religious > values" on the one hand, > and "environmental," "healthy lifestyle," > "multicultural" and "patriotic" > values, on the other, is misleading, I think. > > > > But hey, what do I know? Seeing as how I not only > welcome, but revere, the > public school system, apparently I am (in Jim > Henderson's view) a parent who > is either "daunted" by the process [read; prospect] > of educating my > children, or who "lack[s] skills necessary to do > so." > > > ___ > 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. = Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ 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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
The values that are central to the faith of many people cannot be taught in public schools, such as the importance of praying, devotionally reading the Bible or other holy scriptures, attending religious services, maintaining an attitude of thankfulness to God, loving others because of God's love for you and because God loves them as well, etc. Of course Marty has just given us a good argument that public schools violate the religion clauses; inasmuch as he reveres them, it seems that they are an object of worship. Perhaps a sacred cow? (I should note that I send my youngest daughter to a public elementary school, even though I do not worship it.) Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Marty Lederman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:38 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: 21st Century Zorach A small clarification: The Constitution does not, as such, prohibit the teaching in public schools of most "values" that are central to, and derived from, religion. See, e.g., Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. at 612-13, 621. What it prohibits are "specifically religious activities," id. at 621, i.e., teacher-led or -encouraged prayer, religious proselytization, and teaching of specifically religious tenets and beliefs. And it prohibits specifically antireligious activities, too, such as teaching or encouraging students to adopt atheism. Obviously, the Constitution might prohibit the teaching of some beliefs (e.g., creationism) that are central to certain religious traditions -- but the dichotomy between "religious values" on the one hand, and "environmental," "healthy lifestyle," "multicultural" and "patriotic" values, on the other, is misleading, I think. But hey, what do I know? Seeing as how I not only welcome, but revere, the public school system, apparently I am (in Jim Henderson's view) a parent who is either "daunted" by the process [read; prospect] of educating my children, or who "lack[s] skills necessary to do so." ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
In a message dated 2/18/2005 2:51:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If it is a constitutionally permissible policy judgment by government actors to take into account the religious needs of the people, then as long as accommodation is made for all religious adherents of whatever stripe, then I don't know why adherents of distinctly non-religious ventures can lay claim to that accommodation. If this is so, doesn't it mean that religion is a privileged need in American constitutionalism? How then can the claim--made in other contexts that religion is unfairly discriminated against--be substantiated? Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ed, would you reconsider the form of your question. I support toleration and accommodation of religious needs of students penned in the government schools/corrals. In the Islamic context, I have publicly expressed the view that schools should accommodate students' percieved need for time to stop and pray and to orient themselves toward their Holy Sites. Outside the schools context I have assisted the adherents of Native American religion in a struggle over their religious rituals and the ability to conduct them on core parklands in the Nation's Capitol. That is a perfectly reasonable answer, and I'm happy to see it. I apologize for the presumptuousness of my question. Your consistency in this regard makes your position far more compelling. Ed Brayton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05 ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
I would be very receptive to an argument, under the Free Speech Clause and the principle of equal access, that dissenting parents should have the right to demand that their children be released to take part in any type of released time program, whether religious or secular. The solution to the problem of students left behind is not to deny others their release from public custody. The remedy should be to expand the program for all parental choices, not to prohibit the program for those currently enjoying it. This is why I suggested that one solution may be to allow any parent, upon request, to have his or her child released into his or her custody for the one hour per week that the program is in session. Would this satisfy those of you who have problems with release time programs? A supervised study hall, of course, would always be available for students whose parents opted against any type of released time. And even in second grade, there is nothing wrong with a chance to do homework, study vocabulary lists or multiplication tables, or have time to engage in personal reading. This is not jail; it is a time to read or study or do homework in a quiet and safe environment. Rick Duncan = Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
Further, the goal of accommodating religion simply can not justify a religion only release time program. I support religiously exclusive accommodations when there is some reason not to open the class of accommodated individuals to include non-religious individuals. And often that is the case. But in a program that keeps non-participating students in an empty classroom with no organized activities provided for them, what possible justification can there be for insisting that students waste their time this way -- instead of allowing them to participate in a supplementary, non-religious, educational program off campus that their parents would like them to attend. Nor do I think that arranging for the release time program at the end of the school day imposes any great hardship on families. I understand that just because Lincoln walked miles to school every day doesn't mean our kids should have to do so too. But 50 years ago, I, and thousands of other Jewish kids in New York City, spent several hours each week in Hebrew School after school had ended -- without any formal release time program. I just don't see the problem here. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 11:26 AM 2/18/2005 -0800, you wrote: Alan is correct about the need for non-religious alternatives. Good News was premised, in part, on the fact that the immediately after-school time was available to a host of groups (though no other group had exercised that right). As Doug recommended, release time should occur after the school day so as not to provide an unfair advantage to the religious groups of a potential captive audience (not to mention potential coercion or endorsement perceptions), and the opportunity must be extended to non-religious groups. -- Steven K. Green, J.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor Director, Center for Law and Government Willamette University College of Law 245 Winter St., SE Salem, OR 97301 503-370-6732 ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
