New Jersey Lawsuit

[Bezanson, Randall P]

Welcome to the new First Amendment.  Under the Court's decisions
religious music is not constitutionally compelled to be played, but it
is unconstitutional to exclude it if it otherwise meets the general and
secular criteria by which the music for the pereformance was selected.

R. Bezanson 

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:22 PM
To: Religionlaw list
Subject: New Jersey Lawsuit

I want to get everyone's thoughts on the appeals court case against
South Orange-Maplewood School District in New Jersey. The school has a
policy not to have religious music performed by the choir or band and
that policy is being challenged as unconstitutional. Now, I think the
policy is a bad one for several reasons. But unconstitutional? On what
grounds? Are there any precedents that apply in this area? It seems to
me that saying it's not unconstitutional for public schools to perform
religious music (which I agree with) is quite different from saying it's
unconstitutional NOT to perform religious music. It seems to me that if
not playing Christian music amounts to unconstitutional "hostility" 
toward Christianity, then not performing Muslim music must also be
unconstitutional hostility toward Islam, and also true for Hindu music,
Jewish music, and so forth.

Ed Brayton
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

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.