There are few issues as controversial as where to draw the line between church and state. The framers of the Constitution's Bill of Rights began their blueprint for freedom by drawing exactly such a line. The first clauses of the First Amendment provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The justices of the Supreme Court have not been wanting for advice from self-appointed guardians. The difficulty with such advice is that the contestants are more convincing when they criticize their opponents' interpretations than when they seek to establish the validity of their own.Religion and the Law examines the actions and words of the Supreme Court in applying constitutional language to the controversies that have come before it. Lest such an effort be reduced to recitation, these cases are measured against a "neutral principle" that will give the most appropriate scope to the religion clauses in such a manner as to provide guidance for legislatures and courts. This neutral principle has been framed in reliance on the Aristotelian axiom that "it is the mark of an educated man to seek precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits."One of the fundamental difficulties with the contemporary discussion of the "hot button" issue has been the failure to distinguish two separable problems: the constitutional issue--in the narrow sense of the meaning to be given to the language of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court--and the broader question of the ideal relationship that should exist between church and state. This is a classic study by one of the great theorists of American constitutional law.

There are few issues as controversial as where to draw the line between church and state. The framers of the Constitution's Bill of Rights began their blueprint for freedom by drawing exactly such a line. The first clauses of the First Amendment provide: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The justices of the Supreme Court have not been wanting for advice from self-appointed guardians. The difficulty with such advice is that the contestants are more convincing when they criticize their opponents' interpretations than when they seek to establish the validity of their own.

"Religion and the Law" examines the actions and words of the Supreme Court in applying constitutional language to the controversies that have come before it. Lest such an effort be reduced to recitation, these cases are measured against a "neutral principle" that will give the most appropriate scope to the religion clauses in such a manner as to provide guidance for legislatures and courts. This neutral principle has been framed in reliance on the Aristotelian axiom that "it is the mark of an educated man to seek precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits."

One of the fundamental difficulties with the contemporary discussion of the "hot button" issue has been the failure to distinguish two separable problems: the constitutional issue--in the narrow sense of the meaning to be given to the language of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court--and the broader question of the ideal relationship that should exist between church and state. This is a classic study by one of the great theorists of American constitutional law.

This book is a study detailing what happens to people and what life is like in a rehabilitation program. The program discussed is embedded in an institution, called "Farewell Hospital" by the authors, that was designed to fill a demand for facilities for those judged unable to live on their own. Due to physical or mental handicaps and no family, friends, or other social agents who are willing to make a home for them outside of a public institution, these patients were placed in a rehabilitation unit. Most patients were placed with the rehabilitation unit as a brief interlude before their permanent placement in the custodial unit of the vast institution where they would live out their lives. This work deals with the question of what happens to patients once they are rehabilitated and the non-therapeutic rules and practices of the health and welfare structure of which they are a part. In this case, the rehabilitation specialists and ward workers set themselves the task of improving the life chances of their clients by treating their ailments when possible and by improving their physical functioning so that they were better able to care for their own needs. The authors examine the effects of the organizational relationships on rehabilitation outcomes and on the lives of the people who make hospitals their home. The text attempts to sustain feeling for the historical context of their study the "problem" of larger numbers of disabled, poverty-stricken persons, who are no longer wanted by anyone and asserts that a "solution" must be found.

This book is a study detailing what happens to people and what life is like in a rehabilitation program. The program discussed is embedded in an institution, called "Farewell Hospital" by the authors, that was designed to fill a demand for facilities for those judged unable to live on their own. Due to physical or mental handicaps and no family, friends, or other social agents who are willing to make a home for them outside of a public institution, these patients were placed in a rehabilitation unit.

Most patients were placed with the rehabilitation unit as a brief interlude before their permanent placement in the custodial unit of the vast institution where they would live out their lives. This work deals with the question of what happens to patients once they are rehabilitated and the non-therapeutic rules and practices of the health and welfare structure of which they are a part. In this case, the rehabilitation specialists and ward workers set themselves the task of improving the life chances of their clients by treating their ailments when possible and by improving their physical functioning so that they were better able to care for their own needs.

The authors examine the effects of the organizational relationships on rehabilitation outcomes and on the lives of the people who make hospitals their home. The text attempts to sustain feeling for the historical context of their study the "problem" of larger numbers of disabled, poverty-stricken persons, who are no longer wanted by anyone and asserts that a "solution" must be found.