Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S.
My impression is that most of the self-styled-mainline Protestants around me wouldn't know justification by faith if they fell over it, and can't explain "their" doctrines any farther than "We-don't-believe-in-the-Pope". - Original Message - From: Paul FinkelmanTo: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 16:35:39 + (UTC) Subject: Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the U.S. > Just out of curiosity, how many Christan faiths, sects, denominations, > require that a convert know all 12 of the apostles to be Baptized? I would > hazard a guess that millions of American Christians cannot pass this test. > Furthermore, my understanding (as an outsider) is that "Christianity begins" > with the acceptance of Jesus as the "savior" and "the son of God" -- so does > the unnamed immigration judge here fail his/her own test? > > I give talks all the time on the Ten Commandments, and most of the people in > my audiences do now know all Ten or the order they are in; virtually none > have a clue that Jews, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and > Anglicans/Episcopalians all have a different Ten Commandments. Does that > mean they are not Christians (or Jews)?. >  > ** > Paul Finkelman, Ph.D. > Senior Fellow > Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism > University of Pennsylvania > and > Scholars Advisory Panel > National Constitution Center > Philadelphia, Pennsylvania > 518-439-7296 (w) > 518-605-0296 (c) > paul.finkel...@yahoo.com > www.paulfinkelman.com > From: James Oleske > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 9:22 PM > Subject: Re: the unconstitutionality of barring Muslims from entering the > U.S. > > Thanks, Chip. I can see why sincerity might be more difficult to judge in the > denial-of-affiliation situation than in the claim-of-affiliation situation, > but I'm not sure a sincerity inquiry is impossible in the former situation. > And I do wonder how often the line between a permissible sincerity inquiry > and an impermissible judicial development of a religious test gets blurred in > the latter situation. In one BIA decision affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, an > immigration judge included this explanation for why it had found that the > claimant had not converted to Christianity: > "The respondent cannot even name the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ. With the > Court's understanding that Christianity begins with the life and teaching of > Jesus Christ in the New Testament, the 12 apostles have some of the most > important, if not the most important, writings of Christianity. The Court has > serious doubt in the respondent's conversion to Christianity when he cannot > even give the names of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ." > Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming the BIA's > decision after finding that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's > factual findings). But see id. at 1000 (Berzon, dissenting) ("[T]he question > is not what Toufighi believes but what Iran understands him to believeâor, > more accurately, not to believe. It is thoroughly plausible that because he > attends Christian services and belongs to a Christian church, Toufighi will > be taken to have renounced Islam. Neither the BIA's nor the IJ's 'opinion[s] > ... consider[ed] what could count as conversion in the eyes of an Iranian > religious judge, which is the only thing that would count as far as the > danger to [the petitioner] is concerned.' Even if his conversion is not > 'genuine,' he remains at risk.") (quoting Bastanipour v. I.N.S., 980 F.2d > 1129, 1132 (7th Cir.1992)). > Putting aside the dispute between the majority and dissent in Toufighi over > the relevance of the IJ's factual finding, I think the finding itself could > be viewed not only as a questionable sincerity finding, but also an > impermissible assumption of judicial authority to determine the religious > importance of the 12 apostles. > - Jim > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Ira Lupu wrote: > > Thanks, Jim, for the kind words about the book. > On the asylum and refugee problem -- someone asked me about this yesterday, > off-list. I answered with a variation on the following:In persecution > cases, someone is claiming to be of a certain faith (or at least that she > fears persecution because others perceive her to be of that faith). > Sincerity is an appropriate inquiry into either of those assertions. But > the context of the Trump proposal involves someone denying that she is a > Muslim. If the person seeking entry denies affiliation, what questions can > you ask? The government may not assert that anyone who believes X is > therefore a member of Faith Y. If immigration
Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought
Are those purported instances based on religious beliefs against serving people of other religions? (Or, Gordelpus, a specific religion, as you seem to be implying?) Or on the perception that They are all evial terrorists, which is not a tenet of any religion I can call to mind. - Original Message - From: Paul Finkelman paul.finkel...@yahoo.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:02:24 + (UTC) Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought We have all sorts of stories where business will not serve Muslims in the news.  ** Paul Finkelman, Ph.D. Senior Fellow Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism University of Pennsylvania and Scholar-in-Residence  National Constitution Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 518-439-7296 (w) 518-605-0296 (c) paul.finkel...@yahoo.com www.paulfinkelman.com From: Doug Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:54 PM Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought #yiv7506987746 #yiv7506987746 -- _filtered #yiv7506987746 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7506987746 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv7506987746 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv7506987746 #yiv7506987746 p.yiv7506987746MsoNormal, #yiv7506987746 li.yiv7506987746MsoNormal, #yiv7506987746 div.yiv7506987746MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv7506987746 a:link, #yiv7506987746 span.yiv7506987746MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7506987746 a:visited, #yiv7506987746 span.yiv7506987746MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7506987746 span.yiv7506987746EmailStyle17 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv7506987746 .yiv7506987746MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv7506987746 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv7506987746 div.yiv7506987746WordSection1 {}#yiv7506987746 Show me a case. It just hasnât happened. We have a woman dead in Kansas for lack of a state RFRA; thatâs a real case. These wild discrimination hypotheticals are so far just that â wild hypotheticals. And probably thatâs all they will be for the future too.  Discrimination against gay customers is entirely legal in Indiana except in Indianapolis and Bloomington. That doesnât mean that itâs happening, much less that businesses are discriminating and then offering religious justifications. The various Indiana reporters who have called me had not heard any reports of that kind of discrimination.  Douglas LaycockRobert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of LawUniversity of Virginia Law School580 Massie RoadCharlottesville, VA 22903    434-243-8546  From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Finkelman, Paul Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:44 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wrought  But does this mean that religion is not protected?  Will we see claims that members of certain faiths do not want to hire (or even serve) members of other faiths?  I think the language of the Indiana law and some of these other laws might allow this.    * Paul FinkelmanSenior FellowPenn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and ConstitutionalismUniversity of PennsylvaniaandScholar-in-Residence National Constitution CenterPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 518-439-7296 (p)518-605-0296 (c) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.eduwww.paulfinkelman.com*From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman [lederman.ma...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:34 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Amazing what Hobby Lobby has wroughtor, imagine if Justice Alito had not included the references to race and racial in this sentence:  The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.  On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: Before the ruling -- but not before the lower court decisions and the slew of briefs --including by many Catholic groups that were insistent upon reading RFRA narrowly back in 1993 -- urging the Court to do at least as much as it did (indeed, more so).  The converse point works, too:  If the Court had issued a Lee-like 9-0 decision, there wouldn't now be much of an opposition to state RFRAs (but not nearly the same impetus to enact them, either).  On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at
RE: The racist prostitute hypothetical
Maybe I am missing something but would not the choice of who to engage in sex with come under the right of privacy doctrine iniitiated by Griswold? ___ 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.
RE: Hobby Lobby transcript
But kosher clothes would have to avoid SHATNES. - Original Message - From: Levinson, Sanford V slevin...@law.utexas.edu To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:10:44 + Subject: RE: Hobby Lobby transcript I stand thoroughly corrected! And, of course, there is no general category called kosher clothes. This is a good demonstration that it's always a good idea to go back and read the cases before opining, because I also would have sworn that the case arose in Massachusetts. I'm glad I'm taking an exam in Chip's course :) sandy From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:00 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript Braunfeld did not sell meat. From the opinion: Appellants are merchants in Philadelphia who engage in the retail sale of clothing and home furnishings within the proscription of the statute in issue. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Levinson, Sanford V slevin...@law.utexas.edumailto:slevin...@law.utexas.edu wrote: With regard to Braunfield, given that the customers are a distinct subset of people who want Kosher meat, isn't the argument more that they are decidedly inconvenienced by being unable to shop on Sunday (which is just another day to them), but NOT that they will refrain from buying kosher meat from Braunfield. After all, no other kosher meat market will be open on Saturday, and they're not going to buy non-kosher meat on Sunday. Or is (was) the argument that non-Sabbath observant Jews would no longer buy general grocery products from Braunfield that were easily available from Stop and Shop on Saturday? In the former case, then Braunfield's overall income should be roughly the same even with the forced Sunday closing. Is this even a relevant way of approaching the case, instead of being upset, as I was almost fifty years ago when I read it, at the simple inegalitarian aspects of Jewish butchers being forced to close two days a week (one day by the state, one day by their ! religious duty) while (mainstream) Christians could remain open six days a week. But, to repeat, this would be a competitive advantage only if Jewish shoppers really didn't care that much about where they brought their meat and other grocery products. It would be a different case, presumably, if we were talking about, say, paint stores, where there's no category called kosher paint. sandy -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Micah Schwartzman Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:30 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Hobby Lobby transcript In the context of discussing Marty's substantial burden argument, Justice Kagan invoked Braunfeld. I made a similar comparison on the listserv back in December: Braunfeld might support Marty's argument. The government provides an option to all employers: (1) pay a tax, or (2) provide coverage. If (1) doesn't burden religion, and even if it's somewhat more expensive, Braunfeld seems to contemplate that laws will sometimes work in this way. Provided a law doesn't directly compel anyone to violate their religious beliefs, its imposition of additional costs on religious practice is not sufficient to show a substantial burden. Marty didn't cite Braunfeld in his post, so maybe he wouldn't rely on it. And maybe there are other problems with the analogy, but I wonder if the no employer mandate argument turns on an empirical claim, at least if the cost differentials are not so significant as to be tantamount to coercion -- as in the 4980D tax for failing to comply with coverage requirements. Here's Justice Kagan (transcript p. 24): 15 JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, let's say that that's 16 right. Let's say that they have to increase the wages a 17 little bit. I mean, still we are talking about pretty 18 equivalent numbers. Maybe it's a little bit less; maybe 19 it's a little bit more. But this is not the kind of 20 thing that's going to drive a person out of business. 21 It's not prohibitive. 22 It's like the thing that we talked about in 23 Braunfeld where we said, you know, maybe if the store 24 can't stay open 7 days a week, it makes a little bit 25 less money. But so be it, is what we said. If it works, I do think this argument raises factual questions that would have to be addressed on remand. On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Marty Lederman lederman.ma...@gmail.commailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com wrote: is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354 _5436.pdf Audio should be available later in the week. I'd be curious to hear
RE: The pain of discrimination and the role of government
The same way they know someone is homosexual, of coruse. I have been waiting for explanations of how the alleged horde of bigots who are itching for an excuse to refuse service to gays propose to identify people who presumably do not begin every business transaction by announcing I'm gay! Unless said customers are on their part deliberately looking for excuses for litigation. But THAT couldn't happen, of course. - Original Message - From: Finkelman, Paul paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu (But, it would be an interesting question if a store in AZ could say, we don't serve Democrats or we don't serve Republicans -- but how would they really know?) ___ 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.
Discrimination and divination
So let me turn Mr. Sogol's turn-around around A storekeeper tells someone You are frightening the other customers, leave the premises. The party retorts That's what you SAY, but I KNOW it's really becausee I'm gay-- although sexuality had not previously come up. Does he have to prove the storekeeper knew? Or does the storekeeper have to prove the negative that he did NOT know? ___ 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.
RE: Discrimination and divination
Ditto - Original Message - From: Scarberry, Mark mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 12:37:43 -0800 Subject: RE: Discrimination and divination Further posts from Mr. Green will be deleted unread. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Religious exemptions and child sexual abuse
This straight out of C.S. Lewis' Bulverism essay, where young Ezekiel Bulver hears his father argue that the angles of a triangle add up to 180, and his mother retort You say that because you are a MAN! At 09:31 AM 6/14/2012, you wrote: Marci - I don't believe you've stated the facts of a single case. I'd say the same thing if you were a man. Art On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Marci Hamilton mailto:hamilto...@aol.comhamilto...@aol.com wrote: I'm not sure why stating the facts in these cases is rhetoric I sincerely hope it is not because a woman is pointing out the facts rather than a man. This last statement also is not rhetoric but an honest observation. ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Gamaliel: A Historical Question
Schaff's History of the Christian Church says that Luther was willing to abide by the test of Gamaliel, but I do not find a primary citation. On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Nathan Oman wrote: I have a question for those of you who are familiar with early modern, e.g. 16th and 17th century, debates over religious toleration. Do you know of any writers that used the story of Gamaliel as a justification for toleration. In the NT, Gamaliel is a Pharisee who argues against the persecution of the early Christians on the grounds that if there work is not of God it will perish but if it is of God one would be sinning in acting against it. Either way, the best course of action is toleration. (See Acts 5) I am just wondering if it was every invoked in polemics about religious toleration. Nathan B. Oman Associate Professor William Mary Law School P.O. Box 8795 Williamsburg, VA 23187 (757) 221-3919 I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. -Oliver Cromwell Will Linden wlin...@panix.com http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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.
RE: Gamaliel: A Historical Question
Bredon went to Balliol And sat at the feet of Gamaliel Dorothy Sayers, Murder Must Advertise ... followed by hail you all, jail you all. On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Ed Darrell wrote: Sorta off topic question: How do you pronounce Gamaliel? Is there a story to how Warren Harding got that for a middle name? Ed Darrell Dallas --- On Fri, 2/4/11, Wallace, E. Gregory walla...@campbell.edu wrote: From: Wallace, E. Gregory walla...@campbell.edu Subject: RE: Gamaliel: A Historical Question To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Friday, February 4, 2011, 11:36 AM Tolerationists during the period often referred to Gamaliel. For example, see John Goodwin's tract, Theomachia; or The Grand Imprudence of men running the hazard of fighting against God (1644). Dirck Coornhert is another. (see Gerrit Voogt, Constraint on Trial: Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert and Religious Freedom (2000), at 118). Also, check out the discussion on theological fallibilism in John Coffey's Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689 (Longman, 2000) at pp. 65ff. Greg Wallace Campbell University School of Law From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Nathan Oman [nate.o...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 11:17 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Gamaliel: A Historical Question I have a question for those of you who are familiar with early modern, e.g. 16th and 17th century, debates over religious toleration. Do you know of any writers that used the story of Gamaliel as a justification for toleration. In the NT, Gamaliel is a Pharisee who argues against the persecution of the early Christians on the grounds that if there work is not of God it will perish but if it is of God one would be sinning in acting against it. Either way, the best course of action is toleration. (See Acts 5) I am just wondering if it was every invoked in polemics about religious toleration. Nathan B. Oman Associate Professor William Mary Law School P.O. Box 8795 Williamsburg, VA 23187 (757) 221-3919 I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. -Oliver Cromwell -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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. Will Linden wlin...@panix.com http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___ 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.
Re: Astronomer Sues the University of Kentucky, Claiming His Faith Cost Him a Job
The person should also have to write 500 times 'Potentially' does not mean 'may be'. At 08:36 PM 12/19/10 -0800, you wrote: Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_0C2E309B4F3A894F859CD79B9AB3279A0DE864153ALULIpepperdin_ Here is a link to Prof. Glenn Reynold's post (on his Instapundit blog), with updates that make it appear the astronomer (Dr. Gaskell) was denied a position simply because of his religion and not because of any unusual views with respect to science: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/111718/http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/111718/. And here is a link to the NY Times story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19kentucky.html?_r=2ref=sciencehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19kentucky.html?_r=2ref=science. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine ___ 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. http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden ___ 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.
RE: A question about the must give religious exemptions to the same extent as secular exemptions theory
Of course, this is another case of the press juAt 01:11 PM 5/11/10 -0700, you wrote: I was just reading the London Times and came across this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7121843.eceitem, which reminds me of Eugene's recent police leave hypo: Police officers have been given the right to take days off to dance naked on the solstices, celebrate fertility rituals and burn Yule logs if they profess pagan beliefs. The Pagan Police Association claimed yesterday that it had been recognised by the Home Office as a âdiversity staff support associationâ â a status also enjoyed by groups representing female, black, gay, Muslim and disabled officers. Endorsement would mean that chief constables could not refuse a pagan officerâs request to take feast days as part of his or her annual leave. The eight pagan festivals include Imbolc (the feast of lactating sheep), Lammas (the harvest festival) and the Summer Solstice (when mead drinking and naked dancing are the order of the day). Problematically, the pagan festivals also include Samhain (known to non-pagans as Halloweâen), a day when police leave is often cancelled because of the high incidence of vandalism, violence and antisocial behaviour Cheers, Rick Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform --Dick Gaughan (from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill) --- On Tue, 5/11/10, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote: From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu Subject: RE: A question about the must give religious exemptions to the same extent as secular exemptions theory To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 12:20 PM Then why canât the tolerance for beards in employees whose medical conditions counsel against shaving be understood as âan affirmative policyâ designed to help people who have a medical disability, and also to avoid disparate impact based on race? (Recall that the underlying medical condition is much more common among blacks than among whites.) I should think that, if a policy that discriminates between parents who send their kids to public schools and those who send their kids to private school is struck down, it would be because it discriminates against parents who exercise their Pierce parental rights. In fact, if a school gave paid leave for parents to attend parent-teacher conferences in religious schools but not secular schools, I would think that this would unconstitutionally favor religion. But even setting that aside, couldnât one equally classify the hypothetical policy that allows paid leave for parents to attend parent-teacher conferences in public schools as âan affirmative policy designed to subsidize public schooling, and parenting of employeesâ? Thatâs the problem with this âaffirmative policyâ / âexceptionâ analysis â it seems entirely malleable, driven by the result courts want to reach rather than driving the result. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:01 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: A question about the must give religious exemptions to the same extent as secular exemptions theory I guess I just disagree that the parental leave policy would be viewed as an exception to the work-for-pay policy, rather than as an affirmative policy designed to subsidize childbirth and parenting of employees. If the policy is an affirmative one (as I view it), then it is not underinclusive, because all parents with infants are covered. How about a govt employer who allows paid leave for parents to attend parent-teacher conferences in public schools, but not private schools. If I am denied leave to attend a conference at my daughter's private religious school, do I have a Fr Ex claim under a law that is not generally applicable? Cheers, Rick Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform --Dick Gaughan (from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill) --- On Tue, 5/11/10, Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu wrote: From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu Subject: RE: A question about the must give religious exemptions to the same extent as secular exemptions theory To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 11:30 AM I think the analysis below mixes the purpose of the policy with the purpose of the exception. Hereâs how I see the structure of the policies at issue:
RE: UK Jewish school denies racial discrimination - Yahoo! News
It seems to me that the answer to whether Jewishness is religious or ethnic changes according to the moment's convenience, to the frustration of those who find we are Jewish enough for any REAL anti-semites, but not for the Jews. Wm. Linden First-degree mongrel under the Nuremberg Laws. It seems to me that discrimination based on being Jewish under traditional religious rules is both religious discrimination and ethnicity discrimination. I'm Jewish by birth (i.e., my mother, and my mother's mother, were Jewish, though they weren't religious) but not religious. Under the traditional religious rules, I'm Jewish, with no need for a difficult conversion process. My wife is not Jewish by birth, so while she could become Jewish under the traditional religious rules, this would require a difficult conversion process. So the exclusion of people who are neither born Jewish nor converted to Judaism is discrimination based both on ethnicity and religion. Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 8:19 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: UK Jewish school denies racial discrimination - Yahoo! News Indeed. And in order to uphold the racial discrimination charge, does the court have to rule that the mother is not, in fact, Jewish, because Judaism is defined under British law as an ethnic group rather than a religion? That, it seems to me, is the principal error here. If the father had converted to Christianity instead of the mother to Judaism, would it still be racial discrimination to keep the boy out? Vance On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.commailto:jlsa...@wwisp.com wrote: So who decides the criteria for being Jewish? The court or the Rabbi? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_jewish_school Joel Sogol ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto: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. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.commailto:vrko...@world.std.com ___ 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. ___ 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.
Quotas for tax exemption?
Well, I am bringing up our church's troubles again. The dysfunctional minister has been discharged under the termination clause, and left frothing at the mouth and vowing to be revenged on the whole pack of us. One of the wrinkles in the latest round of Telephone has him claiming that we have to maintain a minimum number of members or lose our tax-exempt status. (Of course, this raises the question of what in vastation HE was doing about it during his tenure.) Is there anything to this, or is he just blowing smoke? Is there some clause in the !...@!$! New York Religious Corporations Act which could come around to bite us? (Again). Will (Organized religion? I'LL give them organized religion!) Linden http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden ___ 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.
Re: Quotas for tax exemption?
What about state or city? I remember a period under the Beame administration when the Finance Administration went on a rampage, looking for excuses to yank everybody's exemptions (including the Swedenborg Foundation and the New York Theosophical Society). That is also when they tried telling the major museums that they were not educational because they don't give classes. At 10:52 PM 10/21/09 -0400, Douglas Laycock wrote: As Don Clark said, there is no minimum size for a 501(c)(3) organization And ministers have no right to sue over discharge; the whole point of the ministerial exception is that churches have absolute discretion over who their minister will be. The courts are in no position to second guess that decision, and they have refused to do so. Quoting Will Linden wlin...@panix.com: Well, I am bringing up our church's troubles again. The dysfunctional minister has been discharged under the termination clause, and left frothing at the mouth and vowing to be revenged on the whole pack of us. One of the wrinkles in the latest round of Telephone has him claiming that we have to maintain a minimum number of members or lose our tax-exempt status. (Of course, this raises the question of what in vastation HE was doing about it during his tenure.) Is there anything to this, or is he just blowing smoke? Is there some clause in the !...@!$! New York Religious Corporations Act which could come around to bite us? (Again). Will (Organized religion? I'LL give them organized religion!) Linden http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlindenhttp://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden ___ 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.
RE: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
I thought that werewolves were men who turn into wolves (or vice versa, according to Larry Niven and the Warlock). So what does it mean to turn INTO a werewolf? At 09:09 PM 8/6/09 -0700, you wrote: Many list members whose email programs block attachments may have wondered, as I did, what Will Linden's point was. If you let the attachment through you will see that it includes his photo, in which, in my view, he simply looks respectably hirsute. You may be able to see it below. With appreciation for Will's attempt to lighten the mood, Mark Scarberry Pepperdine At 04:35 PM 8/6/09 -0700, Will Linden wrote: explains his belief on the grounds that there's a probability, however infinitesimal, that he'll turn into a werewolf, would you be satisfied about his qualities? Turn INTO a werewolf? http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden ___ 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. http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden ___ 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.
RE: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
At 04:35 PM 8/6/09 -0700, you wrote: explains his belief on the grounds that there's a probability, however infinitesimal, that he'll turn into a werewolf, would you be satisfied about his qualities? Turn INTO a werewolf? http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden ___ 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.
Firing ministers
The church is facing a showdown with a dysfunctional minister. Although his contract has a six-month severance clause, I keep having visions of WRONGFUL TERMINATION. (He is the sort to do it.) Are there any special aspects of New York employment law -- or the %$!!%!@ Religious Corporations Act -- we should be aware of? http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden ___ 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.
Pennsylvania clerks
Can someone comment on the questions raised here? http://www.getreligion.org/?p=9398 http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden ___ 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.
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
Does any of this relate to the marriage legislation references to spiritual leaders and deputy spiritual leaders which were challenged in COG vs Dinkins? At 11:29 AM 3/13/09 -0400, you wrote: Will - While not wishing to prolong this, thread, that exactly is my point - Section 200 of the RCL has an exception for decisions in the province of a spiritual officer while there is no such carve out under the NPCL. Arguably, a board of directors ( or a court) of a congregation incorporated under the NPCL may therefor override decisions of the spiritual officer. SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 920 New York, NY 10006 . - Original Message - From: Will Linden wlin...@panix.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:42 PM Subject: Re: NY Religious Corporations Law In a message dated 03/11/09 15:55:44 Central Daylight Time, smkrie...@verizon.net writes: Marc and Marci - If a congregation registers under the Not for Profit Corporation law , does that thereby allow ecclesiastical decisions to be subject to approval by lay governance or review by the courts? Are we elevating form over substance?? Can the lay board of directors direct that the Rabbi of an Orthodox Jewish congregation allow a female cantor to officiate or that he hold Sabbath sevices on Sunday ?? I would submit not - Davis v Scher , 97 N.W.2d 137, 356 Mich. 291 (1959). What happens if on the other hand the Rabbi wamts to introduce these practices over board or membership opposition.? see,. Katz v Singerman 241 La. 103, 127 So.2d 515. (1960). And in any case, the rabbi is a spiritual officer. Will Linden wlin...@panix.com http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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. ___ 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. http://www.retaggr.com/SignatureProfile/wlinden ___ 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.
Re: NY Religious Corporations Law
In a message dated 03/11/09 15:55:44 Central Daylight Time, smkrie...@verizon.net writes: Marc and Marci - If a congregation registers under the Not for Profit Corporation law , does that thereby allow ecclesiastical decisions to be subject to approval by lay governance or review by the courts? Are we elevating form over substance?? Can the lay board of directors direct that the Rabbi of an Orthodox Jewish congregation allow a female cantor to officiate or that he hold Sabbath sevices on Sunday ?? I would submit not - Davis v Scher , 97 N.W.2d 137, 356 Mich. 291 (1959). What happens if on the other hand the Rabbi wamts to introduce these practices over board or membership opposition.? see,. Katz v Singerman 241 La. 103, 127 So.2d 515. (1960). And in any case, the rabbi is a spiritual officer. Will Linden wlin...@panix.com http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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.
Re: Connecticut bill
I have plenty of comments on it, as an officer of one of the other churches, after the court seemed to contrive a new hoop for us to jump through every week; but they probably would not get past the moderator. We're from the government, we're here to protect you. (Ironically, our church in Boston, where there is no such statute, might have benefited from some protection.) On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, SAMUEL M. KRIEGER wrote: Just for the sake of perspective on the proposed Connecticut legislation, I would welcome any comments on Section 200 of the New York Religious Corporations Law (codified in Article 10 applicable to Other Denominations - including Jewish Congregations ) compared to sub- sections (e) and (h) of the proposed Connecticut legislation. -- § 200. Control of trustees by corporate meetings; salaries of ministers. A corporate meeting of an incorporated church, whose trustees are elective as such, may give directions, not inconsistent with law, as to the manner in which any of the temporal affairs of the church shall be administered by the trustees thereof; and such directions shall be followed by the trustees. The trustees of an incorporated church to which this article is applicable, shall have no power to settle or remove or fix the salary of the minister, or without the consent of a corporate meeting, to incur debts beyond what is necessary for the care of the property of the corporation; or to fix or charge the time, nature or order of the public or social worship of such church, except when such trustees are also the spiritual officers of such church. (emphasis supplied) The provison has been in NY law in some form since 1813 and was last amended in 1909 . SAMUEL M. KRIEGER,ESQ. Krieger Prager LLP 39 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Will Linden wlin...@panix.com http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___ 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.
RE: ACLU of NJ Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach
Thank you for this comprehensive and sophisticated rebuttal. At 02:48 PM 12/15/08 -0500, you wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_000_0105_01C95EC4.25DEF720 Content-Language: en-us Bloody communists out to destroy Christianity in America! Ed Brayton From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of aa...@aol.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 6:48 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: ACLU of NJ Fights For Christian Inmate's Right to Preach FYI, the latest addition to my website: http://aclufightsforchristians.comACLU Fights for Christians Allen Asch Release taken from http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/acluprotectsprisonersrelig.htmhttp://www.aclu-nj.org/news/acluprotectsprisonersrelig.htm ACLU Protects Prisoner's Religious Liberty For Immediate Release December 3, 2008 State Prison Officials Prevent Ordained Pentecostal Minister from Preaching TRENTON, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner, an ordained Pentecostal minister, who is asking the state to respect his religious freedom by restoring his right to preach. Howard Thompson Jr. had preached at weekly worship services at the New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) for more than a decade when prison officials last year issued, without any reason, a blanket ban on all preaching by inmates, even when done under the direct supervision of prison staff. Ours is a country where people are free to express their religious viewpoints without having to fear repercussions, said Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. The New Jersey State Prison may not deny its prisoners their most basic constitutional rights. Since he entered NJSP in 1986, Thompson has been an active member of the prison's Christian community, participating in and preaching at Sunday services and other religious events, teaching Bible study classes and founding the choir. His preaching has never caused any security incidents, and the prison's chaplaincy staff has actively supported Thompson and encouraged him to spread his deeply held message of faith. But in June 2007, prison officials banned all prisoners from engaging in preaching of any kind, without any warning or justification -- which they still have not given. I have a religious calling to minister to my fellow inmates, and I've done so honestly, effectively and without incident for years, Thompson said. All I want is to have my religious liberty restored and to be able to continue working with men who want to renew their lives through the study and practice of their faith. According to the lawsuit, which names NJSP Administrator Michelle R. Ricci and New Jersey Department of Corrections Commissioner George W. Hayman as defendants, Thompson first preached a service at NJSP over a decade ago, when he relieved the former Protestant chaplain, who had been unable to lead a scheduled service due to illness. During the next decade, before he was ordained as a Pentecostal minister, Thompson periodically preached at Sunday services, taught Bible study classes and participated in and led the prison choir he founded. During these years, Thompson received his call to ordained ministry and to preaching and leading others in worship, study, and prayer. Prisoners do not forfeit their fundamental right to religious liberty at the prison gate, said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. The prison's absolute ban on inmate preaching clearly violates the law and Mr. Thompson's right to practice his faith. Thompson, ordained in October 2000 during a service at NJSP overseen by the prison's chaplain, sincerely believes it is his religious calling and obligation to preach his Pentecostal faith and is willing to do so under the full supervision of NJSP staff. This lawsuit is the latest in a long line of ACLU cases defending the fundamental right to religious exercise, a complete http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/www.aclu.org/defendingreligion.htmlist of which is available online. In 2007, the ACLU of Rhode Island prevailed in a lawsuit challenging a similar restriction on prisoner preaching, successfully overturning a statewide ban and restoring the plaintiff prisoner's right to preach during weekly Christian services. Read Howard Thompson's http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/37953lgl20081120.html.htmcomplaint and http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/37954lgl20081203.html.htmpreliminary injunction brief online. Learn about the http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/www.aclu.org/religion.htmACLU Program on the Freedom of Religion and Belief and the http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/www.aclu-nj.org.htmACLU-NJ online. -- Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one
Re: Suing God
I read that the Nebraska lawsuit against God was dismissed. Does anyone have the details? News stories say the ground was lack of evidence of service. This issue was raised in Mayo vs Satan and his Staff... but I think it would not be a problem when the respondent is omnipresent, and not just highly maneuverable. (Obligatory popular culture reference.) Perhaps An affidavit from a thunderstorm, or a few words on oath from a heavy shower, would be treated with the seriousness they deserve. ___ 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.
Re: Virginia ban on state troopers mentioning Jesus Christ in public prayers
My first reaction on seeing your subject line, not mentioning chaplains, was 'Jesus Christ! What were they thinking of?' On reading the story, I was amused by the complaint about Republicans blaming the governor for everything, including tooth decay. As opposed to blaming Bush for everything, including the tsunami? At 11:08 AM 9/26/08 -0400, you wrote: Thoughts? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092403471.html?hpid=sec-religionhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092403471.html?hpid=sec-religion -- Prof. Steven Jamar Howard University School of Law Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice (IIPSJ) Inc. ___ 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. ___ 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.
RE: Political divisions along religious lines
At 02:32 PM 7/25/08 -0700, you wrote: I think there is a lot of merit in what both Chris and Eugene are saying. It is hard to evaluate the political divisiveness issue without including some kind of temporal reference. It took a moment to realize that you meant with reference to time. On this list especially, the word is like to confuse people used to thinking in terms of temporal vs. spiritual. ___ 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.
RE: Shielding child whose mother is A from father's B lifestyle/i deology/religion?
At 03:27 PM 1/24/08 -0600, you wrote: I know I will probably be slapped down on the ground that it is not a legal consideration, but isn't judges deciding what will confuse the poor dears, well, patronizing? I had problems with my parents' pseudo-solution to interfaith issues, but I am sure I would have resented a court telling me whether I was confused or not. ___ 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.
Congressional resolutions: threat or menace?
I have learned of yet another threat to our inclusive society Dec 12, 2007 - Bill Action http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj110-15Scheduled for Debate: H.J.Res. 15: Recognizing the contributions of the Christmas tree industry to the United States... This bill has been added to a schedule of legislation to be considered for debate, or has been recommended by a committee to be considered. (You are seeing this event because you are tracking http://www.govtrack.us/congress/subjects.xpd?type=crsterm=ReligionReligion) This was passed on Monday. It went by voice vote, so those THEOCRATS who want to FORCE everyone to buy live-cut trees (it praises them right in the Whereas, so we know what THEY are really after) did not even have to put their names on record. If we raise the alarm, it may wake up those people who waste their priorities worrying about triviality like the Protect America Act, so we can make sure that the Senate buries this outrage as it did last year. Meanwhile, Get Religion notes: Of the nine representatives, all Democrats, who voted against the Christmas resolution, seven supported both the Ramadan and Diwali measures. Those seven were Reps. Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke, both of New York; Diana DeGette of Colorado; Jim McDermott of Washington; Bobby Scott of Virginia; and Pete Stark and Lynn Woolsey, both of California. Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida did not vote on the Diwali resolution, and Rep. Barbara Lee failed to record a vote on the Ramadan measure. Of course, this could not possibly mean anything, since PC does not exist and there is no anti-Christian animus anywhere. ___ 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.
Re: The Impaler's Wall
On the other hand, I have had atheists try to explain away the lack-of-evils in real-world atheist societies by claiming that Communism is really a religion. Does this mean that atheism and secular humanism are? On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Linden writes: There is no religion of Paganism. Pagans are defined by what they are NOT. (And as a poster on Magicknet said, I might as well call myself Not Tom Mix. Forgive me, I've been paying only a cursory attention to this thread, but does the above remark apply to atheism also? One often hears that atheism (like secularity allegedly ) is just another religion. Accordingly, when atheists or secularists insist on a religiously-free public square, they are really advocating that their religions should dominate the public square to the exclusion of Christianity. But if Paganism should not count as a religion, it would seem that neither atheism nor secularity should count as a religion? Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware Ratio Juris , Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_ (http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief _http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) **See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop000304) Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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.
Re: Pagan religion
IF Paganism is a religion, then Monotheism is also A religion (and must always be Capitalized.) Similarly with Henotheism and Animism. Or are we to be told that polytheists who don't follow the twentieth century Garnerian revival paradigm are not real Pagans, in the same way that we are constantly told by bigots that Group X are not real Christians or real Jews? Are atheists who demand that we write Atheist admitting that Atheism is a religion? Or are they claiming that there is some superset of religions, all of which are entitled to be treated on a linguistic par? I see that nobody has still bothered to respond to the constitutional questions I originally raised, preferring to play dominance games. ___ 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.
Re: alarming new law?
-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.___ 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. Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___ 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.
Re: Subway incident
It was the occasion for an inane cover headline about interfaith action in one of the tabloids. I still don't see what it has to do with congressional resolutions (or vice versa). On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote: In the same vein, is the subway incident true? Certainly could be true, but I don't recall seeing any news coverage, and the facts are awfully neat for propaganda purposes, including the Muslim rescuer. True? Real incident modified to make it better? Entirely made up? Does anyone know? Quoting Susan Freiman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This just came to me from an atheists' list. Is it true? Susan ~~` *PRESS RELEASE* *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* *The Council for Secular Humanism Chides Congress for Disrespecting Religions * (December 14, 2007) -- Experts from the Council for Secular Humanism noted with alarm the passage of H. Res. 847 in the House of Representatives. This unnecessary, unwarranted, and bigoted law, under the misleading title Recognizing the Importance of Christm as and the Christian Faith passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support It effectively undermines the sort of religious tolerance necessary in these changing times. Just days ago in the midst of the Jewish Festival of Lights, four Jewish men in New York City were attacked on the subway for replying to a group of ten people who wished them a Merry Christmas with a similar greeting: Happy Hanukkah. For this, these men were first insulted, then beaten. It was a Muslim man who came to their physical defense. The actions of the Congress, by passing the resolution and thus expressing preference to the Christian faith over all the others represented by the diverse population of these United States , encourages this sort of behavior. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, and of the nonestablishment of religion, was devised to create a secular state in which all religions would be equally tolerated and none given preference. The language of the House resolution effectively undermines the design of the Founders, and creates an atmosphere where non-Christians will continue to be targeted, treated like second-class citizens, and even become victims of violence like those four Jewish subway riders in New York . Paul Kurtz , CSH chair, stated, It is deplorable that in this day and age and in light of violence against religious minorities here in the United States that the Congress would stoke those flames with preferential language in support of a single religion. David Koepsell , CSH's executive director, noted, Te First Amendment Guarantee was designed to prevent the sort of religious intolerance that resulted in violence in Europe, and our Congress should respect the intent of the Founders. We call on the Congress to reject this resolution, to stand up for religious freedom, secularism, and pluralism, and to foster a climate in which all believers and nonbelievers alike are treated equally. __._,_.___ Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___ 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.
RE: Anti-gay church verdict
That's easy for YOU to say. At 11:33 AM 11/1/07 -0500, you wrote: Bsog Joel L. Sogol 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, ALabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:22 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Anti-gay church verdict Could we not ban ALL demonstrations at funerals of private people? That would be content neutral. And we can ban the greater, can we not also ban the lesser? (And you know I hate referencing a Scalian argument!) Steve On 11/1/07, Conkle, Daniel O. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this analogous to Frisby, approving a ban on targeted picketing as content-neutral even though the privacy interest being protected in Frisby was, in reality, linked in substantial part to protecting homeowners' from being offended by the content of picketers' speech? In Frisby, the Court cited Kovacs (yes, a regulation of loudspeaker noise indeed is content-neutral) but also Pacifica, which plainly turned on content. See also Madsen and the other, more recent anti-abortion picketing cases, also finding prohibitions content-neutral when, in reality, a good part of the harm being averted by the laws or injunctions in reality depended on content. So, yes, the interest and harm in this case in reality are linked in substantial part to content, albeit content in the particularly offensive context of a funeral, but I can well imagine the reasoning of Frisby and the anti-abortion picketing cases being extended to support a content-neutral conclusion. Dan Conkle *** Daniel O. Conkle Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law Indiana University School of Law Bloomington, Indiana 47405 (812) 855-4331 fax (812) 855-0555 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Prof. Steven Jamar Howard University School of Law ___ 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. ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: [spam] Re: And God files a response? (Was: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that ha...
As I noted before, someone already tried to file suit against Satan and his staff in federal district court in Pennsylvania. This is the one which was dismissed on issue of jurisdiction. And everyone involved seems to take it for granted which concept of God applies. For instance, if it turns out to be Vishnu, He might do to Mr. Lipkin what He, as Narasimha, did to King Hayanakasipu when asked to demonstrate His omnipresence. At 09:17 AM 9/21/07 -0400, you wrote: I'm surprised by God's pleading. It puts a theological issue in front of the court, which can dismiss simply on the basis of what the jury said when acquitting Thomas Maule of seditious libel charges arising from his writing of a theological pamphlet: ...the matter therein contained not cognizable before them, they not being a Jury of divines, which this case ought to be. Or perhaps the judge could try to empanel a jury of divines? Perhaps summoning to jury duty for voir dire folks who consider themselves know-it-alls? I'm also surprised God didn't file an interpleader, bringing Lucifer-Satan into the mix. If the latter being hired a lawyer, we'd have a chance to observe a genuine devil's advocate. And that would make Bobby's amicus brief even more delightful to read. I'm looking forward to it. Jim Maule [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/21/2007 7:40:04 AM Sorry for inadvertently hitting send. The jurisdictional point might be legitimate but surely the following is not: It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point. I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you, according to the response, as read by Friend. Natural disasters have nothing to do with free will. Rarely, if ever, is free will involved in hurricanes, earthquakes, and so forth. Therefore explaining human suffering by appealing to free will fails. Moreover, if millions of people dying in war, concentration camps, and gulags, and so forth is the price we pay for free will, whatever that is anyway, I, for one, might want to return the gift and get my money back. Now that God has entered the controversy surrounding the suit, I think the suit should go forward. Indeed, I intend to submit an amicus brief . . . . Somewhere. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware Ratio Juris , Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_ (http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief _http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that has really been filed)
So, he is protesting frivolous suits... by bringing a frivolous suit? As the Heraldry Gazette noted in a slightly analogous situation, his 'protest' is one that should appeal to protesters everywhere. No more depressing promiscuous marches to Aldermaston -- just jolly bomb-throwing sessions. Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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.
Re: Suing God (honest, it's a lawsuit that has really been filed)
I assume this would be thrown out for the same reasons as the suit filed against Satan and his staff (CORPUS JURIS HUMOROUS). There is no clear ground of jurisdiction, since no allegation of residence in Douglas Country has been made, and there are no directions for service of notice of proceedings. In addition, should this give rise to a class action, there is no assurance that the petitioner would fairly represent the interests of the class. At 09:02 PM 9/17/07 -0500, you wrote: I'm embarrassed to admit that this guy is a long-term state senator here in Nebraska. This does, however, seem to be the biggest possible interaction between religion and law. From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_fe_st/odd_suing_god_2http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_fe_st/odd_suing_god_2 LINCOLN, Neb. - Fed up with the threats, tired of natural disasters, the state's longest-serving state senator is using his legal muscle against who he says is the culprit God. State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued the Almighty in Douglas County District Court last week. Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants. Chambers also says God has caused fearsome floods ... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes. He's seeking a permanent injunction against God. ___ 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. ___ 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.
Prison Book Purge
Will I be taxed with straying from legal considerations if I say that this looks like a typical government response to exhortations to Do Something? ___ 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.
But that's what it MEANS
Mr. Jamar claims the position that if a description conforms to what he considers the accurate denotational meaning of words, we should ignore connotations. I can not buy this. Some people respond to complaints about labelling cults by proclaiming what they say is an accurate and objective meaning of the word, and refuse to acknowledge the complete disconnect between their accurate scientific usage and the real world's use of the word as a bogeyman label. I doubt that Jamar would accept the accuracy criterion in regard to the fat Jewess reference I cited. As for something being an accurate description of their behavior. precisely what I have been saying is that it is NOT applied to people who engage in identical BEHAVIOR for causes which do not fall in the religion box. From recent posts, I am sure that I would be indignantly corrected if I said that Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris are proselytizing for atheism; and similarly if I applied to people who engage in face to face confrontations, even abuse ones, to demand that I change my political and social views, my taste in music, or my choice of leisure activities. What about people who insist that Jew is ipso facto offensive, and insist on Jewish person instead? Perhaps Mr. Levinson would enlighten us on this, and how it seems to have contributed to the brouhouha over Google search rankings and jewwatch.com ___ 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.
Re: Recent Threads
I can only say curiouser and curiotser. I have never heard anyone say such a thing, any more than saying *I* belong to a cult. Nor have I heard any self-styled-mainline Christians use proselytizing as anything other than something reprehensible. The most nearly neutral reference I ever heard was Swedenborgians don't proselytize again, something only They do. (And don't you DARE call me mainline!) At 12:16 PM 9/6/07 -0400, you wrote: Curious. I've had many a christian tell me it is their obligation to proselytize -- using that very word. I don't see anything pejorative in it at all. It is quite accurate. On 9/6/07, Will Linden mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote: Some Christians proselytize; some don't. Same with atheists. Proseleytize is one of those funny words, like cult and superstition, which can only be applied to Somebody Else BY DEFINITION. We share, you preach, They proseleytize. Consequently, I have dropped it from my vocabulary. Will Linden mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ To post, send message to mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduReligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawhttp://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 Jamar Howard University School of Law ___ 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. ___ 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.
Re: Recent Threads
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote: Some Christians proselytize; some don't. Same with atheists. Proseleytize is one of those funny words, like cult and superstition, which can only be applied to Somebody Else BY DEFINITION. We share, you preach, They proseleytize. Consequently, I have dropped it from my vocabulary. Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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.
Re: Recent Threads / Proselytizing
My point is that the actual use of proselytize is loaded with Finagle Factors to exclude identical BEHAVIOR which does not include the speaker's wrath. We never hear that Al Gore came to town to PROSELYTIZE for the Democrats! At 12:31 PM 9/6/07 -0400, you wrote: Christians are commanded to proselytize by the Lord: Mattew 28:16-20 ___ 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.
Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
OK, what are the LEGAL implications of Falwell's death? Or will the list just become all-argue-about-Fawell, all the time? Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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.
Re: The Summum faith wins twice today in the Tenth Circuit
Questions for consideration: Would any of the rulings have been different if it had been a Buddhist organization wanting to create a monument to the Four Noble Truths? At 02:37 PM 4/19/07 +0300, you wrote: So the next step is a monument of an erect phallus next to the image of the two tablets of the ten commandments? Then what about equal rights for the women? PLEASE, no cracks about erecting statues! But the we would have to include all of them argument recalls my previous post, which failed to draw any comments, about the Impaler and his plank to erect the Wall of Religious Beliefs in the Capital. This wall will have everything from the Wiccan Rede to the 10 Commandments. So, aside from the logistical problems of including all of them, is this project considered sufficiently nondiscriminatory? Or would it be assailed as an establishment of religion, as opposed to irreligion? Or does the aim of extolling religious freedom constitute an overriding secular purpose? ___ 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.
It's Big a Me
Not exactly a religion question, but I thought people hear might know some answers. A recent GetReligion post dealt with the Times story about underground polygamy among immigrants. In reaction to the line about criminal penalties for bigamy, a commenter posted:: So, what actually constitutes the offense, since we've legalized adultery? * Publicly declaring multiple marriage? * Trying to get multiple concurrent marriage licenses? Can anyone illuminate this? How often is bigamy prosecuted? Under what circumstances? In which states? (And yes, I know that failure to ENFORCE laws against adultery which legislators dare not be seen voting to repeal does not mean that it has been legalized in probably most states. (Connecticut being an exception, and being reported for just that reason.) My impression is that bigamy charges are usually linked to someone concealing his marital status from the other party. Will, one of whose uncles was a bigamist... but ONLY in New York State, dear,, and could never get a coherent explanation of how this was compatible with the Full Faith and Credit clause. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/07 1:15 PM ___ 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.
Re: FW: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse customers with alcohol
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Paul Finkelman wrote: Sounds like Plessy v. Ferguson to me. Separate but equal cabs. No way. How far are we willing to take this: what if they say they won't carry people who wear a cross a necklace with the Buddha (a pagan symbol for a devout Muslim); what about a Chistian cab driver who won't pick up someone with muslim or sikh garb? It seems to me that this is a civil rights violation on the part of a common carrier. The Taxi driver gets a license to carry peopel from place to place and may not discriminate on the basis of religion or race or anything else. I believe the difference is that there is a specific precept against its grower and its presser and its CARRIER. The other examples do not involve any transgression by the *driver*. Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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.
Re: Lawsuits against SYATP.
At 03:33 PM 9/26/06 -0400, you wrote: I realize that demonizing the ACLU is a powerful fundraising tool for groups like the ADF and Liberty Counsel ...and vice versa. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/06 ___ 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.
Re: 19th Century Mormon Polygamy
If I remember my references correctly, some of these marriages were for eternity only (rather than for time and eternity), solely to ensure the woman's status in the next world. t 07:46 PM 9/2/06 -0400, you wrote: I believe the gender imbalance was in early converst before Utah. Mormon leaders like Brigham Young married single women who were often quite old; far from kicking out the 40 year old to make room for the 20 year old, he invited the 60+ year old widow into his home -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 9/1/06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 9/1/06 ___ 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.
Re: Recommendation...
Tertullian's On Monogamy and related treatises argues against not merely polygamy, but remarriage. At 08:58 AM 9/1/06 -0500, you wrote: Pardon the Friday interruption, but can anyone recommend a scholarly work examining Judeo-Christian arguments against polygamy? Thanks in advance, Chris -- Search from any Web page with powerful protection. Get the FREE Windows Live Toolbar Today! Try it now! ___ 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 8/31/06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 8/31/06 ___ 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.
Re: Recommendation...
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Ed Brayton wrote: You're missing an important distinction here: the Bible DOES condemn murder, adultery and intoxication. It does not condemn polygamy, anywhere. Thus, it's a far more reasonable conclusion to draw that condemnation of polygamy was not a part of that moral code that is allegedly from God. Given that the OT contains an astonishing array of things that it condemns, even in the most minute and irrelevant of things (length of hair, type of fabric one may wear, etc), it is surely reasonable to conclude from the fact that polygamy is not condemned, and that God blesses polygamists greatly and makes them leaders throughout the Bible, that polygamy is not frowned upon from the perspective of the Bible. Not throughout. St. Paul's injunction is that a bishop must be monogamous. Are we to conclude that this is advocated ONLY for bishops? And wasn't Solomon rebuked for multiplying wives? Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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.
Re: Early dismissal for Muslims on Friday
At 04:55 PM 5/12/06 -0500, you wrote: I am most familiar with Islamic practice in the Middle East (Iraq, Jordan and Egypt). While Friday is usually taken as part of the weekend in those counties, Friday is not considered the Sabbath -- so there is no religious obligation to observe the whole day. I would suspect that the Islamic students in this country are seeking an accomodation that, they feel, respects their faith in the same way Sabbatarians are accomodated. Moreover, the principle religious service is noon prayers -- so So, are you suggesting this is really the same sort of thing as minority religions seeking to add their representation to the list of alternate-side-parking-exemption days here in New York, whether there is any particular need for parking on the days or not? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/339 - Release Date: 5/14/06 ___ 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.
Re: Early dismissal for Muslims on Friday
At 11:28 AM 5/15/06 -0500, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, are you suggesting this is really the same sort of thing as minority religions seeking to add their representation to the list of alternate-side-parking-exemption days here in New York, whether there is any particular need for parking on the days or not? I think this trivializes the desire to be recognized and respected by one's country through some type of acknowledgement of religious difference. Then what do you call some recent calls by NY atheists to add Darwins's birthday to the list? Are they trivializing the issue or not? r wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/339 - Release Date: 5/14/06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/339 - Release Date: 5/14/06 ___ 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.
Re: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic Charities Resolution
At 11:27 AM 4/6/06 -0400, you wrote: I don't think San Francisco is making any claims about religious truth or falsity. It is denouncing a practice -- the refusal of an adoption agency to treat gay parents equally -- that is, in the City's view, harmful and odious (and perhaps immoral). I think that's perfectly fine -- there are many things that organized religions do that are very worthy of condemnation, including from state actors. It is also making claims about what is unacceptable, not to them, but to the entire population of San Francisco. I am irked enough when some private ideologue claims to be speaking for New York (or some denominational bureaucrat claims to be speaking for Swedenborgians), but officials are elected to run municipal administration, not to be my (alleged) mouthpiece on current issues, and this is none of their business. ___ 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.
RE: San Francicso Board of Supervisors Catholic CharitiesResolution
At 08:32 AM 4/7/06 -0500, you wrote: At any rate, I think the actual proclamation at issue here is unwise and poorly worded. One of its primary purposes seems to be to express the Board s and possibly the broader community s animus towards a particular religious viewpoint. And in that it seems like a pretty straightforward EC violation. Unwise and poorly worded statements from politicians? Naaa ___ 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.
Re: Residential picketing ordinance and refusal to give a get
TAKE THAT WOMAN OUT AND *GAFIATE* HER! On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Jean Dudley wrote: On Mar 27, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Steven Jamar wrote: Hmm. Did you mean a git? Or an idiot? Or offspring in general? :) Context is all . . . *blink* Surely you are kidding. Even this schiksa knows even a cow is entitled to a get if she gets a bum steer. Jean Dudley http://jeansvoice.blogspot.com Future Law Student ___ 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. Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y___ 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.
Re: Hindu groups sue state panel over textbooks
GetReligion (getreligion.org) has had repeated coverage of this and the role of *hindutva* nationalism in the matter, and of how representative the groups are of Hinduism. At 11:59 AM 3/23/06 -0500, you wrote: Interesting lawsuit developing in California. Full story at: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14233850p-15055603c.htmlhttp://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14233850p-15055603c.html Here are the four most relevant paragraphs: The Hindu American Foundation's complaint, filed in Sacramento Superior Court last week, claims the textbooks, as approved, violate state law by portraying Hinduism in a way that is 'demeaning, stereotypical and more critical than the presentation of any other religious tradition.' The group is asking the court to throw out the board's March 8 decision and force it to rely instead on the recommendation of one of the board's advisory committees, which in December approved a different set of changes that two other Hindu organizations had requested. The complaint of the other group, California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials, was filed in U.S. District Court on March 14. In its complaint, the group argues that the state board violated the First and 14th Amendments by penalizing Hindu groups for their political affiliations and adopting textbook changes that promote Judaism and Christianity over Hinduism, Allen Asch ___ 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.6/287 - Release Date: 3/21/06 ___ 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.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
At 04:03 PM 1/26/06 -0800, you wrote: I think you're painting with too broad a brush. I've NEVER heard any of my compatriots EVER call someone a hateful bigot simply because they held a belief that homosexuality is wrong. What I've experienced is that name is used when such folks refuse to believe that there is a problem, turn a blind eye toward hateful behavior. That is what you say. It does not square with the rights protestors brandishing placards proclaiming that CHRISTIANITY IS THE ENEMY! (I saw it myself no doubt you will tell me that Doesn't Count) or otherwise implying that merely believing it is wrong is phobic. Look harder. ___ 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.
Non-legal question
Is there some way for non-Outlook-users to filter out the useless WINMAIL.DAT attachments? (I use Eudora). Or a way for posters to avoid sending them? ___ 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.
Re: Racist Man Sentenced To Attend Black Church
What about the ban on cruel or unusual punishment? At 07:50 PM 1/17/06 -0500, you wrote: All prosy dull society sinners Who chatter and bleat and bore Are sent to hear sermons From mystical Germans Who preach from ten till four. The Constitution, though, does seem to be an insuperable barrier to the exercise of judicial imagination. Pity. On 1/17/06, Paul Finkelman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let the punishment fit the crime? Volokh, Eugene wrote: Constitutional? (I assume the sentence was for a racially motivated threat or perhaps racially motivated fighting words, and not literally for [in part] using racial slurs.) Eugene http://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.htmlhttp://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.html A judge has sentenced a suburban Cincinnati man to attend services for six weeks at a black church for threatening to punch a black cab driver and using racial slurs. Judge William Mallory Jr. . . . let Haines choose between attending the black church for six Sundays or spending 30 days in jail. Haines said he'd try the church, although he doesn't usually worship on Sunday. Mallory offered Haines the choice Friday after Haines was convicted of disorderly conduct. He was arrested in November after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife. Mallory said he was concerned about maintaining the separation between church and state, so the judge asked Haines whether the option would offend him. Haines said he would like to try it. The cab driver said he wished Haines had been jailed instead because, in his words, Church don't change everybody. ___ To post, send message to mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduReligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawhttp://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 University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduReligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawhttp://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. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 1/14/06 ___ 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.
The Impaler's Wall
Net.gossip is now giving its attention to Sharkey the Impaler announcing that he is running for governor of Minnesota as the Vampyre's Witches and Pagans Party. (Any pagans present go yell at him, not me... http://johnathonforgovernor.us), with a platform which calls for the public impalement of convicted terrorists. I found on reading his agenda that he proposes to erect the Wall of Religious Beliefs in the Capital. This wall will have everything from the Wiccan Rede to the 10 Commandments. So, is this project considered sufficiently nondiscriminatory? Or would it be assailed as an establishment of religion, as opposed to irreligion? Or does the aim of extolling religious freedom constitute an overriding secular purpose? ___ 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.
Re: 8th Circuit Rules Against Law School Clinic
Interesting, but unlikely to get far, considering the cross/Pomona precedent in Los Angeles. Will someone sue Birmingham to take down the statue of Vulcan? (The Vulcan Park pages state that the site is operated by a foundation, but are silent as to who owns it.) At 08:45 AM 1/6/06 -0500, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C612C7.75249E08; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-1BAE4F54 An interesting 8th Circuit decision came down yesterday ruling against the University of North Dakota's Law School Clinic after it refused to represent a client-- also a vocal critic of the clinic-- who wanted to challenge as an establishment clause violation the display of a statue of the Greek goddess of justice on the top of the county court house. I have blogged on the case (with link to opinion), Wishnatsky v. Rovner, here: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/01/law-school-clinic-loses-in-8th-circuit.htmlhttp://religionclause.blogspot.com/2006/01/law-school-clinic-loses-in-8th-circuit.html * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: [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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release Date: 1/4/06 ___ 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.
RE: Home Schooling and Real Covenants
I'm not a witch! I'm not a witch! And if you don't cut it out, I'll turn you into a newt! At 12:23 PM 1/5/06 -0500, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C6121C.C6C854AD; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-529E6383 Remember your second grade teacher you thought was a witch..? -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 12:22 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Home Schooling and Real Covenants Works for me. ;-) On 1/4/06, Will Linden mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apropos of nothing in particular, this keeps showing up in my mail summary as Home Schooling and Real Coven(s). ___ To post, send message to mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduReligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawhttp://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. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.13/221 - Release Date: 1/4/06 ___ 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.
Re: Home Schooling and Real Covenants
Apropos of nothing in particular, this keeps showing up in my mail summary as Home Schooling and Real Coven(s). ___ 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.
Re: Regarding A note about the Atheist Legal Center
While others argue for a nine million figure, rather than consider that three million gentiles killed don't count. At 12:38 PM 1/2/06 -0600, you wrote: OK Larry, just one relatively simple question: Are you asserting there was not holocaust, that there were no death camps and that millions of Jews were not sysmtematically killed by the German government from 1939 to 1945 in death camps, concentration camps, firing squads, attacks on ghettoes, mobile gas chambers, etc.? Or are you merely claiming that the six million figure is a lie because many serious scholars would argue for 5.7 or even 5.6 million? That would be the first step to trying to understand your position. Paul Finkelman Larry Darby wrote: Surely Volokh is smart enough to know that the proper name is ?Atheist Law Center?, or is he? Did he not even visit the company web site? http://www.atheistlaw.org/news-subscribe.cfm I now present my views as to Eugene Volokh?s sophomoric attempt at [yellow] journalism. Volokh is not an honest man. When Volokh contacted me about his ?correspondent?, who by the way is an atheist known to me to be highly unstable or irrational (i.e. crazy), Volokh did not try and hide the fact that he had a conclusion he wanted to present on his weblog and that Volokh would not be engaging in ethical journalism or even some pretense of an ivory tower academic pursuit. Volokh was out to denigrate me, which is par for the course for those who, as Albert Einstein wrote, thrive on the oppression they create (see full quote below). I counseled Volokh several times that if he wanted to discuss the issues, I would do so. He ignored or rejected my proposals and went on to write very poorly, considering he is a ?professor? (or is he ?doctor??), his piece that put Volokh squarely in the camp with the Traditional Enemies of Free Speech. Volokh seems to think that calling people names or presenting other tired canards will stop truth-seekers. That is not working anymore in the United States, though the advent of hate crimes by the Federal and State Legislatures has us well on the way of falling in line with the benighted lands of Canada, a handful of countries in Europe and one state in Australia, for examples. More and more people are wondering what has happened to our Republic and more and more people are awakening from a dumbed-down trance or stupor of 4 or 5 decades, when it has been politically correct to ignore anything negative when, for example, US foreign policy in regard to the Jewish state should be discussed, but I digress. (We just blindly continue to pay U$Trillions in tribute, as if the US Constitution really is based on submission to Jewish law via the Noahide laws.) Preserving the myths regarding ?the holocaust?, which is a modern religion for Zionists or Israel-Firsters, is what motivated Volokh to write his piece about me, without interviewing me or addressing genuine issues. Criticism of Trotskyism or Communism, which is the ideology of the Nonconservatives (Jewish and Jewish-Christian Zionists), is what Volokh feared. He later revealed that he had lied to me when he claimed he did not know what ?MOT? means, but I digress again, which is easy to do when pretentious ?scholars? reveal insidious motives that, if successful, will result in the destruction of our Republic or the principles of individual liberties forged during the Enlightenment and manifested in the US Constitution. A reason why the Traditional Enemies of Free Speech are quick to holler ?anti-semite? or ?holocaust denier? or ?anti-Jew? (terms of art for Zionists) is that they fear that when a truth-seeker begins looking into taboos of Judaism, World Jewry or its organizations, and their global endeavors, that their cover will be blown, so to speak. In my investigations of modern mythology, such as the Six Millions Lie, which by the way was first trotted out by Zionists during or immediately after World War One, there is a nasty aspect that is too often ignored ? that of Jewish Supremacism. I?ve noticed megalomania or superiority complexes even with so-called secular Jews. Even though so-called secular Jews reject the existence of YHWH (the Jewish God of War, the surviving god of all the gods Jews once worshiped) who made them the Master Race, according to the Tanakh, so-called secular Jews are still Jewish Supremacists. I think Gilad Atzmon sums up how it is: I argue that once you strip Jewishness of its spiritual content you are left with mere racism. Gilad Atzmon, Israeli-born, raised as a ?secular Jew?, who later renounced his Jewishness altogether. Dec. 21, 2005 in San Francisco Independent Media. A good reference site on Jewish Supremacism (the real racism) is http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/ Explore it as there are many links within links. Many Americans are brain-warped to believe that criticizing Judaism or Jewry or US foreign policy regarding Israel is
RE: Secularization of Christmas
See Lewis' Xmas and Christmas: A Lost Chapter from Herodotus. At 06:05 PM 12/23/05 -0600, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C6081D.B25508C2; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-59FF561 A different Wall Street Journal op ed made a similar point a few years ago. He proposed that we call the religious holiday Christmas, and the secular holiday Excessmas. This is one answer to the question what is the meaning of the December holidays, but the putative two holidays are not separated in the public mind, and this answer competes with other answers. I continue to believe that the appropriate celebration of Christmas is an essentially contested concept. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 5:57 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Secularization of Christmas I think Daniel Henninger had the right idea in his December 16 column in the Wall Street Journal (that bastion of religious sentiment). Christmas is really two separate holidays and should be so understood and publicly acknowledged. The celebration of the birth of Christ is a religious holiday observed by a minority of Americans, and observed in passing by others. The other holiday, the one with Santa Claus and evergreen trees and gift-giving (and gift-buying) and sleigh rides and chestnuts roasting on an open fire, that's an entirely secular/cultural holiday that almost anybody in America celebrates or can celebrate. It should have its own name: let's call it Yule. Its principal justification is the celebration of generosity and good fellowship, which I think most of us can get behind. The fact that Yule is at some historical remove related to or derivative of Christmas is about as relevant as that December 25 was the date of a pagan holiday or that humans and Zinjanthropus are biologically related. One of the reasons for the draconian Puritan laws in New England forbidding the celebration of Christmas was because, centuries ago, the Christmas holiday in England and elsewhere had become taken over by those celebrating Yule, getting drunk and rowdy. That Yule is fully secular, as much so as (more than, I think) Thanksgiving, is surely demonstrated by its being celebrated in Japan and China, where there are no Christians to speak of. Thus understood, public displays for Yule should be permitted on cultural grounds, but displays relating to Christmas (e.g., creches) should be subject at the very least to the rule of multifariousness: OK to acknowledge in context with other religious celebrations as part of the salad-bowl culture, but not by themselves. Today I passed by the holiday display in the City of Quincy, Massachusetts, which had a snowman, a Santa Claus, a nutcracker (!), and a menorah (!!). If there was anything denoting Kwanzaa, I didn't see it. I think the public, and its representatives, and its judges, are deeply confused, and a sorting out of holidays might help. Lots of Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and probably Muslim Americans celebrate Yule, though they don't celebrate Christmas. For that matter, lots of nominal Christians only celebrate Yule. Nobody is obligated to celebrate Yule, Thanksgiving, Labor Day, Mother's Day or any other purely cultural holiday, but I see no promotion of religion in celebrating any of these. The war over Christmas is a war over a false definition. On 12/23/0 (!!)5, Paul Horwitz mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given the wealth of examples Belz cites, all of which occurred even before the end of the first week of December, might he not have begun asking himself whether his operating thesis -- that the secularists are attempting to secularize the Christmas season -- is not itself due for reexamination, or at least for the application of a little more nuance and care? If USA Today, the Hollywood studios, and NPR -- of all places -- are all, in one way or another, adding religious content to the public square, or at least recognizing the centrality of Christmas in many Americans' lives, then rather than asking whether the secularists have failed to win their point, might he instead inquire into whether the attack on Christmas he apparently believes is failing even exists in the first place, beyond some isolated factoids? -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][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
Re: Secularization of Christmas
When Chesterton heard some aesthete mouthing off about Christianism, I told him that his trouble was tomfoolerism, otherwise called tomfoolerity, and I felt an impulsion to pummel his physiognomics out of all semblance of humanitude. At 06:47 PM 12/23/05 -0500, you wrote: In a message dated 12/23/2005 3:29:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christianist Christianist? Is that as in, of or inclined toward Christanism? Who are the Christanists? What makes them Christianist? Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.5/212 - Release Date: 12/23/05 ___ 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.
Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
This sounds chillingly like the Stalinist insistence that people deserved to be purged because they were objectively counter-revolutionary. And serves handily for labeling whoever the speaker has decided to dislike as objectively fascist or objectively racist, or perhaps even objectively Christian. Mr. Brayton: I cannot let this go by without comment. I simply know too many members of the ACLU and the ABA who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or another faith to buy the argument that these are de facto atheist organizations. Comment: Saying someone is a âde facto, operatingâ atheist means, of course, that it doesnât matter what this individual says he is. What matters is how this person, in fact, operates. ___ 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.
Re: A note about the Atheist Legal Center, or at least its founder
I was interested when I saw the like to a must-see video at honestmedia.com in his recent post besides trading in Holocaust revisionism [deliberately phrased to annoy the PCCops], it includes stuff depicting fees for kashruth certification as a secret tax. It looks like the link was not just coincidence (and leads me to speculate why he parted ways with the Libertarians). At 11:11 AM 12/12/05 -0800, Volokh, Eugene wrote: [F]or the record, Dr. David Duke does offer insight into the neoconservative or Trotskyist government in Washington, DC. Some of what It would surprise every Trotskyist *I* know! humming I Want to Marry a Trotskyite ___ 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.
Re: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked
Intended as parody, perhaps, but I find the considerations raised quite real (and they have been discussed on the list.) At 11:42 AM 12/8/05 -0600, you wrote: The problem is that methodological naturalism prevents us from detecting a hate crime, since hate is an immaterial property had by agents that can only be inferred from behavior, speech, etc. Other minds cannot be observed, just inferred by analogy, like the traditional argument from design. Because it is always possible that what appears to be hate may very well be the result of non-agent causes that merely manifest themselves in a way that appear to be agent caused, attributing hate to a cluster of cells we call a human being is just hate-monger of the gaps. It is an argument from ignorance because we have not yet discovered the non-agent causes that made the hate come into being. [The above is a genre known as parody. Please read it that way] Frank On 12/8/05 11:01 AM, Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps it reflects what a fuzzy concept hate crime is? At 10:09 AM 12/7/05 -0800, you wrote: Thanks very much, but this update seems quite mysterious -- does anyone know *why* the attack is now not labeled a hate crime? Is it because the police didn't believe that the attack was motivated by his decision to teach the anti-ID class? Or because such a motivation wouldn't make the crime be, in their view, motivated entirely or in part by the . . . religion . . . of the victim . . . [or] the defendant's belief or perception, entirely or in part, of the . . . religion . . . of the victim? Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luke Meier Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:47 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked For those who care, an update: http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/07/ne_mirecki/ Seems like there might be more to this story. Luke Meier Visiting Assistant Professor of Law University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 12:49 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked Shameful and shocking. This is the story as it appeared in the KU campus newspaper. http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/06/mirecki/ I completely agree with the following quote from the article: Sen. Kay O'Connor (R-Olathe), who has strongly criticized Mirecki for his e-mails, said whoever beat him should be prosecuted to the fullest. If they try to cover themselves under the mantle of being Christian or being Christian people, sorry Charlie, she said. They're just thugs. ___ 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/05 ___ 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/05 ___ 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.
RE: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked
Perhaps it reflects what a fuzzy concept hate crime is? At 10:09 AM 12/7/05 -0800, you wrote: Thanks very much, but this update seems quite mysterious -- does anyone know *why* the attack is now not labeled a hate crime? Is it because the police didn't believe that the attack was motivated by his decision to teach the anti-ID class? Or because such a motivation wouldn't make the crime be, in their view, motivated entirely or in part by the . . . religion . . . of the victim . . . [or] the defendant's belief or perception, entirely or in part, of the . . . religion . . . of the victim? Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Luke Meier Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 9:47 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked For those who care, an update: http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/07/ne_mirecki/ Seems like there might be more to this story. Luke Meier Visiting Assistant Professor of Law University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 12:49 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked Shameful and shocking. This is the story as it appeared in the KU campus newspaper. http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/06/mirecki/ I completely agree with the following quote from the article: Sen. Kay O'Connor (R-Olathe), who has strongly criticized Mirecki for his e-mails, said whoever beat him should be prosecuted to the fullest. If they try to cover themselves under the mantle of being Christian or being Christian people, sorry Charlie, she said. They're just thugs. ___ 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/05 ___ 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.
RE: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked
As Arthur Dent would say, this must be some strange sense of open-minded I was not previously familiar with. At 06:43 PM 12/7/05 -0600, you wrote: Mirecki's critics then discovered e-mails from a listserv operated by the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics in which Mirecki mocked various aspects of Catholicism and fundamentalist Christianity. ___ 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.
Re: Kansas Prof Physically Attacked
It may seem conveniently timed But as they say, original sin is the only Christian doctrine wich can be verified by reading the papers. I hope the police investigate this assault with great vigor. If true, the thugs should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But the alleged circumstances just seem a little fishy to me (the timing pf the alleged attack cuts in more ways than one, no?). I hope the authorities get to the bottom of this. Rick Duncan Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this is true, I hope it encourages him to sympathize with those of us in what he calls the right wing who have encountered assault and battery as a leftist argument, rather than acting like so many liberals I have encountered and/or read whose response is to insist that it didn't happen and besides I deserved it. At 01:30 PM 12/6/05 -0500, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C5FA93.329CB639; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-78F44608 Kansas Prof. Paul Mirecki, whose scheduled, then cancelled, course opposing Creationism, was discussed on this list a few days ago, reported this morning that he was physically attacked by two men who mentioned his proposed course during the attack. I have a posting on the incident on my blog at http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2005/12/controversial-kansas-prof-physically.html * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: [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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.12/192 - Release Date: 12/5/05 ___ 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 Merry Christmas--It's ok to say it. --Alliance Defense Fund Slogan When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner - Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less___ 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. ___ 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.
RE: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name
At 05:42 PM 11/28/05 -0600, you wrote: For what it is worth, I often say Mazel Tov to Christian friends precisely because the term, to my knowledge, has no religious meaning at all. It is a way of saying congratulations. (I think that it literally means Happy day. I understand that it actually means good star (as shlimazl is someone born under a bad star). So what if someone, for religious or scentistic reasons, objects to the implied endorsement of astrology? (If there are people who object to God bless you, I am not about to assume there are NOT militant anti-astrologists out there.) I am unaware of any prayer in the Jewish liturgy that includes the words.) Similarly with L'Chaim (To life), which has no necessary religious import. But I agree with Alan that I would not wish my Christian friends a Happy New Year right before Rosh Hashanah because I am aware that it's not their holiday and, indeed, they might regard it as a bit bizarre, like asking them if they're having a The Christian new year was on Sunday (and I like to freak the mundanes by shouting Happy New Year!) ___ 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.
Re: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name
At 07:48 PM 11/28/05 -0500, you wrote: Eugene regards the demand for linguistic abstinence in particular cases as a pretty substantial imposition, I regard it as simply a civil response to a personal request. In my view Eugene has too low a threshold for what counts as a pretty substantial imposition. I suppose he would say my threshold for impositions is too high. I think the imposition he refers to is the burden of having to constantly worry about whether whatever one is about to say or do has been banned by the faceless arbiters of Political Correctness (although, of course, Everybody Knows that there is no such thing as PC); or whether one intends to do it in a city or state which they have proscribed. (No Chicago! Boycott unratified [sic] states!) ___ 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.
OT Weird spellings, was RE: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name
At 08:44 PM 11/28/05 -0800, you wrote: No, Mazel Tov is not religious, but it is a Jewish phrase. And unlike Xtianity, Judaism is not I keep trying to start a counter-meme on this. but when someone uses this code-spelling in a post, there is no way for the readers to tell whether the poster is adopting the it's only an abbreviation, so how can you be so dumb as to resent it? rationale, or the It should be obvious that when I write about the awfulness of 'Xtians' I am referring to a particular nefarious subset of Christians, so how can you be so dumb as to resent it? one. This is not communicating, it is PREVENTING communication. I even read a diatribe in EARTH RELIGION NEWS which included the assertion that we need a distinction between Xtians and Xians but did not bother to explain which was supposed to be what, so he must have considered it obvious to all thinking beings. Perhaps some Democrat, some time, somewhere referred to the Democrat party. That is not why Republicans insist on using it. ___ 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.
Re: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name
I am annoyed by the assumption that I observe something called Holiday. Tomorrow Mayor Bloomberg lights the Holiday Tree. I suppose that they will sing We Wish You a Merry Holiday, I'm Dreaming of a White Holiday, and It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Holiday. Please! Please don't wish me a Happy Holiday! Does this count as bristling? (Parenthetically, something which really baffles me is hearing The Vicar of Bray included in the Holiday Muzak.) At 03:28 PM 11/28/05 -0500, you wrote: I am also extremely annoyed by businesses tha direct employees to wish us only a generic Happy Holidays while simultaneously attempting to profit by selling Chrstmas presents to millions of Christmas shoppers. Yes, it is annoying, isn't it -- and inexplicable, from a business standpoint -- when businesses stop presuming that all their customers are Christians. ___ 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.
RE: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Another thing we bristle at is complaints that evergreens, men in red suits and candy canes (As Dave Barry says, I am not making this up) and televised wise men singing the praises of the Lord/ Calvert Whiskey are Christian symbols. Some say that referring to pagan origins for any of these is committing the genetic fallacy. But by the same reason, those who claim that their use in the Winter Department Store Sale is ipso facto Christian are also guilty of the genetic fallacy. Actually, the Christian-baiters (although I have repeatedly been instructed that there is no such thing) not only assume the right to tell us what our symbols are (Would (rabbinic) Jews submit to goyim defining Jewish symbols?), but want it both ways. If they like evergreens and red-suited deliverymen, they are pagan symbols which have been stolen by this reprehensible Christians. If they do NOT like them, they are Christian symbols which those reprehensible Christians are imposing on them. ___ 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.
Re: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name
At 04:50 PM 11/28/05 -0500, you wrote: Should the sender try to respect the receiver or should the receiver respect the sender? This is a faulty dilemma, isn't it. Respect should go both ways. I try to send holiday greeting cards that reflect my values while not impugning another's religious beliefs. So UNICEF cards and other secular cards with Happy Holidays or Season's Greetings or simply Peace on Earth are my choice. The last time I saw the official UNICEF/UN cards, the Russian version actually was a Happy New Year (s noviim godom) message. So they are excluding people who do not follow the Roman (not Christian) calendar. Bad professor! No latkes for you! But I think that the public space is very different from the private space. I do not see many crescent moons or stars of David being donated to the public square for the edification of us all. Here we see a fair number of menorahs (From Chabad, I think?) ___ 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.
RE: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name
At 04:25 PM 11/28/05 -0500, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C5F462.415EB085; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4AE42950 I do not mind being wished a Merry Christmas by comparative strangers, even though I am Jewish and do not celebrate Christmas. I understand their good intentions and appreciate them. Acting as if the season did not exist in my presence would be ridiculous. People who know me well rarely give me that greeting, and usually wish me a happy holiday season. I am more annoyed at Hanukkah postage stamps and greeting cards that attempt to equate Hanukkah with Christmas, and even moreso at the syncretistic cards that carry pictures of Santa and dreidels and say happy whatever. I think is is great that the Christian majority celebrates Christmas. I enjoy looking at Christmas decorations in friends' homes. But it should be understood that Christmas is a Christian holiday, not a universal one. Whose faith is the right one? Anybody's guess! What matters most is camera phones For $20 less. Happy Chrismahanukwanzakah to you! (--Flash presentation on the Web) And a happy Festivus to you. I am reminded of a story a Jewish friend told me. When asked by a co-worker, What in the world do you do on Christmas?, he replied, The same thing you do on Yom Kippur. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-! 2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 11/28/2005 4:03 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: The Holiday That Dare Not Speak Its Name I would prefer not to be wished a Merry Christmas and when I lived in Lincoln, Nebraska I would often politely tell people I don't celebrate Christmas (but that, of course, has changed since I married a Christian). However, I don't think anyone has yet tried to indicate why someone might bristle at the greeting. What is the feeling or the experience behind it? Speaking for myself alone, and speaking hyperbolically, my preference not to be wished a Merry Christmas can perhaps be captured by a feeling at the moment (a brief moment to be sure) of being at least partially invisible to the Christmas greeter. I suppose it's similar to the way women might feel in a class, say, where they are a minority when the instructor greets the class with Gentlemen. I don't think encouraging or discouraging bristling gets to the heart of the matter. I doubt that there is a perfectly neutral greeting or that if there is one that it would be desirable to urge everyone to adopt it. I do think, however, that this is just an example--a very minor one to be sure but of a kind with more egregious, damaging ones--of people not reflecting on the quite general issue of how their conduct affects others, especially how it affects minorities. If Islam should one day become a supermajority religion in the United States, I do not think Christians would welcome being greeted by Muslims with whatever the appropriate holiday greeting is in Islam. As a Jew I wistfully wish that Christians would not wish me a Merry Christian nor Muslims in my hypothetical wish me an enjoyable Muslim holiday. But I would not now express this to either the Christian or the Muslim who did so. I remember a discussion with Michael Perry once who insisted that Merry Christmas has become a secular greeting, if I remember his claim correctly. My short reply was: Not to me. Bobby (Without my bad ole unreliable but familiar computer) Robert 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/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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date: 11/27/05 ___ 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.
Re: Once Upon A Time When America Had Christmas
At 09:30 AM 11/28/05 -0800, you wrote: Rabbi Aryeh Spero has this interesting http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10444column online at Human Events. I don't know Rabbi Spero, but I very much enjoyed his little cautionary tale set in December 2030. Well, I find R. Spero's complaint about his co-religionists who seem to define themselves as not Christian eminently defensible, having had to literally live with the problem. On the other hand, he slipped up with assuming that Eid (without saying which one) is one of the winter holidays. As Islam has a pure lunar calendar, any coincidence of their holy days with anyone else's in a particular year is just that, coincidence. ___ 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.
RE: Madison on Abridge and Prohibit
Yes. As Monty Python has it, I came here for an argument. This is just contradiction. And we can now only wait for Godwin's Law to kick in. At 11:24 AM 11/23/05 -0600, you wrote: The post below, although it claims victory, is utterly nonresponsive to Madison's express rejection of any distinction between respecting, abridging, and prohibiting. ___ 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.
Re: Discrimination
Your repeated invocation of Webster's seems to claim that there is a One True Dictionary, which is to be accepted as legal authority. Webster's Third International does not contain the word totally in either definition of prohibit. But perhaps that is not the Webster's that Madison purportedly expected people to use? At 03:34 PM 11/21/05 -0600, you wrote: Professor Laycock, Without use of the word totally I understand the meaning of prohibiting as meaning totally. I do not find a different definition of what prohibiting means in Webster's. ___ 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.
Re: Discrimination
No, because you have not explained how exercise and free exercise are different. If anything short of total prohibition (per your invocation of the Word of Webster) is constitutional, you seem to be saying that the free in free exercise has meaning only as a sort of most favored sect clause. At 09:32 AM 11/19/05 -0600, you wrote: Will, Sorry for the delay in response. I have been in Branson the last two days. Religion, as such, in not the business of government. As James Madison wrote in his Detached Memoranda (noted in Everson v. Board of Education): Strongly guarded ... is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States (William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555). Congress shall make no law which establishes religion or prohibits the free exercise thereof. Government cannot prohibit religion exercises or actions merely because they are related to religion. However, government can make laws which are neutral and of general applicability. Religion actions are thereby subject to the same laws of the land as nonreligion actions. Religion action is no more accommodated or exempted from general law than is nonreligion action. The First Amendment does not say the exercise of religion cannot be abridged. The exercise of religion can be abridged in terms of the general laws of the land. Words mean things, and the men who drafted and approved the religion commandments were neither discriminatory nor inconsistent in their deliberate distinction between prohibiting and abridging. Legally, animals are killed for sport, food, and religion. In Lukumi Justice Kennedy ruled properly. In contrast to your USSR example, in the USA, religion cannot be established anywhere by law or government, but religion openly flourishes because government cannot prohibit (totally) the exercise thereof. All actions, regardless of religion, can be abridged by laws which are neutral and of general applicability. Religion is not above the rule of law, except in matters of opinion. It is speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition which shall not be abridged. Have I responded properly and adequately to your question? Gene Garman Will Linden wrote: Does your contention that religious exercise can not be totally prohibited, but can be abridged mean that Lukumi was wrongly decided, since the city banned all religions from engaging in aniumal sacrifice? Or do you leave room for the religious gerrymander argument? Don't we run into the argument (along the lines of Forsyte vs. Bossiney) that abridged free exercise is an Irish bull? And how does this keep us from landing Back In the USSR, where you had all the religious freedom in the world within the limits of the law as long as you confined it to your own room? After all, that was not a total prohibition! At 06:59 AM 11/17/05 -0600, you wrote: To the contrary, Gene. The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the exercise of religion cannot be totally prohibited, which is a part of what America is about. Everyone is free to exercise religion, within the limits of the law. In America it is the law which is supreme, not religion. ___ To post, send message to mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduReligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawhttp://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 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.3/173 - Release Date: 11/16/05 ___ 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.
RE: Discrimination Between Religious and Political Speech
Strange, I got just the opposite impression from Gene's exegesis that religion can not be prohibited totally, but can be regulated and restricted to the point of evisceration, as long as this is done to all religions. At 10:31 PM 11/16/05 -0600, you wrote: If, as you state, the exercise of 'religion' . . .cannot be prohibited (which means totally--see Webster's) in any way, shape or form, as you suggest, then if my religion requires human sacrifice and I kill someone as part of a religious rite, I'm exempt from the laws against murder? Gene Summerlin Ogborn, Summerlin Ogborn, P.C. 210 Windsor Place 330 South Tenth Street Lincoln, NE 68508 (402) 434-8040 (402) 434-8044 (facsimile) (402) 730-5344 (mobile) [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.osolaw.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gene Garman Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:03 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Discrimination Between Religious and Political Speech How many angels can stand on the head of a pin? As a strict constructionist of the Constitution and in rejection of some confused Court opinions, there is no conflict between the religion commandments of the Constitution. The men on the committee which produced the final wording of the First Amendment understood proper English, wrote what they meant, and meant what they wrote. Understanding the words as written, in respect to the First Amendment, religion cannot be established by law and the exercise of religion (which is the grammatically correct understanding of thereof) cannot be prohibited (which means totally--see Webster's). It is speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition which cannot be abridged (which means reduced--see Webster's). Speech--like press, assembly, and petition--cannot be abridged, however everyone is obviously liable for damage caused by speech, press, assembly, or petition. There are no exceptions to the religion commandments of the Constitution, whether the Establishment Commandment or the Exercise Commandment. The Free Exercise Commandment is not a license for anarchy. Not one word of the Constitution authorizes anarchy. Religion actions are not above the law. The laws of the land are to be obeyed, regardless of religion. Discrimination does not exist as long as the law is applied equally to all, regardless of religion. Discrimination exists when religion actions or speeches are exempted from laws of the land which apply equally to everyone, regardless of religion. Gene Garman, M.Div. ___ 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.
