It seems to me that the play-in-the-joints theory and providing accommodations between exercise and establishment shoiuld win out in this instance thereby upholding the Missouri Constitutional ban on direct and indirect financial support for religious organizations.
A ruling that pushes the neutrality principle this far as to prohibit states from making these sorts of choices and judgments seems likely to further make a hash of the problem rather than simplifying or clarifying things. A rule that allows for such subsidy of religion by the state while allowing states not to so subsidize religions in these ways seems to be what the voucher cases seem to indicate as the direction the law is going. But as for me, all bets are off on this one as to result and as to theories selected from the grab-bag the court has created over the decades. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Howard University School of Law vox: 202-806-8017 fax: 202-806-8567 http://sdjlaw.org “The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.” 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.
