Eugene, these may be the ramblings of an old law professor fast approaching senility. But could you please say a bit more about your point #1? I think that I agree with you about Locke v. Davey, but I thought that the gist of the other cases was that the prohibition you describe in #1 would be problematic at best. (Herein of "discrimination" and "neutrality.")
I say that I *think* that I agree with you about Locke v. Davey because I wonder just how far the case extends. There is something about schooling and education more generally that generate constitutional concerns that may or may not be present when wading in the water, even if the water is in a public park. Two questions: (1) Following Locke v. Davey, is it constitutional for the government to say that "religious activity is specifically prohibited"? I assume yes, given Lamb's Chapel, Rosenberger, and Pinette, since this activity is speech as well as religious conduct. Or am I mistaken? (2) If Virginia had a state RFRA, would an evenhanded restriction on going into the water be seen as a substantial burden? (I assume that the rule would fail strict scrutiny, if it had to be exposed to strict scrutiny, given that it seems relatively unlikely that people would drown when surrounded by dozens of people.) _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
