Selective Support of Religious Liberty

[Marty Lederman]

Perhaps a topic worthy of its own dedicated thread:  The phenomenon is
hardly unique to the evangelical movement.  Doug is of course correct that
there are many lawyers and others, evangelical or otherwise, who do great
work on behalf of religious liberty "for all."  I am increasingly
concerned, however, that the majority of self-professed religious liberty
allies, who worked so well and sensitively together on matters such as RFRA
and RLUIPA, are distressingly selective when it comes to their solicitude
for the religious liberty (and equality) of nonmajoritarian religious
observers.  I am thinking, in particular, of the rather deafening lack of
objection (on this list and in public), resources, amicus support, etc., in
high-profile cases such as Simpson v. Chesterfield County (as clear a case
of unjustifiable religious discrimination as one can imagine -- and one in
which it was impossible to round up any support for amicus participation);
Summum; Hernandez; most conspicuously and egregiously, the Park51/Cordoba
House controversy; and, I would add, Newdow.  The list could go on.

There are, of course, exceptions -- very important exceptions.  (See, e.g.,
Doug's own superlative brief in Newdow; AJC's amicus support in Hernandez)
 And I realize that every case has its own idiosyncracies and contested
predicates.  Still, I find myself increasingly dubious about whether the
religious liberty "coalition" includes many who are truly dedicated to
religious liberty, broadly speaking.

I realize this is a sensitive and complex topic.  And if it results
primarily in acrimony here, I offer my apology in advance.  But it seems to
have been lurking beneath the surface of many cases discussed on this list
over the past few years, and therefore I thought perhaps it warrants its
own discussion, not least because I would love to be persuaded that my
suspicions and disappointments are unwarranted.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Douglas Laycock <dlaycock at virginia.edu>wrote:

> Well, I thought the e-mail below was going only to one person. So let me
> provide more context for the comment.
>
> Of course there are many tolerant people in the evangelical movement,
> including lawyers who do great work on behalf of religious liberty for all.
> They understand that religious liberty is not safe for anyone unless it
> protects everyone. But there are many others, whose work is dedicated to
> issues other than religious liberty, who have not thought about these
> issues
> and have not gotten that message. In my 25 years in Texas, I met and worked
> with and read reports of the comments of many evangelicals who were
> comfortable with diversity and tolerant of Jews and Muslims, and of many
> others who were not. And all I meant to say was that folks from the second
> group seem to be in control of the Texas Association of Private and
> Parochial Schools.
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law
> University of Virginia Law School
> 580 Massie Road
> Charlottesville, VA  22903
>     434-243-8546
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 11:26 AM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: Basketball tournaments on the Sabbath
>
> This morning's story in the Times confirms the unreconstructed Texans
> theory. It looks like the conservative evangelical schools have taken
> control of this organization, and tolerance of diversity has never been one
> of their strengths.
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law
> School
> 580 Massie Road
> Charlottesville, VA  22903
>     434-243-8546
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20120304/8b497053/attachment.html>