And isn't that exactly what deTocqueville said he found?
Ed Darrell
Dallas"A.E. Brownstein" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marci, of course, is more than capable of speaking for herself. But I would think that the reference to religious "intensity of belief" that thrives in an environment of religious
Jack Balkin's prediction:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/03/my-prediction-on-ten-commandments-case.html
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Does it matter that the government is not actually openly hostile to religion? Or is the relevant inquiry really is seen by many?
Steven Jamar
On Saturday, March 5, 2005, at 09:12 AM, Richard Dougherty wrote:
Well, yes, but not in a political order where the government -- especially the
Title: Message
I define discrimination against religion as
treating people or organizations worse because they are religious. (I
don't think anything I have said suggests that discrimination means "denying [a
group] permission to do something that it wants to do.") The systematic
exclusion
Even if Marci won't I will. It is not a widespread pattern of suppression. And that some schools made mistakes does not show governmental or court hostitility. Furthermore, it was the courts who let the religion back into the schools when the schools went overboard.
I think most of the
Marci writes: The right default position is the rule of law, but it is
good for everyone when accommodation can be provided and the public good is
not undermined.
First, I would have thought that this is the very goal of RFRA and RLUIPA,
the statutes that Marci so vigorously opposes: to
