I could have sworn Lee was about endorsement (characterized by J. Kennedy as "coercion) and whether the listener felt disenfranchised by the govt's apparent endorsement of religion (whether the government intended to endorse it or not). Marci In a message dated 8/15/2011 1:35:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dlayc...@virginia.edu writes:
Lee v. Weisman was not about confusion. It was about actual government sponsorship. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546
_______________________________________________ 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.
