Re: Assaults on the England language/republican v. democracy
In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisionson matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves asmore democratic than Democrats. Mark is on to something that transcends this thread and probably should be discussed on the ConlawProf List. In my view, the terms"democratic" and "democracy" have replaced the term "republican" in popular culture, and even in the use of pretty sophisticated statespersons,politicians, constitutionalists, and jurists. Most of the features of republican theory--such as, representative democracy, the common good, civic virtue, and so forth--have been absorbed by the term "democracy." Indeed, I would venture a guess that the use of "republican," save for occasional use on radio talk shows, is reserved, of course only for the most part, to political philosophy. Thus, when people talk about self-rule or self-government, they usually think of democracy not republicanism. One continued use--a tedious one in my view--still appears indiscussions of the countermajoritarian problem or when indicting the Court for beingantidemocratic. Accusing the courts of being countermajoritarian or antidemocratic is met with the predictable refrain "The Constitution creates a republic not a democracy." In my view, this distinction, or shall I say this dichotomy, is typically a conversation-stopper, and forestalls the pursuit of the besttheory of democracy.I suspect that this point, regrettably, is still controversial;but in my view it should not be. Strictly speaking, few commentators advocate pure majoritarianism or even pure direct democracy.Thus, I would think "republicanism" should be granted a well-deserved retirement. All the distinctions and points that some think can only be articulated by using "republican" can be made through the capacious tent of "democracy," and that's where they should be made. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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/republican v. democracy
For those interested, until 1939, not one majority opinion on the Supreme Court spoke of the United States as a democracy or had anything good to say about democracy (Brandeis did, but in concurring and dissenting opinions). The floodgates opened in 1939. MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 08:32AM In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisionson matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves asmore democratic than Democrats. Mark is on to something that transcends this thread and probably should be discussed on the ConlawProf List. In my view, the terms"democratic" and "democracy" have replaced the term "republican" in popular culture, and even in the use of pretty sophisticated statespersons,politicians, constitutionalists, and jurists. Most of the features of republican theory--such as, representative democracy, the common good, civic virtue, and so forth--have been absorbed by the term "democracy." Indeed, I would venture a guess that the use of "republican," save for occasional use on radio talk shows, is reserved, of course only for the most part, to political philosophy. Thus, when people talk about self-rule or self-government, they usually think of democracy not republicanism. One continued use--a tedious one in my view--still appears indiscussions of the countermajoritarian problem or when indicting the Court for beingantidemocratic. Accusing the courts of being countermajoritarian or antidemocratic is met with the predictable refrain "The Constitution creates a republic not a democracy." In my view, this distinction, or shall I say this dichotomy, is typically a conversation-stopper, and forestalls the pursuit of the besttheory of democracy.I suspect that this point, regrettably, is still controversial;but in my view it should not be. Strictly speaking, few commentators advocate pure majoritarianism or even pure direct democracy.Thus, I would think "republicanism" should be granted a well-deserved retirement. All the distinctions and points that some think can only be articulated by using "republican" can be made through the capacious tent of "democracy," and that's where they should be made. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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
"Scarberry, Mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisionson matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves asmore democratic than Democrats. Mark makes a good point about which party has the better claim to being more "democratic." The Democratic Party has become the party of government by the judiciary, the party that can't get its social agenda enacted in legislatures, and so looks to judical decrees codifying its policy preferences instead. And this brings up another word--"theocrats"--that gets used a lot these days to describe citizens of faith who vote for Republican candidates such as the President. This is another term that better fits the other party and the actual way it governs. A government that allows all of its citizens--including its religious citizens--to participate in the political process is not a theocracy. A theocracy is government by a small body of unelected--usually robed--rulers who issue decrees based upon their personal pipeline to a higher and unseen authority. Sounds a lot like the priesthood we call the Supreme Court, a body of unelected lawyers issuing decrees from the sacred precinctsof its chambers. Rick 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__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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: Assaults on the England language
