Subject: RE: Ten Commandments: My
Prediction
I
define discrimination against religion as treating people or organizations
worse because they are religious. (I don't think anything I have said
suggests that discrimination means denying [a group] permission to do
something that it wants to do
iginal Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:53
PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: RE: Ten Commandments: My
Prediction
The cases you refer
to dont capture the social realit
I appreciate Mark's thoughtful post -- both for its substance and its tone.
I think his post raises two issues -- 1. What is the social meaning of the
display of the Ten Commandments? and 2. Is this a social meaning that the
state is permitted to promote or endorse?
As to the first, I recognize
Moses is one of the figures in the Supreme Court. Of the Ten
Commandments, though, only 2 are included-- the prohibitions on murder and
adultery. The I-X on the front panel is the Bill of Rights, not the Ten
Commandments.
Steve Jamar wrote:
plus
Moses is on the mural in the Supreme
Even if that is true, to only put the Ten C. is historically
inaccurate and to claim it is "historical" is pretextual. Put up a
monument with great law givers from history and Moses gets in there
(not the Ten C. however); but he would be one of many. If you put up
the 10 C alone then you have
Just to make clear where I stand, again. I think the display of the 10 commandments is a violation of the establishment clause. Period.
I was responding to the question about predicting what the Court might do by in part sketching a way in which the Court might do it and justify itself in doing
On Wednesday, March 2, 2005, at 08:39 AM, Paul Finkelman wrote:
Even if that is true, to only put the Ten C. is historically inaccurate and to claim it is historical is pretextual.
Of course it is. But my point was, again, that the Court could well do exactly that no matter how much you
I was at the Pew Forum event. Doug was indeed excellent, as was
Jay Sekulow arguing the other side. My prediction, like Art Spitzer's,
is that Justice O'Connor will vote to uphold one but not both displays
(and Justice Breyer may join her). O'Connor famously does this
kind of splitting
Title: Re: Ten Commandments
If it is going to be historical, perhaps the representation should be as in Exodus 32:15. Written on both sides of two tablets and probably in Hebrew.
Alan
Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family and Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite
In a message dated 3/1/2005 6:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hesitate to ask this, but does anyone on the list genuinely think that either of the displays in these cases is constututional?
Of course both displays are constitutional.
After listening to oral
Jim-- I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's
historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me atsome
lengththat the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but
rather the "Bill of Rights," by which he meant the first ten amendments, of
course.It is
The bill of rights refers in common and professional parlance to the first 10 amendments, not to amendments 1-12. Mr. Henderson, what were the other two articles? I looked at the webpage and still see only the first 10 amendments. I don't know whether the I-X is the 10 commandments or the bill
. Hendersons own proof would seem to
contradict him.
Jeff
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005
12:52 PM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments
The bill of rights refers
in common
University of Texas Law
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven
JamarSent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:52 AMTo: Law
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Ten
I think there is a difference between control and having a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind which some of the framers seemed to
think was important in 1776.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 10:08 PM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
It's a little hard to predict because I am not familiar with
: Ten Commandments: My Prediction
I think there is a difference between control and having a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind which some of the framers seemed to
think was important in 1776.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 10:08 PM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
It's a little hard
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:55:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mr. Henderson, what were the other two articles?
Article the First sets the number of representatives to at one for every thirty thousand until there is attained a total of 100 representatives, etc., etc.
Alan:
True. The differnece is that the founders thought they were right and the rest
of the world wrong.
Richard Dougherty
A.E. Brownstein wrote:
I think there is a difference between control and having a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind which some of the framers seemed to
think
Those articles are not part of the bill of rights.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2005, at 02:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:55:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mr. Henderson, what were
the other two articles?
