Government Religious Displays and Substantive Neutrality

[Brian Landsberg]

Let's assume, for purposes of argument, that Jeffries and Ryan are
correct in saying that elites support separation of church and state and
ordinary folks don't.  How does that illuminate any discussion of the
meaning of the Establishment Clause?

 

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:56 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Government Religious Displays and Substantive Neutrality

 

Art Spitzer wrote:

In a message dated 3/31/09 6:02:12 PM, laycockd at umich.edu writes:



Here's one more way to think about it:  ... the rule that government
must be religiously neutral [is] a special protection for religion ....
Government can not try either to coerce you or persuade you to change
your views about religion.  That ... is the greatest level of possible
protection.

Yes, but it's an entirely hypothetical (and thus unimportant) protection
to those who are comfortably in the majority, and who therefore can,
without perceived risk to their own views, seek to get the government to
coerce or persuade others to change their views.  Isn't that why so many
local government officials would react to Doug's excellent point with
blank stares?  It just doesn't relate to their world.

Art Spitzer
ACLU


It took me a couple of days to run down the reference, but I love the
way Profs. Jeffries and Ryan describe the huge gap in the way cultural
elites and ordinary folks think about the EC. Jeffries and Ryan observe
that "the controversy over school prayer revealed a huge gap between the
cultural elite and the rest of America. People generally may have
supported school prayer and Bible reading, but the leadership class did
not." They also note that "elite support for the Supreme Court's
secularization project was clearly visible in the activities of law
professors and deans." See Jeffries & Ryan, A Political History of the
establishment Clause, 100 MICH. L. REV. 279, 325 (2001).

I really enjoyed this thread. 

Cheers, Rick



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090403/602de985/attachment.htm>