Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
Alan, I don't like the Court's non-public forum doctrine--I would be a lot quicker than is the Court to find a designated public forum--but so long as the policy avoids viewpoint discrimination and is reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum, it can be used to exclude speakers and content from a non -public forum. See Forbes case (permissible to exclude minor political candidates from a nonpublic forum/candidate debate). Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN 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) From: Alan Brownstein aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu To: Rick Duncan nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com; Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 4:32 PM Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monumentat Oklahoma Legislature Wow! Allowing local groups with longstanding ties to the community preferential access to non-public forums (or denying access or providing less favorable access to outside groups or local groups without longstanding ties to the community.) What a great way to mask viewpoint discrimination and not only to promote and preserve religious hierarchy but also to entrench the current political power structure of the community at the same time. I hope the communities that adopt this policy are up-front about it in the literature describing their areas. First they should list all of the public property to which this policy of preferential access should apply -- which, of course, will be most of the public property in the town other than streets and parks: interior sidewalks, the lobby of government office buildings, bus terminals, train stations and airports, government workplace charity drives etc. Next they should list all of the religious, ethnic, and political groups they consider to be either outsiders or lacking longstanding ties to the community. If they are going to treat new residents or visitors as second class citizens they ought to at least let them know ahead of time. Alan From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Rick Duncan [nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 8:53 AM To: Douglas Laycock; 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Doug is absolutely correct here. The Govt wins if this is government speech and the Ten C display does not violate the EC, either because a majority decides the endorsement test does not apply or, if it does apply, the display does not amount to an endorsement of religion (perhaps a majority may conclude that the purpose and effect do not endorse religion, but merely recognize the historical significance of the Ten Commandments in the local community). If this is some kind of forum for private speech--even if it is a non-public forum--Pl wins if this amounts to viewpoint discrimination. But if it is a non-public forum, and the restriction amounts to content or speaker but not viewpoint discrimination, the Govt will win if the content or speaker exclusion is reasonable. So a policy that allows local groups with longstanding ties to the community preferential access, if used to exclude an outside group with minimal ties to the community, may be permissible in a non-public forum. I think this is correct. No? Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN 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) From: Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu To: 'Rick Duncan' nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com; 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:05 AM Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature That may well be with respect to passive displays; probably not with respect to live speakers. But I inadvertently misled by talking about endorsement. The question under discussion was whether allowing one group and only one group to erect a display on government property makes it government speech. The answer to that is still yes. The nativity scene put up by the preferred group becomes government speech, even
Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
I have a question for Alan. Suppose a county courthouse allows a private group, say the NAACP, preferential access to put up a display celebrating the life of MLK. Must the county now allow the Satanist group access to this non-public forum to put up a display celebrating the life of Satan? Access to the local chapter of the KKK to put up a display disparaging MLK? Access to a Christian group to put up a Nativity Display? Or must the county deny the NAACP's access in order to avoid opening up the courthouse to other private groups, including groups who show up merely for the purpose of forcing the county to silence the NAACP? Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN 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) From: Alan Brownstein aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu To: Rick Duncan nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com; Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 4:32 PM Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monumentat Oklahoma Legislature Wow! Allowing local groups with longstanding ties to the community preferential access to non-public forums (or denying access or providing less favorable access to outside groups or local groups without longstanding ties to the community.) What a great way to mask viewpoint discrimination and not only to promote and preserve religious hierarchy but also to entrench the current political power structure of the community at the same time. I hope the communities that adopt this policy are up-front about it in the literature describing their areas. First they should list all of the public property to which this policy of preferential access should apply -- which, of course, will be most of the public property in the town other than streets and parks: interior sidewalks, the lobby of government office buildings, bus terminals, train stations and airports, government workplace charity drives etc. Next they should list all of the religious, ethnic, and political groups they consider to be either outsiders or lacking longstanding ties to the community. If they are going to treat new residents or visitors as second class citizens they ought to at least let them know ahead of time. Alan From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Rick Duncan [nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 8:53 AM To: Douglas Laycock; 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Doug is absolutely correct here. The Govt wins if this is government speech and the Ten C display does not violate the EC, either because a majority decides the endorsement test does not apply or, if it does apply, the display does not amount to an endorsement of religion (perhaps a majority may conclude that the purpose and effect do not endorse religion, but merely recognize the historical significance of the Ten Commandments in the local community). If this is some kind of forum for private speech--even if it is a non-public forum--Pl wins if this amounts to viewpoint discrimination. But if it is a non-public forum, and the restriction amounts to content or speaker but not viewpoint discrimination, the Govt will win if the content or speaker exclusion is reasonable. So a policy that allows local groups with longstanding ties to the community preferential access, if used to exclude an outside group with minimal ties to the community, may be permissible in a non-public forum. I think this is correct. No? Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN 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) From: Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu To: 'Rick Duncan' nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com; 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:05 AM Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature That may well be with respect to passive displays; probably not with respect to live speakers. But I inadvertently misled by talking about endorsement. The question under discussion was whether allowing one group and only one
Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
Of course. If it is Govt speech, no public forum issue. If the display touches on religion, it may or may not violate the EC. The Court has come down on both sides of the EC issue in passive display cases, and the current personnel on the Court may be on the side of permitting most passive religious displays. We all agree on that. But there may be cases where the Govt permits a group preferential access without wishing (or intending) to adopt its display as the Govt's own speech. It is just an influential local group--the local VFW, the local NAACP, the local Planned Parenthood in some communities--that requests access, and the Govt says go ahead, put up your display. In these cases, it makes a big difference whether the forum is a designated public forum or a nonpublic forum. If it is a nonpublic forum, those wishing to force access will lose unless they can demonstrate viewpoint discrimination. And it is not difficult to draft a nonpublic forum policy that would allow the Govt to exclude outside groups, such as the Satanists, from forcing their way into the forum for local groups. Indeed, every public law school in the country has a forum for student groups that excludes non-student groups. Insiders are in and outsiders are out. Indeed, in passive religious display cases, the Govt's strongest position is to argue that it is a Govt display and it is permissible under Van Orden. It is usually those trying to remove the display who argue public forum hoping to force the Govt to either remove the Ten C display or permit a Satanic display. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN 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) From: Volokh, Eugene vol...@law.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; Alan Brownstein aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 8:36 PM Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monumentat Oklahoma Legislature I’m not Alan, but I would think that a county can certainly allow the MLK display and label it government speech, without being required to accept other displays from Satanists, Klansmen, or anyone else. The complicating factor is that, when a county allows religious monuments, it may be inclined not to label them government speech (since so labeling them might trigger Establishment Clause objections). That’s why we’ve got a potentially live free speech issue here, I think. Eugene From:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 6:23 PM To: Alan Brownstein; Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature I have a question for Alan. Suppose a county courthouse allows a private group, say the NAACP, preferential access to put up a display celebrating the life of MLK. Must the county now allow the Satanist group access to this non-public forum to put up a display celebrating the life of Satan? Access to the local chapter of the KKK to put up a display disparaging MLK? Access to a Christian group to put up a Nativity Display? Or must the county deny the NAACP's access in order to avoid opening up the courthouse to other private groups, including groups who show up merely for the purpose of forcing the county to silence the NAACP? Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN 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) From:Alan Brownstein aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu To: Rick Duncan nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com; Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 4:32 PM Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Wow! Allowing local groups with longstanding ties to the community preferential access to non-public forums (or denying access or providing less favorable access to outside groups or local groups without longstanding ties to the community.) What a great way to mask viewpoint discrimination and not only to promote and preserve religious hierarchy but also to entrench the current political power structure
RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
That may well be with respect to passive displays; probably not with respect to live speakers. But I inadvertently misled by talking about endorsement. The question under discussion was whether allowing one group and only one group to erect a display on government property makes it government speech. The answer to that is still yes. The nativity scene put up by the preferred group becomes government speech, even if the endorsement test is overruled and that speech becomes permissible. If the nativity scene were private speech, there would be obvious viewpoint discrimination and a Speech Clause violation. It becomes permissible only if it is government speech -- and then only if government is permitted to endorse the truth claims of a particular faith. These are two different issues. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:03 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature I think Doug is correct that preferential access probably triggers Allegheny and the endorsement test. But Justice O'Connor is long gone, and Allegheny is ripe for re-consideration. I suspect the endorsement test would not survive re-consideration, given the current lineup on the Court. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2361504 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) _ ___ 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
