Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information
In a message dated 12/17/2004 3:22:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had a neighbor, who characterized himself as "a born again Christian." Knowing that I am Jewish, he one day presented me with literature from "Jews for Jesus." He explained to me his reasons for doing so, and I told him that I've thought about religion a great deal, even taught the philosophy of religion, and I have well-decided beliefs on the matter and essentially concluded thanks but no thanks. Our "good neighbor" relationship was none the worse--indeed, it probably became richer--as a result of this episode. Had he pursued his religious inclinations to convert me, or had I persisted in challenging his convictions, our relationship might not have withstood the test of time. This narrative is evidence aplenty that the discussion can move forward in meaningful ways without the "proselytizing" crutch to aid it. Notice that you say he "presented" you the material and he "explained" his reasons for doing so. It's a small matter to make these mortals so happy. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
In a message dated 12/17/2004 6:57:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The foundation of American law, especially the *moral* foundation, begins with the Declaration of Independence, and continues at least through the adoption of the Bill of Rights. The Americans of 1776-1791 were clearly rejecting a great deal of their English heritage, including and established Church, an official religion, and the assumption that "God" made laws. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed," as Jefferson noted. Chief Justice Moore put up the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama because he claimed there was a high law which he had to obey. That may his personal theology, but it not the basis of our law. When did the state constitutional provisions adopting the common law of England, as it existed on a specified date, as the decisional law of the State get struck down by someone's Establishment Clause challenge? Paul ignores substantial elements of the thinking that undergirded the duty to revolt. The revolution was justified because, as Englishmen, their right to be represented was being denied to them (see the Declaration's specifications; the first six wrongs committed against the colonies involve denying representation or burdening its effective use). While the colonists clearly broke with the Parliament and the Crown, they did not utterly abate their affiliation with their own law and their own history. True the product included the ultimate devise of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but those were the subsequent developments of a new Nation seeking an effective form of governance. The Declaration, on the other hand, demonstrates why Englishman everywhere, even in colonial lands, are not subject to denial of representation, etc. Jim "And you were there" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system?
In a message dated 12/17/2004 11:31:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Surely, an exhaustive anthropology should reach back into those primitive societies that survived because they embraced such rules as no killing, no stealing, etc. Well, I wonder about this. Why should an anthropology of angles and saxons rely upon developments of neolithic cultures in the pacific rim? And what of the cultures that survived because they adopted the no killing us, no stealing from us, versions of these rules. If you visit Washington, DC, take the public tour of the Supreme Court building. If the docent does not proffer an explanation, inquire about those tables, centered over the Chief's head, that are numbered from 1 through 10: "Are those the Ten Commandments?" If you do, this is the reply you will get: "Actually, although numbered 1 through 10, those tables are intended by the artists to remind us of the moral codes common to all early societies." That "interpretation" avoids complications that the ACLU might raise with the Court if the stock answer was that the tables represented the Ten Commandments and that the position of them above the Court and at the center of the bench symbolically acknowledge the superiority of God's law over man's and the centrality of God's law to the resolution of disputes over man's law. But that raises lots of issues about what moral code was common to all early societies, and how limited the code would have to be in order to reach across the boundaries of varied early cultures, etc. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
Jim writes: The Declaration, on the other hand, demonstrates why Englishman everywhere, even in colonial lands, are not subject to denial of representation, etc. So, what does the Ten Commandments have to do with representation? Nothing of course. That is the point. Paul F. Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law Univ. of Tulsa College of Law 2120 East 4th Place Tulsa OK 74104-3189 Phone: 918-631-3706 Fax:918-631-2194 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
RE: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation ofthe Anglo-Americanlegal system?
