--- Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The principal thrust of the Locke opinion
> is that funding the
> clergy has a special tradition, and that there is no
> right to such
> funding. On that rationale, Chip is right and a
> future Court could just
> say that there is no similar tradition with respect
> to women's studies.
I agree with Doug's analysis here. This is actually
how I prefer to understand Locke--as a narrow opinion
carving out a special rule for educational programs
designed to train the clergy.
Under this reading of Locke, Locke would not govern a
scholarship program that included private secular
colleges but excluded private religious colleges.
Similarly, it would not govern a voucher program that
covered private secular k-12 schools but excluded
religious k-12 schools. In both of these cases,
students attending private religious schools would
have a strong argument that the exlusion violates the
rule of Smith because it targets relgious students for
discriminatory treatment, and that it also constitutes
unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the
FSC. It is viewpoint discrimination because the
problem is not the subjects taught in religious
schools ("reading, riting and rithmatic") but rather
the religious viewpoint from which those subjects are
approached.
Rick Duncan
=====
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred:
middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered."
--The Prisoner
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
