Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site psc70.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!dartvax!psc70!tos
From: tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.religion,net.politics
Subject: Re: Violation of separation church and state????
Message-ID: <136@psc70.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Jun-85 06:17:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: psc70.136
Posted: Sat Jun  8 06:17:31 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 21:16:48 EDT
References: <1192@opus.UUCP> <625@abnji.UUCP>, <883@sdcsvax.UUCP>
Organization: Plymouth State College, Plymouth, NH
Lines: 19
Keywords: Blue Laws
Xref: watmath net.legal:1774 net.religion:7079 net.politics:9346


    There are obvious dimensions of community customs and of social
values outside of religion (employees need a common day of rest, etc)
in connection with store closings. Also, no one is placed at serious
disadvantage, or at least not to a degree disproportionate to the
minority status of the faith) in this kind of practice. In contrast,
where teachers lead children in common prayer, we have a state
official (the teacher) and thus a person who from the child's view is
very powerful encouraging a majority exercise with specific religious
(sometimes specific sect) implications, and the child at great
disadvantage even if (because it's supposedly "voluntary") it may have
been told that it can ask to be excused. 
    This is what I mean by "disadvantage" -- nothing of this sort is
perpetrated on anyone by common closing days, even if they are those
of a majority group as in the case of Sunday. Where such disadvantages
have been imposed by people even through the practice of the Sunday
(for example, Christian employer refusing to give Jewish employees the
Sabbath as day off), generally the courts have protected the
individual's right to practice his or her religion wherever possible.