Skoros v. City of New York
stuartbuck at msn.com
Fri Feb 20 15:58:34 PST 2004
The decision can be found here: http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/02cv6439mdo.pdf
An interesting quote:
Opinions of one or more of the Supreme Court Justices have, from time to
time, announced the demise of such precedents as Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S.
602 (1971), see, e.g., Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School
Distr., 508 U.S. 384, 396-401 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring), and voiced
the not unusual appellate judges complaint about tests that rely on trial
court fact-finding, predicting that the absence of a comprehensive
one-size-fits-all test will produce a jurisprudence of minutiae, relying
on little more than intuition and a tape measure. E.g., County of
Allegheny v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 675-76 (1989) (Kennedy,
J., concurring and dissenting).
In fact, Lemon and its progeny, as even their critics acknowledge, have
proven resilient, see Lambs Chapel, 508 U.S. at 398-99, and provide a
framework within which the resolution of this case is not that difficult.
The problem is not the inadequacy of the Supreme Courts articulated
standards for deciding cases such as these. The problem, if problem it is,
is that contemporary society is, for better or worse, experiencing exposure
to an expanding variety of cultures and religions.
>From: "AJCONGRESS" <mstern at ajcongress.org>
>Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
><religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>Subject: Skoros v. City of New York
>Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:26:12 -0500
>The United States district Court for the Eastern District of New York
>yesterday upheld against Establishment Clause challenge school rules which
>permitted only secular /religious symbols (Menorah, Christmas tree,
>crescent) but not purely religious ones. The Plaintiffs apparently did not
>argue that this amounted to the state secularizing Christmas perhaps
>the policy allowed teaching about the origins of Christmas. The Court ruled
>that the exclusion of purely religious symbols was necessary to avoid a
>violation of the Establishment Clause. I am not sure the establishment
>clause requires such exclusion. I am also not certain why the
>argument was not pressed.
>The case is on the Eastern District web site.
>From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu]On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
>Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 6:22 PM
>To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
>Subject: Talking about profanities
> I understand the request, but I should say that I (speaking entirely
>a mere list member) actually find "f---", "n-----", "the f word", "the n
>word", and so on to be somewhat grating. I can't say that I'm deeply
>offended by these euphemisms; perhaps I am less annoyed by them than those
>who are upset by "fuck" or "nigger" or the like are upset by them, if such
>comparison can sensibly be made. But I do have a substantial preference
>discussions that use the word and not the euphemism.
> I certainly don't ask others to adapt their own expression to this
>preference of mine. But I can understand that others might share this
>preference, and therefore why they might insist on using the actual words
>their posts. (Naturally, I'm sure no-one will use these words as epithets
>aimed at fellow list members or others; I refer here to people discussing
>the facts of cases, or of hypotheticals.)
>From: David W. New [mailto:david_new at msn.com]
>Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 3:02 PM
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>Subject: Re: "F the Draft"
>If there is any way we can drop using the four letter word, or at least not
>spell it out, I would be very grateful. Thank you. David W. New
>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying Guide.
More information about the Religionlaw