Lesser protection for religious advocacy

[Newsom Michael]

I agree that the application of the principle has to be carefully
thought through.  I think that the totality of the facts in the
particular case control the application.  We have long understood that
the rules that apply in the common schools are different than the rules
that apply elsewhere.  In that context, one can safely say that the
schools cannot, by inaction, permit this sort of targeted leafleting.
There is no slippery slope here unless the Supreme Court cases on
religion in schools are all wrong. 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 5:24 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

 

The idea that the govt is responsible for all that it does not prohibit
must be treated with great care. It has the potential of making govt
responsible for all of life, and of eliminating the sphere of private
action. Taken far enough, it is totalitarian. Thus, for example, the
argument I heard at one AALS section meeting that Catholic refusal to
ordain women as priests violates the 14th Amendment, because the govt's
refusal to extend anti-discrim laws to churches results in church
discrimination being state action.

 

Mark S. Scarberry

Pepperdine University School of Law

 

-----Original Message-----
From: marc stern [mailto:mstern at ajcongress.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 2:14 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

 

That the failure to regulate might constitute state action-as in failing
to ban private segregation- was one of the most hotly contested issues
of the mid-sixties civil right litigation>THE Supreme court ,if my
memories of law school are reliable, always dodged the question. It
largely became moot as a result of the 1964 civil rights act.

Marc Stern

 

  _____  

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of JMHACLJ at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 5:05 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

 

In a message dated 11/9/2004 5:00:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mnewsom at law.howard.edu writes:

	Can't the state
	regulate the use of its property?  Can't one say that failure to
do so
	might amount to state action? 

Seems at least plausible that if you can make that work, you can find
state action in the failure of a local government agency to prevent
assaults on public sidewalks.  After all, they are public property.

 

Jim Henderson

Senior Counsel

ACLJ

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20041110/6ef96fd2/attachment.htm