Dear James,
You make a
compelling argument, but I find myself troubled by it. After Smith
and Lukumi, it appears that the Court has saved for heightened scrutiny
at least that government action that targets a religion. At what
point in a putative range of motivations can we ~ in a principled way,
The
act does not in terms do so,but the Supreem Court in Mergens read the provisions
about teacher participation as a prohibition.
Marc
Stern
-Original Message-From: Law Religion issues
for Law Academics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
Bradley P JacobSent: Wednesday,
Dear James,
Yes, in
the Establishment Clause cases probably all of the Lemon tests and
endorsement and neutrality can be helpful, and an
effects test, as you say, would take in most if not all of
this. The point I was making was that your remark that motive never
counts does not work as well when
--- Mark Graber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Professor Duncan writes, I think that parents
don't
need federal courts or school boards to protect
their
children from after school programs in which the
parents wish to enroll their children.
We are wandering into sociology here, though
Louise,
Sure, the free exercise side presents a different set of analyses. I
had limited my brain's work to establishment because that's what the
original set of facts had suggested. That is, a tax law that
incorporates (and arguably establishes though I don't think it does) a
religious principle
Title: RE: Teacher Fights for Right to Teach Religion After School
But there is the rub, Rick, does the disclaimer do what you say that it does? I don't think so. To focus on parents and ignore impressionable children, peer pressure, stigma and other forms of psychological harm is
Rick Duncan writes
Once the school day is done the teacher is no longer
acting as an agent of the state.
I disagree. As a factual matter teachers frequently act as state agents even though the bell has rung and students have gone home. Typically, teachers are required to be at school past the
It's been a long time since I studied the tort of defamation, but back in the day there was some movement away from the fact/opinion disctinction as too artificial. Perhaps Iowa has gone that direction?
Steve
On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 07:28 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
I just read
