Greenville subsidizes religious art

[Bradley S. Clanton]

It seems to me that all of this discussion regarding how much Greenville
spends on other art, etc., misses the point.  In my view, the heart of the
matter (as suggested by Professor Salamanca) is whether funding the Bob
Jones museum furthers a legitimate (and, assuming we are applying the
nonsensical Lemon paradigm) secular legislative purpose.  And I cannot
imagine that such funding would not.

More importantly, however, it seems to me that funding the museum is
consistent with the long-standing American tradition of publicly-funded,
public displays of religious symbols and relics.  As such, the abstract
Lemon test, which was derived from such historic practices, should not be
applied in analyzing the constitutionality of such displays.

Brad Clanton
Wiley, Rein & Fielding
1776 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

To:       RELIGIONLAW @ LISTSERV.UCLA.EDU
cc:        (bcc: Brad Clanton/WRF)
From:     Alan.Gunn.1 @ ND.EDU @ SMTP
Date:     10/06/98 12:57:45 PM
Subject:  Re: Greenville subsidizes religious art




At 10:12 AM 10/6/98 -0500, Rick Duncan wrote:
>I think Sandy has a point about a city's decision to provide a $30,000
>subsidy to the Bob Jones Museum of Art. But in calculating whether the
>city has advanced religion, shouldn't we look at *all* city spending
>on art (e.g. art purchased for public schools, public buildings,
>city-owned sculptures, etc) rather than focus on whether the city has
>financed other *museums.* If we adopt the former perspective, I have
>no doubt that the amount of the subsidy for religious art will be
>insignificant relative to the subsidy for secular art.
        And why stop with visual art? Suppose the city subsidizes a
symphony and
Bob Jones has the only museum in town: couldn't one argue that subsidizing
the symphony alone discriminates? Or what of baseball: if the city
subsidizes little league but not the museum, doesn't it favor some ways of
enriching people's lives over others?
        My intent is not to defend or oppose a grant to Bob Jones U but
rather to
point out the impossibility of resolving matters like this in any but the
clearest cases (the city council minutes say "let's subsidize BJU because
they represent the true faith," etc.). What really strikes me as odd is the
notion that elected officials and civil servants should be the people to
decide on the forms of art that should be promoted, a process that has led,
among other things, to the music of Lawrence Welk being preserved,
apparently for all eternity, on PBS. (To be fair, I listen every day to a
public radio station that broadcasts real music. My guess, though, is that
Vivaldi would survive a market test (or attract patrons who know and care
enough to commit their own money), and Welk wouldn't.)

Alan Gunn
Notre Dame Law School