Ed, would you reconsider the form of your question. I support toleration and accommodation of religious needs of students penned in the government schools/corrals. In the Islamic context, I have publicly expressed the view that schools should accommodate students' percieved need for time to stop and pray and to orient themselves toward their Holy Sites. Outside the schools context I have assisted the adherents of Native American religion in a struggle over their religious rituals and the ability to conduct them on core parklands in the Nation's Capitol. So, would I fume if only Islamic students were accommodated. Yes, if others sought and needed accommodation. No, if others did not seek or need accommodation. But again I repair to the question of the basis for accommodation. If it is a constitutionally permissible policy judgment by government actors to take into account the religious needs of the people, then as long as accommodation is made for all religious adherents of whatever stripe, then I don't know why adherents of distinctly non-religious ventures can lay claim to that accommodation. To some extent, your question suggests that I am a Christian pragmatist and not committed to underlying principles. I hope that is not intended, I know it is not evidenced in anything I have ever said on this list. Jim "Religion is, or is not, Different" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
Accommodation is only a legitimate argument or concern if the state
is creating a burden on religious freedom. But there is no conflict
between compulsory education and religious education, because
there are ample days and hours in which parents are free to
educate their children in the ways of their faith. The only state-
imposed burden in this story is the one imposed on the students left
behind.Released time is an anti-accommodation to the students
who don't participate.
Chip ("every government promotion of religion can be conveniently
labelled an accommodation") Lupu
Jim Henderson wrote:
Isn't there something to be said for accommodation? Here comes
big old bully State, grabs parents by the lapels, and threatens life,
liberty and property unless child is put in a school setting from age 5
to as late as age 20, for as many as 7 to 8 hours a day, for at least
180 days in the year, including all weekdays. The interposition, of
course, is welcomed by parents who are daunted by the process of
educating their own children, or who lack skills necessary to do so.
But it is an interposition by force of law. And its impact is not
lessened by the fact that some parents choose to spend extra
money on top of their property taxes to school their children in
private schools or at home.
So bully State is pushing parents around, and one small
accommodation of need for religious training is made. What
constitutional provisions other than the religion clause have been
interpreted to allow (not require) accommodation?
Jim "Religion Can't Be Different Only When You Want to Squish
Religionists" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
A small clarification: The Constitution does not, as such, prohibit the teaching in public schools of most "values" that are central to, and derived from, religion. See, e.g., Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. at 612-13, 621. What it prohibits are "specifically religious activities," id. at 621, i.e., teacher-led or -encouraged prayer, religious proselytization, and teaching of specifically religious tenets and beliefs. And it prohibits specifically antireligious activities, too, such as teaching or encouraging students to adopt atheism. Obviously, the Constitution might prohibit the teaching of some beliefs (e.g., creationism) that are central to certain religious traditions -- but the dichotomy between "religious values" on the one hand, and "environmental," "healthy lifestyle," "multicultural" and "patriotic" values, on the other, is misleading, I think. But hey, what do I know? Seeing as how I not only welcome, but revere, the public school system, apparently I am (in Jim Henderson's view) a parent who is either "daunted" by the process [read; prospect] of educating my children, or who "lack[s] skills necessary to do so." - Original Message - From: "Scarberry, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:06 PM Subject: RE: 21st Century Zorach >A possible argument for having release time only for religious programs is> that parents who wish to have religious values taught to their children are> just about the only ones who cannot seek to have the public schools> inculcate their chosen values. Those who wish to have environmental values,> healthy lifestyle values, multicultural values, or patriotic values can seek> to have their values taught by the school.> > The Establishment Clause prohibits schools from inculcating religious values> not because those values are unimportant or disfavored or damaging, but> because such inculcation is to be left to parents and private organizations,> who are guaranteed the right freely to exercise religion. Where the school> steps out of the way to allow parents to have such inculcation done by> private groups, both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses are> honored.> > Mark S. Scarberry> Pepperdine University School of Law> > > -Original Message-> From: Lupu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:50 AM> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics> Subject: RE: 21st Century Zorach> > Released time has several problems in addition to trapping the left-> behind students in a dead hour (Rick, high schoolers may have > study halls, but 2nd graders usually don't, so this is a sham > argument):> > 1. Why is released time only for religious studies? Why shouldn't it > be for any activity of educational or civic value (Scouts, chess, or > music lessons away from school, etc.)? I have never heard a good > argument for religion-only released time.> > 2. Why should the school be releasing time from its curriculum in > the first place? If school is longer than need be, shorten it. If > parents want religious education for their children, why not send > them for it before or after school?> > 3. In communities in which the vast majority of children go to Bible > study during release time, there is pressure on other children to > conform and ask parental permission to go too. (Someone wrote an > op-ed in the Washington Post in the past week or so, describing this > exact situation as part of her childhood.) Conformity pressures are > always present among children, of course, but here (as in Engel), > the school is creating the context in which conformity pressures are > highlighted. Being "left behind" in class is a more visible > nonconformity than going off on one's own after school. (In my > grade school days, the only children who left my public school for > release time were Catholic; there weren't many, and the program > spotlighted them as in a religious minority in the public school and > as too poor to attend Catholic school as most of their fellow > Catholics did.) > > Chip Lupu> > On 18 Feb 2005 at 10:13, Rick Duncan wrote:> > Forwarded by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Forwarded to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date forwarded: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:00:39 EST/EDT> Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:13:30 -0800 (PST)> From: Rick Duncan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> Subject: RE: 21st C
Re: 21st Century Zorach
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't there something to be said for accommodation? Here comes big old bully State, grabs parents by the lapels, and threatens life, liberty and property unless child is put in a school setting from age 5 to as late as age 20, for as many as 7 to 8 hours a day, for at least 180 days in the year, including all weekdays. The interposition, of course, is welcomed by parents who are daunted by the process of educating their own children, or who lack skills necessary to do so. But it is an interposition by force of law. And its impact is not lessened by the fact that some parents choose to spend extra money on top of their property taxes to school their children in private schools or at home. So bully State is pushing parents around, and one small accommodation of need for religious training is made. What constitutional provisions other than the religion clause have been interpreted to allow (not require) accommodation? Would I be out of line to suggest that if schools allowed release time only for students to go and study Islam at a local mosque, and left non-Muslim students behind to sit and twiddle their thumbs until they come back, you likely would not be fuming about the "bully state" coming in to take away parents' rights? Ed Brayton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05 ___ 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.
21st Century Zorach
Alan is correct about the need for non-religious alternatives. Good News was premised, in part, on the fact that the immediately after-school time was available to a host of groups (though no other group had exercised that right). As Doug recommended, release time should occur after the school day so as not to provide an unfair advantage to the religious groups of a potential captive audience (not to mention potential coercion or endorsement perceptions), and the opportunity must be extended to non-religious groups. -- Steven K. Green, J.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor Director, Center for Law and Government Willamette University College of Law 245 Winter St., SE Salem, OR 97301 503-370-6732 ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
If I may, this is how Chip described his grade-school program in his George Washington article on accommodation: In his public school in Albany, when Patty H. "scooped up her blue-and-white paper-covered catechism and headed for religious instruction at St. Theresa's of Avila, a parochial school located a short block away," there was a significant burden on "those of us who did not have scheduled religious instruction at this time, the remaining hour of school was dead and empty--no assignments and no guidance other than an admonition to be silent. . . . [T]he released time program trapped nonparticipating students in an entirely wasted hour of school. This, of course, was no product of the teacher's idiosyncrasies; the empty hour was an explicit feature of the program, which included assurances to participants that they would miss nothing of importance while they were engaged in religious instruction." It is very notable, I think, that even Michael McConnell, one of the strongest and most compelling defenders of religious accommodations, conceded in his response to Chip that if there were such a "wasted hour" in Zorach itself, then the released time program would have been invalid: "Zorach is a difficult case because the opinion does not provide sufficient information about the activities in which the nonparticipating students were engaged. In my opinion, a released time program of the sort Professor Lupu experienced as a child, in which the nonparticipating students were inflicted with 'an entirely wasted hour of school,' Lupu, supra note 6, at 744, would be unconstitutional." What this means, I think, is that on Michael's view Zorach was not in fact a "difficult" case, but was instead as clearly unconstitutional as Doug and Alan and Chip have suggested: Right at the outset, the majority opinion in Zorach describes the plaintiffs' complaint that "the classroom activities come to a halt while the students who are released for religious instruction are on leave." Id. at 309. And Justice Jackson's dissent confirms this understanding: "Here schooling is more or less suspended during the 'released time' so the nonreligious attendants will not forge ahead of the churchgoing absentees. But it serves as a temporary jail for a pupil who will not go to Church." Id. at 324. As Jackson reasonably explains, it is exactly this "dead time" (not any continued instruction (which Frankfurter imagines in his concurrence)) that had the effect of encouraging students to attend church schools. If this reading is correct, then Zorach itself is the very case that McConnell conceded would be unconstitutional. - Original Message - From: "Lupu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:49 PM Subject: RE: 21st Century Zorach > Released time has several problems in addition to trapping the left-> behind students in a dead hour (Rick, high schoolers may have > study halls, but 2nd graders usually don't, so this is a sham > argument):> > 1. Why is released time only for religious studies? Why shouldn't it > be for any activity of educational or civic value (Scouts, chess, or > music lessons away from school, etc.)? I have never heard a good > argument for religion-only released time.> > 2. Why should the school be releasing time from its curriculum in > the first place? If school is longer than need be, shorten it. If > parents want religious education for their children, why not send > them for it before or after school?