My computer tells me the attachment is unavailable. Any idea of why?
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:14 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Marc:
That URL address for the Report is long, and sometimes causes
problems. The easiest way to get to the Report is to go to the
Roundtable homepage (www.religionandsocialpolicy.org). You'll
find a link to the Report about one third of the way down the page on
the right hand side.
Thanks
This is actually a case from 2003. Westlaw must have changed a 3 to a 5
when they entered it.
Eric W. Treene
(in my personal capacity)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:55 PM
To: Law
I want to get everyone's thoughts on the appeals court case against
South Orange-Maplewood School District in New Jersey. The school has a
policy not to have religious music performed by the choir or band and
that policy is being challenged as unconstitutional. Now, I think the
policy is a bad
I haven't seen the suit (does anyone have a copy?), but I could guess
the theory is either that 1) the policy infringes free exercise of
students and/or teachers, with a supporting argument that the music at
issue is not being officially sponsored by the school, or 2) it's a
Rosenberger-type
Welcome to the new First Amendment. Under the Court's decisions
religious music is not constitutionally compelled to be played, but it
is unconstitutional to exclude it if it otherwise meets the general and
secular criteria by which the music for the pereformance was selected.
R. Bezanson
On 16 Dec 2005 at 13:56, Bezanson, Randall P wrote:
Welcome to the new First Amendment. Under the Court's decisions
religious music is not constitutionally compelled to be played, but it
is unconstitutional to exclude it if it otherwise meets the general
and secular criteria by which the
It comes from a general rule of nondiscrimination against religion in
general public programs -- Smith; Rosenberger; Locke v. Davey. I think
one might think of the music case as a tye of limited public forum, but
Public Forum analysis is largely incoherent so I don't think I would
rely on it. I
Locke v. Davey is a very odd cite for a general rule of
nondiscrimination against religion in general public programs. It
comes out quite the other way. Nothing in the opinion hints at the
outcome if the Scholarship Program excluded all students who took
religious classes. And your reply
Wouldn't the school have a sort of editorial right over the
content of its band performances, a la Hazelwood, even if it often
defers to student preference?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Sanders
Sent:
My initial reaction
is the same as Eugene's; this has to be within the school's discretion.
The school is permitted to celebrate Christmas, because the Court is
far from absolutist about the Establishment Clause. But it is hard to
imagine that the school is required to celebrate Christmas.
Yes, to the extent that this lawsuit is about using the Establishment Clause
case to force the government to play religious music because it plays
secular music, it does seem doomed. Arguing that disestablishment itself
constitutes establishment -- which, btw, is I think what we have been
I have been advocating a paradigm shift toward application of the
constitutional principle of separation between religion and government
for a long time by modern standards. Gene Garman has been advocating it
much longer. It needs to take place at all three levels of government.
But we live in a
13 matches
Mail list logo
