RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance

[Marc Stern]

The argument about a ready made pool of potential converts was not just legal hyperbole .Jay Sekulow shortly after the passage of the Equal Access act did a fund raising piece labeling the nations’ public school’s the largest unplowed mission field in the US. (I paraphrase from memory.)I helped write the school board’s brief in Mergens Marc Stern   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 6:40 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Air Force sued over religious intolerance   That was one of the arguments in Mergens.  And I filed a brief supporting the student prayer club.  But the government wasn't paying the leaders of the club, and it wasn't giving them officer's stripes.   Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX  78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax)   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 10/8/2005 5:26 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance In a message dated 10/8/2005 11:26:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That rationale for government-sponsored religion provides no rationale for government-sponsored efforts to initiate discussions of religious conversion. I am not entirely certain that this is, as a blanket rule, correct.   What about chaplains credentialed by religious bodies whose creeds and vows and ordinations commit them to evangelism?   Does the employment as a chaplain, together with the forward placement of the chaplain with a battle contingent constitute "government-sponsored efforts to initiate discussions of religious conversion?"  What if all the government does is maintain a military, employ chaplains, and fail to order, affirmatively, such chaplains to refrain from sharing their faith to service members outside their faith grouping?  Is that "government sponsored efforts?"  Before you leap to say "no," and "how silly can you be?" remember that the opponents of the EAA, in their briefing at the Supreme Court in the Mergens case said that the EAA suffered from the vice of creating a ready made pool for proselyzing (an argument rejected by the Court).   Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ

_______________________________________________
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.