Article the First sets the number of
Date: 3/2/2005 2:16:03 PM
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction
I think there is a difference between control and having a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind which some of the framers seemed to
think was important in 1776.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 10:08 PM 3/1/2005 -0800
For a narrative and pictorial explanation of the display of the bill of
rights, see
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/tour/frieze-east-from-courtroom-entry.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
)
Sent by:Subject: Re: Ten
Commandments
[EMAIL PROTECTED
US law on establishment is decidedly different from that of most of the world. Indeed, most states do not have a prohibition on establishment, just a guarantee of free exercise. I do not think that the US needs to have establishment law as it does to preserve religious freedom, but as it has
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me atsome lengththat the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but rather the
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me atsome lengththat the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but rather the
In a message dated 3/2/2005 1:11:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not only that, but if you click on Mr. Hendersons link, and then Read transcript, followed by clicking the link to Amendments 11-27, it eventually notes that
Constitutional Amendments 1-10 make up what is
Thank you, Gene, for your usual levelheadedness. Jim, I think the
link that was provided to the Supreme Court will make it clear what was intended
by the Court. You, of course, may have your viewpoint.
Marci
___
To post, send message to
In a message dated 3/2/2005 2:45:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those articles are not part of the bill of rights.
Professor Jamar, I am prepared to read and weigh an argument justifying the assertion. But the bare assertion is not sufficient. I don't dispute Doug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know what docent you are talking to, but
the Court's historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me
atsome lengththat the tablets in the front are
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:25:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, I think the link that was provided to the Supreme Court will make it clear what was intended by the Court.
Well, to the contrary, and I thinkthe discussion of these issues is related to how we
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:35:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I'm reading Mr. Henderson correctly, he is actually arguing that the artist who carved them is wrong about what they represent? If the artist who carved the frieze isn't the authoritative source on what
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:35:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I'm reading Mr. Henderson correctly, he is actually
arguing that the artist who carved them is wrong about what they
represent? If the artist who carved the
MSNBC has just published a somewhat detailed account of the oral arguments. I link to it here.
RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow
You think that at any time in the 20th century the term Bill of Rights referred to 12 articles instead of the first 10 ratified amendments? Let me see the history to prove that assertion. Your assertion on this list is the first time I have ever heard the US Bill of Rights as other than the
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:52:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, to be blunt, you're just not making much sense here. You appear to have spent the last hour arguing that the tablets on the frieze represent the Ten Commandments.
I realize that foolish consistency is
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:55:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, you are just wrong on this one in terms of what the "Bill of Rights" means.
Enough already, and no more. The term "Bill of Rights" means precisely whatever Humpty Dumpty says it means. After all, he
If the early news reports on today's oral argument are accurate, Justice
Scalia argued that government may memorialize and endorse overtly and
exclusively religious beliefs accepted by a substantial majority of the
polity -- without regard to history or context. Are those reports correct?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:52:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, to be blunt, you're just not making much sense here.
You appear to have spent the last hour arguing that the tablets on the
frieze represent the Ten
Let me add one thing to my last reply. I would agree that where we have
a very clear understanding of the intent of the framers, we should
certainly refer there first in terms of constitutional interpretation.
I just don't think it's nearly as simple an application as many people
pretend, nor
M
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments
In a message dated 3/2/2005 4:15:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that he is willing to leave it to the majority's discretion to determine whether the religious liberty of minorities should be protected against government interference fr
Alan:
I think this would be appropriate in a document like the Declaration of
Independence, but not in every court decision that is handed down; doesn't it
suffice to know that we have different laws, and that's why we have different
results? The claim of the
Declaration, though, is a
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 3/2/2005 2:11 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction
US law on establishment is decidedly different from that of most of the
world. Indeed, most states do not have a prohibition on establishment, just
a guarantee of free
Ok, but I've not seen Catholics or Jews or Muslims pushing for:
prayers starting school
prayers at football games
using religious arguments as superior to positive law
young-earther anti-evolution creationism
creches
I do not recall seeing any Catholics or Jews pushing this as part of their
Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments: My
Prediction
Ok, but I've not seen Catholics or Jews or Muslims
pushing for:
prayers starting school
prayers at football games
using religious arguments as superior to positive law
young-earther anti
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Ten Commandments
I think Justice Scalia's point probably is that the social meaning of
the
display of the Ten Commandments, like the reference to under God in
the
Pledge of Allegiance, is simply a recognition of the principles
I have read these debates with interest. I was an expert in the
Alabama case and have a forthcoming article in Fordham Law Review that
is cited in some of the briefs. The article should be out very very
soon. I have final page proof, however, and can e-mail it to anyone
interest in reading it.
