First off, Summums was a rare unanimous decision, so that should give you pause. The reason it was unanimous was because the establishment clause wasn’t taken into consideration, after all the summums wanted their religious monument displayed on govt land. it was a limited decision regarding govt speech, namely that when the govt decides to endorse an idea, like say drugs are bad, they are not required to provide a platform to those who think they’re good.

You are correct that the first ammendment generally forces the govt to not endorse one religion over another, but simply wasn’t an issue in this case…tho I can see why you would think it was.

This case is too narrow to lead to “minority religious beliefs being massively disadvantaged.” What will more likely lead to that is the expansive use of the establishment clause, as the case involving banning turbaned teachers demonstrates. this logic is the very same logic some french secularists are using to ban the hijab in school and the burka everywhere. god bless america.

.

It appeats tortured because we’re arguing around the edges. The fundamental issues, those that can be dealt with using straightforward logic–like an official government religion, religious tests for office, mandatory school prayer in public schools, forced oaths, etc–have been resolved. At the end of the day religious freedom in the USA is taken for granted. There’s not much left to be argued.

But what is left, determining when seemingly non-coercive expressions of religion are actually covers for an establishment, demands hyper-nuance. granted, we can avoid this subjectivity by simply enforcing a strict seperation of church and state but that can produces absurd results, like church buses being banned from the public highways. To use real cases, government workers have been forbidden from saying the words “Merry Christmas” while at work, voluntary after-school bible studies have been banned while secular groups have been allowed to meet, and students (not teachers) have been prevented from making religious references in their school projects for fear af creating a religious atmosphere. clearly, a strict separation runs up against the fundamental american value of religious freedom. so its unworkable.

But that leaves us with complex and seemingly tortured logic like blackmun’s (i think you meant him not breyer, if ur referring to Allegheny v. ACLU) tap dance which you reference. but i wouldn’t get stressed out about it, becuase the alternative is worse and these are tough cases, ie judgement calls. frankly, i thought blackman got it right. putting a creche in a courthouse is too much, because of the placement, while a menorah outside is ok. not pretty but better than the extremes.

camille, while i agree with your statement on france, i do have to disagree re the US – the christian religion predominates in the freedom of religion realm, and many judicial opinions have alluded to the fact that christians, as the majority religion, must be given preference. it is also evident in the sense that the violation of separation of church and state consistently has a christian preference to it. and this is not just a view eld by the government – the fact that the majority (plurality now?) of americans are christian, or the fact that this country was initially “inhabited” by christians seems to come up often when i have conversations on freedom of religion.

He did make the argument earlier, in the context of the ability to wear lightsabers to work.

I am sympathetic to sj’s argument, although I unfortunately think it is impractical. The reality of operating in a society with a majority faith means that there are various ways in which that faith is privileged. For example, going to church/mosque. Our society is organized around the Sunday as holiday thing, which makes it much easier for Christians to go to church, than for Muslims to go to mosque on Friday. An ostensibly religion neutral policy which says that no special leave for religious worship will be accommodated still ends up privileging one faith over the other. Of course, as is now beginning to happen in the US, the pendulum can swing too far in the other direction too.

That said, my comment about “rampant tents” was an allusion to an earlier comment about somebody fearing that they’d be made to wear tents, and Sarkozy’s expression of tender sympathies for the oppressed Muslim women. I don’t believe that the French government is acting in good faith, given that their laws carve out exceptions, which just happen to favor Christian practices such as wearing crosses, and that they have done little to act against various forms of tacit discrimination against ghettoized minority communities.

Manju: As Ikram point our above, the law has already been challenged and the Oregon Supreme Court upheld it. I am not sure why it was not appealed in Federal Court. The Court in Cooper held that “the aim of maintaining the religious neutrality of the public schools furthers a constitutional obligation beyond an ordinary policy preference of the legislature,” thus setting up a classic establishment v. free exercise conflict and eventually siding on the establishment side, which is not surprising considering the liberal composition of the Oregon Supreme Court at that time.

