An interesting piece in today's NY Times.
_http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/world/europe/19shariah.html_
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/world/europe/19shariah.html) ?
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Distinguished Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
Ratio Juris
,
Susan writes:
There will always be self-interest behind any decision. Even
altruistic
choices involve a belief that the action will send one to heaven, or the
gratification of knowing one is better than others.
If this means every decision to act entails that one wants
If your point is that self-referential motives are often the basis for
altruistic behavior, I agree. If you insist, by contrast, that
self-referential
motives must be the basis of altruistic behavior then you will hypothesize a
self-referential motive for any example I suggest, and that
This certainly trivializes the concept of religion. A government that
persecutes theists, defames religion in general, and so forth is religious? I
suppose the argument is that such a government simply adopts the wrong
religion. I suppose similarly each individual is religious no matter
Insisting there is no religion--it doesn't exist--but religion can
nevertheless be used intelligibly (as a bracket term). suggests that one has
an
elaborate argument that no matter how much it might vary from ordinary
intelligent discourse, he or she wants to impose on you. I think I'll
Mr. Linden writes:
There is no religion of Paganism. Pagans are defined by what they are
NOT. (And as a poster on Magicknet said, I might as well call myself Not Tom
Mix.
Forgive me, I've been paying only a cursory attention to this
thread, but does the above remark apply
Mr. Linden writes:
On the other hand, I have had atheists try to explain away the lack-of-evils
in real-world atheist societies by claiming that Communism is really a
religion. Does this mean that atheism and secular humanism are?
Wow!! Strange atheists in my book. If communism is a
But even if this be true, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive
constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the
powers
vested by the Constitution' in the Government of the United States, or in
any Department or Officer thereof.' Is this statement saying
In a message dated 9/21/2007 12:16:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal
life, free will is my greatest gift to you, according to the response, as
read by Friend.
Since
Bobby
Robert
Sorry for inadvertently hitting send.
The jurisdictional point might be legitimate but surely the following
is not: It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an
important point. I created man and woman with free will and next to the
promise of immortal
In a message dated 9/21/2007 10:22:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And everyone involved seems to take it for granted which concept of God
applies. For instance, if it turns out to be Vishnu, He might do to Mr. Lipkin
what He, as Narasimha, did to King
Great! Next time do it when I tell you to do it.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
Ratio Juris
, Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_
(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/)
Essentially Contested America, Editor-In-Chief
In a message dated 9/7/2007 11:51:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My only concern is to point out that while everyone recognizes that theists
start from a grounding within a particular belief system, so too do atheists.
Starting from a grounding within a
We are arguing, I would think, about the term ideology as it occurs in
American political discourse. To insist that the use of that term corresponds
to
a dictionary definition is simply circular. That very dictionary definition
is what I'm challenging as applied to American political
In a message dated 9/7/2007 9:33:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Both atheists and evangelicals adhere to particular ideological
perspectives.
While this may be true of particular individuals, it's far from an
accurate account of the
David E. Guinn wrote:
Third, to say atheists are not evangelical ignores the passion and furor
around Harris, Dawkins, Hutchens et. al. and the best selling books they have
written.
The distinction between evangelism and atheism should not be
collapsed because both exhibit
In a message dated 9/7/2007 10:16:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Under the framework I suggest, the most important difference between the two
competing perspectives is what falls within the zone of permissible
argument/discourse/source of truth and what falls
I'd welcome an on-list discussion of this matter, with Eugene's permission
of course.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
Ratio Juris
, Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_
(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/)
Essentially
In a message dated 8/30/2007 4:13:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the mission must be completed before the individual is 26
Just out of curiosity, how would this apply to converts older than
26?
