if we leave it to other non-public institutions to teach about it.
Well, nongovernmental institutions anyway. I admit to a bit of concern regarding the use of the terms public and government interchangeably. One can opine that religion has been thrown out of the public square when the only square the Establishment Clause addresses is that portion of public life "owned" in a sense by the government. As I look around (despite teapot tempests over "Season's Greetings" and "Happy Holidays") I see an abundance of religious _expression_--much of it, to be sure, on private property but property that is either open to the public or expressing a belief/statement/viewpoint that the public sees/can see at will. So I guess it should be asked, "Define 'public.'"
Sometimes, it seems that some religious conservatives conflate the separation of church and state and Establishment Clause jurisprudence (Engel and its progeny) with the nongovernmental secularization (coarsening?) of the culture. Some ascribe the secularization of the culture to the former and wish to use the machinery of the state to reduce it.
Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Leadership
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
_______________________________________________ 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.
