Our esteemed moderator has weighed in with a column of his own, arguing that
even under SOC's controlling opinion in Mitchell, and notwithstanding Tilton
and Nyquist, the funding should be constitutional:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110003605
- Original Message -
From: Marty
Title: RE: Substantial Burden Under Smith and Lukumi
Tom's choice theory appears to have much to commend it. Government should not, as I understand the theory, steer people from or towards religion in general or from or towards a particular religion. The problem, however, is that I think that
In a message dated 6/10/2003 12:44:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The stubborn fact remains that the push for accommodationism largely comes from evangelical Protestants.
As a political fact, this is simply not true. Many, many religious denominations push for
As a historical matter, it is simply not accurate to characterize the founding generation as evangelical. The dominant religious perspective at the time was Calvinist, which is a world view that pays homage to the rule of law, to an orderly society where believers have an obligation to obey the
I appreciate Eugene's effort at answering the questions I posed to
him. But he did not answer the question whether the government
may coercively regulate the configuration of worship space (or
control it because the grantee makes a promise to that effect in
exchange for the grant.)Hospitals
Sorry -- I missed part of Chip's question. I did say that the
government may insist that a church retain its worship space as a condition
of getting money; the government may pay to have buildings be preserved in
their historical state. (The money then ends up being more the purchase of
