Gwen and the Rev
obrien at ACADEM.WVWC.EDU
Mon Apr 7 12:30:12 PDT 1997
I like MMcC's conclusion:
> It seems to me there is a common thread between EV's two recents
> posts: the one about the dismissal of Rev. Lumpkin and the one about
> the Murfreesboro painting. In both cases the law looks foolish,
> censorious, and maybe even dangerous.
> In both cases, it seems to me, the right answer is: these are matters
> for government discretion, and such not be subjects of lawsuits,
> either way. There is no "right" to hold a high, policy-making
> position. . . .
> the same token, an artist has no "right" to have her painting
> displayed in the town hall, and the town leaders have the discretion
> to remove art work they dislike, for whatever reason. Courts should
> not get into the business of deciding whether reasons for removing
> art are "good enough."
However, I seem to recall something about the Supreme Court doing away
with the distinction between rights and privileges. Does government need
to give reasons when it denies to the painter the privilege of displaying
_Gwen_? Might there not be illegitimate reasons? What if the the City
Council had just learned the painter of _Gwen_ was a Black and refused to
allow any Blacks to be among the painters whose works would be displayed in
the town hall?
(I wonder whether _Gwen_ is for sale.)
Robert O'Brien West Virginia Wesleyan
obrien at academ.wvwc.edu
More information about the Religionlaw