May I suggest that this entire discussion could benefit from reading William Connolly on "essential contested concepts." Alas, there is no neutral definition of "democracy," "judicial activism," "moderate," etc. out there in large part because a good definition depends on resolution of normative issues upon which we disagree. Thus, if it isa debasement of the English language to claim that contemporary Republicans are more committed to judicial activism than contemporary democrats, the reason is that our disagreement over what constitutes activist entails that any competing definition will also debase the mother tongue. Mark A. Graber [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 09:19AM "Scarberry, Mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisionson matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves asmore democratic than Democrats. Mark makes a good point about which party has the better claim to being more "democratic." The Democratic Party has become the party of government by the judiciary, the party that can't get its social agenda enacted in legislatures, and so looks to judical decrees codifying its policy preferences instead. And this brings up another word--"theocrats"--that gets used a lot these days to describe citizens of faith who vote for Republican candidates such as the President. This is another term that better fits the other party and the actual way it governs. A government that allows all of its citizens--including its religious citizens--to participate in the political process is not a theocracy. A theocracy is government by a small body of unelected--usually robed--rulers who issue decrees based upon their personal pipeline to a higher and unseen authority. Sounds a lot like the priesthood we call the Supreme Court, a body of unelected lawyers issuing decrees from the sacred precinctsof its chambers. Rick 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 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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: Assaults on the England language
How would Rick's theory explain Republican support for decisions striking down parts of the Brady Bill (Printz), the Violence Against Women Act (Morrison), and law protecting kids from guns in schools (Lopez). Seems like Republicans were using the courts to defeat social policies they did not like that passed Congress and were signed into law by the President. And, what position do you have, Rick, on the desire of some Republicans to not merely reverse Roe, but declare that abortion violates the 14th Amendment and thus the many states which protect a woman's right control her own body are unconstitutional? I assume you would oppose such a decision, right? Paul Finkelman. Rick Duncan wrote: "Scarberry, Mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim as Democrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view that Democrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisions on matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves as more democratic than Democrats. Mark makes a good point about which party has the better claim to being more "democratic." The Democratic Party has become the party of government by the judiciary, the party that can't get its social agenda enacted in legislatures, and so looks to judical decrees codifying its policy preferences instead. And this brings up another word--"theocrats"--that gets used a lot these days to describe citizens of faith who vote for Republican candidates such as the President. This is another term that better fits the other party and the actual way it governs. A government that allows all of its citizens--including its religious citizens--to participate in the political process is not a theocracy. A theocracy is government by a small body of unelected--usually robed--rulers who issue decrees based upon their personal pipeline to a higher and unseen authority. Sounds a lot like the priesthood we call the Supreme Court, a body of unelected lawyers issuing decrees from the sacred precinctsof its chambers. Rick 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 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74105 918-631-3706 (voice) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Assaults on the England language/republican v.democracy
Mark: Do you have a particular case or series of cases in mind? I'd appreciate a cite. Thanks, Richard Dougherty Mark Graber wrote: For those interested, until 1939, not one majority opinion on the Supreme Court spoke of the United States as a democracy or had anything good to say about democracy (Brandeis did, but in concurring and dissenting opinions). The floodgates opened in 1939.MAG >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 08:32AM >>>In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim as Democrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view that Democrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisions on matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves as more democratic than Democrats. Mark is on to something that transcends this thread and probably should be discussed on the ConlawProf List. In my view, the terms "democratic" and "democracy" have replaced the term "republican" in popular culture, and even in the use of pretty sophisticated statespersons, politicians, constitutionalists, and jurists. Most of the features of republican theory--such as, representative democracy, the common good, civic virtue, and so forth--have been absorbed by the term "democracy." Indeed, I would venture a guess that the use of "republican," save for occasional use on radio talk shows, is reserved, of course only for the most part, to political philosophy. Thus, when people talk about self-rule or self-government, they usually think of democracy not republicanism. One continued use--a tedious one in my view--still appears in discussions of the countermajoritarian problem or when indicting the Court for being antidemocratic. Accusing the courts of being countermajoritarian or antidemocratic is met with the predictable refrain "The Constitution creates a republic not a democracy." In my view, this distinction, or shall I say this dichotomy, is typically a conversation-stopper, and forestalls the pursuit of the best theory of democracy. I suspect that this point, regrettably, is still controversial; but in my view it should not be. Strictly speaking, few commentators advocate pure majoritarianism or even pure directdemocracy. Thus, I would think "republicanism" should be granted a well-deserved retirement. All the distinctions and points that some think can only be articulated by using "republican" can be made through the capacious tent of "democracy," and that's where they should be made.BobbyRobert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/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: Assaults on the England language/republican v.democracy