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener
Unfortunately, Jean's point needs to be emphasized. Being characterized as a
hater is dreadful. Being subject to hate is at least a couple of quanta
beyond dreadful. That's why, in my view, the hate speech controversy always
begins with the wrong baseline, an inordinate concern with the
In a message dated 5/16/2007 9:59:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please remember that this is a list devoted to the law of government and
religion -- not on whether some people (recently dead or otherwise) acted in
sad
or sinful ways, except insofar as that
When a major figure in American constitutional politics--concerning the First
Amendment--dies, we are in a position to evaluate his completed life in all its
aspects and therefore assess just what his final impact on American society
was. In my view, debating whether we should draw a line
In a message dated 3/1/2007 4:06:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Atheism and agnosticism should be considered religions for free exercise
purposes because, as Doug has argued in print, we would regard them as
religions
for establishment purpose
It might be
Sure, one denies certain propositions in physics, but as with any
science--for that matter any field of study--conceptual, paradigmatic
propositions when
denied eviscerate that field either to replace it with another paradigm and
field or to let it drift asunder as in the case of alchemy.
Marty, are you limiting your complaint to compelling interests? Each of
the three levels of review and the characterization of the different
means--reasonably related, substantially related, and narrowly tailored (or
necessary)
and the concomitant goals--compelling, important, and
I'd welcome hearing about
caselaw and literature discussingFirst Amendment issues, if any,
concerning religious symbols on headstones in government owned cemeteries, for
example Arlington cemetery.
BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener
University School of LawDelaware
John Lofton writes:
"Quote Scripture, please,
Mr. Finkelman, where God Himself ever APPROVED of polygamy."
How much weight does the
absence of such a quote have in a discussion of what God does or does not
approve of? What counts as God approving of a practice? Must the Bible
explicitly
In a message dated 9/1/2006 12:52:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Not
talking abt wht people in Bible DID. Asked for Scripture showing where God
APPROVES of polygamy. Stick to the context here, please.
You can, of course, artificially
restrict the context so
In a message dated 9/1/2006 12:46:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Using the theological principal of "the law of first
mention,"meaning that the first time a principle is mentioned
inScripture is its meaning throughout, in Genesis 2:21-24God
created the
Do you have a conception of
reasonable inference as it pertains to the Bible.If so,kindly share
it with the List. What role does textualism play in your conception and must one
infer from specific Biblical text or may one infer from a more general
conception of the Bible as a whole. Is your
If mere action without divine
condemnation does not count as God's approval, then what does? There is nothing
circular is seeking an independent conception of how one ascertains God's
approval. Must it be a specific statement of approval or disapproval? What
counts as a reasonable
One issue that has be
intimated but not stated explicitly, I think, is that the students are acting
lawlessly. Is that the message that we want to send our children and other
students? That it's OK when you have conscientious beliefs to violate laws and
societal norms just because you think
In a message dated 5/23/2006 4:32:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While it may be "their" commencement, it is also the commencement of all of
the other students and their families present. Should everyone be
allowed to interrupt the service and impose their
It's unclear howthe
proposition that theological transformation and faith are good when embraced
either freely or through coercion is a theological proposition or is only a
theological proposition. As a theological proposition it is, in my view, rather
uninteresting since one will accept it
In a message dated 3/13/2006 11:24:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Separation was not meant to cause
subordination.
But, if due to
changed circumstances, "separation" causes subordination, why wouldn't Judge
McConnell,an originalist, seek the remedy in Article Five,
In a message dated 3/10/2006 11:16:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This was the right move for the Archdiocese to make. Really, it was the
only move they could make. It's sad that many children will suffer, but the
Archdiocese has to obey its conscience.
Isn't
In a message dated 3/11/2006 10:17:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point--which focused only on thereligious liberty
issue--was that when faced with a choice between obeying God or Caesar,
the Church must obey God. That is what the Church did in this case.
In a message dated 3/11/2006 12:27:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
issue is whether we should believe God's moral teachings or the moral
teachings of secular elites. That is an easy choice for me, as it appears to
be for Benedict XVI.
Rick, isn't the
In a message dated 3/3/2006 9:16:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, I
don't see christianity becoming a minority religion in the US any time in my
lifetime or my grandchildren's.
