ary and an
attendant preference for democratic institutions including the capacity of
those institutions to provide protection to minorities.
Greg Sisk
-Original Message-
From: Lupu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:42 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academi
Title: The quid pro quo theory
See my comments below.
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berg, Thomas C.
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 5:27
AM
To: Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: The quid pro quo
th
The piece to which Michael Newsom refers is The Trouble with
Accommodation, 60 GW L Rev. 743, 779-781(1992). But the 4th
category is Weak EC, Weak FE (Michael accidentally wrote the 4th
one as a repeat of the third).
Chip Lupu
On 16 Jun 2004 at 16:26, Newsom Michael wrote:
> I apologize for
I apologize for responding to this post at this late date. However, I
want to refer everybody to Lupu's piece (the name of which escapes me)
in which he establishes a "grid" analysis of the two clauses.
If I understand him aright, it goes something like this:
(1) Strong EC, Strong FE
(2) Strong
Eugene is correct that both religious and secular beliefs are incredibly
varied and there is nothing like a literal quid pro quo or balance between
the protection provided by the Free Exercise clause and the limits imposed
by the Establishment Clause. (Although I think there would be more of a
Eugene, I agree that very "global" quid pro quo theories -- like "broad
Establishment Clause, broad Free Exercise Clause" -- do not spread their
benefits to all religions equally. (For example, I think that "broad
establishment clause, broad free exercise" tends to protect or benefit
minority or o
Sorry, but I don't see any of this as demonstrable or even as really very relevant to the interpretation of or to a consideration of the value of the religion clauses.
1. Free exercise is a valuable thing regardless of a law insuring it which affects various groups differently. The different impa
In a message dated 6/10/2004 12:30:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not
even sure that the benefits of a rigorous Free Exercise Clause and the burdens
imposed by a rigorous Establishment Clause will even out if you aggregate the
effects on all the religions.