As always, I will be happy to send the relevant paper to all interested parties. it is forthcoming in an anthology from Oxford. MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 10:34AM Mark: Do you have a particular case or series of cases in mind? I'd appreciate a cite. Thanks, Richard Dougherty Mark Graber wrote: For those interested, until 1939, not one majority opinion on the Supreme Court spoke of the United States as a democracy or had anything good to say about democracy (Brandeis did, but in concurring and dissenting opinions). The floodgates opened in 1939.MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 08:32AM In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim as Democrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view that Democrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisions on matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves as more democratic than Democrats. Mark is on to something that transcends this thread and probably should be discussed on the ConlawProf List. In my view, the terms "democratic" and "democracy" have replaced the term "republican" in popular culture, and even in the use of pretty sophisticated statespersons, politicians, constitutionalists, and jurists. Most of the features of republican theory--such as, representative democracy, the common good, civic virtue, and so forth--have been absorbed by the term "democracy." Indeed, I would venture a guess that the use of "republican," save for occasional use on radio talk shows, is reserved, of course only for the most part, to political philosophy. Thus, when people talk about self-rule or self-government, they usually think of democracy not republicanism. One continued use--a tedious one in my view--still appears in discussions of the countermajoritarian problem or when indicting the Court for being antidemocratic. Accusing the courts of being countermajoritarian or antidemocratic is met with the predictable refrain "The Constitution creates a republic not a democracy." In my view, this distinction, or shall I say this dichotomy, is typically a conversation-stopper, and forestalls the pursuit of the best theory of democracy. I suspect that this point, regrettably, is still controversial; but in my view it should not be. Strictly speaking, few commentators advocate pure majoritarianism or even pure directdemocracy. Thus, I would think "republicanism" should be granted a well-deserved retirement. All the distinctions and points that some think can only be articulated by using "republican" can be made through the capacious tent of "democracy," and that's where they should be made.BobbyRobert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/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: Assaults on the England language
To answer Paul's question about Roe and the abortion liberty, I don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill a child in the womb. So certainly Roe should be reversed and the issue left to the democratic branches. Would I, personally, support a constitutionalrulerecognizing the right to life and thus outlawing abortion as a matter of constitutional law? I would certainly support a constitutional amendment to be ratified by the Peopleproviding such protection to children in the womb.And the text of the constitution is more supportive of a constitional right to life than it is a right toabort(the right to life is explicitly protected, and the most basic notion of equal protection would grant helpless children in the womban equal right to the protection of laws outlawing murder and violent assaults on innocenet humans). But I think this is an issue that should be decided by the people, either by constitutional amendment or by laws enacted state-by-state in the legislatures. As far as activism goes, an activist judge is one who substitutes her preferences for those of the Peopleas set forth inthe written constitution. So when a court strikes down laws that the constitution does not invalidate, it acts as an activist court; and when a court upholds laws that the constitution forbids, it acts as an activist court. RickPaul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How would Rick's theory explain Republican support for decisions striking down parts of the Brady Bill (Printz), the Violence Against Women Act (Morrison), and law protecting kids from guns in schools (Lopez). Seems like Republicans were using the courts to defeat social policies they did not like that passed Congress and were signed into law by the President.And, what position do you have, Rick, on the desire of some Republicans to not merely reverse Roe, but declare that abortion violates the 14th Amendment and thus the many states which protect a woman's right control her own body are unconstitutional? I assume you would oppose such a decision, right?Paul Finkelman. Rick Duncan wrote: "Scarberry, Mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisionson matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves asmore democratic than Democrats. Mark makes a good point about which party has the better claim to being more "democratic." The Democratic Party has become the party of government by the judiciary, the party that can't get its social agenda enacted in legislatures, and so looks to judical decrees codifying its policy preferences instead. And this brings up another word--"theocrats"--that gets used a lot these days to describe citizens of faith who vote for Republican candidates such as the President. This is another term that better fits the other party and the actual way it governs. A government that allows all of its citizens--including its religious citizens--to participate in the political process is not a theocracy. A theocracy is government by a small body of unelected--usually robed--rulers who issue decrees based upon their personal pipeline to a higher and unseen authority. Sounds a lot like the priesthood we call the Supreme Court, a body of unelected lawyers issuing decrees from the sacred precinctsof its chambers. Rick 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 __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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.-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74105 918-631-3706 (voice) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
