In a message dated 3/31/09 6:02:12 PM, layco...@umich.edu writes: > Here's one more way to think about it: ... the rule that government must > be religiously neutral [is] a special protection for religion .... > Government > can not try either to coerce you or persuade you to change your views about > religion. That ... is the greatest level of possible protection. >
Yes, but it's an entirely hypothetical (and thus unimportant) protection to those who are comfortably in the majority, and who therefore can, without perceived risk to their own views, seek to get the government to coerce or persuade others to change their views. Isn't that why so many local government officials would react to Doug's excellent point with blank stares? It just doesn't relate to their world. Art Spitzer ACLU ************** Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
_______________________________________________ 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.
