>> 2. I believe that *you and I both know* that the ACLU has a double
>> standard regarding free speech; specifically that "religious speech"
>> should be more restricted than generic speech.
>But doesn't that "double standard" come directly from the constitution?
>Religious speech *should* be restricted in cases where it could be
>construed as an endorsement by the government (i.e. in public school
>science classes). At least, that seems to be the way the constitution
>is interpreted nowadays.
Yes. At least, this is what the ACLU *asserts* is the meaning of the
estabishment clause. Whether the ACLU interpretation is correct, or whether
it reflects the intent of the framers, is up for grabs, and probably should
be debated somewhere other than this reflector.
Chuck