Organizing to Oppose Military Recruiters on Campus

[jmhaclj at aol.com]

We might dispute over what denial of federal funds constitutes.  I do 
not think that the taxation of the income of religious bodies is free 
 from problem on either Religion Clause (even if the Court has no 
problem with the general proposition).  So if you mean loss of freedom 
 from income taxation, we might do a dance.  On the other hand, if a 
church objects to condom distribution programs then a church could 
certainly decline to be a cooperating agency with some federally funded 
program.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ

-----Original Message-----
From: RJLipkin
To: JMH ACLJ
Cc: CONLAWPROF at LISTS.UCLA.EDU
Sent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005  1:52:44 PM Eastern Standard Time
Subject: Re: Organizing to Oppose Military Recruiters on Campus

    In a message dated 12/7/2005 7:21:58 AM Central Standard Time, 
JMHACLJ at aol.com writes:
   In some ways, perhaps the situation is akin to the ones in which 
strict separationists quote a framer here and there (Madison, for 
example) for the proposition that only a weak religion requires 
government crutches. Here, it is a weak university that requires 
federal crutches. Let the university prove its metal by living the lean 
life.
   Is Jim proposing this as a general rule or a general response to 
institutions insisting on license to act as they will regarding some 
federal law and demanding cash to so? So if same-sex marriage is ever 
permitted by federal law, church institutions disallowing such marriage 
may be denied federal funds as a consequence of their denial?

 Bobby

 Professor Robert Justin Lipkin
 Widener University School of Law
 Delaware