Steven Williams Case - more factual information

[JMHACLJ at aol.com]

Steve,

I will not limit that remark to myself.  In fact I do not make this use of 
the term.  But in a constitutional law career nearing the twenty year mark, I no 
longer feel tentative about expressing what I think candor would require most 
to admit:  proselyzing is the ugly term (even though it is actually a 
perfectly fine word) used to poison the minds of individuals to whom its users are 
communicating about the persuasive efforts of others.  If you think that 
experience requires a different conclusion, then you simply have not read the 
opposing briefs of a variety of groups on the opposite side from me in numerous 
constitutional cases.

By the way, you may have missed part of my point.  I readily concede that 
such activities, whether powerful and persuasive (because we like the speaker or 
his ideas) or proselyzing (because we mistrust the speaker or his  
motivations), are different in kind from teaching about religion.  I understand Professor 
Newsome's argument that actually teaching about religion is accomplished at 
best imperfectly (and I'd agree with his conclusion but not likely with his 
reasoning), but I don't think that imperfect accomplishments are reason to 
abandon worthy enterprises.

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20041216/06849dc7/attachment.html