If the court says the majority religion must leave room for the minority to practice, then this can have another set of effects.
This sometimes ocurrs when a court treats a defunct (or virtually defunct) religion differently from viable ones, for example, giving more leeway when teachers teach or public school materials discuss or portray Greek and Roman mythology.
In my article I discuss the need for distancing language (and was roundly castigated for it by Professor Bradley) so that the instructor is not making faith statements. "The author of Genesis writes that. . . ." rather than "God created the heavens and the earth" or "God wants all human beings to. . . "
I've struggled with the nuances of this and address it in my article that the need for distancing language sets a higher bar for instruction about religion than it is does for secular subjects (I gave an example or two in my article). But ultimately it comes back to the fundamental issue of whether religion should be treated the same as everything else (neutrality principle) or whether it is somehow special and different and requires special treatment, special handling--if you will.
Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Leadership
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