> > 3. In communities in which the vast majority of children go to Bible > study during release time, there is pressure on other children to > conform and ask parental permission to go too. (Someone wrote an > op-ed in the Washington Post in the past week or so, describing this > exact situation as part of her childhood.) Conformity pressures are > always present among children, of course, but here (as in Engel), > the school is creating the context in which conformity pressures are > highlighted. Being "left behind" in class is a more visible > nonconformity than going off on one's own after school. (In my > grade school days, the only children who left my public school for > release time were Catholic; there weren't many, and the program > spotlighted them as in a religious minority in the public school and > as too poor to attend Catholic school as most of their fellow > Catholics did.) > > Chip Lupu> > On 18 Feb 2005 at 10:13, Rick Duncan wrote:> > Forwarded by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Forwarded to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date
Re: 21st Century Zorach
In a message dated 2/18/2005 1:30:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In addition to Marty and Marc's point about the lack of constructive programs for students who do not participate, isn't there also a problem with release time programs that are limited exclusively to religious education. What is the justification for not allowing release time programming on any subject that parents want their children to study that is not provided for in the public school curriculum? Isn't there something to be said for accommodation? Here comes big old bully State, grabs parents by the lapels, and threatens life, liberty and property unless child is put in a school setting from age 5 to as late as age 20, for as many as 7 to 8 hours a day, for at least 180 days in the year, including all weekdays. The interposition, of course, is welcomed by parents who are daunted by the process of educating their own children, or who lack skills necessary to do so. But it is an interposition by force of law. And its impact is not lessened by the fact that some parents choose to spend extra money on top of their property taxes to school their children in private schools or at home. So bully State is pushing parents around, and one small accommodation of need for religious training is made. What constitutional provisions other than the religion clause have been interpreted to allow (not require) accommodation? Jim "Religion Can't Be Different Only When You Want to Squish Religionists" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
A possible argument for having release time only for religious programs is that parents who wish to have religious values taught to their children are just about the only ones who cannot seek to have the public schools inculcate their chosen values. Those who wish to have environmental values, healthy lifestyle values, multicultural values, or patriotic values can seek to have their values taught by the school. The Establishment Clause prohibits schools from inculcating religious values not because those values are unimportant or disfavored or damaging, but because such inculcation is to be left to parents and private organizations, who are guaranteed the right freely to exercise religion. Where the school steps out of the way to allow parents to have such inculcation done by private groups, both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses are honored. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: Lupu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:50 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: 21st Century Zorach Released time has several problems in addition to trapping the left- behind students in a dead hour (Rick, high schoolers may have study halls, but 2nd graders usually don't, so this is a sham argument): 1. Why is released time only for religious studies? Why shouldn't it be for any activity of educational or civic value (Scouts, chess, or music lessons away from school, etc.)? I have never heard a good argument for religion-only released time. 2. Why should the school be releasing time from its curriculum in the first place? If school is longer than need be, shorten it. If parents want religious education for their children, why not send them for it before or after school? 3. In communities in which the vast majority of children go to Bible study during release time, there is pressure on other children to conform and ask parental permission to go too. (Someone wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in the past week or so, describing this exact situation as part of her childhood.) Conformity pressures are always present among children, of course, but here (as in Engel), the school is creating the context in which conformity pressures are highlighted. Being "left behind" in class is a more visible nonconformity than going off on one's own after school. (In my grade school days, the only children who left my public school for release time were Catholic; there weren't many, and the program spotlighted them as in a religious minority in the public school and as too poor to attend Catholic school as most of their fellow Catholics did.) Chip Lupu On 18 Feb 2005 at 10:13, Rick Duncan wrote: Forwarded by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwarded to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date forwarded: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:00:39 EST/EDT Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:13:30 -0800 (PST) From: Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject:RE: 21st Century Zorach Send reply to: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <mailto:religionlaw- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:religionlaw- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But isn't a study hall something constructive? Public > schools have study halls all the time, and they count > toward the mandatory school attendance requirement. > No? > > I thought the point that someone, maybe Doug, made was > that parents are coerced into granting their consent > for released time unless the school provides some > meaningful activity for those who remain on campus. I > doubt if very many parents would choose an off-campus > religious program they oppose over a supervised study > hall for children who remain on campus. > > Now, if children not participating in the release time > program were required to clean the school's toilets or > wash and wax its floors, we would have some coercion > to talk about. But a study hall seems to me both a > legitimate and a meaningful alternative to > participation in the released time program. Study is > good. Children need to do more of it. > > And, if I were putting the program together, I would > also allow any parent who objected to the study hall > to request that his or her child be released into his > or her custody during the released time period. This > would ensure that no one need remain on campus during > the released time period. Spending time with parents > is good. Children need to do more of it. > > Rick Duncan > > > > --- Marc Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Marty's point as I understand it is not that > > students choosing to > > participate in released time programs are coerced