RE: Assaults on the England language
Rick runs together different ideas and political causes and uses a highly technical definition of theocracy to avoid grappling with difficult issues. Doing so makes it harder to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. 1.I dont know of anyone of consequence who says that religious citizens cannot participate on equal terms in the political process and no one claims that when evangelicals, Catholics or Jews vote in ways shaped by their religious beliefs that they act improperly. Lots of studies over the years have shown that voters react differently to issues based on their religious affiliation even if the church is not actively talking a stand(I.e. gambling, labor laws.) 2. A harder question is whether the government (legislature of executive)can act from a religious motivation whether to achieve secular ends (prohibition, civil rights or welfare reform.This is the issue on which Justice Brennan and Scalia disagreed in Edwards and Justices Souter and Scalia tangled in McCreary. This question in turn needs to be divided into two parts-a legal one and one of what I have elsewhere called political etiquette. That a particular intrusion of religion into the political sphere is not unconstitutional does not make it wise; conversely, even if a particular action could conceivably be attacked as unconstitutional does not follow that it should be so challenged. I would find a legal violation only in the most extreme cases-but I would be less hesitant about finding etiquette violations. 3. Given the religious diversity of our society, and the diverse views on issues like abortion, to the extent that religious views of one side prevail and become law enshrining ones theological view in law, and actively disadvantaging another, one can speak loosely of a theocracy. I would myself not use such an explosive word for this, but given the strength of feelings on both sides it is not surprising that some do. 4. Iran is both a democracy of sorts and a place where religious law sets standards of behavior. It is not true that all decisions are made there by a small group of clerics, There are members of the Irans Parliament who are not clerics but who insist that Sharia should govern the country.(Israel has something of the same phenomenon in some of the Orthodox political parties , but they are much less influential.)It obscures a difficult problem to say that a theocracy exists only when a small groups of religious leaders calls all the shots in wholly undemocratic fashion. For myself, I would not use the term theocrats for most people who seek a different church state balance such as Rick or Mike McConnell but they dont exhaust the universe. In the last few weeks there have been rumblings from congress about protecting Americas Christian heritage which these members seek to protect by law. Mac Stern Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:20 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language How would Rick's theory explain Republican support for decisions striking down parts of the Brady Bill (Printz), the Violence Against Women Act (Morrison), and law protecting kids from guns in schools (Lopez). Seems like Republicans were using the courts to defeat social policies they did not like that passed Congress and were signed into law by the President. And, what position do you have, Rick, on the desire of some Republicans to not merely reverse Roe, but declare that abortion violates the 14th Amendment and thus the many states which protect a woman's right control her own body are unconstitutional? I assume you would oppose such a decision, right? Paul Finkelman. Rick Duncan wrote: Scarberry, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim as Democrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view that Democrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisions on matters such as abortion and gay marriage, Republicans see themselves as more democratic than Democrats. Mark makes a good point about which party has the better claim to being more democratic. The Democratic Party has become the party of government by the judiciary, the party that can't get its social agenda enacted in legislatures, and so looks to judical decrees codifying its policy preferences instead. And this brings up another word--theocrats--that gets used a lot these days to describe citizens of faith who vote for Republican candidates such as the President. This is another term that better fits the other party and the actual way it governs. A government that allows all of its citizens--including its religious citizens--to participate in the political process is not a theocracy. A theocracy is government by a small body of unelected--usually robed--rulers who issue decrees based upon their personal pipeline to a higher and unseen authority. Sounds a lot like the priesthood
Re: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/22/2005 10:20:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And, what position do you have, Rick, on the desire of some Republicans to not merely reverse Roe, but declare that abortion violates the 14th Amendment and thus the many states which protect a woman's right control her own body are unconstitutional? All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Congress has authority over naturalization. Declare that all persons, whether or not yet born, who come within the territorial boundaries of the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Voila!! In this way, unborn children would beprenatally naturalized, endowed with obvious and not easily overcome rights to due process, and all without violence to the Constitution. 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.
