Lawsuits against SYATP.

[Ed Brayton]

Gary McCaleb wrote:

> The first sentence refers to this passage:
>  
> We agree with the Seventh Circuit that the desirable approach is not 
> for schools to throw up their hands because of the possible 
> misconceptions about endorsement of religion, but that instead it is 
> [f]ar better to teach [students] about the first amendment, about the 
> difference between private and public action, about why we tolerate 
> divergent views ···· The school's proper response is to educate the 
> audience rather than squelch the speaker. Schools may explain that 
> they do not endorse speech by permitting it. If pupils do not 
> comprehend so simple a lesson, then one wonders whether the [ ] 
> schools can teach anything at all. Free speech, free exercise, and the 
> ban on establishment are quite compatible when the government remains 
> neutral and educates the public about the reasons.
>  
> /H//ills v. Scottsdale Unif. Sch. Dist. No. 48/, 329 F.3d 1044,1055 
> (quoting /Hedges v. Wauconda Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. /118, 9 F.3d 
> 1295, 1299-1300 (7th Cir. 1993)).  Note that the /Hedges /decision has 
> been on the books for thirteen years and we still have a full time job 
> dealing with the suppression of religious expression on public school 
> campuses.


Ah, I misunderstood you completely. And I agree with the text you quote 
completely and want the schools to do a much better job of teaching 
about not only the first amendment, but the Bill of Rights and the 
Constitution in general. As I said, I'm generally on your side when it 
comes to student religious liberty cases.

>  
> As to the ACLU, I would incorporate by reference the book /ACLU v. 
> America /by ADF's Alan Sears and Craig Osten.  The ACLU does just 
> enough mainstream religious liberties work to give itself cover for PR 
> purposes, in my view.  The book documents the ACLU's activities in 
> extreme detail, with sources cited.  The ACLU's record speaks for 
> itself; it does not need to be "demonized" by us.
>  
> Off the top of my head, ACLU has demonstrated its commitment to 
> religious freedom by filing suit in Arizona (again) against tax 
> credits that may incidentally benefit private religious schools;


I fully agree that they are wrong on that case and I've written against 
their position on it already. But it's not a religious liberty case. No 
one's religious liberty is in jeopardy there, the case has to do with 
whether tax money can even indirectly go to religious schools even if 
the government doesn't decide who it goes to. I agree, they're wrong; 
but to cite that as evidence of them being opposed to religious freedom 
is fallacious.

> filing an amicus brief opposing our Equal Access Act case for a Bible 
> club in Washington (amazingly, arguing that a case they use to get 
> access to schools for pro-homosexual student clubs should be 
> /overruled/ in respect to the Bible club);

I assume you're referring to Truth Bible Club v Kentridge. If so, I 
think this is, at the very least, an oversimplification of the issue. I 
am a firm defender of the Equal Access Act as it is applied to both 
religious clubs and gay/straight alliances. But my understanding is that 
the issue in that case was whether the club could discriminate and still 
be recognized. That's an issue that is being adjudicated all over the 
country right now, particularly with respect to Christian Legal Society 
chapters on college campuses. And I happen to agree with you on this one 
as well. I think the 7th circuit ruling in the Southern Illinois case 
was correct and the 9th circuit ruling in the Hastings case was 
incorrect. But it's still a different issue than a typical equal access 
case and it's a closer call. Someone can still take the contrary 
position without being accused of being against free exercise. The 
argument there is over whether government has to (or even can) provide 
funding to groups that discriminate. Again, I'm on your side on this 
one, but I don't think it can be used as evidence of being opposed to 
religious freedom. These issues are just more complex than you're 
portraying them.

> and suing to force Cranston, RI, to remove a privately-placed creche 
> from the city hall lawn.  None of these matters foster the proper 
> accommodation of religion in our civil society.

Well we can certainly argue all day long about the proper accomodation 
of religion in society. But that doesn't mean it's reasonable to accuse 
anyone of not agreeing with you on every detail of being opposed to 
religious freedom (any more than it is reasonable for some folks on the 
strict separation side to portray anyone who favors greater accomodation 
for religion of being in favor of theocracy - and yes, I've criticized 
them for the same sorts of rhetorical exaggerations for which I'm 
criticizing your group now).

My point in all of this is that it does us no good in examining these 
issues to oversimplify and demonize the other side. It adds plenty of 
emotion and very little reason to the discusssion.

Ed Brayton
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20060926/8ab5dd08/attachment.htm