A Hypo I Am Using in Class

[Brownstein, Alan]

Perhaps the core difference between Rick's view and mine in this area is
that I think that beliefs about uniquely religious questions (the
existence and nature of G-d and the way that people relate to G-d -
worship and ritual)) are special - both because of their meaning to
individuals and their lack of importance to government.  Ethical and
moral beliefs, even though they are religiously based, are different.

 

Thus, I might certainly be offended by state expression that endorses
moral or political positions that I reject  (such as expression that
endorses  welfare policies that provide inadequate health care to the
children of indigent families) - but I view that issue as one that is
distinct from state expression that endorses the belief that Jesus
Christ is the Son of G-d and condemns those who believe otherwise.

 

I take it that Rick sees no distinction between these kinds of beliefs
that would justify treating government speech about welfare policies
differently than government speech about the divinity of Christ.  I
disagree. 

 

I might add that I do not consider state sponsored religious displays
such as a cross in a public park "interior decorating of the public
square" any more than I consider  the mezuzah next to my front door to
be part of the decoration of my home. That may be another part of my
disagreement with Rick.

 

Alan Brownstein

 

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 3:13 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: A Hypo I Am Using in Class

 

"Brownstein, Alan" <aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu> wrote:

 

 

I think that Rick is right that the City's action would not be
unconstitutional under a true coercion test and that is why the adoption
of a coercion test by the court is so problematic. It would eliminate
any constitutional commitment to religious equality in government
expression and permit the resources of the state to be used to promote
favored faiths and denigrate others.

 

Of course, averting one's eyes and taking a few steps out of the way in
no way shields the members of minority faiths from the message the state
is communicating to them and about them with its decision.  They are
told  that their religious beliefs are not worthy of state recognition
while the beliefs of other community members are worthy of such respect.


 

Of course, this is also true of persons whose religious sensibilities
are offended by the "gay pride--stop homophobia" governmental display in
the park. They are being told that their religious (and/or deeply held
secular) beliefs about homosexuality are not worthy of state recognition
(indeed, the state is saying their views are a disease that must be
stopped) while the beliefs of their ideological and religious opponents
are worthy of respect.

 

Yet, opponents of the gay pride display (or of a secular pledge of
allegiance) are told by the Ct that their rights are respected so long
as they are not actually coerced into affirming the objectionable
message. I like a true coercion test. The interior decorating of the
public square should be decided in the political process, not by an
unelected Court sitting in a federal enclave.

 

Rick Duncan

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070801/3fa94a81/attachment.htm