Eugene, I may have missed your point, since it seems we are in agreement that the Ten C. are not the moral foundation of Am. law. But, I guess I would still argue that the moral, as opposed to perhaps the day-to-day practical, foundation of American law comes from the DoI and BoR. Alternatively, the foundation (perhaps no so moral) of American law is property and the right to own it (including, for Jefferson property in about 175 people). That might be the foundation of our legal culture -- protecting property while the moral aspiration was about liberty and equality. The day-to-day practical issues were about regulating human behavior to make life safe (so we could pursue our happiness and acquire property). I guess I don't see that laws against bad interpersonal behvaior (killing, stealing etc) are essentially a moral foundation, and if they are, they are found in every culture at all times, and so hardly unique to the US and certainly not based on the Ten C or even the Bible. If American law as a unique *America* foundation, it would be in the aspirational claims of the DoI and the BoR. Quoting Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm puzzled here. Paul wrote that The foundation of American law, especially the *moral* foundation, begins with the Declaration of Independence, and continues at least through the adoption of the Bill of Rights. The Americans of 1776-1791 were clearly rejecting a great deal of their English heritage, including and established Church, an official religion, and the assumption that 'God' made laws. I responded that (1) other principles such as no killing, stealing, defaming, battering, etc. (including both those mentioned in the Ten Commandments and those not so mentioned) -- are a far more important part of the moral foundation of American law than the political principles in the Declaration of Independence, (2) much of English heritage therefore wasn't rejected, (3) the Americans of the Framing era didn't entirely reject established churches or official religions, though they rejected a national establishment (and some rejected state ones, though others didn't), and (4) many Americans took the view that right and justice were largely defined by God's law was surely not rejected. Now Paul responds by pointing out that the Ten Commandments weren't the foundation of American law. I agree, and have said so publicly (including some of the points that Paul makes), see, e.g., http://volokh.com/2003_04_27_volokh_archive.html#200199520 http://volokh.com/2003_04_27_volokh_archive.html#200199520 and http://volokh.com/2003_04_20_volokh_archive.html#200195975 http://volokh.com/2003_04_20_volokh_archive.html#200195975 . But I don't quite see how Paul's message responds to the points that I was making, and especially to my criticism of the statements in his original post. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 12/17/2004 11:48 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: Subject: RE: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation ofthe Anglo-Americanlegal system? For the Ten C. to be the foundation of law we would at least have to imagine that without the 10 C we might not have these rules; but of course ALL societies ban murder (not killing, which is a problem with the (incorrect) King James translation of the 10 C;), stealing, and perjury. The 10 C say NOTHING about destroying property beating people up or defamation. So, I don't see how the 10 C can be the moral foundation of law if those are central to our law. Most of the 10 C have NOTHING to do with our law (one God, no sculptured images, keep the sabbath, honor your parents, don't take God's name in vain, etc.) so how can somethign be the moral foundation of the law if most of it is completely ignored by our law. Some of our law -- or at least our economy -- cuts against the 10 C-- Our economy is based on the concept of coveting your neighbors things goods, house (maybe not wife). That is what makes capitallism run. Paul Finkelman Quoting Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm not sure this is quite right. Surely principles such as no killing, no stealing, no beating people up, no defaming people, no destroying their property, and so on -- both those mentioned in the Ten Commandments and those not so mentioned -- are a far more important part of the moral foundation of American law than the political principles in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is pretty important, but the basic rules of decent conduct with respect to each other seem much more foundational. That aspect of the English heritage was surely not rejected. Nor did all the Americans of
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
In a message dated 12/18/2004 9:47:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Declaration, on the other hand, demonstrates why Englishman everywhere, even in colonial lands, are not subject to denial of representation, etc. So, what does the Ten Commandments have to do with "representation"? Nothing of course. That is the point. To the contrary, if the Ten Commandments form the basis of English law, and if the rights of Englishmen were denied by Crown and Parliament, and if Englishmen suffered that train of abuses until other recourse was unavailable, then what the colonists did was act upon principles of English law that ran deeply rooted in them and that sprang from the concepts previously discussed by some on this list. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: proselytization
Prof. Lipkin was proselytized by his neighbor. They both handled it with tolerance and maturity. How does that change the fact of proselytization? How does what the neighbor did not constitute an inducement to change religions -- the definition of proselytize? This was no mere it came up in conversation or informal, impromptu exchange of views over the backyard fence when doing lawn chores. That the neighbor lacked evangelical fervor (militant relentless advocacy) does not change the proselytization -- the inducement to change beliefs to something else. Steve On Saturday, December 18, 2004, at 08:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/17/2004 3:22:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had a neighbor, who characterized himself as a born again Christian. Knowing that I am Jewish, he one day presented me with literature from Jews for Jesus. He explained to me his reasons for doing so, and I told him that I've thought about religion a great deal, even taught the philosophy of religion, and I have well-decided beliefs on the matter and essentially concluded thanks but no thanks. Our good neighbor relationship was none the worse--indeed, it probably became richer--as a result of this episode. Had he pursued his religious inclinations to convert me, or had I persisted in challenging his convictions, our relationship might not have withstood the test of time. This narrative is evidence aplenty that the discussion can move forward in meaningful ways without the proselytizing crutch to aid it. Notice that you say he presented you the material and he explained his reasons for doing so. It's a small matter to make these mortals so happy. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar God, give us grace to accept with serenity the things that cannot be changed, courage to change the things which should be changed, and the wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. Reinhold Neibuhr 1943 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system?
