|
In a message dated 2/18/2005 1:30:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In addition to Marty and Marc's point about the lack of constructive Isn't there something to be said for accommodation? Here comes big old bully State, grabs parents by the lapels, and threatens life, liberty and property unless child is put in a school setting from age 5 to as late as age 20, for as many as 7 to 8 hours a day, for at least 180 days in the year, including all weekdays. The interposition, of course, is welcomed by parents who are daunted by the process of educating their own children, or who lack skills necessary to do so. But it is an interposition by force of law. And its impact is not lessened by the fact that some parents choose to spend extra money on top of their property taxes to school their children in private schools or at home.
So bully State is pushing parents around, and one small accommodation of need for religious training is made. What constitutional provisions other than the religion clause have been interpreted to allow (not require) accommodation?
Jim "Religion Can't Be Different Only When You Want to Squish Religionists" Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
