On Monday, March 14, 2005, at 06:20 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Rather, my argument is
that the Free Exercise Clause ought not be read as allowing people to do
things that harm others simply because they feel a religious obligation
to do those things.
So you would be against displays of the 10 commandments on free exercise grounds because of the of the psychic harm caused by them to others even though they are displayed as a result of a religious obligation? And you would ban Mormons and JWs from stopping at my door just like all other peddlars -- if I could show psychic harm? I guess I don't see where this leads us out of the wilderness any better than the current mish mash of principles, policies, and adjustments.
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
Mark Twain
_______________________________________________ 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.