Richard Dougherty wrote: My question is a simple one, I think: regardless of the facts of this case, do you think it is unconstitutional to teach the Declaration of Independence -- that is, not as a historical document, but as if it were true, and that it is legitimate to tell students that it is true? The problem, of course, is with the multiple references to God in the document. Is it a violation of the First Amendment, say, to tell students that many (some?) of the colonists thought that God was the source of our rights, and that they were right about that? Or do we avoid First Amendment problems only by saying that many of them perhaps thought that God was the source of our rights, but then abstain from making any suggestions about whether that is in fact right? I think we certainly should teach that those who wrote the Declaration believed that rights were something we were endowed with by a creator. To teach anything else would be a lie. But no, I do not think that a teacher should then go on to say, And they were right about that. To do that is to endorse a religious position. It is also a statement that we can't really know is true or not, as opposed to the historical question of what they believed to be true, which we can give a solid empirical answer to. And I'd go a step further than that and say that if teachers are going to discuss the religious views of the men who wrote the Declaration in any detail, they should make it clear that what there were major differences among them regarding the nature of the Creator, because that too is true and verifiable. One of the problems that is quite common in discussion of the founding fathers in general, and especially in this area, is that of oversimplification. To pretend that they all meant the same thing by creator or nature's god is, again, to teach something that simply isn't true. Jefferson's conception of God differed wildly from Patrick Henry's, which differed from Ben Franklin's, which differed from George Washington's. Most people see the broadly deistic language in the Declaration and, because they haven't read anything further about the founders' views, presume that it refers to the Christian God. But for many of the founders, it clearly did not (though for most, I think it did). Again, we should teach what is true and verifiable, which is that the fight for independence and the founding of America was achieved by a mixture of orthodox Christians and Enlightenment-inspired deists and unitarians who often disagreed greatly on religious matters (and on other matters, of course). Hence, most historical scholars view the language in the Declaration to be a sort of lowest common denominator reference, one which could satisfy both sides in this sometimes-tense compromise. More later when I return home. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: proselytization
In a message dated 12/18/2004 10:33:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Prof. Lipkin was proselytized by his neighbor. They both handled it with tolerance and maturity. How does that change the fact of proselytization? How does what the neighbor did not constitute an inducement to change religions -- the definition of proselytize? This was no mere "it came up in conversation" or informal, impromptu exchange of views over the backyard fence when doing lawn chores. That the neighbor lacked evangelical fervor (militant relentless advocacy) does not change the proselytization -- the inducement to change beliefs to something else. I thoroughly enjoyed Don Quixote, even though our reading of him required me to keep my Cassell's English/Spanish Dictionary close at hand. Perhaps the tilting at windmills was subconsciously part of the attraction for me. But, truth be told, Sancho Panza like, I tire of the game of persuading those who refuse to consider just how offputting the choices of language can be. I had expected that some, with their own cultural or ethnic sensibilities, would realize that just one instance of poor word choice can mar the dialogue while it is yet a-birthing. Proselytizing is a poor word choice in this arena precisely because those who use it, in the main, use it to describe only zealous religious evangelism, but never apply the term to the relentless pursuit of justice, of equality, of fairness, of abortion, etc., etc., etc. His story about his neighbor proves the point that proselytization is not necessary to the discussion. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Evolution vs Creation Reaches the SATS
