Right, my mistake -- the word in the first part of the Barnette sentence is not "declare," but "prescribe," which can suggest the government forbidding criticism of the view. More so when put together with "orthodox" in the sentence, as Professor Lipkin argues; so I take his point on that score. I do think that that has to be the distinction: government can advance political views, but it can't use force to require their confession or forbid criticism of them. The distinction shouldn't be between government advancing views as canonical in the sense of somehow essential to being an American (not OK), versus government advancing views as mere policy choices (OK).
_____ From: dlaycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 9/11/2004 11:26 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Establishing orthodoxy
<<application/ms-tnef>>
_______________________________________________ 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 Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
