Coyle, Dennis wrote:
If we read separation to forbid a national church, all justices would agree. If we read it to mean no discriminatory treatment in favor of a specific religious group, or no policies specifically designed to advance a particular denomination, the conservatives would still agr
This shows the semantic problem -- "substantial degree of accommodation" --I think most favor a substantial degree of accommodation, but when those become code words for substantial support in official ways, it goes beyond what many of us consider accommodation.On Jun 1, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Scarberry
The separation myth rejected by many of us is a myth of strict
separationism, in which religion is to be banished from the public square
and religious persons and organizations denied equal treatment with regard
to otherwise available public benefits.
I doubt there is anyone on the list who does n
In many cases the conservative justices have argued that the Establishment
Clause requires neutrality among religious denominations or sects, but not
neutrality toward religion in general. If a majority of justices were to
endorse this view, no doubt doctrine would shift in a direction more plea