Does anyone on the list know if this is indeed the direction the testing is taking. That is, if the report is accurate. The example questions seem to ask for more than reading comprehension to me. Susanna Peters Those interested in the reach of the evolution vs creation tension and the legal issues arising in its impact on education may find this item, at http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2004/12/new_sat_questio.html#more to be worth a read. Is it true? I don't know. I haven't researched it. If true, what happens to the student who leans in the other direction? Two versions of the SAT in the same state??? Here's the first part (so as to avoid lifting the entire piece) = December 16, 2004 New SAT Questions Replace Evolution with Creation NEW YORK, NY-Officials from the College Board, the nonprofit entity that administers the Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT, have announced that they are producing a new version of the test for students who live in school districts where creationism rather than evolution is taught in science classes. Sat_readingcomp_1Students who take the revised test, which will be introduced in school districts in Kansas and Georgia in the fall of 2005, will no longer be tested on their ability to comprehend passages from scientific texts that are based on the controversial theory of evolution. Instead, they will read excerpts from writings on such creation-related topics as the six days in which God created the earth or the great flood, then answer a series of questions to indicate how well they've understood the passages. (Click image, left, to view questions; or download PDF.) * * * * * * = Jim Maule Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law Villanova PA 19085 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule mauledagain.blogspot.com President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com) Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) Maule Family Archivist Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Evolution vs Creation Reaches the SATS
The site this appears on is a well known parody site, so I would assume it is exactly that. Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone on the list know if this is indeed the direction the testing is taking. That is, if the report is accurate. The example questions seem to ask for more than reading comprehension to me. Susanna Peters Those interested in the reach of the evolution vs creation tension and the legal issues arising in its impact on education may find this item, at http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2004/12/new_sat_questio.html#more to be worth a read. Is it true? I don't know. I haven't researched it. If true, what happens to the student who leans in the other direction? Two versions of the SAT in the same state??? Here's the first part (so as to avoid lifting the entire piece) = December 16, 2004 New SAT Questions Replace Evolution with Creation NEW YORK, NY-Officials from the College Board, the nonprofit entity that administers the Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT, have announced that they are producing a new version of the test for students who live in school districts where creationism rather than evolution is taught in science classes. Sat_readingcomp_1Students who take the revised test, which will be introduced in school districts in Kansas and Georgia in the fall of 2005, will no longer be tested on their ability to comprehend passages from scientific texts that are based on the controversial theory of evolution. Instead, they will read excerpts from writings on such creation-related topics as the six days in which God created the earth or the great flood, then answer a series of questions to indicate how well they've understood the passages. (Click image, left, to view questions; or download PDF.) * * * * * * = Jim Maule Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law Villanova PA 19085 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule mauledagain.blogspot.com President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com) Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) Maule Family Archivist Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Evolution vs Creation Reaches the SATS
The report is an obvious, albeit well done, satire. The SAT does not test knowledge of science even in the section formerly known as verbal and soon to be known as critical reading. It gives students a passage to read and asks questions designed to test their reading comprehension. It does NOT presume knowledge of what is contained in the passage before one reads it, though such familiarity helps. The College Board does give various versions of the tests, but does not modify them on a school-district or state by state basis. The whole point is to give what is essentially the same test to everyone across the country in an attempt to test proficiency at certain skills deemed needed for success at college-level work. Of course there is a level of knowledge involved, but not of the sort satirized in the Swift Report: News and Views Before You Need Them. Steve On Saturday, December 18, 2004, at 01:05 PM, Ed Brayton wrote: The site this appears on is a well known parody site, so I would assume it is exactly that. Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone on the list know if this is indeed the direction the testing is taking. That is, if the report is accurate. The example questions seem to ask for more than reading comprehension to me. Susanna Peters -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: proselytization
