| fwiw here is the South African Constitutional provisions on freedom of religion and freedom of _expression_:
15. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion. (2) Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that - those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities;
- they are conducted on an equitable basis; and
- attendance at them is free and voluntary.
(3) - This section does not prevent legislation recognising
- marriages concluded under any tradition, or a system of religious, personal or family law; or
- systems of personal and family law under any tradition, or adhered to by persons professing a particular religion.
- Recognition in terms of paragraph (a) must be consistent with this section and the other provisions of the Constitution.
Freedom of _expression_ 16. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of _expression_, which includes - freedom of the press and other media;
- freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
- freedom of artistic creativity; and
- academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
(2) The right in subsection (1) does not extend to - propaganda for war;
- incitement of imminent violence; or
- advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
On Aug 4, 2005, at 8:01 AM, Francis Beckwith wrote: Interesting suggestion. It would be a sort of anti-Blaine amendment. But that would imply that those that offered the Blaine amendment were suggesting what was unnecessary. However, if it was necessary, then the EC, and Paul’s Madisonian take on it, does not get us to a Blaine-meaning EC (so to speak).
Frank
On 8/4/05 6:53 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:47:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given the regulatory state in which we live—one that requires that parents who send their children to religious private school must pay for both the school tuition as well as taxes to fund public schools--it seems to me that the principle from which Madison drew his conclusion is not so easily dispositive in resolving this dispute.
On the assumption that Madison's view, stated by Paul in his earlier post, accurately represents the original meaning of the EC, then shouldn't those who contend it unfairly discriminates against religion regarding governmental benefits advocate amending the First Amendment to explicitly state the EC doesn't apply to these entitlements?
Bobby
|
_______________________________________________
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.