Doug is absolutely correct here. The Govt wins if this is government speech and the Ten C display does not violate the EC, either because a majority decides the endorsement test does not apply or, if it does apply, the display does not amount to an endorsement of religion (perhaps a majority may conclude that the purpose and effect do not endorse religion, but merely recognize the historical significance of the Ten Commandments in the local community). If this is some kind of forum for private speech--even if it is a non-public forum--Pl wins if this amounts to viewpoint discrimination. But if it is a non-public forum, and the restriction amounts to content or speaker but not viewpoint discrimination, the Govt will win if the content or speaker exclusion is reasonable. So a policy that allows local groups with longstanding ties to the community preferential access, if used to exclude an outside group with minimal ties to the community, may be permissible in a non-public forum. I think this is correct. No? Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN 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) From: Douglas Laycock dlayc...@virginia.edu To: 'Rick Duncan' nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com; 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:05 AM Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandmentsmonument at Oklahoma Legislature That may well be with respect to passive displays; probably not with respect to live speakers. But I inadvertently misled by talking about endorsement. The question under discussion was whether allowing one group and only one group to erect a display on government property makes it government speech. The answer to that is still yes. The nativity scene put up by the preferred group becomes government speech, even if the endorsement test is overruled and that speech becomes permissible. If the nativity scene were private speech, there would be obvious viewpoint discrimination and a Speech Clause violation. It becomes permissible only if it is government speech -- and then only if government is permitted to endorse the truth claims of a particular faith. These are two different issues. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:03 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature I think Doug is correct that preferential access probably triggers Allegheny and the endorsement test. But Justice O'Connor is long gone, and Allegheny is ripe for re-consideration. I suspect the endorsement test would not survive re-consideration, given the current lineup on the Court. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN 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) ___ 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
I think Doug is correct that preferential access probably triggers Allegheny and the endorsement test. But Justice O'Connor is long gone, and Allegheny is ripe for re-consideration. I suspect the endorsement test would not survive re-consideration, given the current lineup on the Court. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 My recent article, Just Another Brick in the Wall: The Establishment Clause as a Heckler's Veto, is available at SSRN 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) ___ 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building? - Original Message - From: Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Sunnum handles this, no? Sent from Steve's iPhone On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:43 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote: Inevitable. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 http://sol-reform.com -Original Message- From: Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com To: Religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:24 pm Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.com 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 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. blockquote ___ 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. /blockquote ___ 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
apologies for the previously unsigned post. Leonard A. Zanger Camp Quest of Michigan, Inc. - Original Message - From: Len campquest...@comcast.net To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building? - Original Message - From: Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Sunnum handles this, no? Sent from Steve's iPhone On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:43 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote: Inevitable. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 http://sol-reform.com -Original Message- From: Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com To: Religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:24 pm Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.com 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 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. blockquote ___ 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. /blockquote ___ 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
What is the difference? Both open to the public. Both are (probably) unlimited public forums though subject to somewhat differing regulations as to use, one would suppose. But what Summum decided was that it wasn’t the public forum nature of the park that controlled but rather the compelled government speech. The question of whether the Satanists get to place a permanent religious monument in a public forum was decided in Summum — the state can refuse to do so. Whether a state can permit such monuments to be placed raises a different question — there could be establishment endorsement problems. And whether the 10 commandments can be there depends on fine distinctions unsupportable by logic, consistency, or theory, but all of those often give way to practical solutions, even in Con Law. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ Example is always more efficacious than precept. Samuel Johnson, 1759 On Dec 9, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Len campquest...@comcast.net wrote: apologies for the previously unsigned post. Leonard A. Zanger Camp Quest of Michigan, Inc. From: Len campquest...@comcast.net To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building? From: Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Sunnum handles this, no? Sent from Steve's iPhone On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:43 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote: Inevitable. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 http://sol-reform.com -Original Message- From: Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com To: Religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:24 pm Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.com 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 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. ___ 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
RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