RE: Assaults on the England language
Mark Stern speaksof "rumblings from congress about protecting America's Christian heritage...by law." Is this a sign of a theocracy developing in Congress? Or merelyits concern that the Court has used the EC to cleanse the public square of an important part of America's culture? I am not sure exactly what the rumblings Mark refers toare about, but it might be the movement to permit passive dispalys of the Ten Commandments and perhaps to make clear that the Pledge of Allegiance, including the reference to "under God," does not violate the EC. Recognizing that religion generally (andChristianity in particular) have played an important role in the history and laws and culture of America isa long way from anything that remotely could be called a "Theocracy."The way to manage pluralism is not to single out religious people and symbols as outside the scope of the public square. We should all have a place at the table, and all of our symbols should be eligible for public recognition and celebration. Rick 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__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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: Assaults on the England language
Twice within the last month Congressman Hostettler of Indiana has made comment son the House floor about preserving Americas Christian heritage. One comment came in debate over officers and chaplains proselytizing at the Air Force Academy and the other in defense of an amendment to the Justice Department appropriation bill which bared the Department from enforcing a judgment requiring the dismantling of a particular 10 commandment display. I care less about eh particular display -whose constitutionality will be determined under the pellucidly clear duels of Van Orden and McCreary County ,but the rhetoric used to defend these displays .And even if these displays are constitutional, and even if it is constitutionally acceptable to add under God t the pledge, the question is why do it when if offends so many and there are endless other opportunities to express ones belief in God without invoking the help of government. With respect, Rick, no one is pushing 10 commandment displays to make a purely historic point about the role of Christianity in America. Those efforts are about the contemporary role of (Christian) religion in society and government .not its historic role. And of course, the current debate about displays is not about purely private displays but official ones. That is not a question of cleansing the public square of religion as I understand that phrase. The options before us are not official endorsement or confinement to the closet. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:00 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Assaults on the England language Mark Stern speaksof rumblings from congress about protecting America's Christian heritage...by law. Is this a sign of a theocracy developing in Congress? Or merelyits concern that the Court has used the EC to cleanse the public square of an important part of America's culture? I am not sure exactly what the rumblings Mark refers toare about, but it might be the movement to permit passive dispalys of the Ten Commandments and perhaps to make clear that the Pledge of Allegiance, including the reference to under God, does not violate the EC. Recognizing that religion generally (andChristianity in particular) have played an important role in the history and laws and culture of America isa long way from anything that remotely could be called a Theocracy.The way to manage pluralism is not to single out religious people and symbols as outside the scope of the public square. We should all have a place at the table, and all of our symbols should be eligible for public recognition and celebration. Rick 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 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/22/2005 12:14:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With respect, Rick, no one is pushing 10 commandment displays to make a purely historic point about the role of Christianity in America. Those efforts are about the contemporary role of (Christian) religion in society and government .not its historic role. No doubt that for some that is all they are about, and everything else is window dressing. But I doubt you are in a position to prove that this is always true, necessarily true or even broadly true. Sure, it makes the job of opposing such displays easier if a per se rule of unjustifiable motivation is assumed into existence. 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.
RE: Assaults on the England language
Rick writes: To answer Paul's question about Roe and the abortion liberty, I don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill a child in the womb. So certainly Roe should be reversed and the issue left to the democratic branches. Am I correct ininterpreting this as support for the position that Posner took in DeShaney (and that the Court presumably ratified), i.e., that there is no constitutional right to be protected against murder, so that one could justifiablyrewrite Rick's sentence "I don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill anyone you don't like,"so that unless the state acts to criminalize such murder, the Constitution on its own is neutral (as it was, say, to whether human beings could be held as slaves)? Or is Rick saying that the Constitution can't "remotely [be interpreted to include] a liberty to kill a child in the womb, any more than it can be interpreted to justify state indifference to whether its citizens are wantonly murdering one another"? 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.
Re: inJohn Roberts' America.....
In a message dated 7/22/2005 12:33:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not sure about this. Change the hypo a bit. Imagine no contrary federal law. Surely a state with a speed limit of 60 MPH cannot ban state citizens from going 70 MPH on out-of-state highways where that is legal. Is the real issue whether, say, the law of Blue State must give extra-territorial effect to the law of Red State which declares a fetus a person. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Suppose that a young mother of an unborn baby resides in Maryland. Does the interest of Maryland, in the health and safety of its citizens, dissipate when temporarily those citizens visit other states? Why? 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.
Re: inJohn Roberts' America.....
