.
From: David E. Guinn
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006
9:41 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Pilgrim Baptist
Church
You wrote:
Nevertheless, even if the sort of
formal neutrality rule espoused in Thomas's Mitchell
plurality
Doesn't Boerne answer the question posed in your second paragraph?
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:59 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
Marty makes an excellent point
that Illinois is somehow
ill-motivated here.
Eugene
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006
10:13 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
, 2006 10:18 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
Doesn't Boerne answer the question posed in your second paragraph?
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:59 AM
To: Law
: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
I'm not sure I quite understand -- why would it answer that
question? If I recall correctly, this issue wasn't passed on by the
Court.
Eugene
-Original Message
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
I'm not sure I quite understand -- why would it answer
that question? If I recall correctly, this issue wasn't
passed on by the Court
Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:52 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
I don't think that your analogy holds up. It is one thing
for the state to regulate, and quite another to spend money.
-Original Message-
From
on.
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
Of course the two are in a sense different things. But they're
also similar in that (1) they are both
that fact and move on.
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:24 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
Of course the two are in a sense different things. But
they're
: Pilgrim Baptist Church
Marty makes an excellent point here. I think (though I'm not sure
that Marty does) that it would be outrageous if, when a state *does*
rebuild all buildings, or help rebuild them, or provides other services
short of rebuilding (e.g., taxpayer-paid internal sprinkler
The case I've seen cited on this issue is Committee for Public Ed.
Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 777 (1973) which
says:
"If the State may not erect buildings in which religious activities
are to take place, it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they
fall
form of religious
favoritism that is problematic under the EC, even if the Thomas view prevails?
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 8:09
PM
Subject: Re: Pilgrim Baptist Church
The case
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 8:09
PM
Subject: Re: Pilgrim Baptist
Church
The case I've seen cited on this issue is Committee for Public Ed.
Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 777 (1973) which
says:
"I
--- Original Message -
From:
David
E. Guinn
To: Law Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:40
PM
Subject: Re: Pilgrim Baptist Church
You wrote:
Nevertheless, even if the sort of "formal neutrality" rule espoused in
Thoma
I think the issue of historical restoration and preservation is a tricky one,
precisely because of the potential for strategic mispresentation. I would feel
much better if the decision had been made by a professional board of architects
(who would no doubt be completely credible in claiming
15 matches
Mail list logo
