I guess that this thread catches me at a moment of deepest cynicism. Lupu is, of course, absolutely correct in everything that he says below. However, there are some who see denying some people the instrumental assistance, either direct (done in by Engel et al.) or indirect (preserved by Zorach et al.), of the state in proselytizing their religion is a burden on their religious freedom -- or as an earlier post of mine suggests, casts an unwanted spotlight on their deficiencies as parents.
-----Original Message----- From: Lupu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:53 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: 21st Century Zorach Accommodation is only a legitimate argument or concern if the state is creating a burden on religious freedom. But there is no conflict between compulsory education and religious education, because there are ample days and hours in which parents are free to educate their children in the ways of their faith. The only state- imposed burden in this story is the one imposed on the students left behind. Released time is an anti-accommodation to the students who don't participate. Chip ("every government promotion of religion can be conveniently labelled an accommodation") Lupu Jim Henderson wrote: 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 Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington D.C 20052 (202) 994-7053 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