The fact that I'm agreeing with Jim Henderson will doubtless be occasion for agonized soul-searching, prayer and fasting. I'm appalled by the idea of extraterritorial abortion bans. But there is a substantial argument that your home jurisdiction may have a right to govern your behavior even when you travel.[1] The United States has recently made it a crime for American citizens to have sex with children while they are traveling abroad.[2] [1] See Mark D. Rosen, Extraterritoriality and Political Heterogeneity in American Federalism, 150 U. Pa. L. Rev. 855 (2002). [2] Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Abroad Act, Pub. Law 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (2003). At 11:39 AM 7/22/2005, you wrote: In a message dated 7/22/2005 12:33:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not sure about this. Change the hypo a bit. Imagine no contrary federal law. Surely a state with a speed limit of 60 MPH cannot ban state citizens from going 70 MPH on out-of-state highways where that is legal. Is the real issue whether, say, the law of Blue State must give extra-territorial effect to the law of Red State which declares a fetus a person. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Suppose that a young mother of an unborn baby resides in Maryland. Does the interest of Maryland, in the health and safety of its citizens, dissipate when temporarily those citizens visit other states? Why? 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. Andrew Koppelman Professor of Law and Political Science Northwestern University School of Law 357 East Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60611-3069 (312) 503-8431 mailto:[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.
RE: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
The answer to your first question is perfectly obvious. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:50 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath In a message dated 7/20/2005 11:35:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would help if you would respect the norms. Please. An end to this nonsense. I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may dislike it. You, in turn, will call me juvenile. Which is the pig rolling in the proverbial mud and which is becoming soiled? Some of you will call the liberty interest in sucking the brains out of a half born baby a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions, and I will dislike it (as would those who crafted the document you claim spawns such aberrant liberties). As Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce said, Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. Feel free to carry on the grammarians' crusade without me. 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.
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Sorry, but because I just recently began following this line of discussion would someone kindly inform me as to the meaning of the subject line which has "George Washington adding 'under God' to the Presidential oath." Or, is it merely a bit of humor? And, I hope my grammar is okay. Thanks. Gene Garman, M.Div. America's Real Religion www.americasrealreligion.org Newsom Michael wrote: The answer to your first question is perfectly obvious. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:50 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: George Washington adding "under God" to the Presidential oath In a message dated 7/20/2005 11:35:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would help if you would respect the norms. Please. An end to this nonsense. I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may dislike it. You, in turn, will call me juvenile. Which is the pig rolling in the proverbial mud and which is becoming soiled? Some of you will call the liberty interest in sucking the brains out of a half born baby "a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions," and I will dislike it (as would those who crafted the document you claim spawns such aberrant liberties). As Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce said, "Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. " Feel free to carry on the grammarians' crusade without me. 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. ___ 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
Anent homophobia: you left out the good stuff. People can believe whatever they want to (even if the beliefs are stupid, evil, or worse). But the problem is not one of belief, but rather one of action. If believing in traditional sexual morality means locking up gay people in jail, then, I am afraid, the label homophobia will stick. Anent Scalia: he has been called a lot of things over the years, I have never heard him referred to as reasonable before. I guess I missed something along the way because I never thought that someone who recognized that capital punishment produced unfair results along racial lines but still supported capital punishment was reasonable. Anent fundamentalism: I missed this one too. I dont recall seeing that word used often on this list, if at all. I do know that the term evangelical gets used a lot, especially by me. -Original Message- From: Rick Duncan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:04 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Assaults on the England language I think, as the Court likes to say in EC cases, that purpose matters when someone uses Xmas or Xtian instead of Christmas or Christian. Did you use the abbreviation merely as a shortcut (if so, did you abbreviate lots of other words in your sentence or paragraph), or did you use the X because you think the name of Christ is offensive to non-Xtians? Do you often use Greek letters to shorten English words? Or is this the only one you use? Frankly, my dears, I don't give a darn about words like Democrat Party or Xmas. But I am offended when the word Fundamentalist is used in an effort to marginalize a Baptist or a Methodist or an evangelical. And that word gets used on this list all the time to describe people, like Jim, who don't self-identify as Fundamentalists. Another word that gets tossed around in circles like this is homophobe to describe reasonable folks who merely believe in traditional sexual morality. And, of course, since we now have a Supreme Court vacancy, we will see the words extremist and outside the mainstream used to describe reasonable conservatives like Roberts and Scalia. Cheers, Rick Duncan Eric Treene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recall being taught in Sunday school that early Christians sometimes used an X to signify Christ, in order to avoid persecution. That, I was told, is why X-mas is perfectly acceptable. Xtians would seem to be acceptable as well. Indeed, the term Christian originated as a put-down applied to the followers of Christ (like the term Christer used by Madelyn Murry O'Hair and sometimes used by others to denigrate Christians today in some quarters). Christians eventually took on the label. Who knows, perhaps Christer will come into vogue among Christians. Language is funny that way. 50 years from now Democrats may prefer Democrat party. Eric Treene (in my personal capacity). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Will Linden Sent: Wednesday,! July 20, 2005 4:32 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: 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 c! an 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. 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, i! ndexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner
RE: Assaults on the England language
Actually the phrase is as much a sociological or cultural one as it is, in any real sense, doctrinal. To get the flavor of this read Will Herbergs Protestant-Catholic-Jew. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:46 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Awording which I find less acceptable is Judeo-Christian. There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. This, of course, is a doctrinal formulation, calling for adoption or rejection. It recallsa battle line that brewed below the surface, and then boiled over,in the Petrine-Pauline disputes. Nonetheless, having represented Jews for Jesus, and having been told by those that I represented that they were Jews who believed in Jesus, I have my doubts that your categorical fiat must be right. On the other hand, if the Israeli Supreme Court and the law of return are the definitional gold standard for who is a Jew, then Jews who believe Jesus is the promised Messiah are not Jews. 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.
Re: Civility versus Respect
In a message dated 7/22/2005 2:42:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does this mean that if some people doesn’t respect you that they are, in your view, free to call you anything they want to? Can they call you a fundamentalist, or a homophobe, or bigot, and would that be OK? Michael, I am not calling you a dog by saying that you are barking up the wrong tree. I am telling you that I have thicker skin than that. Maybe it's the fact that earlier iterations of juvenile behavior that I have experienced included a neighbor boy who insisted on calling me and my brothers the Henderbutts. As for calling someone a homophobe, we did this thread two or three years ago. It is a neologism of suspect origin and doubtful meaning. But if I can survive being called Henderbutt, then Homophobe certainly won't kill me, even if it inaccurately reflects on my certainty that everyone, including isogenderphiliacs, are the object of God's love and affection. Jim Henderbutt . . . er 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.
RE: Civility versus Respect
Oh, I see. Democrats are on a par with the Chinese and the North Korean communists? Didnt you mention McCarthy in an earlier post? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:31 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Civility versus Respect In a message dated 7/21/2005 12:16:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I respectfully disagree, Jim. I was raised to show a set amount of respect to everyone. That level of repsect is subject to change depending on the recipient's behavior. And regardless of how low a person sinks, I will never follow them down to that level by actively showing disrespect for their humanity. That way lies the Shoa and genocide. Nearer to, there lies rudeness and incivility. In between are abuse and discrimination. We all live in this society and the constant rubbing of human beings in the brownian motion of life demands the lubricant of good manners, civility, and respect. Without it, all our lives would be the worse. Kindly show me the respect of refering to my party as the Democratic party. I'll return the favor by addressing you by the nomenclature you request. And I respectfully disagree that respect, as the dictionaries define it,is due to everyone. Deferential regard. Again, perhaps this reflectsinternal inconsistencies in my thoughts andpractices. My children, the youths in my church group, the students I teach, the attorneys across from whom I have practiced, allwill tell you, I believe, that I treat people decently, that I am not a taker, that I give place to others, that I often model preferring others over myself in love and devotion. No, I am not perfect. In fact, thisapproach is a characteristic of my nature. But deferential regard is another matter entirely. When the flag of the United States is saluted with a performance of the National Anthem, I stand still with my hand on my heart. In major part that act of deferential regard reflects on the selfless devotion of those who gave for ourliberty-blessed landthe last full measure of their devotion. And, when the Pope speaks -- and I am not Catholic -- I listen in duly respectful silence and then consider his words. But I'll be dog-gonned if I am going to stand still and salute the flag of the Chicomms or the North Koreans. Some folks have purchased my respect by their labors, their faithful service, their self-sacrifice, their devotion to duty. Others than them, I recognize to be true objects of God's love and affection, and I treat them accordingly. But deferential disregard is not due to them. Nor, have I yet been responsible for Shoa or Holocaust, because those who see in every other person the object of God's love and affection need not respect the desire of othersto be called right when they are wrong but they do no harm to those others for that reason. 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.
