I sympathize with Steve's arguments. They
are in fact good arguments against strict scrutiny. But if the state
constitution has been interpreted as mandating strict scrutiny, then don't
courts have to draw such lines?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:09 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Student reprimanded for religious absencesBut then where does the court draw the line? 8 days? 14? 20? What is the least restrictive alternative to requiring attendance? They aren't home schooling-- they are asking to be exempted from truly generally applicable neutral rules.
Steve
On Tuesday, November 23, 2004, at 06:57 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I'm puzzled by how this argument would be reconciled with traditional strict scrutiny analysis, which is what the Indiana Constitution seems to call for. Is it really the case that expelling students for missing 8 days of school is *necessary* to accomplish the compelling state interest in providing an adequate education to students? The case for accommodation here seems much stronger than, say, in Wisconsin v. Yoder (though I realize that there are distinctions between the two cases).Or is the argument that strict scrutiny should not apply in K-12 education?Eugene--Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-84282900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar
"Nothing that is worth anything can be achieved in a lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope."
Reinhold Neibuhr
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
