I have a question about the Supreme Courts use of the
word indoctrination or indoctrinate in
establishment clause cases. On the one hand, the word often seems to be
used in a pejorative sense, as in Justice Douglass concurring opinion in
Lemon v. Kurtzman where he approvingly cites an
Robin:
I actually don't disagree with you in principle. But what I was doing was
just speculating on what sort of tactic could be used to say that an
apparent neutral law really did target a religion.
Frank
On 6/2/04 10:50 AM, Robin Charlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know we've had related
Title: Re: Religion Clauses question
Paul:
I dont see it as a matter of like or dislike; in fact, I think that this mischaracterizes peoples objection to homosexuality. Clearly, some people dont like Christians and Jews, but that doesnt mean that one may not have arguments against the veracity
Mr. Beckwith:
It is hard to imagine how one can treat someone with respect and at the
same time believe that such a person is not entitled to the same rights
that you have.
Quite frankly, your position reminds me of those southern whites who
treated blacks with respect while segregating them,
On 6/2/04 10:52 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Beckwith:
It is hard to imagine how one can treat someone with respect and at the
same time believe that such a person is not entitled to the same rights
that you have.
Yes, it is hard to imagine that I would hold that belief,
Now this I don't understand: It seems to me that slavery is by definition
*involuntary* servitude. One might debate about what the proper scope of consent
should be (e.g., should someone be able to consentually surrender at one time the
right to withdraw his consent in the future). But to be
