Justice Stevens and religion

[Steven D. Jamar]

Puh-leeeze.  How does Stevens' principled support of a strong form of
separation equal "hostility"?

I guess such a statement comes from the "if you are not for me, you are
against me" school of logic.

Normally the law is a bit more nuanced than that with many competing ideas and
principles.  Even in Justice Stevens' position.

Farah Buck wrote:

> Stevens's undisguised hostility to religion here reminds me of his
> concurrence in Boerne, where he alone took the position that any
> governmental accommodation to religious practice violated the Establishment
> Clause.
>
> Stuart Buck
> HLS 2000

--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar, Director LRW Program               vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                           fax:  202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW                      mailto:sjamar at law.howard.edu
Washington, DC  20008          http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar

"I never worry about the future.  It comes soon enough."

Albert Einstein (1945-46; Einstein Archive)