Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccan lifestyle?

[Steven Jamar]

But it is doing so (according to some) not on the basis of religion or  
a religion per se, but rather because of some erstwhile other basis.

Does not intent matter here?

To me it seems to be both an endorsement and entanglement and also it  
seems to stepping on free exercise.

But it is very vexatious.

Steve

Sent from Steve Jamar's iPhone

On Jan 24, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Judith Baer <JBAER at politics.tamu.edu>  
wrote:

> The judge is preferring one religion to another, which even  
> Rehnquist conceded is a violation of the First Amendment.
> Judy Baer
>
> Professor Judith A. Baer
> Department of Political Science
> Texas A&M University
> 4348 TAMU
> College Station, TX 77843-4348
> 979/845-2246
> fax979/847-8924
> j-baer at tamu.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080124/e4b2d00c/attachment.htm