In a message dated 12/18/2004 11:08:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [The] story about his neighbor proves the point that proselytization is not necessary to the discussion. Well, yes and no. Once again, I would bring the term into the particular situation as an issue to be discussed. And, of courseboth religious zealots andsecular zealots exist.What makes them objectionable to some peopleis not their religiosity or their secularity, but rathertheir zeal. I have a dear friend (not my neighbor in my previous example) whose religion requires him to "proselytize," as he himself told me, yet he chooses to proselytize by how he lives his entire life.In my view, he lives an exemplary life. Once, when I was trying to deal with parenting problems, this friend asked me whether I would like to speak with a member of his faith for guidance. Igratefully declined the offer. He was slightly embarrassed and said he hoped that I understood that his offer was prompted bywho he was and by the regard with which he held me. I understood completely and thanked him for being who he was and asked him to understand that my declining the offer was prompted by who I am. We both understood and appreciated one another better, and our relationship was made richer by this exchange. I think one accurate description of this incident was that my friend felt compelled by his faith to proselytize or at least to offer to introduce me to someone who would proselytize. I'm not insisting that the use of "proselytize" in this example is inevitable just that it is one useful way to describe our interaction. If that's so, the word proselytizing is notwhat's objectionable just the attitudes underlying some people's inclination to proselytize. When these attitudes involve generous concern for a friend, for example, the term seems unobjectionable. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: proselytization
Title: Re: proselytization Heres the way I look at. People who I agree with set out to raise consciousness. People I disagree with proselytize with militant zeal. :-) FJB On 12/18/04 10:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/18/2004 10:33:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Prof. Lipkin was proselytized by his neighbor. They both handled it with tolerance and maturity. How does that change the fact of proselytization? How does what the neighbor did not constitute an inducement to change religions -- the definition of proselytize? This was no mere it came up in conversation or informal, impromptu exchange of views over the backyard fence when doing lawn chores. That the neighbor lacked evangelical fervor (militant relentless advocacy) does not change the proselytization -- the inducement to change beliefs to something else. I thoroughly enjoyed Don Quixote, even though our reading of him required me to keep my Cassell's English/Spanish Dictionary close at hand. Perhaps the tilting at windmills was subconsciously part of the attraction for me. But, truth be told, Sancho Panza like, I tire of the game of persuading those who refuse to consider just how offputting the choices of language can be. I had expected that some, with their own cultural or ethnic sensibilities, would realize that just one instance of poor word choice can mar the dialogue while it is yet a-birthing. Proselytizing is a poor word choice in this arena precisely because those who use it, in the main, use it to describe only zealous religious evangelism, but never apply the term to the relentless pursuit of justice, of equality, of fairness, of abortion, etc., etc., etc. His story about his neighbor proves the point that proselytization is not necessary to the discussion. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system?
In a message dated 12/18/2004 9:09:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why should an anthropology of angles and saxons rely upon developments of neolithic cultures in the pacific rim? And what of the cultures that survived because they adopted the no killing us, no stealing from us, versions of these rules. Oh, because often the claim that American law is based on religion is offered as an explanation and justification of religion's salience in American society. In other words, the claim is that were it not for religion, society would consist of a war of all against all.Consequently, if anthropology reveals that those pre-religious societiesor those pre-Judeo-Christian societies also had laws against murder, theft, and forth, or if anthropology shows that only societies that have such rules survive, then some of the importance of religion as the groundwork of morality in American society is undercut. The claim that morality derives from and is justified bythe Ten Commandments, or some other Judeo-Christiantext cannot be sustained if anthropology reveals that prior secular societies or priornon-Judeo-Christian societies had the same or similar rules for governing social life. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system?
In a message dated 12/18/2004 3:51:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But, as you know, there are many whochallenge the inalienability and self-evidence of rights precisely on thegrounds that if rights have these non-material properties Why are "inalienability" and "self-evidence" "non-material properties"? Certainly, "self-evidence" is howwe know the truth ofpropositionswithout any ontological commitment.Further, I'm not sure I understand why "inalienability" implies non-naturalism.Perhaps, Frank is right that both these terms can be interpreted as "non-naturalist," but surely that interpretation is not necessary for rendering these terms intelligible. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system?