What federal building in Washington has something that would need to be sandblasted off? I spent a decade looking, and didn't find anything.
Ed Darrell
Dallas (now)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/2005 6:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hesitate to
I think the Court could dividedly say that the 10 Commandments are part of our juridical heritage and we use history and tradition to justify some things and we have no coercion here and some accommodation could creep in, and state sponsorship is attenuated; plus Moses is on the mural in the
I hesitate to ask this, but does anyone on the list genuinely think that
either of the displays in these cases is constututional?
Marty:
Do you mean are they constitutional, or will they pass muster with the current
Court's understanding of what is consitutional? Those can be very different
issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments
I hesitate to ask this, but does anyone on the list genuinely think that
either of the displays in these cases is constututional?
Marty:
Do you mean are they constitutional
In a message dated 3/1/05 9:15:28 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hey, I'm simply trying to prompt worthwhile conversation -- please feel free
to answer whichever questions you think are most interesting!
Four Justices will find both displays unconstitutional; Four Justices will find both
Since the court has NEVER cited the 10 C or hte Bible as legal
authority for anything, I am curious how it can be part of our judicial
heritage?
Steven Jamar wrote:
I think the Court could dividedly say that the 10
Commandments are
part of our juridical heritage and we use history and
, 2004 12:20
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Ten
Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position
I think the current
use of the claim that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, or at least
the way I understand this phrase in its strongest sense, is that the Ten
Commandmen
Title: Message
MikeSchuttwrites:
1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if
not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind--
that is, that lawis not merely a human artifact.
If anything
is a theological proposition (that should not be taught by the state) it is
I think the current
use of the claim that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, or at least
the way I understand this phrase in its strongest sense, is that the Ten
Commandments are our law's foundation in two senses:(1) Our lawsare
derived historically, conceptually, and so
al Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of A.E. BrownsteinSent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
1:11 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws"
PositionWhen Mike writes that "The Ten
Title: Message
Mike Schutt wrote:
In response to Ed's and Prof
Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two.
I think what is traditionally
meant by the "basis of our laws" position is the following:
1. The Ten Commandments is a
stark (if not the first surviving)
law.
sandy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
I
of thinking inspired people as diverse as James Wilson and Martin Luther
King, Jr.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:55 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Ten
]
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
I think the current use of the claim that our laws are based
on
the Ten Commandments, or at least the way I understand this
phrase in
its strongest sense, is that the Ten Commandments are our law's
foundation in two senses: (1
Francis J. Beckwith wrote:
Ed, are you suggesting that believing the 10 commandments are from God is
irrational? If so, not only should the 10 commandments be banned from public
places, we should be telling our young people that its divine source is
suspect and to believe that way shows a lack of
ze it. (I
apologize for characterizing your belief that adultery is immoral as a belief in
moral "law.")
Mike
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Ed BraytonSent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:55
PMTo: Law Religion issues for
Title: Message
But how do you explain the fact that law
and morality flourish in some societies that are neither Christian nor Jewish?
-Original Message-
From: Mike Schutt
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
12:22 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for
Law
and don't flourish in some places that are very Christian
Paul Finkelman
Newsom Michael wrote:
Message
But how do you
explain the fact that law and morality flourish in some societies that are
neither Christian nor Jewish?
-Original
Dear Sandy: The idea of the state IS a theological proposition, friend. God
bless you. JL
--
John Lofton
313 Montgomery St.,
Laurel, Maryland 20707
Home Phone: 301-490-7266
Work Phone: 410-766-8591
Cell Phone: 301-873-4612
Fax: 410-766-8592
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When Mike writes that The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the
first surviving) demonstration that law comes from outside
humankind-- that is, that law is not merely a human artifact, he is
expressing a position with significant sectarian implications. For
traditional Jews, the entire Torah
The Decalogue has certainly provided religious and
moral support for laws against murder, theft, fraud, and perjury (though such
laws probably would have existed in any event). It may also have had other substantial
indirect effects on our law. For example, the command to honor the
67 matches
Mail list logo
