[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Eugene is absolutely right, and so I ask his indulgence regarding this post. I simply want to point out that the nature of religious belief--its intelligibility or unintelligibility, circularity or noncircularity, and whether it can explain the problem of evil and suffering--is relevant to constitutional law and theory and thus relevant to this "serious academic electronic seminar," to use Paul's apt phrase, evangelizing is not.BobbyRobert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