Re: Civility versus Respect
Actually, I responded to the mention by another of McCarthy. Another on the list responded to my use of the term Democrat Party by using the logical fallacy of the poisoned well; essentially, that post put it this way, "McCarthy used the term so you must be a modern day equivalent of McCarthy." In a message dated 7/22/2005 2:51:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, I see. Democrats are on a par with the Chinese and the North Korean communists? Didn’t you mention McCarthy in an earlier post? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:31 PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Civility versus Respect In a message dated 7/21/2005 12:16:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I respectfully disagree, Jim. I was raised to show a set amount of respect to everyone. That level of repsect is subject to change depending on the recipient's behavior. And regardless of how low a person sinks, I will never follow them down to that level by actively showing disrespect for their humanity. That way lies the Shoa and genocide. Nearer to, there lies rudeness and incivility. In between are abuse and discrimination. We all live in this society and the constant rubbing of human beings in the brownian motion of life demands the lubricant of good manners, civility, and respect. Without it, all our lives would be the worse. Kindly show me the respect of refering to my party as the Democratic party. I'll return the favor by addressing you by the nomenclature you request. And I respectfully disagree that respect, as the dictionaries define it,is due to everyone. "Deferential regard." Again, perhaps this reflectsinternal inconsistencies in my thoughts andpractices. My children, the youths in my church group, the students I teach, the attorneys across from whom I have practiced, allwill tell you, I believe, that I treat people decently, that I am not a "taker," that I give place to others, that I often model preferring others over myself in love and devotion. No, I am not perfect. In fact, thisapproach is a characteristic of my nature. But "deferential regard" is another matter entirely. When the flag of the United States is saluted with a performance of the National Anthem, I stand still with my hand on my heart. In major part that act of "deferential regard" reflects on the selfless devotion of those who gave for ourliberty-blessed landthe last full measure of their devotion. And, when the Pope speaks -- and I am not Catholic -- I listen in duly respectful silence and then consider his words. But I'll be dog-gonned if I am going to stand still and salute the flag of the Chicomms or the North Koreans. Some folks have purchased my respect by their labors, their faithful service, their self-sacrifice, their devotion to duty. Others than them, I recognize to be true objects of God's love and affection, and I treat them accordingly. But "deferential disregard" is not due to them. Nor, have I yet been responsible for Shoa or Holocaust, because those who see in every other person the object of God's love and affection need not respect the desire of othersto be called right when they are wrong but they do no harm to those others for that reason. 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.
Re: Finding Uncertainty for the EC
For anyone who is interested: Read Gene Garman's essay in the May/Jun 1999 issue of Liberty magazine. It documents Justice William H. Rehnquist's abuse of the Establishment Clause and its history. Click on the following url: http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/162/1/41 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gene Garman has an essay on his website criticizing CJ Rehnquist's use of history. Here's an excerpt: "In other words, Justice Rehnquist failed to use all of the record of history in his attempt to justify his dissent. The father of the Constitution, James Madison, was in Congress in 1789, was on the conference committee which drafted the final wording of the religion clauses, and left subsequent definitions in writing as to the meaning of the religion clauses. Justice Rehnquist's omission of this significant part of the historical record is an unacceptable abuse of history. Justice Rehnquist was joined in this distortion and abuse by two other constitutional revisionists, Justice Warren Burger and Justice Byron White." The question remains from where the meaning of the Clause is to be derived, or if it must be derived at all. If I use the term, "Widget" in discussing a contract for the manufacture of goods, no one really knows what picture I have in mind. On the other hand, if I go to Home Depot and tell the clerk that I need a pan head, # 9, 3 inch wood screw, (s)he will have quite a precise object in mind. If "an Establishment of Religion" suffers the tenuous uncertainty with which the term "widget" is saddled, then maybe one place we could look to find meaning is in the post-legislative writings of one, even key, participant. But, of course, folks like CJ Rehnquist, Chester Antieau, and me, are not struck by an overwhelming sense that uncertainty about the term makes a subsequent inflation of meaning from other sources necessary. History is clear on what constituted establishment. And what didn't. 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. ___ 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.
