UC Case: Facts from Complaint
If you haven't read the complaint in the Association of Christian Schools v. UC case, I encourage you to do so. Although UC denied approval to courses concerning "Christianity's Influence on American History" and "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" as being too narrow and not consistent "with knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community," at the same time it approved courses such as these:
Social Commentary in Popular Music
Baseball, Literature and Culture
Sports Fiction/Non Fiction
Storytelling
The Roots of Rock Music ("yeah, yeah, yeah")
Gender Roles in Literature
Ethnic Experience in Literature
Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature
Literature of the Counterculture
Literature from the 60's Movement
Filipino Heritage Studies
Intro to Rabbinic Literature
Jewish History
Turning Points in Jewish History
Issues in African History
Raza Studies
History of India
Mexican History
Modern Irish History
Asian Literature
Holocaust Literature
Chicano Literature
Beat Literature (like, cool, man!)
Women's Literature
Intro to Buddhism
Islam
And the beat goes on. There were many similar courses thatwere alsoapproved.
Now these facts are from the complaint. UC may reply that it has not approved Beat Literature or Baseball Literature or the other narrowcourses from specialized points of view. But if these are the facts. this case looks very much like the kind of religious gerrymander we saw in Lukumi where a person could kill an animal for almost any reason except religious ritual. And it also looks like the kind of subjective, individualized, discretionary procedures that trigger strict scrutiny under Sherbert and the individualized process rule.
I have only glanced at the 108-page complaint, but it sure looks to me like the Pls have a strong claim of viewpoint and religious discrimination. Indeed, there seems to be at least a possibility of denominational discrimination in the approval process.It would not surprise me at all if UC settles this one as quickly and quietly as possible.
Rick Duncan
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.
U.S. Denies Asylum for Persecuted Chinese Christian
If the present administration expects to be seen as an advocate for religious freedom, it had better intervene on behalf of Mr. Li. This story is from Christianity Today. Brad U.S. Denies Asylum for Persecuted Chinese Christian Court believes Christian's story, says China has the right to maintain social order. by Boaz Herzog | posted 09/06/2005 09:30 a.m. For more than five years, Xiaodong Li and about half a dozen friends gathered weekly in their hometown of Ningbo, China, to study the Bible and sing hymns. Then one Sunday morning in April 1995, in the middle of one of the services inside Li's apartment, three cops stormed in, handcuffed Li, and escorted him to the local police station. The officers grabbed his hair and kicked his legs, forcing him to kneel. They hit and shocked him with an electronic black baton until he confessed two hours later to organizing an underground church. Later, they locked him inside a windowless, humid cell with six other inmates until his friend and uncle bailed him out five days later. After his release, police forced him to clean public toilets 40 hours a week without pay. He lost his job as a hotel spokesman. Li, 22 at the time, likely faced two years in prison. A court hearing was set for later that year. Li began plotting an escape. He applied for a visa. Unaware of Li's looming trial, a government agency issued him a passport. And on November 4, 1995, Li left the country. Two months later, a Carnival Cruise Lines ship docked in Miami. Li, a food server on board, walked off and never returned. He moved to Houston, hoping to go back to his homeland when China's government eased religious restrictions. Instead, conditions worsened. His friend was imprisoned for participating in their underground church. And police interrogated Li's family, who still live in China, after receiving Bibles, religious magazines, and newspapers that Li had sent them. In 1999, Li applied for asylum on the grounds that the Chinese government had persecuted him for his religious beliefs. He missed the application deadline, but an immigration judge agreed with his arguments, granting him a status that allowed him to remain in the United States until conditions in China improved. But in 2003, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the judge's decision. It ruled that Li was punished for violating laws on unregistered churches that it said China has a legitimate right to enforce. Li, the board concluded, feared legal action or prosecution, not persecution. In August, a three-judge panel of the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the board's ruling. The decision has alarmed refugee and religious-freedom advocates. They say the ruling, unless overturned, will make it much more difficult for future asylum-seekers to prove religious persecution. The appeals court decision sends a chilling message that the United States is beginning to turn its back on people fleeing religious persecution, said Dori Dinsmore, the former advocacy director for World Relief, an international organization that assists refugees. Last year, U.S. immigration courts completed about 65,000 applications for asylum. Of those cases, about 20 percent of the applicants were granted asylum, the plurality of which came from China. Asylum allows refugees to work in the United States and later apply for permanent residence. To gain asylum, applicants must prove they are refugees escaping persecution because of their nationality, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, race, or religion. Ultimately, Dinsmore told CT, the Fifth Circuit's ruling means that many more asylum applicants will be deported back into the hands of the people persecuting them. The ruling has broad implications for worshipers across the globe. Ann Buwalda, founder and executive director of human-rights group Jubilee Campaign USA, told CT that adherents of other faiths could soon be denied U.S. asylum because some of their religious practices are considered illegal in their homelands. For example, she pointed to persecuted practitioners of Falun Gong exercises in China, and Muslims who convert to Christianity in Iran. Essentially, Buwalda said of the Fifth Circuit ruling, you've removed religion as a basis of gaining asylum. Chris Bentley, a spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services bureau, declined to comment on the impact Li's case could have on other asylum applicants. The agency is reviewing the judges' decision, and then we'll take appropriate actions, Bentley said. Li's Houston-based attorney, Garrett White, said his client, now 32, plans to appeal, both to the full ring of Fifth Circuit judges and to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Alliance Defense Fund has joined Garrett as co-counsel. Persecution a 'Moral Judgment, Not a Legal One' That an immigration judge on up to the Fifth Circuit found Li's story of prosecution credible makes it all the more
Re: U.S. Denies Asylum for Persecuted Chinese Christian
