FW: descriptive scholarly accounts of religious identityandjudicial behavior?
guayiya at bellsouth.net
Fri Apr 23 13:59:20 PDT 2010
A puzzling question. I can't think of any other area of personal rights jurisprudence where the existence vel non of a violation depends on the number of persons objecting, or the number of persons who approve of the alleged violation. It takes exactly one person to allege a violation. Few of such allegations succeed, but surely the outcomes are not supposed to depend on opinion polls.
The gravest flaw of EC jurisprudence is that the Court can make a symbol--or a purpose--secular simply by calling it that. This move makes intolerance the guiding norm. I contend that this particular question--not the entire case--should be determined from the standpoint of the complaining party, much as sexual harrassment law considers (or should) the outlook of a reasonable woman, I would do the same with free exercise claims, but obviously erecting religious symbols on public land is not an instance of free exercise. A totally secular public sphere would not infringe free exercise and would not, by definition, establish any religion.
--- On Fri, 4/23/10, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
From: Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>
Subject: FW: descriptive scholarly accounts of religious identityandjudicial behavior?
To: "conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu" <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
Date: Friday, April 23, 2010, 2:28 AM
What exactly would it mean for the Establishment Clause to "protect one person"? Does it mean that if one person, for instance, objects to the use of A.D. or B.C. in government documents, he can get that enjoined? If one person objects to crosses on the seal of Las Cruces, he can get the seal changed? If one person objects to the name of Las Cruces, he can the name changed?
From: Daniel Hoffman [mailto:guayiya at bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 8:09 PM
To: 'conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu'; Volokh, Eugene
Subject: RE: descriptive scholarly accounts of religious identityandjudicial behavior?
I am sorry, but the cross does not refer to "a large group of people." It refers to Jesus.
I attended a parochial high school where we were not allowed to sit with our legs crossed.
A cross is a cross is a cross..
And no, Eugene, the establishment clause is not aimed at accommodating the sentiments of the majority. If the speech caluse can protect one person, why can't the establisment clause?
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof