If you haven't done so already, PLEASE bookmark the page
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/religionlaw.htm
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/religionlaw.htm . That way, when you
have technical problems with the list, or want to know how to resubscribe,
or want to know how to tell colleagues to
Title: Message
Dear colleagues: I am unfortunately
unable to actively moderate the list right now -- just too swamped, with all my
various other commitments. I had hoped that people would exercise good
judgment with regard to their own posts, and I hope they can continue to do
so. If people
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0307230177jul23.story
A federal lawsuit Tuesday alleged that the Chicago Park District violated a
couple's constitutional rights by refusing to display their religious
message on a commemorative brick at a Far North Side park near their home.
The
Interesting case on this, In re Barberton Rescue Mission, 2003 WL
21634055 (Minn. Off. Admin. Hrgs. June 18).
Eugene
Easterbrook repeats that police departments need not accommodate
officers who refuse to guard certain places (here, casinos) on religious
grounds. Endres v. Indiana State Police, 2003 WL 21480361 (7th Cir. June
27). The decision focuses only on Title VII -- there was apparently no
state
agencies in Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin are now advised to plead an Ex
Parte Young claim against named officials, where possible, because the
Seventh Circuit has held that the accommodation provision of title VII is
not valid section 5 legislation.
- Original Message -
From: Volokh
Sorry -- I missed part of Chip's question. I did say that the
government may insist that a church retain its worship space as a condition
of getting money; the government may pay to have buildings be preserved in
their historical state. (The money then ends up being more the purchase of