RE: 21st Century Zorach
Released time has several problems in addition to trapping the left- behind students in a dead hour (Rick, high schoolers may have study halls, but 2nd graders usually don't, so this is a sham argument): 1. Why is released time only for religious studies? Why shouldn't it be for any activity of educational or civic value (Scouts, chess, or music lessons away from school, etc.)? I have never heard a good argument for religion-only released time. 2. Why should the school be releasing time from its curriculum in the first place? If school is longer than need be, shorten it. If parents want religious education for their children, why not send them for it before or after school? 3. In communities in which the vast majority of children go to Bible study during release time, there is pressure on other children to conform and ask parental permission to go too. (Someone wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in the past week or so, describing this exact situation as part of her childhood.) Conformity pressures are always present among children, of course, but here (as in Engel), the school is creating the context in which conformity pressures are highlighted. Being "left behind" in class is a more visible nonconformity than going off on one's own after school. (In my grade school days, the only children who left my public school for release time were Catholic; there weren't many, and the program spotlighted them as in a religious minority in the public school and as too poor to attend Catholic school as most of their fellow Catholics did.) Chip Lupu On 18 Feb 2005 at 10:13, Rick Duncan wrote: Forwarded by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwarded to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date forwarded: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:00:39 EST/EDT Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:13:30 -0800 (PST) From: Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject:RE: 21st Century Zorach Send reply to: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <mailto:religionlaw- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:religionlaw- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > But isn't a study hall something constructive? Public > schools have study halls all the time, and they count > toward the mandatory school attendance requirement. > No? > > I thought the point that someone, maybe Doug, made was > that parents are coerced into granting their consent > for released time unless the school provides some > meaningful activity for those who remain on campus. I > doubt if very many parents would choose an off-campus > religious program they oppose over a supervised study > hall for children who remain on campus. > > Now, if children not participating in the release time > program were required to clean the school's toilets or > wash and wax its floors, we would have some coercion > to talk about. But a study hall seems to me both a > legitimate and a meaningful alternative to > participation in the released time program. Study is > good. Children need to do more of it. > > And, if I were putting the program together, I would > also allow any parent who objected to the study hall > to request that his or her child be released into his > or her custody during the released time period. This > would ensure that no one need remain on campus during > the released time period. Spending time with parents > is good. Children need to do more of it. > > Rick Duncan > > > > --- Marc Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Marty's point as I understand it is not that > > students choosing to > > participate in released time programs are coerced to > > believe. It is that > > students who do not participate confront school > > mandated boredom are > > being punished for not participating in released > > time programs. Until > > the second circuit decision, I had taken it is > > settled that schools had > > to do something constructive with those who chose to > > remain behind. > > Marc Stern > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Rick Duncan > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:19 PM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: RE: 21st Century Zorach > > > > It seems to me that if there is a problem with > > modern > > "released time" programs, the problem is not with > > the > > releasing of students whose parents request a > > release, > > but rather in not providing something to do for the > > kids whose parents don't wish them to be released. > > > &
RE: 21st Century Zorach
In addition to Marty and Marc's point about the lack of constructive programs for students who do not participate, isn't there also a problem with release time programs that are limited exclusively to religious education. What is the justification for not allowing release time programming on any subject that parents want their children to study that is not provided for in the public school curriculum? And if Good News Club is support for release time programs as Rick seems to suggest, doesn't the school district's decision to only allow release time for religious instruction constitute prohibited viewpoint discrimination? The religious education is provided by private sources, is not part of the school curriculum and is not endorsed by the school district. If the school is simply releasing students from state custody to some activity of their parents' choosing, how can the program be limited to religious perspectives? Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 12:46 PM 2/18/2005 -0500, you wrote: Marty's point as I understand it is not that students choosing to participate in released time programs are coerced to believe. It is that students who do not participate confront school mandated boredom are being punished for not participating in released time programs. Until the second circuit decision, I had taken it is settled that schools had to do something constructive with those who chose to remain behind. Marc Stern -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:19 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: 21st Century Zorach It seems to me that if there is a problem with modern "released time" programs, the problem is not with the releasing of students whose parents request a release, but rather in not providing something to do for the kids whose parents don't wish them to be released. I don't know the facts of the cases Marty mentions. It seems to me that the school must do *something* with the kids who stay behind. Even a supervised study hall, in which students have an opportunity to work on their homework assignments or to study for tests and quizzes, is something. It would probably be even better if the school provided some kind of activity--say, art or multicultural appreciation--for the students who stay on campus during the released time period. Mandatory attendence laws and the public school monopoly over public funding of education do indeed impose a substantial burden on families who wish their children to be exposed to more diversity of thought and opinion than they receive in the secular public schools. The released time program permits children to be exposed to another way of looking at the world; it provides them an opportunity to choose to visit a spiritual oasis in what is otherwise a secular intellectual desert. Since children are released only if their parents consent and request release, as in Good News there is no state-imposed coercion imposed on children who participate in the program. I don't see a problem under the EC. Indeed, how can it be an establishment of religion for the state merely to release children, upon the request of their parents, from state custody. Suppose the program were amended to allow children who do not wish to be part of an organized released time program to be released instead into the custody of their parents for that hour? Shouldn't that take care of any objection about leaving some children behind? Rick Duncan University of Nebraska College of Law Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com = Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page - Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com ___ 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 messag
RE: 21st Century Zorach
But isn't a study hall something constructive? Public schools have study halls all the time, and they count toward the mandatory school attendance requirement. No? I thought the point that someone, maybe Doug, made was that parents are coerced into granting their consent for released time unless the school provides some meaningful activity for those who remain on campus. I doubt if very many parents would choose an off-campus religious program they oppose over a supervised study hall for children who remain on campus. Now, if children not participating in the release time program were required to clean the school's toilets or wash and wax its floors, we would have some coercion to talk about. But a study hall seems to me both a legitimate and a meaningful alternative to participation in the released time program. Study is good. Children need to do more of it. And, if I were putting the program together, I would also allow any parent who objected to the study hall to request that his or her child be released into his or her custody during the released time period. This would ensure that no one need remain on campus during the released time period. Spending time with parents is good. Children need to do more of it. Rick Duncan --- Marc Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marty's point as I understand it is not that > students choosing to > participate in released time programs are coerced to > believe. It is that > students who do not participate confront school > mandated boredom are > being punished for not participating in released > time programs. Until > the second circuit decision, I had taken it is > settled that schools had > to do something constructive with those who chose to > remain behind. > Marc Stern > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Rick Duncan > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:19 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: 21st Century Zorach > > It seems to me that if there is a problem with > modern > "released time" programs, the problem is not with > the > releasing of students whose parents request a > release, > but rather in not providing something to do for the > kids whose parents don't wish them to be released. > > I don't know the facts of the cases Marty mentions. > It > seems to me that the school must do *something* with > the kids who stay behind. Even a supervised study > hall, in which students have an opportunity to work > on > their homework assignments or to study for tests and > quizzes, is something. It would probably be even > better if the school provided some kind of > activity--say, art or multicultural > appreciation--for > the students who stay on campus during the released > time period. > > Mandatory attendence laws and the public school > monopoly over public funding of education do indeed > impose a substantial burden on families who wish > their > children to be exposed to more diversity of thought > and opinion than they receive in the secular public > schools. The released time program permits children > to > be exposed to another way of looking at the world; > it > provides them an opportunity to choose to visit a > spiritual oasis in what is otherwise a secular > intellectual desert. > > Since children are released only if their parents > consent and request release, as in Good News there > is > no state-imposed coercion imposed on children who > participate in the program. > > I don't see a problem under the EC. Indeed, how can > it > be an establishment of religion for the state merely > to release children, upon the request of their > parents, from state custody. > > Suppose the program were amended to allow children > who > do not wish to be part of an organized released time > program to be released instead into the custody of > their parents for that hour? Shouldn't that take > care > of any objection about leaving some children behind? > > Rick Duncan > University of Nebraska College of Law > Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com > > > > > = > Rick Duncan > Welpton Professor of Law > University of Nebraska College of Law > Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 > > "When the Round Table is broken every man must > follow either Galahad or > Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand > Miracle > > "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, > briefed, debriefed, or > numbered." --The Prisoner > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > All your favorites on one personal page - Try My > Yahoo! > h
RE: 21st Century Zorach