Btw, just because Christians have suffered a disparate impact under the original ban on teachers wearing religious garb does not make the law unconsitutional. I don’t believe (though I don’t know much about constitutional law beyond one class in 1L that the disparate impact of a specific ban of religious garb on a particular religion would make the law unconstitutional. It would have to be challenged on the ‘free exercise’ grounds but the fact that it has a disparate impact on one religion is not really salient. I think you might be thinking about laws which specifically target a religious activity but are passed under the guise of being neutral when they are actually targetting a religious acitivity. The Oregon Law was a in your face ban on religious attire which set up a fight on the grounds of ‘free exercise’.

sj: Ok, I see what you are saying. I don’t agree with you in the ispo facto discrimination aspect of the issue you are raising. The law accords all sorts of privileges to different categories of people, for example, the disabled. Giving special accomodations to the disabled is not ipso facto discrimination against the non-disabled. Likewise, some of the accomodations for the religious are need based and the non-religious and the non-disabled simply do not need them so I don’t see it as a matter of according religious sensibilities a special privilege.

I think the special privilege argument is more valid (you might be alluding to this argument as well) when an accomodation is denied to the non-religious but the same accomodation is accorded to the religious, thus privileging the religious sensibility over the non-religious sensibility. For example, in prisons, a Muslim or a Jew or a diabetic can insist on certain type of meals (kosher/non-diabetic) while a Vegan cannot insist on vegetarian meals. The Vegan can of course claim to be Hindu and then will be entitled to the vegetarian meals. I think in these cases it is undeniable that the religious sensibilities are privileged over non-religious sensibilities.

The overarching idea in Hinduism is the inherent equality of all living beings – including plantlife and animals. The caste thing is more South Asian cultural thing than anything else. It is not part of the spirituality of Hinduism.

In that case, I’m sorry for taking it the wrong way.

Nonetheless, I didn’t see anything offensive in Manpreet’s comments: surely religious orthodoxy should be subject to as much objective scrutiny as any other belief. Earlier, you mocked the idea that “caste discrimination or polygamy are required aspects of the minority faiths we have discussed in this thread; specifically, Judaism, Sikhi and Islam”. While I agree with your specific point there, it remains that attachments to rituals and symbols that were once seen as integral to a religion often wither away. The prevalence of caste discrimination within India and its intellectual relationship to Hinduism is something that has faded, but not without active resistance. Without equating the moral status of the symbols discussed here with caste discrimination (obviously on a different level), isn’t it legitimate to question their scriptural foundations, their centrality to the religion, their rationality? (This is linked, however indirectly, to the issue of whether denying their use in a public domain would be deeply harmful or just a peripheral issue).

If this policy were truly about removing religion from public space to ensure atheists were better included, then it would have been much more strident. France chose to punish particular minorities instead of risking offending its religious majority

In that case, I will end my contribution here by endorsing anyone who wishes to offend religious majorities who wish to claim undue space in the public sphere. Lest anyone misinterpret that, I stress that I am not calling for wanton belittling of religions (though I have strong personal views on the extent to which one may belittle religion). To the extent that Catholics work against France’s rich and illustrious history of the exclusion of theocratic forces, I hope they are intellectually and practically diminished, and pushed out of the state, in overt form and in any suffocating effect they may have on the democratic goings-on of the state (to which you allude). Such activist religions deserve contempt, and it’s important to say that, since I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with those who garb their parochial racism in the intellectual wrappings of political liberalism, and think this is just about Muslims. As you phrase it, I would approve anything “more strident”.