Re: Discrimination Between Religious and Political Speech
Does your contention that religious exercise can not be totally prohibited, but can be abridged mean that Lukumi was wrongly decided, since the city banned all religions from engaging in aniumal sacrifice? Or do you leave room for the religious gerrymander argument? Don't we run into the argument (along the lines of Forsyte vs. Bossiney) that abridged free exercise is an Irish bull? And how does this keep us from landing Back In the USSR, where you had all the religious freedom in the world within the limits of the law as long as you confined it to your own room? After all, that was not a total prohibition! At 06:59 AM 11/17/05 -0600, you wrote: To the contrary, Gene. The Free Exercise Clause guarantees the exercise of religion cannot be totally prohibited, which is a part of what America is about. Everyone is free to exercise religion, within the limits of the law. In America it is the law which is supreme, not religion. ___ 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.
RE: FYI: An Interesting See You at the Pole Case
At 12:47 PM 11/7/05 -0800, you wrote: 1. These people are strangers. If someone I knew began to proselytize their faith in conversations with me, I would be offended. I work with people of many different faiths on religious liberty matters and etc, etc. Not legal points, but I can not take this any longer. Throughout my life I have been subjected to attempts by classmates, co-workers and other associates to change my political views, ranging from Who ya voting for and extended browbeating for giving the wrong answer, to insisting at length that my views are both evil and stupid, that I am a Fascist and a racist, and on and on... But they are never berated for proselytizing. Why is it so reasonable to non-Christians to react violently to being told that their religion is wrong and to demand a gag rule, but unreasonable to react with anger to being told such things and demand that they be silenced? Or to being told that Christianity is anti-semitic, never mind that I am Jewish enough for any REAL anti-semites (as opposed to the ones my father kept seeing under the bed)? Why isn't this proseleytizing? No doubt this will elicit another string of that's DIFFERENT rationalizations. ___ 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.
RE: Social Notes from All Over
The decree was that the Queen's non-royal descendents will be Mountbatten-Windsor. But none of them have been born yet, the extant issue all being Royal Highness. At 04:26 PM 11/4/05 -0600, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C5E18E.D025B93B; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-346617 I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary Cheney Ms. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a marriage-like relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his base, including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of compassionate conservatism? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, is a public event and thus it does not count as an invasion of privacy to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy ___ 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 11/3/05 ___ 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.
OT: Social Notes from All Over
And what does a dinner invitation have to do with anything at all? I am reminded of the time Miss Manners was asked What do I say to a lesbian couple?. Her answer was: How do you do? How do you do? At 03:02 PM 11/4/05 -0800, you wrote: What was Sandy's substantive point? Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten. The name of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her children take her husband's name. Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford Levinson Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume). Among the distinguished guests were Ms. Mary Cheney Ms. Heather Poe (Guest) According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion. So the question is this: Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there is nothing wrong after all in what most of us would call a marriage-like relationship between two men or two women (at least if one of them is the Vice President's daughter?)? And if that is the case, as I suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay marriage issue--what does his base, including some of the people on this list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of compassionate conservatism? I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such luminaries, i! s a public event and thus it does not count as an invasion of privacy to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey. sandy ___ 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http%3a//farechase.yahoo.com/Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. ___ 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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 11/3/05 ___ 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.
Re: Sex Ed and Jewish schools in Belgium
Or, he who pays the piper, calls the tune. At 08:16 AM 9/29/05 -0400, you wrote: Moral: who lives by the subsidy, dies by the subsidy. Vance On 9/29/05, Joel Sogol mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: image0011.gif http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=15807intcategoryid=2http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=15807intcategoryid=2 image0023.gif After refusing to teach sex-ed, Belgian Jewish school loses funding http://www.jta.org/page_bio.asp#Gidon+van+EmdenBy Gidon van Emden September 6, 2005 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]image0031.gif image0023.gif image0023.gif image0041.gif image0023.gif image0051.gif image0023.gif image0061.gif BRUSSELS, Sept. 6 (JTA) A Jewish school in Belgium has lost government recognition because it refuses to teach the required sexual education curriculum. Five other Jewish schools are negotiating their status with the Department of Education over the issue. Losing status as a recognized school entails a loss of subsidies, as well as the schools' ability to award state-recognized diplomas. RELATED ARTICLES image0071.gif http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=15749intcategoryid=2 http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=15749intcategoryid=2Belgium considers kosher slaughter ban The standards for sexual education are incompatible with Jewish beliefs, said Mordechai Stauber, principal of the Satmar Bais Rachel primary school in Antwerp, which lost its recognition. The Satmar school took the decision to court, but lost. The school has applied for renewed recognition, and is negotiating with the Department of Education on the matter. As in much of Western Europe, Jewish schools in Belgium are eligible for state funding for the costs of teaching the secular curriculum. This curriculum is set by the state, and schools that receive state recognition are mandated to teach it in order to award recognized degrees. Universities in Belgium, many of them also state-funded, will only accept students with government-sanctioned diplomas. The issue arose since the curricula have become increasingly detailed and controls have become more stringent. Education policy in Belgium is carried out on the regional level, and the Flemish law on education, which applies in Antwerp, states that children who finish primary school must be aware of their bodily functions. Antwerp's Jewish community of around 15,000 people includes a strong fervently Orthodox community, and few liberal Jews. As much as 90 percent of the Jewish community is estimated to attend Jewish day schools. Not all Jewish schools in Antwerp are affected by the matter, as some follow the prescribed curriculum. Meanwhile, some community leaders claim that the state curriculum is acceptable according to Jewish law. Sexual education is most certainly not against Jewish beliefs. The Torah openly discusses all kinds of sexual behavior, and so do Jewish codes of law, said Henri Rosenberg, a local lawyer who teaches Torah law at Radboud University in the Netherlands. Officials with the Consistoire, the central group for Belgian Jewry, said it would not take a stand on the issue because it concerns a secular topic, not a Jewish one. image0081.gif Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. ___ To post, send message to mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduReligionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawhttp://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. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][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. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.8/114 - Release Date: 9/28/05 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database:
Re: Roberts hearing webcast
And I STILL say that's a dangling participle. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release Date: 9/10/05 ___ 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.
Re: UC Case: Facts from Complaint
At 02:11 PM 9/6/05 -0500, you wrote: My point Rick,is that the course Influence of Christianity in US History would need to be a serious course, that looked at issues with some skepticism and not merely propaganda; if my coursre were set out as I did, without other things, it would hardly work as a serious course. In the US we hung witches; none were burned; let's not defame our great history Actually, there were plenty of witch burnings in America -- by the Indians, who did not need white men to tell them to condemn anti-social magic-working. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/05 ___ 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.
Re: Every Idea is an Incitement
Just so. Again adverting to my experience under the magnifying glass with the Governing Policy of a certain organization by framing the issue as one of religion, they succeed in giving the impression that it is just fine to force people to be part of exercises that offend their conviction,s as long as it is done without mentioning G_d. At 08:37 AM 9/2/05 -0700, you wrote: Good points, Brad. The 1A is concerned about state endorsements of religion, but it is also concerned when persons are made part of a captive audience for speech that offends them. If a commencement audience is a captive audience, it is captive not just for religious speech as in Weisman, but also for secular speech. Rick Duncan -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/05 ___ 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.
Re: !RE: FW: Feature films on church and state
At 10:52 AM 8/12/05 -0700, you wrote: By the way, if any of you are interested in buying The Believers episode of Bablon 5 by itself, it is available cheap in VHS on Half.com. See http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=2042064pr=3286150here. By the way, I get no royalties for sales of Bab 5 episodes. If you haven't seen the Babylon 5 series, you are missing one of the great sci fi tv series of all time. I know Star Trek has its loyal fans, but IMHO Babylon 5 is better by far. But I have to admit, I almost retch every time them talk about Earth Gov (i.e. one world government) on the show. Some of us like to call Homeland Security the Night Watch. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 8/12/05 ___ 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.
Re: religiously-motivated political strife
Should one mention the missionaries whose arrest by Georgia set off the Cherokee removal cases? At 06:02 PM 8/3/05 -0400, you wrote: Don't overlook the anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party riots, including the Philadelphia Bible Riot of 1843: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/photo_gallery/photo2.html Two sources approach the same history from different perspectives, but do not much disagree on what happened: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08677a.htm http://www.atheists.org/publicschools/street.html Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of LawFort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University(954) 262-6151 (voice) Shepard Broad Law Center(954) 262-3835 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chair, ACLU of Florida Legal Panel ___ 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. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/05 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: 8/4/05 ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
At 09:29 AM 7/21/05 -0500, you wrote: I like the title of this thread Assaults on the England language, which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we I stole it from Russell Baker, who anticipated that it would bring happiness tears to the eyes of the Republic party. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/54 - Release Date: 7/21/05 ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
At 10:37 AM 7/21/05 -0500, you wrote: The quibble over language in this string: If any of you want to see use of Xn in a sentence written by the Father of the Constitution you may click on the following link: I doubt that complainers would be appeased by the news that sometime, somewhere, some Democrat referred to the Democrat party. And when I read unbelievers who act as though they are scoring some tremendous point by writing Xtian, the uninitiated have no way to tell whether THIS poster is espousing the it's only an abbreviation, so you are really dumb to be offended rationale, or the all thinking beings should know without being told that my remarks about 'Xtians' refer to my private code for a specific nefarious subset of Christians, so you are really dumb to be offended one. I even found one writing that we need a distinction between Xtians and Xians... but not bothering to explain which was which what. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/54 - Release Date: 7/21/05 ___ 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.
Assaults on the England language
At 09:19 AM 7/20/05 -0500, you wrote: I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really having any discernable meaning and without being very clever Like Xtians? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 7/20/05 ___ 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.
RE: Rick Perry and separation of church and state
At 02:18 AM 6/6/05 -0700, you wrote: Perhaps the outrage should come the other way -- where is the outcry from members of the congregation at opening the doors of the church to the politicians? What effect has such a rally on the 501(c)(3) status of the church (Texas has an interesting law which allows churches to function without incorporating, which could cloud the tax issues). This was much more in the I was sure enraged in 1967, when the Queens Federation of Churches sent its director around to tell us from the Sunday pulpit to vote No on Question 1. (A draft of a new state constitution --- have you ever SEEN the New York constitution with its patchwork of amendments?) But nobody else could see anything wrong. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.5 - Release Date: 6/7/05 ___ 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.
Re: Rick Perry and separation of church and state
Sanford Levinson wrote: he signed represents Christianity in action. But isn't there something truly offensive about turning a bill-signing into a religious rally? As the Times piece pointed out, some of us may be offended by turning a religious event into a political rally. ___ 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.
RE: Nullifying RLUIPA
At 12:11 PM 6/3/05 -0400, you wrote: Question. In the mainstream branches of Christianity, is there any holiday where persons have a religious obligation to get drunk. I'm fairly, though not 100% confident that many Jews believe there is a religious obligation to drink to excess on Purim. There is a genre of spoof Purim Haggadahs, which include the injunction to drink until you can not tell BARUCH MORDECHAI from ARUR HAMAN. This is more of an inside joke. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.0 - Release Date: 6/3/05 ___ 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.
RE: Religion-only accommodation question
This sent me to CORPUS JURIS HUMOROUS IN BRIEF for the judgement in Bass vs Aetna, where the plaintiff was knocked down by someone running in the spirit. While the insurer claimed on behalf of Shepard's Fold Church of God a defense of assumption of risk and contributory negligence, the Louisiana SC makes no mention of a First Amendment claim. And the court seems to reject a claim that it would be reasonable to expect running in the aisles. But perhaps there is more in the full edition? No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/05 ___ 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.