In a message dated 9/14/2004 5:44:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm still not persuaded that government statements
about racism, patriotism, or what have you become unconstitutional because
they are unaccompanied by reasons, or are set forth in the wrong tone.
Title: Message
This is of course a
judgment call, but my sense is that many public condemnations of racism are
indeed attempts to establish racial tolerance as "canonical belief that is not
subject to challenge" (at least by reasonable, decent people who are good
Americans). The same is
In a message dated 9/11/2004 11:22:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yet it seems to me that government statements --
whether by the President, by Congress, by a university dean, by a government
employer, by a public K-12 school, or whoever else -- harshly
Maybe Steve Smith is right that the conjunction in the famous
sentence in Barnette should have been "and." Or maybe Justice Jackson
thought "prescribe" carried a sense of "require adherence to." But it
is clear that what he meant was that the state could not require
participation in the
(not OK), versus government advancing views as mere policy choices
(OK).
_
From: dlaycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 9/11/2004 11:26 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Establishing orthodoxy
application/ms