My point was both a
descriptive (predictive) point and an analytic one. Steve
I have a fairly
straightforward question or set of questions: What does it mean to say that the
United States is a Christian country or that Christianity is, in the United
States, the "official" religion? Is this a descriptive claim? More
Christians than members of other religions? A
In a message dated 2/23/2006 2:04:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't
know anything about the dangers of hoasca,
If hoasca contains
DMT, it is an extremely dangerous drug, potentially more powerful than
LSD. The dissociation and hallucinations it causes
I have a student who is doing a moot court project on whether state courtscan settle a dispute over the meaning of an Islamicmarriage contract.The parties are resident aliens and the question is whetherthe courts can interpret the relevant provisions of the religious marriage contract without
Michael raises important
issues. But I think we eviscerate the idea of a civic culture in a diverse,
deliberative democracy if we capitulate to those more interested in teaching
conclusions than inquiry, or more perspicuously stated, more interest in
teaching conclusions incompatible with
I'm not certain of all the facts or whether the teacher's purpose was to present the case for ID only, but from what I know I think Brad is right. What's wrong with teaching the case for and against ID in a philosophy class? Is it any different from teaching the case for and against communism in
Okay, there are problematic
facts which makes this case of poor example of the point I'm advocating.
However, I think it's a positive good to have the hot-buttons issues,
creationism, ID, the problem of evil, and other arguments against the
plausibility and even intelligibility of the
The answer to Michael's
pertinent question is critical. I suppose we know only what to rule out, for
example, "I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach." In my
view, teaching in general should stimulate(provoke respectfully and
sensitively), and basically being more
In a message dated 12/22/2005 9:06:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Some scientists and philosophers -- folks like Richard
Dawkins and Daniel Dennett most vocally lately -- argue that the conclusions
of science, such as evolution, shred any possible basis for
Although I do not disagree
with the result in this case, I am troubled by the idea of judges deciding what
is or what is not science. As far as I can tell, a Kuhnian conception of
scientific change in principle supports the possibility of
intelligentdesign being understood as expanding the
I recognize the role of
expert witnesses generally is to present testimony according to which courts
decide factual and conceptual issues--although I probably have more skepticism
than others concerning such testimony and its place in litigation. My point is
that the same result is
In a message dated 12/20/2005 12:46:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it
better to have a judge decide what is science, after lots of expert testimony,
than an elected school board after listening to constituents without any
scientific background? Now what
Unfortunately, Ed Darrell
distorts my post. I never said or implied that Kuhn's theory of
sciencefavors intelligent design in any way at all." What I said was
"Ido not see any likelihood of intelligent design providing the thrust for
a paradigm shift concerning what is or what is not
In a message dated 12/20/2005 3:16:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A
liberal education and a willingness to get educated to make such
assessments. And an understanding that we always act on imperfect
knowledge and understanding and an understanding that in some
I don't have a solution for the
problem of lawyers and judges assessing expert testimony. Perhaps this
is a necessary feature of adjudication. Still, we should recognize it
as a problem, at least in my view, and try to limit its role.
Philosophical investigation
may get some issues wrong
Paul's query again
raisesthe question of the List's purposes. My own view is that
phrases like "Zionist-Occupied Government" and, in Paul's words,the
speaker's "anti-Semitic self-promotion" do not belong on this List. I
recognizeand admire Eugene's typical reluctance to censoremails
posted
"I read it that way before I got to the disclaimer and was laughing out loud by the end. Nice work."
I did not and so I was greatly relieved by the disclaimer.
BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware
-Original Message-From: Ed Brayton
"I read it that way before I got to the disclaimer and was laughing out loud by the end. Nice work."
I did not and so I was greatly relieved by the disclaimer.
BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware
-Original Message-From: Ed Brayton
I wouldprefer not to be wished a Merry Christmas and when I lived in Lincoln, Nebraska I would often politely tell people I don't celebrate Christmas (butthat, of course, has changed since I married a Christian). However,I don't think anyone has yet tried to indicate why someone might bristle at
But why would anyone be miffed when someonepolitely asked herto forgo giving a particular greeting? Indeed, why would anyone be miffed by politely being asked not to do somethingeven for totally irrational concerns unless it was conspicuously important for the formerto engage in the conduct in
In a message dated 11/28/2005 5:10:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would be interesting to see statistics on how many Americans celebrateChristmas as a religious (or partly religious) holiday, and how manycelebrate it as a completely secular holiday. My guess is that
No doubt Eugene and I disagree. But before engaging further does he mean that hewould not refrain from using "hello" when he addressed the person in question or in general?Surely, good mannersprovides no reason justifyingone person to silence someone'suse of a particular term in general. But
The joke about Hanukah bushes--though perhaps some Jews having Christmas trees called them that--is essentiallya joke.But I'm sure Doug gets out more than me because I never heard anyone suggesting that Christmas is a secular holiday except Michael Perry. To me it cannot be a secular holiday
Ed, when do you think the article will be published? And is it an online
journal. Thanks, Bobby.
