Marty writes that the “mess . . . is a function of the increasingly implausible theories of complicity being offered by the plaintiffs' lawyers -- which the Court has invited with its capacious understanding of what constitutes a "religious question" beyond the ken of civil authorities to evaluate.” I think he’s absolutely right. Hasn’t the Court in effect made evaluation of religious argument, at last from an outsider’s perspective, nearly impossible, unless one goes down the rabbit hold of challenging “sincerity.”
sandy
_______________________________________________ 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.
