From the list custodian RE: So what's the deal?
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Tue Feb 7 18:48:45 PST 2006
Folks: It might help to be a bit more explicit when posing such
questions, rather than just relying on labeling ("compassionate
coercion"), conclusory assertions, and links that people may not have
much time to follow. What's the issue? Why is what's going on
coercive? What are the obvious counterarguments as to why it wouldn't
be coercive? Why is this a constitutional violation?
Also, it's usually a mistake to ask why people on this list are
reluctant to get involved in things. Some of them may well be involved;
others may be spending their time elsewhere; others may be scholars more
than people who get involved on the litigation side. Please don't
assume that just because some issue is important, each academic who
works in the general field is going to get involved in it.
Please also remember that the list, though open to the public at
large, is aimed at academic discussions of the law of government and
religion. The more detail and thoughtful analysis one can include in
the posts, the more helpful the posts will be.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Tommy Perkins
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 6:44 PM
> To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: So what's the deal?
> In 2002 Prez Bush proclaimed "compassionate coercion":
> In 1991 Archie Brodsky of Harvard Medical School wrote:
> "And it is one of the most blatant and pervasive violations of
> constitutional rights in the United States today. After all,
> even murderers
> on death row are not forced to pray."
> So what's the deal? Why are the people on this list so
> reluctant to get
> into this issue?
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password,
> see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
More information about the Religionlaw