Ervin Murga wrote:
I am new to this listserv and a graduate student studying the
separation of church and state.
In regards to the Cupertino School Controversy and the New
Yorker article, Peter Boyer states that because Stephen Williams
believes that "there are 'holes' in t
I am new to this listserv and a graduate student studying the separation of
church and state.
In regards to the Cupertino School Controversy and the New Yorker article,
Peter Boyer states that because Stephen Williams believes that "there are
'holes' in the regular curriculum", he decided
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/18/2005 9:19:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why was that even a relevant argument to begin with? The
Equal Access Act doesn't require that a given use have a public
benefit, it only says that if the school is
In a message dated 3/18/2005 9:19:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why was that even a relevant argument to begin with? The Equal Access Act doesn't require that a given use have a public benefit, it only says that if the school is going to be made available to community gr
In a message dated 3/18/2005 11:17:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have I been laboring under a misconception all this time?
Yes. The principles are, I think, the same under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
_
Of Ed
BraytonSent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:15 AMTo: Law &
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: New Yorker Article on
Cupertino Schools Controversy
Douglas Laycock wrote:
Lamb's Chapel was a Free Speech Clause case. It was
outside the scope of the Equal Access A
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 11:15
AM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: New Yorker Article on
Cupertino Schools Controversy
Douglas Laycock wrote:
Lamb's Chapel was a Free Speech Clause
case. It was outside the
Douglas Laycock wrote:
Lamb's Chapel was a Free Speech
Clause case. It was outside the scope of the Equal Access Act, because
it involved a community group, not a student group.
Hmmm. My understanding was that the Equal Access Act also governed the
access of community groups to use
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed
BraytonSent: Friday, March 18, 2005 8:16 AMTo: Law &
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: New Yorker Article on
Cupertino Schools Controversy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The remark calls back to my mind
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The remark calls back to my mind the
brief filed by the State of New York in the Lamb's Chapel case (arguing
that religious uses did not fall within a "catch-all" provision
allowing uses of school that offered a public benefit; contending that
religion was of benefit
Although I thought the "falsely balleyhooed" characterization adds nothing to the discussion, I appreciated the link over to the New Yorker article. It reminded me, once again, how very different a world it is in the New York state of mind:
Q: "Why is it important to religion advocates to establ
11 matches
Mail list logo
