| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Jun 2004 12:20:06 PM |
| Object: |
church state law articles |
Some interesting church state articles
I just found these today. I haven't read them yet. I don't know who is for
and who is against strict separation. I suspect from what I know of the
these two, Derek Davis and Stephen Green, will be supportive of strict
separation, don't know about the others but readers might find them
interesting
BOSTON COLLEGE
Boston College Law Review
Volume 43 2002 Number 5
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/43_5/43_5_TOC.htm
[Pages 1009-1034]
RACE RELATIONS AND MODERN CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS
Thomas C. Berg*
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/43_5/01_FMS.htm
Abstract: Over the last fifty years, the evolution of church-state
jurisprudence in the Supreme Court of the United States has closely
paralleled developments in race relations in the country. This Article
examines how developments in race relations may have facilitated both the
rise of strict church-state separationism in the 1960s and 1970s and its
decline in the last twenty years, tracing the course of church-state
relations not only in the Court itself, but in the broader society. The
Article specifically argues that the strict separationism of the 1960s and
early 1970s partially stemmed from a concern for religious minority rights
inspired largely by the struggle for equal rights for blacks. In turn, this
Article argues that strict separationism has declined in the last twenty
years as secular-oriented theologies of social activism have faced serious
challenges and lost ground, and as developments in race relations have
aided the rise of governmental aid to religious educational institutions.
[Pages 1035-1070]
MITCHELL V. HELMS AND THE MODERN CULTURAL ASSAULT ON THE
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Derek H. Davis*
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/43_5/02_FMS.htm
Abstract: This Article suggests that the Mitchell v. Helms decision, and
the course on which its sets us—offering government aid to religion as a
social good—is a blunder that will have serious adverse consequences for
the vital role that religion plays in American society. The intention of
aiding religion through the beneficent emasculation of traditional tests of
government establishment observed in Helms is just the latest instance of
our recurrent attempts to kill American religion with kindness. This
process is spurred on by a perceived national crisis following tragedies
like those in Paducah, Kentucky and Littleton, Colorado. This Article
suggests that while the United States has largely resisted the temptation
to alter the inherent wisdom of the system, recent political and judicial
changes make the First Amendment and American religious groups that depend
on it more vulnerable.
[Pages 1071-1110]
A TWO-TRACK THEORY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
Frederick Mark Gedicks*
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/43_5/03_FMS.htm
Abstract: Establishment Clause doctrine has long been informed by two
mutually antagonistic values: the separation of church and state, and
government neutrality with respect to religion. This puzzle of conflicting
values mirrors that of Speech Clause doctrine, which has operated for
decades with a value conflict between content-based and content-neutral
regulation under the so-called "two-track" theory of the Speech Clause.
This Article compares Establishment Clause doctrine with the two-track
Speech Clause in order to illuminate how separation and neutrality might
coexist. Just as Speech Clause doctrine provides an absolute minimum of
constitutional protection for expression against even content-neutral
regulation, so also Establishment Clause doctrine provides for an absolute
minimum of church-state separation against even religiously neutral
government action. As a result, neutrality has not totally eclipsed
separation, which is the more fundamental Establishment Clause value.
[Pages 1111-1138]
OF (UN)EQUAL JURISPRUDENTIAL PEDIGREE: RECTIFYING THE IMBALANCE BETWEEN
NEUTRALITY AND SEPARATIONISM
Steven K. Green*
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/43_5/04_FMS.htm
Abstract: The Supreme Court's recent Establishment Clause decisions have
framed neutrality and separationism as competing principles. A plurality of
the Court views evenhanded neutrality as the superior principle over
separationism and the controlling model for Religion Clause adjudication
generally. A bare majority insists that the two principles are of equal
jurisprudential pedigree. So framed, neutrality and separationism have been
placed on an apparent collision course, forcing Supreme Court justices as
well as church-state scholars to choose between one principle or the other.
This Article proposes an alternative view of the relationship between
separationism and neutrality. When viewed within its proper role and
function, neutrality serves as an adjunct to separationism, and can only
contribute a value consistent with the history and purpose of the religion
clauses by existing as a subordinate principle.
[Pages 1139-1176]
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANTS TO HOUSES OF WORSHIP: A CASE STUDY IN THE
SURVIVAL OF SEPARATIONISM†
Ira C. Lupu* Robert W. Tuttle**
http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/journals/bclawr/43_5/05_FMS.htm
Abstract: Many states have historic preservation regulations that, as
applied to properties owned by religious entities, have been challenged on
free exercise grounds. Historic preservation programs, however, also
include government grants for preservation efforts, and no court has yet
been asked to rule on the permissibility of such grants. This Article
analyzes the existing Supreme Court precedent on state financial support
for the construction or preservation of places of worship or religious
teaching. After briefly reviewing the movement from Separationism to
Neutralism, this Article collects and appraises materials on historic
preservation, which reveal a remarkable degree of disparity in preservation
policies, as various levels of government struggle with changes in the
relevant law. This Article concludes by invoking a principle of Religion
Clause symmetry—what the government may regulate it may also subsidize—and
by suggesting that the religion-specific line between permissible and
impermissible subsidy (and regulation) should be drawn between the
exteriors and interiors of houses of worship.
*******************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
