But this does not really work. CO status prevents the gov. from forcing
you to violate your faith; holding a scholarship to exercise your faith
or your voluntary support for your faith is different. CO status also
required alternative service. The analogy here would be that you have
CO status,
I appreciate this argument, but wasn't something similar said in
Sherbert itself, and (rightly or wrongly) rejected by the Court?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Finkelman
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:38 AM
To:
Paul, I think we have different understandings of the facts. He
doesn't want to be paid the cash value of his scholarship while he
goes on his mission; that claim would be absurd. He doesn't want to
qualify for the scholarship on his return because of, or on account
of, his having served a
Doug:
I understand that he is not asking for the money to take with him. The
CO analogy does not work because the CO asks not to have to do something
but does not ask the gov. to hold resources for him. Nor does the CO
ask for a benefit from the government that is available to others who
act
