Congressional resolutions: threat or menace?

[Jean Dudley]

On Dec 20, 2007, at Thu, Dec 20,  8:47 AM, Esenberg, Richard wrote:

> “My evangelistic brethren confuse an objection to compulsion with  
> an objection to religion. It is possible to hold a faith with  
> enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God  
> does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar.”
>
>
>
> It’s a worthy distinction and one that might apply just as well to  
> religious and moral arguments from the left. I may regard concern  
> for the poor and sharing of my wealth as a religious and moral  
> duty, but not believe (at least beyond a certain level) that it  
> ought to be a matter of state compulsion.
>
>
>
> Although it does not undercut Douglas Laycock’s observation about  
> the nine, I should point out, for the record, that Pete Stark has  
> “come out” as an atheist. (He’s the Unitarian.)
>
>
>
> For those who keep it, Merry Christmas
>

It occurs to me that the distinction between compulsory taxation and  
compulsory religious observance is that one is prohibited by the  
Constitution, and the other is mandated by the Constitution. 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071220/f6448dcb/attachment.htm