Truth be told, if I had the sufficient good sense not to have opened my digest version of the list three days ago, I wouldn't have posted that little story about Jerry Falwell. When the previous to mine post mentioned the nature of some of the blogging about his death -- none of which laid any greater claim to a reasoned discussion of principles of law than did my story -- I thought I would offer a balancing bit, and I did. No regrets. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ P.S. As for how much any of the posts on the lists contributes, or fails to contribute, I would be careful not to confuse prolixity with persuasiveness, verbosity with wisdom, or post-hoc rationalizations with truth. The men (sorry ladies, but a commitment to gender fairness cannot fairly serve its purpose if it unfairly recasts history) who crafted the constitutional bulwarks of our religious liberties did it with few words but much resolve. And it would serve us all better to recall that if there was any value to the later posts in this discussion, those posts were provoked by the ones earlier and the responses to them.
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________ 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.