The result and logic of Summum make sense to me, but I’ve been a little bothered by how far it’s gone. For example... earlier this year, the 6th Circuit decided Freedom from Religion Foundation v. City of Warren. The City of Warren had a Christmas display in the atrium of their city building—a crèche, a tree, reindeer and snowmen, a sign saying “Winter Welcome”—put up by the Warren Rotary Club. FFRF wanted to put up their own display, a billboard saying that religion was nothing but myth and superstition. FFRF, predictably, was denied the right to put up that display, and sued. (For the sake of disclosure, I should add that I wrote an amicus brief on FFRF’s side for the ACLU of Michigan.) Anyway, throughout the litigation, the City said that the crèche was not their crèche, but that of the Warren Rotary Club. It was not governmental speech, they said, but private speech. The City defended FFRF’s exclusion by saying that their reasons were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. This was their clear and consistent position, at trial and on appeal. Their brief to the 6th Circuit, for example, said things like, “This crèche is accompanied by a sign that makes clear that it is 'sponsored by the Warren Rotary Club' and not intended to advocate Warren’s viewpoint” (appellee’s brief at 16). So everyone was thoroughly surprised when they got the appellate opinion, http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0049p-06.pdf, which completely re-characterized the case. This was government speech, the 6th Circuit said, despite the City’s own protestations. And evaluated under Lynch/Allegheny County, it was constitutional. I’m not even disagreeing with this result. We should have briefed the government speech / Establishment Clause issues better, rather than focusing on the private speech / Free Speech and Free Exercise issues. But we treated this as private speech, because the City had conceptualized it that way the whole time—including the original letter that had denied FFRF’s request. Litigators beware. Best, Chris ___ Christopher C. Lund Associate Professor of Law Wayne State University Law School 471 West Palmer St. Detroit, MI 48202 l...@wayne.edu (313) 577-4046 (phone) (313) 577-9016 (fax) Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/ Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 _ From: Len campquest...@comcast.net To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building? _ From: Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Sunnum handles this, no? Sent from Steve's iPhone ___ 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
Haven’t read the opinion, but what Chris describes seems clearly right. Preferential access is a form of endorsement, whether permanent or temporary. These are the facts of Allegheny (one private actor gets to put up a Christmas display in a government building), with the reindeer and snowmen to save it under Lynch. Of course the three-plastic-reindeer rule is dubious. But treating this as government speech doesn’t seem dubious at all. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:43 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature The result and logic of Summum make sense to me, but I’ve been a little bothered by how far it’s gone. For example... earlier this year, the 6th Circuit decided Freedom from Religion Foundation v. City of Warren. The City of Warren had a Christmas display in the atrium of their city building—a crèche, a tree, reindeer and snowmen, a sign saying “Winter Welcome”—put up by the Warren Rotary Club. FFRF wanted to put up their own display, a billboard saying that religion was nothing but myth and superstition. FFRF, predictably, was denied the right to put up that display, and sued. (For the sake of disclosure, I should add that I wrote an amicus brief on FFRF’s side for the ACLU of Michigan.) Anyway, throughout the litigation, the City said that the crèche was not their crèche, but that of the Warren Rotary Club. It was not governmental speech, they said, but private speech. The City defended FFRF’s exclusion by saying that their reasons were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. This was their clear and consistent position, at trial and on appeal. Their brief to the 6th Circuit, for example, said things like, “This crèche is accompanied by a sign that makes clear that it is 'sponsored by the Warren Rotary Club' and not intended to advocate Warren’s viewpoint” (appellee’s brief at 16). So everyone was thoroughly surprised when they got the appellate opinion, http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0049p-06.pdf, which completely re-characterized the case. This was government speech, the 6th Circuit said, despite the City’s own protestations. And evaluated under Lynch/Allegheny County, it was constitutional. I’m not even disagreeing with this result. We should have briefed the government speech / Establishment Clause issues better, rather than focusing on the private speech / Free Speech and Free Exercise issues. But we treated this as private speech, because the City had conceptualized it that way the whole time—including the original letter that had denied FFRF’s request. Litigators beware. Best, Chris ___ Christopher C. Lund Associate Professor of Law Wayne State University Law School 471 West Palmer St. Detroit, MI 48202 l...@wayne.edu mailto:l...@wayne.edu (313) 577-4046 (phone) (313) 577-9016 (fax) Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/ Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 _ From: Len campquest...@comcast.net mailto:campquest...@comcast.net To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building? _ From: Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Sunnum handles this, no? Sent from Steve's iPhone ___ 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
The point of this exercise may not be a legal one, but a PR one. And if that is the case, Summum is more or less irrelevant. Of course, it is also possible that the Satanists may have retained an incompetent lawyer. Marc -Original Message- From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 10:36 PM To: Law Religion Law List Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature A county can surely do that - but the constitutional issue is clear. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Director of International Programs, Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. Matthew 6:19-21 On Dec 8, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Marc Stern ste...@ajc.org wrote: True enough: but American Humanist Society recently persuaded a Florida county to put up theirmonument as a counter to a Ten Commandments display. Marc - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 09:47 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at OklahomaLegislature Doesn't sound like anyone involved has read Summum -- not the Satanists, not the legislator, and not the ACLU. On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 20:22:14 -0600 Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com wrote: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-st atue-be side-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.com Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 ___ 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. ___ 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
