On its face . . . [the statute] is not a law "respecting an establishment of religion." This provision [in the statute] does not prohibit or interfere with state establishments, since no State has established (or constitutionally could establish . . . ) a religion. Nor does the provision require a State to establish a religion: It does not force a State to coerce religious observance or payment of taxes supporting clergy, or require a State to prefer one religious sect over another. It is a law respecting religion, but not one respecting an establishment of religion. (Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005). [Emphasis HMH.]
1 comment:
I really enjoy his precision of language. Thank you.
Post a Comment