Marty's point as I understand it is not that students choosing to participate in released time programs are coerced to believe. It is that students who do not participate confront school mandated boredom are being punished for not participating in released time programs. Until the second circuit decision, I had taken it is settled that schools had to do something constructive with those who chose to remain behind. Marc Stern -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:19 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: 21st Century Zorach It seems to me that if there is a problem with modern "released time" programs, the problem is not with the releasing of students whose parents request a release, but rather in not providing something to do for the kids whose parents don't wish them to be released. I don't know the facts of the cases Marty mentions. It seems to me that the school must do *something* with the kids who stay behind. Even a supervised study hall, in which students have an opportunity to work on their homework assignments or to study for tests and quizzes, is something. It would probably be even better if the school provided some kind of activity--say, art or multicultural appreciation--for the students who stay on campus during the released time period. Mandatory attendence laws and the public school monopoly over public funding of education do indeed impose a substantial burden on families who wish their children to be exposed to more diversity of thought and opinion than they receive in the secular public schools. The released time program permits children to be exposed to another way of looking at the world; it provides them an opportunity to choose to visit a spiritual oasis in what is otherwise a secular intellectual desert. Since children are released only if their parents consent and request release, as in Good News there is no state-imposed coercion imposed on children who participate in the program. I don't see a problem under the EC. Indeed, how can it be an establishment of religion for the state merely to release children, upon the request of their parents, from state custody. Suppose the program were amended to allow children who do not wish to be part of an organized released time program to be released instead into the custody of their parents for that hour? Shouldn't that take care of any objection about leaving some children behind? Rick Duncan University of Nebraska College of Law Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com = Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page - Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com ___ 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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
It seems to me that if there is a problem with modern "released time" programs, the problem is not with the releasing of students whose parents request a release, but rather in not providing something to do for the kids whose parents don't wish them to be released. I don't know the facts of the cases Marty mentions. It seems to me that the school must do *something* with the kids who stay behind. Even a supervised study hall, in which students have an opportunity to work on their homework assignments or to study for tests and quizzes, is something. It would probably be even better if the school provided some kind of activity--say, art or multicultural appreciation--for the students who stay on campus during the released time period. Mandatory attendence laws and the public school monopoly over public funding of education do indeed impose a substantial burden on families who wish their children to be exposed to more diversity of thought and opinion than they receive in the secular public schools. The released time program permits children to be exposed to another way of looking at the world; it provides them an opportunity to choose to visit a spiritual oasis in what is otherwise a secular intellectual desert. Since children are released only if their parents consent and request release, as in Good News there is no state-imposed coercion imposed on children who participate in the program. I don't see a problem under the EC. Indeed, how can it be an establishment of religion for the state merely to release children, upon the request of their parents, from state custody. Suppose the program were amended to allow children who do not wish to be part of an organized released time program to be released instead into the custody of their parents for that hour? Shouldn't that take care of any objection about leaving some children behind? Rick Duncan University of Nebraska College of Law Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com = Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com ___ 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.
RE: 21st Century Zorach
I always thought Justice Jackson got this exactly right in Zorach, when he said the school is turned into a temporary jail for pupils who will not go to church. The solution is to live up to the name and make the time actually "released." Schedule it at the end of the school day; students who go to religious instruction can go; other students are free to go home or about their business; students in aftercare would go to their regular programming in aftercare, which would coordinate its schedule with the released time program. In an earlier generation, when there was no aftercare and kids went home after school, this would have vastly shrunk the coercive pressure to attend. The pervasiveness of aftercare reduces the benefit; it is still apparent who is going to aftercare instead of too church. But it would be a substantial reduction in coercive pressure; kids not attending would do what they would be doing anyway if school were really out. As best I can tell, that is why it is not adopted. The sponsors of these programs want them in the middle of the day to maximize the pressure to attend. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty LedermanSent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:09 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: 21st Century Zorach Dahlia Lithwick in Slate on current released-time programs in Virginia and elsewhere: http://slate.msn.com/id/2113611/. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently upheld a New York released time program, on the authority of Zorach, even though the children remaining in the classroom were in effect relegated to thimb-twiddling: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039292p.pdf. Zorach itself aside, does anyone on the list think that these programs are constitutional, and/or that they would survive scrutiny under the Court's more modern, Amos/Caldor/Texas Monthly/Kiryas Joel accommodation doctrine? I assume that in most such cases, the released time (i) does not alleivate any significant government-imposed burden on religious exercise, and (ii) does impose not-trivial burdens on other private parties (namely, the minority of students being left behind with nothing much (substantively) to do other than to await the return of the religious majority). In such cases, are the programs constitutionally defensible? ___ 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
