Church is not an option

[Susan Freiman]

Sorry for responding so late to this thread.

I wonder how counseling qualifies as "religious."  What about the twelve 
step programs which refer to a higher power?  These are 
non-denominational meetings, though in Israel, the meetings do not use 
the Lord's Prayer which is standard in meetings in the States, because 
the Lord's Prayer comes from Christian sources.

Susan

Ed Brayton wrote:
> It's even worse than that, Mark. The ruling says there was no policy of
> prohibiting mention of religious bereavement counseling options. In fact, it
> says that what he said did not violate any guideline or procedure at all.
> Given that, I think the free speech claim is still alive and should have
> been heard by the district court. Yes, there is a distinction between speech
> on a public matter and speech on a private matter in Pickering, but even
> with speech on a private matter I don't see how it could possibly be
> acceptable for a government employer to fire an employee for private speech
> that is not in violation of any guideline and for which there is not some
> compelling reason for the firing. I think the free speech claim is stronger
> than the free exercise claim. 
>  
> And I'm inclined to agree with Christopher Lund that the firing had more to
> do with this mysterious first incident referred to, but even if it was I
> don't see a strong defense. The second incident was not an incident at all.
> I don't see how one could make a reasonable case that he did anything wrong
> at all. Offering church as one of many places a patient might find a
> bereavement group to a patient that has expressed a religious preference is
> in no way inappropriate in this situation. So even if there was a first
> incident, if the alleged second incident is no incident at all, I still
> don't see how that is a compelling defense - they've simply invented a
> second reason to fire him. If the first incident was serious enough, they
> should have fired him for that.
>  
> Ed Brayton
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf
> Of Scarberry, Mark
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 12:26 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Church is not an option
>
>
> 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. <http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513852.pdf>
> 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.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.