Robert Justin
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of
LawDelaware
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe,
In a message dated 11/4/2005 12:51:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If there
are voices on this list who doubt the value of religions in which they place
no faith, that is all well and good for them, but every time an all too human
impulse to pulverize someone
Is there any significant
relation between denying equal funding to those who opt out of public schools
and denying indigent woman funding for choosing abortion? Put differently
should these cases be treated the same?To wit: You have a fundamental
right to educate your children privately but
I agree with Joel's
powerfulremarks. If members of a particular religionare obligated to
share the good news, but they also recognize there are basic constitutional
reasons in a pluralistic democracy for placing limits on(virtually)
confrontational "sharing"or if not limits seeking indirect
I agree with Rick
completely that free speech has costs and that democratsmust endure (even
embrace?) these costs. But that says nothing about the wisdom of conveying
one's message in a particularmanner.What's the difference
between a Christian who believes in proselytizing by virtual
In a message dated 10/31/2005 4:20:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of
course, once your friend says "no, thanks," you should not harass or in any
way impose your beliefs on the unwilling listener.
I wonder how realistic this
is. Ifmembers of a particular
The Dover trial regarding
evolution versusintelligent design begins, I think, this Monday. If
anyone on the List--a journalist or otherwise--plans to attend the trial, it
might be helpful if he or she were to keep List members posted on how it
develops. Thanks.
Bobby
Robert Justin
In a message dated 9/19/2005 10:53:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if
strict scrutiny requires deference to the government, we are no longer in the
territory of strict scrutiny.
Let me add my two (maybe
one) cent(s) and then bow out. As I understand it, strict
In a message dated 9/1/2005 2:39:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The provision of material needs tells me that my
leaders are aware of shortages and doing their job to meet them. The
call to prayer tells me that the leaders' hearts are with me as well.
I
In a message dated 9/2/2005 9:55:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Real people are affected when memorial speeches, crosses, and plaques are
censored in the name of anti-establishment.
Real people are denied equal access to state universities when courses
In a message dated 8/22/2005 9:55:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those who are not Christian are made to know it constantly by events
going on in schools -- mostly from other students, but far from always.
Those who are athiests or agnostics are often even
In a message dated 8/22/2005 10:50:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I still
think Mike McConnellsaid it best when he said: "A secular school does
not necessarily produce atheists, but it produces young adults who inevitably
think of religion as extraneous to
In a message dated 8/21/2005 1:30:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lawrence, at least as a matter of formal analysis,
inasmuch as we it is certainly rational to view adultery as a victim-creating
activity and a well-substantiated threat to
marriage.
I might
In a message dated 8/20/2005 12:56:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
." But
if you give a perfectly plausible account for how a complex biochemical system
might have evolved, complete with tracing the possible mutations, locating
gene duplications, and so forth,
In a message dated 8/19/2005 12:46:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the
other hand, if they can be universally applied, and there are in fact
universal, unchanging bits of knowledge we call the moral law, then we have
the problem of accounting for that
In a message dated 8/19/2005 1:56:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note
that the second part of Bobby's explanation of why intelligent design was
rejected is an explicitly theological argument about the nature of any posited
deity. (Aside: I believe many
I am curious about the
relationship between "revealed truths" and "reason" in the contentionthat
one could embrace both. Is it that some canonical authority states a truth such
as "Love thy neighbor" or "God is the source of moral goodness", and reasons
explicates the content of these
In a message dated 8/5/2005 12:19:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What if the synagogue, temple, or mosque also distributes and
sells religiously-prepared foods as does the local grocery stores, but
some of the believers would rather purchase food with their
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:01:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of
course, in recent times much religious strife is caused by excluding religious
people from equal access to the public square and from equal participation in
the benefits of the welfare state.
