Church is not an option
Steven Jamar
stevenjamar at gmail.com
Sun Aug 19 09:58:00 PDT 2007
Not a model of lucidity -- probably not so lucid in the pleadings
either.
But back to the facts -- does this student/employee have free
exercise claim? The compulsion element (to the extent it really is
an element) does indeed seem to be lacking.
Like Mark says, I'm drawn to the establishment claim on this -- and
on that grounds it seems quite clear the school is not being neutral.
To shift the grounds a bit: Can the school have an MSW-only
counseling rule? It is a school for a masters of social work. Even
if it is guild-motivated to maintain income (if the policy was refer
only to social workers <rant>the de facto message of most MSW
programs I've ever heard of</rant> would that be ok?), isn't that a
generally applicable neutral policy?
They would not be stopping a counselor from using religion in the
counseling session.
Steve
On Aug 19, 2007, at 12:25 PM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:
> The analyses in the various opinions puzzle me. Assuming the policy
> of prohibiting mention of religious bereavement counseling options
> was set up by a state actor, why doesn't that policy violate the
> Establishment Clause? It's principal effect seems to be to inhibit
> religion. Here the client had indicated a religious commitment; to
> require the employee/student to ignore that information and to not
> even mention the possibility of religious bereavement counseling is
> actively hostile to religion. In effect it sets up a secular
> orthodoxy in dealing with a matter that for thousands of years has
> been an important part of religious practice.
>
> If the policy is impermissible under the Establishment Clause, then
> Pickering test would not be applicable with respect to disciplining
> the employee/student for violation of the policy; perhaps it would
> be better to say that there would be no need to discuss the
> employee/student's Free Speech rights, and thus Pickering would be
> irrelevant. In addition, all the discussion about whether the
> employee/student had a religious belief requiring that he mention
> the religious bereavement option would be unnecessary, because
> there would be no need to engage in a Free Exercise analysis.
>
> Mark Scarberry
> Pepperdine
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Joel Sogol
> Sent: Fri 8/17/2007 12:07 PM
> To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Church is not an option
>
>
>
> Student dismissed from practicum for recommending church as an
> option for bereavement counseling?
>
>
>
> http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513852.pdf <http://
> www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513852.pdf>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joel L. Sogol
>
> 811 21st Ave.
>
> Tuscaloosa, ALabama 35401
>
> ph (205) 345-0966
>
> fx (205) 345-0971
>
> email: jlsatty at wwisp.com
>
>
>
> Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why
> we have evidence rules in U.S. courts.
>
>
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC 20008 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
"Politics hates a vacuum. If it isn't filled with hope, someone will
fill it with fear."
Naomi Klein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070819/78273f94/attachment.htm
More information about the Religionlaw
mailing list