Speaking of endorsements

[Volokh, Eugene]

	I should think that the former is unconstitutional under
Scalia's approach, but the later would be permissible.

> Eugene's comment reminded me of a question I had been meaning 
> to ask after the Ten Commandments cases last term, but never 
> got around to.
> 
> Under Scalia's and Rehnquist's approach to religious messages 
> cases, would it be unconstitutional for the U.S. to make the 
> following proclamation and enact the following policy "The 
> United States of America endorses Christianity as the one 
> true faith. Accordingly, the government will only display 
> religious messages on public property on its own behalf 
> consistent with Christian beliefs."
> 
> Or, alternatively "The United States of America endorses the 
> belief that there is one God. Accordingly, the government 
> will only display religious messages on public property on 
> its own behalf consistent with monotheistic beliefs."
> 
> Alan Brownstein
> UC Davis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eugene wrote:
> 
> 	Yet it seems to me that the interpretation of the site 
> as endorsing a certain view on religious matters remains a 
> quite plausible interpretation; and a court applying 
> endorsement doctrine evenhandedly may well take the view that 
> a reasonable person would adopt this interpretation, which 
> would make the site unconstitutional.  I'm not at all sure 
> that this is a good result, and perhaps this is further 
> evidence of the difficulty that an endorsement test creates 
> in a world where much speech (especially in education) is 
> undertaken by government agents, and many debates are hard to 
> engage in without the ability to say often controversial 
> things about religious doctrine.  Nonetheless it strikes me 
> as an eminently legally plausible result.
> 
> 	Finally, this all reminds me of one of my favorite 
> quotes on religion-and-the-law question, from Michael W. 
> McConnell, Religious Freedom at a Crossroads, 59 U. Chi. L. 
> Rev. 115, 150 (1992):
> 
> 	"Consider the following examples: (1) How would the 
> parochial school aid cases fare under the endorsement test? 
> ... A significant segment of the population believes that the 
> use of government funds to assist religious education is 
> tantamount to putting priests on the payroll. On the other 
> hand, granting funds to secular schools but not to equally 
> qualified religious schools creates at least the appearance 
> of disapproval.... (2) Does tax-exempt status convey a 
> message of endorsement of churches? The government grants tax 
> exemptions on the theory that exempt organizations provide 
> benefits to the public. Including churches on this list 
> implies that they are wholesome and beneficial 
> institutions.... But what message would be conveyed by 
> excluding churches from the class of tax-exempt charities? ... 
> 
> 	"Does exemption of religious organizations or of 
> religiously motivated individuals from a law of general 
> applicability 'endorse' religion? Opponents of religious 
> accommodations argue that '[s]pecial treatment for religion 
> connotes sponsorship and endorsement'.... Justice O'Connor 
> agrees that exemptions cause resentment, but holds that this 
> resentment is 'entitled to little weight' because 
> accommodations promote the 'values' of the Free Exercise 
> Clause. Others, such as Professor Laycock, say that 
> exemptions do not appear to endorse religion at all.
> 
> 	"I know all of these people to be reasonable observers, 
> well schooled in the values underlying the First Amendment. 
> That does not seem to help." 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>