Summum

[Volokh, Eugene]

Chip Lupu writes:

> Rick likes to call the restriction on government religious speech a
"heckler's veto,"
> because that's a pejorative.  And I must say that the "endorsement"
approach, and
> a focus on "offense" taken by viewers, feeds that way of framing the
issue.  But
> there are far more powerful and persuasive arguments against
permitting
> government to express religious sentiments, especially highly
sectarian ones.
> First, there is the age-old problem of destructive fights over whose
sentiments will
> prevail.  (In which American cities will Allah be praised?  In which
ones will
> officials pray only in the name of Jesus?) 

	I appreciate this concern, but let me ask:  Since the Court
started viewing the Establishment Clause as a restraint on government
speech, we've seen lots of pretty divisive fights over religion in
public life (school prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, creationism, and
the like).  It's possible that these fights are less divisive and
destructive than the fights that would have happened over these subjects
if the Establishment Clause weren't enforced by courts as a restraint on
government speech.  But what reason do we have to be confident of that?
What if Establishment Clause has proven more divisive than the problems
it was supposed to solve?

	Eugene