Francis Beckwith wrote: The declaration says three things about rights: 1. That they are self-evident 2. That they are inalienable 3. That they have divine source So, Ed seems to be suggesting that we jettison teaching the third because there is no principled way to teach it with out implying the falsity of other takes on God and rights. But, as you know, there are many who challenge the inalienability and self-evidence of rights precisely on the grounds that if rights have these non-material properties, it seems that some form of non-naturalism must be the case and theism is a form of non-naturalism. So, there's good reason to ignore 1 and 2 as well since it may lead one to think that theism has a lot more going for it in grounding rights than let's say materialism. I'm not suggesting that we not teach that this is the philosophy behind the Declaration, I'm just saying that if we allow teachers to advocate that the theological position is true, how do we prevent them from advocating any other theological position? If we cannot do so, then we'll have quite a mess on our hands as Muslim teachers teach their students that the Quran is true, for instance, or atheist teachers teach that the bible is false. From a practical standpoint, this clearly isn't workable, but at the same time you cannot constitutionally say that we will allow teachers to teach some theological positions but not others. How would you address that question, which was at the core of what I said? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Evolution vs Creation Reaches the SATS
Within the past few hours I received a similar message, that this is *probably* a parody, given the nature of the site that published (or republished) it? The folks at SAT have not yet confirmed or denied. That's why I included Is it true? I don't know as a red flag, expressing my doubts. My doubts were triggered not by knowledge of the site's nature as a parody site (for I had not been to the site) but by the absurd logistics issue raised in my question about how the test would be administered. If it is a parody, it is rather well done. Sometimes a laugh smooths the way for serious discussion. Jim Maule [EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/18/04 1:05:07 PM The site this appears on is a well known parody site, so I would assume it is exactly that. Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone on the list know if this is indeed the direction the testing is taking. That is, if the report is accurate. The example questions seem to ask for more than reading comprehension to me. Susanna Peters Those interested in the reach of the evolution vs creation tension and the legal issues arising in its impact on education may find this item, at http://swiftreport.blogs.com/news/2004/12/new_sat_questio.html#more to be worth a read. Is it true? I don't know. I haven't researched it. If true, what happens to the student who leans in the other direction? Two versions of the SAT in the same state??? Here's the first part (so as to avoid lifting the entire piece) = December 16, 2004 New SAT Questions Replace Evolution with Creation NEW YORK, NY-Officials from the College Board, the nonprofit entity that administers the Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT, have announced that they are producing a new version of the test for students who live in school districts where creationism rather than evolution is taught in science classes. Sat_readingcomp_1Students who take the revised test, which will be introduced in school districts in Kansas and Georgia in the fall of 2005, will no longer be tested on their ability to comprehend passages from scientific texts that are based on the controversial theory of evolution. Instead, they will read excerpts from writings on such creation-related topics as the six days in which God created the earth or the great flood, then answer a series of questions to indicate how well they've understood the passages. (Click image, left, to view questions; or download PDF.) * * * * * * = Jim Maule Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law Villanova PA 19085 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule mauledagain.blogspot.com President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction) (www.taxjem.com) Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com) Maule Family Archivist Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com) ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
In response to Prof. Lipkin's post set forth below, I believe it would more
precise to say that law is ultimately based on conscience rather than what is
thought of as religion. Many of the more conservative and traditional
believers would say thatcross-cultural similarities exist because the same
ethical principles have been written upon every person's conscience. They would
account for cross-cultural differences through individual and societal
corruption. They would maintain that The Ten Commandments embody in
uncorrupted form what was originally written on the conscience of each
andall.
Additionally, it appears that underlying the Ten Commandments is a much
broader definition of "law" then that which is current. Law might be
defined as commandswith sanctions that may result from violation of
thosecommands. We moderns tend to confine "law" to those commands to
which are annexed sanctions imposed by the government; it appears to me that at
least some of the ancients would also count as laws those whose violations
result insanctions imposed only in the forum of the conscience, sanctions
that naturally result from violation of the law (e.g., "what goes around comes
around," etc.), and/or sanctions imposed directly as a result of Divine
justice. Even with respect to the Ten Commandments themselves, one will
search in vain through the rest of any version of any Bible for a sanction
imposed by the government for violating the commandment(s) against covetousness
that did not result in any overt act. The mere fact that there are no
sanctions imposed by the government does not mean that the commandment(s)
against covetousness are not laws in this broader sense. Perhaps the Ten
Commandments could more readily be viewed as the foundation of American law if
law were viewed in this broader sense.
