chaplains/fetuses

[Harold Hallikainen]

On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 13:32:07 EDT Jim Henderson <JMHACLJ at AOL.COM> writes:

>I have read and studied Marsh.  I do not read it or understand it to
>simply mean that, if the founders did it, it must be okay.  Instead, the

>Court itself has proceeded in a manner suggestive of the view that the
>Establishment Clause is not capable of a facial reading and must be
construed by . . . of
>course . . . the wise justices; consequently, in Marsh, the Court looks
for the
>meaning of the constitutional language in practices accepted as not
>inconsistent with whatever legislation or constitutional provision had
been adopted at
>the time.


        As I recall from my reading of Marsh was that they concluded that
legislative prayer was NOT a religious practice, but "merely a
recognition of widely held religious beliefs."  So, they were not saying
it's ok for the government to practice religion, just that legislative
prayer wasn't religious practice (I always thought prayer, no matter by
whom, was very religious).  As we move from legislative prayer to prison
chaplains... are we STILL saying this is not a religious practice?
        In other news... last weekend was a big story in the local paper
about the owners of private prisons that contract with the state of
California giving special priveleges to those prisoners who participate
in religious exercises (I think it was stuff like bible study, etc.).
The company claims that no state money is used for this purpose.  If a
company contracts with the state to provide some service, can they then
take advantage of the truly captive audience for some other purpose?  I
assume the state could not give special priveleges to prisoners who
participate in religious exercise.  Can a contractor acting for the state
do it?


Harold


Harold Hallikainen
harold at hallikainen.com
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.
See the FCC Rules at http://hallikainen.com/FccRules and comments filed
in LPFM proceeding at http://hallikainen.com/lpfm