Wed Feb 24 07:03:31 PST 2010

I think the case is more complicated than Tom describes.In Board of
Education v. Allen,the textbook loan case,the Court pointed out that the
Meyer- Pierce line of cases should not be read to deny states very
substantial authority over what is taught in private religious schools.
Since then, the lower courts have struggled to divine how broad that
power is, and how to reconcile it with the teachings of Pierce,Meyers
and Barnette (No official,high or petty,etc).The results are  a
jumble,although courts (in the 1980's.in the burst of litigation
accompanying the growth of Christian schools) did resist allowing states
to impose the public school curriculum wholesale on religious schools.
With this in view, its appears at least possible that a state might be
able to insist on its own version of sex education, but could not -for
the reasons Tom laid out as well as Barnette-stop schools from
expressing their own contrary views. What is troubling about the British
fight  is that many want to deny schools that right.
 Paul's comment suggesting that forcing knowledge on people is no
violation of their religious liberty is in fact reflective of the
results courts reach, holding such exposure is no burden on liberty.They
so held even before Smith..I do not understand why such exposure cannot
be a burden on religious liberty, albeit one that might in some
circumstances be justified by a compelling interest.
Marc

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:43 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: 

The result?  Our teen pregnancy rate might drop; the STD rate among
teens would drop; the HIV/AIDS rate would drop; and the abortion rate
would drop.  Presumably, all of these are things religious conservatives
favor.  However,  some they would complain that by forcing knowledge on
students the government was somehow violating their religious beliefs.

----
Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, NY 12208

518-445-3386 (p)
518-445-3363 (f)

paul.finkelman at albanylaw.edu

www.paulfinkelman.com

--- On Tue, 2/23/10, Marc Stern <mstern at ajcongress.org> wrote:

	From: Marc Stern <mstern at ajcongress.org>
	Subject: 
	To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
	Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 7:24 PM

	Here is a link to a fight in england over a bill requiring sex
ed in all schools including religious ones. Under the bill as reported
here,schools could not teach premarital sex was wrong
	What result if passed here in us?
	Marc stern

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
/2010/feb/23/sexually-confused-sex-education-faith-schools&ct=ga&cd=yVg0
Ek2Zmiw&usg=AFQjCNFc-vZ5I1oIJnw3T__bLEs-xZYl7w

	----- Original Message -----
	From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
<religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu>
	To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
<religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
	Sent: Mon Feb 01 16:21:57 2010
	Subject: Comments on Jim Ryan's "Smith and the Religious Freedom
RestorationAct: An Iconoclastic Assessment," 78 Va. L. Rev. 1407 (1992)?

	Folks:  I'm working on the Fourth Edition of my Academic Legal
Writing textbook, and I wanted to add a chapter that contains an entire
highly successful student Note - minus most footnotes - coupled with
running commentary on why each section of the Note works (and, in some
instances, how it might have been improved).  I figured that I already
give students plenty of examples of bad writing, but they needed an
example of excellent writing, together with an analysis of what makes it
excellent.

	The Note that I chose is Jim Ryan's Smith and the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act: An Iconoclastic Assessment, 78 Va. L. Rev. 1407
(1992).  I like it a lot myself; I've heard good things about it from
others; and I see that it has been cited over 120 times by law reviews
articles. 

	But I'd also like to include some anonymous quotes from scholars
in the field, who briefly explain why they think this article is good.
This, I think, will dovetail nicely with my own explanation of what I
think the article does very well.  (Quotes pointing to some weaknesses
in the article would also be fine; I will mostly praise the article, but
I'll probably include some thoughts on how it could have been made still
better.)  If you recall the article, and have something to say about the
article, could you e-mail me?  My student readers and I will thank you
for it.  Many thanks,

	Eugene

	-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

	_______________________________________________
	To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
<http://us.mc597.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Religionlaw@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/20100224/459ef192/attachment.htm>