Finally, it should be noted that in Christendom (including England
the U.S.)each of the TenCommandments has been given a far broader
application than might be apparent merely from the face of the
commandment. See, e.g., Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5: 21-23 (anger or
name-calling treated as violation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not
kill") In the Lutheran tradition, each law was classified under one of the
commandments:
". . . . Like [Martin] Luther and [Philip] Melancthon,
[Johann] Oldendorp traced all laws for ordering the earthly kingdom (weltliches
Regiment, 'the secular regime') to what later came to be numbered as the Fifth
Commandment ('Honor thy father and they mother'--the prince being the
parent). More clearly than Melancthon, he traced all penal laws to the
Sixth Commandment ('Thou shalt not kill'), the law of private property to the
Eighth Commandment ('Thou shalt not steal'), and the law of procedure to the
Ninth Commandment ('Thou shalt not bear false witness.'). He also (unlike
Melancthon) traced family law to the Tenth Commandment ('Thou shalt not covet .
. . thy neighbor's wife') and the law of taxation to the general commandment
'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself'.
"Oldendorp placed special emphasis on the Eighth
Commandment ('Thou shalt not steal'), in which he saw the source not only of
private property but also of contract law. . . . "
(Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution II: The Impact of the Protestant
Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition (2003) 89-90 (footnotes
omitted).)
Johann Oldendorp's principal treatise was in the library
of United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and Story
quotedOldendorp in Story's own his "Commentaries on Equity
Jurisprudence." (Berman, supra, 413 n. 111.)
If the Ten Commandments are each given a broad
interpretation, then the Ten Commandments might encompass a wide enough area so
that they might be regarded as the foundation of American law.
Very truly yours,
Ross S. Heckmann
Attorney at Law
Arcadia, California
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 11:18
AM
Subject: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the
foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system?
In a message dated 12/18/2004 9:09:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why
should an anthropology of angles and saxons rely upon developments of
neolithic cultures in the pacific rim? And what of the cultures that
survived because they adopted the no killing us, no stealing from us,
versions of these rules.
Oh, because often the
claim that American law is based on religion is offered as an explanation and
justification of religion's salience in American society. In other words, the
claim is that were it not for religion, society would consist of a war of all
against all.Consequently, if anthropology reveals that those
pre-religious societiesor those pre-Judeo-Christian societies also had
laws against murder, theft, and forth, or if anthropology shows that only
societies that
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system?
Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but rather a diestic creator or nature's God. Paul FInkelman Quoting Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Very good questions. I think one could teach the logic of the Declaration without saying that it is true. For example, I frequently lecture on thinkers and arguments that I don't think are correct, but I do so because I would not be a virtuous teacher. On the other hand, it may be that some religious beliefs are more consistent with a just regime than others. For example, from your perspective a religion that taught its adherents that the state should teach in its schools the true religion would be a religion that is mistaken about the nature of the state. Frank On 12/18/04 3:23 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francis Beckwith wrote: The declaration says three things about rights: 1. That they are self-evident 2. That they are inalienable 3. That they have divine source So, Ed seems to be suggesting that we jettison teaching the third because there is no principled way to teach it with out implying the falsity of other takes on God and rights. But, as you know, there are many who challenge the inalienability and self-evidence of rights precisely on the grounds that if rights have these non-material properties, it seems that some form of non-naturalism must be the case and theism is a form of non-naturalism. So, there's good reason to ignore 1 and 2 as well since it may lead one to think that theism has a lot more going for it in grounding rights than let's say materialism. I'm not suggesting that we not teach that this is the philosophy behind the Declaration, I'm just saying that if we allow teachers to advocate that the theological position is true, how do we prevent them from advocating any other theological position? If we cannot do so, then we'll have quite a mess on our hands as Muslim teachers teach their students that the Quran is true, for instance, or atheist teachers teach that the bible is false. From a practical standpoint, this clearly isn't workable, but at the same time you cannot constitutionally say that we will allow teachers to teach some theological positions but not others. How would you address that question, which was at the core of what I said? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law Univ. of Tulsa College of Law 2120 East 4th Place Tulsa OK 74104-3189 Phone: 918-631-3706 Fax:918-631-2194 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