es, a senior scholar at the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center in Arlington, said schools attempting to follow the spirit of the law need to ensure that children who opt out are not neglected. "Parents ought to pressure the school to make sure their kids get the attention they deserve," he said. "It's not time off for teachers. If teachers are doing their job, the parents should be celebrating because their kids get extra academic help." James Harrington, an education professor at Mary Baldwin College who is head of the Staunton School Board, said he believes the status quo is not working. "If we were talking teenagers, it would be less of a concern to me," he said. "The system requires a 6-year-old child to occasionally defend his or her belief system to teachers and classmates. It doesn't happen often, but the system is vulnerable to occasional lapses. We don't have the luxury of leaving it up to our best hopes." The third-graders just think the lessons are fun. Most are now attending Bible classes for the third year. They said they never have heard anybody say anything mean to the students who do not attend. "They're missing a lot of good stuff," said Olivia Pyanoe, who gave a short speech to the School Board in support of the classes. "I told them it's good to go. Some kids don't attend Sunday school classes." - Original Message - From: Ed Darrell To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 12:15 AM Subject: Re: 21st Century Zorach Especially under the state regulations supporting the No Child Left Behind Act, any program that leaves kids twiddling thumbs instead of taking AP biology is probably suspect, and perhaps illegal. When I attended schools in Utah, which had probably the most extensive released time programs, the kids leaving campus for religious instruction relieved overcrowding in the buildings. And with programs run every hour, only a minority of the studentbody would be gone in any one period. Altogether the released time program probably allowed an expansion of courses. Several states provide a right to education in their state constitutions. The thumb-twiddling programs would be in trouble in those states, I would imagine. Generally, a failure to provide coursework for kids left behind would be a real problem -- but I don't see that it is a problem for the religion clauses so much as for the educational achievement of the kids affected. Ed Darrell DallasMarty Lederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dahlia Lithwick in Slate on current released-time programs in Virginia and elsewhere: http://slate.msn.com/id/2113611/. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently upheld a New York released time program, on the authority of Zorach, even though the children remaining in the classroom were in effect relegated to thimb-twiddling: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039292p.pdf. Zorach itself aside, does anyone on the list think that these programs are constitutional, and/or that they would survive scrutiny under the Court's more modern, Amos/Caldor/Texas Monthly/Kiryas Joel accommodation doctrine? I assume that in most such cases, the released time (i) does not alleivate any significant government-imposed burden on religious exercise, and (ii) does impose not-trivial burdens on other private parties (namely, the minority of students being left behind with nothing much (substantively) to do other than to await the return of the religious majority). In such cases, are the programs constitutionally defensible? ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
Re: 21st Century Zorach
Especially under the state regulations supporting the No Child Left Behind Act, any program that leaves kids twiddling thumbs instead of taking AP biology is probably suspect, and perhaps illegal. When I attended schools in Utah, which had probably the most extensive released time programs, the kids leaving campus for religious instruction relieved overcrowding in the buildings. And with programs run every hour, only a minority of the studentbody would be gone in any one period. Altogether the released time program probably allowed an expansion of courses. Several states provide a right to education in their state constitutions. The thumb-twiddling programs would be in trouble in those states, I would imagine. Generally, a failure to provide coursework for kids left behind would be a real problem -- but I don't see that it is a problem for the religion clauses so much as for the educational achievement of the kids affected. Ed Darrell DallasMarty Lederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dahlia Lithwick in Slate on current released-time programs in Virginia and elsewhere: http://slate.msn.com/id/2113611/. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently upheld a New York released time program, on the authority of Zorach, even though the children remaining in the classroom were in effect relegated to thimb-twiddling: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039292p.pdf. Zorach itself aside, does anyone on the list think that these programs are constitutional, and/or that they would survive scrutiny under the Court's more modern, Amos/Caldor/Texas Monthly/Kiryas Joel accommodation doctrine? I assume that in most such cases, the released time (i) does not alleivate any significant government-imposed burden on religious exercise, and (ii) does impose not-trivial burdens on other private parties (namely, the minority of students being left behind with nothing much (substantively) to do other than to await the return of the religious majority). In such cases, are the programs constitutionally defensible? ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
21st Century Zorach
Dahlia Lithwick in Slate on current released-time programs in Virginia and elsewhere: http://slate.msn.com/id/2113611/. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently upheld a New York released time program, on the authority of Zorach, even though the children remaining in the classroom were in effect relegated to thimb-twiddling: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/039292p.pdf. Zorach itself aside, does anyone on the list think that these programs are constitutional, and/or that they would survive scrutiny under the Court's more modern, Amos/Caldor/Texas Monthly/Kiryas Joel accommodation doctrine? I assume that in most such cases, the released time (i) does not alleivate any significant government-imposed burden on religious exercise, and (ii) does impose not-trivial burdens on other private parties (namely, the minority of students being left behind with nothing much (substantively) to do other than to await the return of the religious majority). In such cases, are the programs constitutionally defensible? ___ 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.