In a message dated 8/4/2005 10:47:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Supposeyou fell off a ship at sea and were drowning and I threw you
a lifeline. And yousaid, "I don't like this lifeline because it's orange
and I prefer yellow ones." And I said "it's the only
In a message dated 8/2/2005 9:23:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the
primary ID advocates themselves continually say that they don't want ID to be
taught in science classrooms. In fact, when my side says that they do they
throw a fit about how we're
I thought this was what
Jim's distinction between pluralism and tolerance amounted to, but wasn't
sure. Unfortunately, current dictionary usage is ambiguous about the
status of "toleration." Many dictionary entriesstress putting up
with or sufferingsomething. But even here the object often
An omitted final remark:
Even if pluralism, in some societies,toleratesgroups not of
equal status,that shows the connection between pluralism and toleration,
not the reverse. So even given Doug's historical point, one can readily say
pluralism and toleration not only coexist, but in those
I doubt that most people,
even religious people, are more ready to tell the truth only if the swear an
oath to God rather than simply being informed that the perjury rules
apply. But that aside, Jim presses the question, do we accept variances
because "we are a pluralistic society or
I do not recall Locke's
views on this matter. But we do accept affirmation; and I think the
word"infidel," is tocontemporary American sensibility,
offensive. Typically, its used to denigrate someone else's religious
belief as irreligious because the belief is incompatible withthe
Jim writes:
"But the development of trials from battle and fire to oath and jury
suggests that some kind of meaning attaches to an oath above and beyond the bare
power of the court to punish perjury."
I think this unjustifiably
conflates the origination of X with X's
present character.A
I'm not sure why it is
implied that one's oath to God is false or rather to a false God unless one's
hand is on the Bible. How can a pluralist society take a stand on which God is
the true God? But more important, isn't the purpose of swearing an oath to
God, to discipline the oath-taker
In a message dated 7/28/2005 9:08:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For
constitutional and legal purposes, do you distinguish between pluralistic and
tolerant societies?
I think we are both
pluralist and tolerant or at least aspire to be, especially for
In a message dated 7/25/2005 11:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
am a
libertarian/social conservative (I like the liberties that are expressed in
the Constitution,the ones I have trouble with are the deadly ones
theliberals on the Courthave
invented),
How
In a message dated 7/26/2005 9:45:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
would only have said, the meaning of the words of the Constitution belong
to the people who ratified it . . . .
Is there any dispositive
evidence that in some univocal sense of "the people"
In a message dated 7/26/2005 10:06:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On
homosexuality, most social conservatives do not favor lawsprohibiting
sodomy, but they do resist employment and housing lawswhich require them
to "accept" the "lifestyle."
Contentions such
In a message dated 7/26/2005 11:15:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, most social liberals who consider themselves
libertariando not support gun rights, school choice, low taxes, freedom
of contract and other economic liberties,etc. So even if I am
In a message dated 7/26/2005 10:44:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My sense
is that most of the opposition to overruling Bowers was basedon a
perception that the Court was acting lawlessly (a peception Idon't
necessarily share), and a concern that the
In a message dated 7/25/2005 4:37:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Since
this is a religion list, what exactly does it mean to "enforce
theConstitution as written" when it comes to the religion
clauses?)
A distinct but equally
important question is this.
In a message dated 7/23/2005 7:13:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jean can and should do with her body whatever she likes, but she ought to
be prevented from taking the life of a child even if, by the acts of others,
it finds itself in so hostile a land.
I
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
The grammatical argument is
only one factor for saying the "Democratic Party" instead of "Democrat
Party."What's dispositive, in my view, is that "Democratic Party"
isthe chosen name of a particular group of fellow citizens. And,
again in my view, respect for those citizens should carry
Jim confuses descriptions
with proper names. Such terms as "pro-life," "fundamentalist," and "abominable
and detestable crime against nature" are descriptions of people or their
positions on various issues. My recentpost about respect takes no stand on
Jim's concern about such descriptions.
Does grammar have a role to
play in the controversy between Marty and Jim? If so, it seems Marty wins.
"Democratic" is, of course, an adjective; "Democrat" is a noun. If not, why
not?
Bobby
Robert Justin
LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of
LawDelaware
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
