"A Bible study group and a book club are not treated the same"

[Hamilton02 at aol.com]

Eugene has to be correct here.  In fact, the Court does not apply  strict 
scrutiny to every situation involving religious speech. It always depends  on 
the context and the government purpose.  The notion that political  speech 
and religious speech are subject to strict scrutiny in every circumstance  
is another example of oversimplifying the doctrine.  It is reminiscent of  
the claims that strict scrutiny always applied to religious conduct after  
Smith was decided. The strict scrutiny doctrine does not  describe the cases 
accurately.
 
Marci
 
 
In a message dated 6/21/2009 10:57:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu writes:

Mark:  Stop me if I’m wrong, but if RFRA requires that (1) restrictions  on 
religiously motivated speech must be judged under strict scrutiny, and (2)  
any objection that secularly and religiously motivated speakers must be  
treated the same way must be resolved by extending the exception to both, then 
 every speech restriction – including content-neutral ones, reasonable  
viewpoint-neutral ones in nonpublic fora, Pickering-consistent ones  imposed by 
the government as employer, and so on – would have to be judged  under 
strict scrutiny, at least so long as a single religious objector is  found to 
it.  Speech restrictions would thus be divided into two  classes:  Those that 
are judged under lower standards of review (when  that’s acceptable under 
Free Speech Clause doctrine) because they haven’t yet  been challenged by a 
religious objector, and those that are now judged under  strict scrutiny as to 
all speakers because they have at least once been  challenged by a 
religious objector.  Can that be right (even if the  government can cure this by 
excluding the restriction on a case-by-case basis  from the scope of the RFRA)? 
Eugene


 
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823273x1201398689/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jun
eExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090622/904308a5/attachment.htm>