Ten Commandments and Indianna

[Rob Weinberg]

I may be picking nits, and I don't speak for the ACLU, local or otherwise,
but I think their concern isn't so much aiding and abetting (which sounds
more akin to free exercise), but promoting and endorsing (establishment,
obviously, a' la Lemon). It may be semantics to many, but I see a difference.

-Rob

At 11:28 AM 3/20/00 -0500, Vance R. Koven wrote:

>As I understand the ACLU position on the Indiana law, anything emanating
>from the government that could conceivably be interpreted, regardless of
>context, to give aid and comfort to a religious point of view should be
>extirpated. This strikes me as mechanistic reasoning run amok. There is,
>and, it's not hard to understand or convey, a distinction between
>*acknowledging* the religious underpinnings in something and  *exhorting*
>people to treat it in a religious fashion. Saying that we aren't allowed to
>do the former because somebody might do the latter contributes to the
>cultural amnesia that seems to be the lowest common denominator of civic
>discourse--and a BAD THING if you want an educated populace.