Rick, you are shifting your ground here. First you say that disclaimers need to be directed to parents, and now you talk about what children want. Which is it? There are important legal and empirical reasons for getting the answer right.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 10:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Incorporation of EC And teacher case
--- AJCONGRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IF SO MANY PEOPLE WANT THIS CLUB, WHT IS THERE NOT
> SOMEONE ELSE TO STAFF
> IT?
I'm sure there is someone else. But that does not
justify restricting the First Amendment rights of the
teacher to participate (not to mention the children's
the First Amendment right to receive wanted speech and
leadership).
There is no reason to forbid a willing speaker,
speaking as a private citizen and not as a govt.
employee, from leading a club of willing listeners.
The attempt to silence her is religious hostility pure
and simple. It will take some time for secularists and
separationists to get used to the idea that religious
persons are entitled to speak as private citizens in
public places open to private speakers. It is not easy
to let go of a monopoly on public access. But get used
to it they must.
This is why religious persons can not simply refrain
from exercising their 1A rights to avoid controversy.
This teacher is fighting not just for her right to be
an equal citizen, but for my right and my children's
right (and the right of all who face religious
discrimination) as well. And I thank her that.
Rick Duncan
=====
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book." Ronald Reagan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
