I suppose that Eugene's reply is a demonstration of why invoking common sense is better than trying to get fancy about it. (But, I'm puzzled at how putting up a picture is a "cogent argument" but putting up a banner is not; I'll give you "vivid" in both cases, but -- at least where I come from -- a cogent argument presents reasons for the conclusion drawn. I don't think anyone is contending that republishing Justice Scalia's dissent would violate the Establishment Clause; doing so presents an argument, the cogency of which I'll leave to others to assess. The question is about whether protesting by means of adjoining to that dissent the displays at issue in McCreary -- and, by the way, which one? the first one? the second one? the third one? (and if the display of the third one is a cogent argument, why wouldn't the display of the first one be?) -- violates the Establishment Clause becase -- once again -- common sense tells us that the (primary) reason/purpose for choosing that form of protest is one that, according to Lemon prong-one, is one on which the government cannot predicate its actions.)
begin:vcard n:Tushnet;Mark fn:Mark Tushnet,tushnet tel;fax:202-662-9497 tel;work:202-662-1906 org:Georgetown University Law Center; adr:;;600 New Jersey Ave. NW;Washington;DC;20001; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] end:vcard
_______________________________________________ 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.