I'm not positive, but it sounds to me like Paul is saying that the vision of God expressed in the Declaration is generally Deistic. Deism, as I understand it, is defined as The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation (I drew this from dictionary.com, which is based on the American Heritage Dictionary). But even if endowed by their Creator and Laws . . . of Nature's God are as consistent with Deism as with Christianity, can the same be said about appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions and a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence? The rhetoric, at least, sounds like a God who at least judges people after their deaths (Supreme Judge of the world) and perhaps even protects people in this life (protection of divine Providence). Now it may well be that Jefferson didn't fully believe in this rhetoric himself: Politicians may often use language that they think of as appealing to the public even if they themselves might have put things differently in private life. But it sounds like the public meaning of the Declaration referred to a judging and perhaps even interventionist God, and not simply a creator. Or am I mistaken? Eugene Paul Finkelman writes: Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but rather a diestic creator or nature's God. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
It seems to me that Eugene is right. The God of the Declaration is theologically minimal, which means that it is consistent with common understandings of Deism and orthodox Christianity. It seems to me that one can be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of the Declaration. One may be a Christian and see the God of the Declaration as congenial to one's theology, but it does not follow that one must be a Christian in order to see the God of the Declaration as congenial to one's theology. Frank On 12/18/04 10:39 PM, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not positive, but it sounds to me like Paul is saying that the vision of God expressed in the Declaration is generally Deistic. Deism, as I understand it, is defined as The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation (I drew this from dictionary.com, which is based on the American Heritage Dictionary). But even if endowed by their Creator and Laws . . . of Nature's God are as consistent with Deism as with Christianity, can the same be said about appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions and a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence? The rhetoric, at least, sounds like a God who at least judges people after their deaths (Supreme Judge of the world) and perhaps even protects people in this life (protection of divine Providence). Now it may well be that Jefferson didn't fully believe in this rhetoric himself: Politicians may often use language that they think of as appealing to the public even if they themselves might have put things differently in private life. But it sounds like the public meaning of the Declaration referred to a judging and perhaps even interventionist God, and not simply a creator. Or am I mistaken? Eugene Paul Finkelman writes: Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but rather a diestic creator or nature's God. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
Whatever conclusion we might draw about the character of the Declaration's God/Creator/Judge/Providence, it seems to me that the asssertion that the First Amendment prohibits the government and its officials from stating that it is true that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights is an assertion that is not readily evident, to say the least. And to return to the discussion that started off this thread, my guess is that this is what is meant by saying that the Declaration is being banned from public school. No one (?) thinks that the Declaration can't be read as a historical document, in much the same way as we read the Law of the Twelve Tables, Hammurabi, or The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the Klan's Kourier. The important question is, can you say anything more substantive about the relative claims made in these documents? Richard Dougherty -- Original Message -- From: Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:59:56 -0600 It seems to me that Eugene is right. The God of the Declaration is theologically minimal, which means that it is consistent with common understandings of Deism and orthodox Christianity. It seems to me that one can be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of the Declaration. One may be a Christian and see the God of the Declaration as congenial to one's theology, but it does not follow that one must be a Christian in order to see the God of the Declaration as congenial to one's theology. Frank On 12/18/04 10:39 PM, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not positive, but it sounds to me like Paul is saying that the vision of God expressed in the Declaration is generally Deistic. Deism, as I understand it, is defined as The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation (I drew this from dictionary.com, which is based on the American Heritage Dictionary). But even if endowed by their Creator and Laws . . . of Nature's God are as consistent with Deism as with Christianity, can the same be said about appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions and a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence? The rhetoric, at least, sounds like a God who at least judges people after their deaths (Supreme Judge of the world) and perhaps even protects people in this life (protection of divine Providence). Now it may well be that Jefferson didn't fully believe in this rhetoric himself: Politicians may often use language that they think of as appealing to the public even if they themselves might have put things differently in private life. But it sounds like the public meaning of the Declaration referred to a judging and perhaps even interventionist God, and not simply a creator. Or am I mistaken? Eugene Paul Finkelman writes: Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but rather a diestic creator or nature's God. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
In a message dated 12/19/2004 1:19:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is not insignifcant, I think that none of the existing records of the federal convention contain any references to God or the Bible (much less the 10 C) and that when Franklin suggesting beginning the sessions with prayer, as a desperate attempt avoid a collapse of the Convention, he was politely ignored. The point not to be lost in your rush to congratulate a group of men whose diversity of religious affiliations prevented them from acceding to the choices of others in prayer leaders is that Franklin spoke the words that he did, when he did, as he did, knowing what he did. Those words knock a lot of nonsense back on its haunches. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
