: RE: Baptisms in rivers located in public parks?
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:41:21 -0700
1. I assume, Eugene, that you meant to write Following Locke v. Davey,
is it unconstitutional for the government to say that 'religious
activity is specifically prohibited'?
Yes, I do, sorry about
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berg, Thomas C.
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:59 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Baptisms in rivers located in public parks?
Marty, in your post you say that there would be no free speech claim
here, even
In a message dated 5/25/2004 1:25:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree with Tom on point 2, but I wonder about point 1. The publicbaptism, as I understand it, was public precisely because it wasintended to convey a message to the public ("we're not ashamed of
1. I assume, Eugene, that you meant to write
"Following Locke v. Davey, is it unconstitutional for
the government to say that 'religious activity is specifically
prohibited'?"
If the answer to that question is "yes," I
don't think it's because of the Widmar/Lamb's Chapel
line of cases.
