What the Establishment Clause in the abstract
means is one thing; whether as a practical matter any body would or should
enforce the maximum possible reading of the clause is something again. I have
often urged on the Jewish community some exercise of judgment over what issues
result in law suit. I have however been burnt more than once when those urging
greater permissible involvement of religion with government cite the practice I
have urged not be challenged as a mater of prudence as evidence of a (de
facto) concession that the constitution does not enact a wall of separation. It
takes no imagination at all to guess that the next time that there is a law
suit about official prayers, the governor’s call yesterday will be cited
as evidence that the challenged prayer is acceptable. If Jim will agree not to
so cite it, I am happy not to challenge it and to urge others to do the same. From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I know now what I
always suspected. If I cried out to Jim Henderson for succor, he might
well help me but one part of his mind would be thinking or at least considering
if he could use my suffering to advance his agenda. Frances Paterson
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.