It’s pretty clear that all of you have advocated for policies that undermine individuals’ rights to freely exercise their faith, and so I read your questions as largely rhetorical and relatively offensive

sj, I was overbroad, but it is relatively clear from the context that my comment is not addressed to you, or to other apologists for France’s policy, but rather, to Manpreet and One Love. At no point have I tried to stifle debate by saying the discussion was offensive. Instead, I am arguing that the deep lack of understanding or empathy exhibited by proponents of the policy — coupled with comments that trivialize or belittle the religious practice of others — is offensive. There have been a number of comments throughout this thread that do exactly that. While your comments have been thoughtful, responsive, and thorough, there are multiple voices and audiences in this comment string. Many of my responses are not geared directly toward you, but rather, to readers who are not consistent in their approach to this policy but see it as an opportunity to espouse anti-minority sentiment cloaked as policy discussion. I don’t deal in invective as a discussion tactic, and so I am sorry if comments that were not directed to you were misinterpreted.

I understand that this notion of French secularism comes from opposition to the presence of the Church. However, a policy of secularism in public space tries to sequester religion in a way that does not make sense, both practically and philosophically. You asked how one is aware that France’s public space is Catholic — it is entrenched in the language, the customs, the norms and practices of the community. It is in what the majority French take for granted, whether it is the looming cathedrals, the natural acknowledgment of Catholic traditions, etc. However, I don’t think anyone can build inclusion by adopting anti-Catholic, or anti-other faith, policies. If this policy were truly about removing religion from public space to ensure atheists were better included, then it would have been much more strident. France chose to punish particular minorities instead of risking offending its religious majority. It also reproduces the same hierarchy and oppression that an atheist would experience by reorienting who is at the top and who is at the bottom of religious privilege. This is not sound policy, and it is not fair. Further, it encourages those who do identify as faithful to move to the extremes instead of to the middle.

Yes, that’s a constructive and civil comment. Thank you.

was explaining that there are other examples of multiculturalism and multireligious practice; some more successful than others. You’ve eliminated the U.S. from review, and other democracies that are doing relatively well with free religious expression. What then, is left, to analyze? States where a majority religion has been imposed by law or by practice?

I didn’t eliminate the US from review, I just commented that I do not accept either it or Britain as “doing relatively well”. I pointed out the numerous ways in which the state was not neutral between competing viewpoints, and systematically privileged religion, and certain religions over others. You chose to ignore that. Let me repeat: Britain does impose, in various ways, a majority religion. In other ways, it favors particular sects of particular religions. To atheists, agnostics, and humanists, it says “f–k you”.

The cultural, historical, and actual creation of public space in France happens in a Catholic context. It isn’t even secular!

As has been pointed out, as you refuse to acknowledge, French secularism is a response to Catholicism. Can you explain what you mean by the “Catholic context”? If you mean that small crosses might be permitted, then I am 100% with you: they should not be permitted. Else, I don’t see what you mean other than to justify the state giving benefits to certain groups. You call that pluralism, I call that discrimination. We’re both entitled to our respective interpretations.

this particular brand of “secularism” advocates for freedom of religions, but freedom from (non-Catholic) religion.

You’re twisting my words. I call for freedom from all religions where they have no business intruding. Again and again, I’ve outlined the reasons for that.

As for the discussion regarding the freedom of the French to govern themselves, I don’t think anyone disputes that. However, this ban is an excellent lesson in the tyranny of the majority. Many of the minorities impacted by the ban are just that — French minorities. They are Frenchmen and women as well. It would do good to remember that France, despite its best attempts and its small numbers, is also a pluralistic society.

I am consistent. I oppose encroachments of Christianity on the state in France, and in the US where such encroachment is long established. It is disingenuous and unfair to associate this argument with the “tyranny of the majority” when this is repudiated by my logic.

Most of all, I’m really peeved by your dismissive use of the word “offensive”. I don’t think anyone, on either side of this debate, is being offensive. But if you choose to take offense, it’s your prerogative to stifle discussion in that way. I just find it sad that you have to throw around inflammatory and insulting terms, when none have been directed at you. I and others also feel strongly about this issue, but no-one has called you offensive, others have not called you intolerant, others have not called you anti-secular. I have lurked on SM for a long time, and posted for the first time on this item. I’m bitterly disappointed that in the midst of the intelligent and insightful debate, you deem it necessary to belittle the arguments of others in this way.