I agree with Marc Stern: Stevens' religion clause opinions can best be
explained in terms of equality (see also footnote 3 in Stevens' concurrence in
the 1982 Lee case). As an aside, I suspect Stevens' atheist art gallery
comparison in Boerne was inspired by the then recent 1994 article by profs
Eisgruber & Sager ("The Vulnerability of Conscience..." 61 U Chi L Rev 1245),
which featured an atheist artist called Vincent who could only create great art
by taking mind-altering drugs, "like Coleridge". Accordingly, in their fullest
statement on their theory of "Equal LIberty" (Religious Freedom and the
Constitution 2007), Eisgruber & Sager held up Stevens as their man on the Court.
David
David Griffiths
PhD Candidate
Faculty of Law
University of Auckland
New Zealand
dh.griffi...@auckland.ac.nz
_______________________________________________
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.
