|
But “the greatest level of generality” does not produce any solutions to the problem of how to treat members of minority religions. So the abstract notion that “teaching” religion is somehow constitutional flies in the face of the hard facts of life: namely that teaching and proselytizing religion tend to go hand in hand.
Those who favor “teaching” religion in the common schools have the burden, it seems to me, of establishing, in concrete, real world terms, that their programs will be limited to teaching. That strikes me, by the way, as a tall order indeed. They haven’t made the case yet.
-----Original Message-----
Now you have made patent your concern: proselytization. But you seem to agree that teaching about religion is something other than proselytization. (As an aside, I always wonder that those with whom we agree never proselyze, they only offer irrefutable arguments, while those whose views are disagreeable are readily described as proselytizing. There is, it seems, a knee-jerking content to the term that makes it valuable in guiding discussions away from substance.) I will concede that the First Amendment, as construed in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court, bars proselyzing by school officials (not by students acting on their own). But will you concede that, at least at the greatest level of generality that there is no constitutional impediment to teaching about religion?
Jim "Can't We All Just Get Along" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ |
_______________________________________________ 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.
