holding in L.M. v. State, 587 So.2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (L.M.I). We held there: “Requiring a probationer or community control-lee to submit to a course of religious instruction contravenes the First Amendment.” Id. at 649. ML ignores t: In searching for the proper teaching of an [Emotional Maturity Instruction] course it is probably difficult to locate one who can teach morality without reference to religion, but that is the task which must be accomplished. We recognize that there is a fine line between rehabilitation efforts which encourage lawful conduct by an appeal to morality and the benefits of moral conduct to the life of the probationer, and efforts which encourage lawfulness through adherence to religious belief. Owens v. Kelley, 681 F.2d 1362, 1365-66 (11th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). The “fine line” that exists between an appeal
holding that defendant could not claim error for the first time on appeal by reason of an instruction given at his request holding that a party waived an allegation that an instruction was erroneous where the party failed to object at trial to the instruction on those grounds holding that a probation condition requiring a defendant to participate in an oral instruction component of an emotional maturity instruction program which the defendant claims contains religious components precludes summary judgment on first amendment issues holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given