And then there's Florida: A nearly 6-foot-tall Festivushttp://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/arts-culture/holidays/festivus-EVFES1076.topic pole made from empty beer cans will be put up in the Florida Capitol this week as a not-so-subtle protest to the recent placement of a Christmas nativity scene. The mock monument will be erected most likely on Wednesday in the same first-floor rotunda as a nativity scene depicting the birth of Jesus Christhttp://www.orlandosentinel.com/topic/religion-belief/christianity/jesus-christ-PEHST0165.topic put up last week by the Florida Prayer Network. I still chuckle, I literally can't believe there will be a pile of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans in the state rotunda, said Chaz Stevens, a Deerfield Beach resident who applied to the state Department of Management Services to put the Festivus pole on display. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-festivus-florida-capitol-20131209,0,1969699.story Best wishes, Eduardo From: Christopher Lund l...@wayne.edumailto:l...@wayne.edu Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Monday, December 9, 2013 9:42 AM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature The result and logic of Summum make sense to me, but I’ve been a little bothered by how far it’s gone. For example... earlier this year, the 6th Circuit decided Freedom from Religion Foundation v. City of Warren. The City of Warren had a Christmas display in the atrium of their city building—a crèche, a tree, reindeer and snowmen, a sign saying “Winter Welcome”—put up by the Warren Rotary Club. FFRF wanted to put up their own display, a billboard saying that religion was nothing but myth and superstition. FFRF, predictably, was denied the right to put up that display, and sued. (For the sake of disclosure, I should add that I wrote an amicus brief on FFRF’s side for the ACLU of Michigan.) Anyway, throughout the litigation, the City said that the crèche was not their crèche, but that of the Warren Rotary Club. It was not governmental speech, they said, but private speech. The City defended FFRF’s exclusion by saying that their reasons were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. This was their clear and consistent position, at trial and on appeal. Their brief to the 6th Circuit, for example, said things like, “This crèche is accompanied by a sign that makes clear that it is 'sponsored by the Warren Rotary Club' and not intended to advocate Warren’s viewpoint” (appellee’s brief at 16). So everyone was thoroughly surprised when they got the appellate opinion, http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0049p-06.pdf, which completely re-characterized the case. This was government speech, the 6th Circuit said, despite the City’s own protestations. And evaluated under Lynch/Allegheny County, it was constitutional. I’m not even disagreeing with this result. We should have briefed the government speech / Establishment Clause issues better, rather than focusing on the private speech / Free Speech and Free Exercise issues. But we treated this as private speech, because the City had conceptualized it that way the whole time—including the original letter that had denied FFRF’s request. Litigators beware. Best, Chris ___ Christopher C. Lund Associate Professor of Law Wayne State University Law School 471 West Palmer St. Detroit, MI 48202 l...@wayne.edumailto:l...@wayne.edu (313) 577-4046 (phone) (313) 577-9016 (fax) Website—http://law.wayne.edu/profile/christopher.lund/ Papers—http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402 From: Len campquest...@comcast.netmailto:campquest...@comcast.net To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building? From: Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.commailto:stevenja...@gmail.com To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Sunnum handles this, no? Sent from Steve's iPhone ___ 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
RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
Prediction: They won't get it!! sandy From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:22 PM To: Religionlaw Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.commailto:jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.comhttp://www.joelsogol.com 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 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
Inevitable. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 http://sol-reform.com -Original Message- From: Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com To: Religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:24 pm Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.com 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 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
Sunnum handles this, no? Sent from Steve's iPhone On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:43 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote: Inevitable. Marci Marci A. Hamilton Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva University 55 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 790-0215 http://sol-reform.com -Original Message- From: Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com To: Religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:24 pm Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.com 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 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
Doesn't sound like anyone involved has read Summum -- not the Satanists, not the legislator, and not the ACLU. On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 20:22:14 -0600 Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com wrote: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-be side-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.com Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 ___ 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
This looks like one of the Fraternal Order of the Eagles Monument. As a one time Okie I am offended that the legislature could not at least design a new monument, rather than dig up an old one. But, what will the Satanists put on their monument? * Paul Finkelman, Ph.D. President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, NY 12208 518-445-3386 (p) 518-445-3363 (f) paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edumailto:paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu www.paulfinkelman.comhttp://www.paulfinkelman.com * From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Joel Sogol [jlsa...@wwisp.com] Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:22 PM To: Religionlaw Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.com 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 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: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
True enough: but American Humanist Society recently persuaded a Florida county to put up theirmonument as a counter to a Ten Commandments display. Marc - Original Message - From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu] Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 09:47 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at OklahomaLegislature Doesn't sound like anyone involved has read Summum -- not the Satanists, not the legislator, and not the ACLU. On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 20:22:14 -0600 Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com wrote: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-be side-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: jlsa...@wwisp.com website: www.joelsogol.com Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 ___ 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.
