Folks: Really,
please, this is not on-topic for the list. I think Jim has acknowledged
that the meaning of the words has changed. I take it that he has not only
taken back the harshness of the language, but has implicitly agreed that it's
not currently a linguistic error to use the phrase in accordance with its
current dictionary definition (see, e.g., http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bill%20of%20rights).
He believes that it would be better if people understood the phrase somewhat
differently -- but that belief, and the responses to the belief, have
nothing to do with the law of the government and religion. Please take the
discussion off-list.
The list
custodian
|
_______________________________________________ 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.