Or, it had better halt the proceeding that it (at the very least) continued after the initial determination favorable to Mr. Li, and resisted on Mr. Li's appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Brad M Pardee wrote: If the present administration expects to be seen as an advocate for religious freedom, it had better intervene on behalf of Mr. Li. This story is from Christianity Today. Brad U.S. Denies Asylum for Persecuted Chinese Christian Court believes Christian's story, says China has the right to maintain social order. by Boaz Herzog | posted 09/06/2005 09:30 a.m. For more than five years, Xiaodong Li and about half a dozen friends gathered weekly in their hometown of Ningbo, China, to study the Bible and sing hymns. Then one Sunday morning in April 1995, in the middle of one of the services inside Li's apartment, three cops stormed in, handcuffed Li, and escorted him to the local police station. The officers grabbed his hair and kicked his legs, forcing him to kneel. They hit and shocked him with an electronic black baton until he confessed two hours later to organizing an underground church. Later, they locked him inside a windowless, humid cell with six other inmates until his friend and uncle bailed him out five days later. After his release, police forced him to clean public toilets 40 hours a week without pay. He lost his job as a hotel spokesman. Li, 22 at the time, likely faced two years in prison. A court hearing was set for later that year. Li began plotting an escape. He applied for a visa. Unaware of Li's looming trial, a government agency issued him a passport. And on November 4, 1995, Li left the country. Two months later, a Carnival Cruise Lines ship docked in Miami. Li, a food server on board, walked off and never returned. He moved to Houston, hoping to go back to his homeland when China's government eased religious restrictions. Instead, conditions worsened. His friend was imprisoned for participating in their underground church. And police interrogated Li's family, who still live in China, after receiving Bibles, religious magazines, and newspapers that Li had sent them. In 1999, Li applied for asylum on the grounds that the Chinese government had persecuted him for his religious beliefs. He missed the application deadline, but an immigration judge agreed with his arguments, granting him a status that allowed him to remain in the United States until conditions in China improved. But in 2003, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the judge's decision. It ruled that Li was punished for violating laws on unregistered churches that it said China has a legitimate right to enforce. Li, the board concluded, feared legal action or prosecution, not persecution. In August, a three-judge panel of the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the board's ruling. The decision has alarmed refugee and religious-freedom advocates. They say the ruling, unless overturned, will make it much more difficult for future asylum-seekers to prove religious persecution. The appeals court decision "sends a chilling message that the United States is beginning to turn its back on people fleeing religious persecution," said Dori Dinsmore, the former advocacy director for World Relief, an international organization that assists refugees. Last year, U.S. immigration courts completed about 65,000 applications for asylum. Of those cases, about 20 percent of the applicants were granted asylum, the plurality of which came from China. Asylum allows refugees to work in the United States and later apply for permanent residence. To gain asylum, applicants must prove they are refugees escaping persecution because of their nationality, membership in a particular social group, political opinion, race, or religion. "Ultimately," Dinsmore told CT, the Fifth Circuit's ruling means that many more asylum applicants "will be deported back into the hands of the people persecuting them." The ruling has broad implications for worshipers across the globe. Ann Buwalda, founder and executive director of human-rights group Jubilee Campaign USA, told CT that adherents of other faiths could soon be denied U.S. asylum because some of their religious practices are considered illegal in their homelands. For example, she pointed to persecuted practitioners of Falun Gong exercises in China, and Muslims who convert to Christianity in Iran. "Essentially," Buwalda said of the Fifth Circuit ruling, "you've removed religion as a basis of gaining asylum." Chris Bentley, a spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services bureau, declined to comment on the impact Li's case could have on other asylum applicants. The agency is "reviewing the judges' decision, and then we'll take appropriate actions," Bentley said. Li's Houston-based attorney, Garrett White, said his client, now 32, plans to appeal, both to the full ring of Fifth Circuit
Re: UC Case: Facts from Complaint
Dear Rick: I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as History of Christianity; Renaissance/Reformation and a number of early modern European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses on the Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I ever took (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything, colonialists probably spend too much time on the Puritans. Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses below would have content about Christians and Christianity, including Storytelling, Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature, (lots of interesting religious issues there, from the problem of guilt to fundamentalist hombophobia) Jewish History, (had to teach it without discussing Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish History (same comment); Issues in African History (from Missionaries to Bishop Tutu it will show up); Holocaust Literature, Islam, etc. will all have to discuss Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and events. I think a course on the Influence of Christianity in the US would be interesting and certainly valid. Such a course would lectures and readings on the following (in no particular order): The KKK (and the use of the Cross as a symbol of terrorism and hatred; Christian identity movements in the last 25 years Father Coughlin's antisemitism The hanging of witches in Salem and Quakers in Boston The use of Christian theology to defend (as well as attack) slavery The use of conversion of slaves to help prevent resistance to slavery Ownership of slaves by churches The utter failure of the Protestant Churches in the South to the take a strong stand in favor of legalizing slave marriages The persecution of Mormons and the murder of Joseph Smith The death penalty (fortunately reduced to exile) for a Jew in colonial Maryland because he denied the divinity of Christ The whipping and jailing of Baptist ministers in Virginia in the Revolutionary period. The intellectual intolerance of the 1920s (and more recent periods) by prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools The forced reading of Protestant version of the Bible imposed on Catholics in the 19th century The attacks on Al Smith's presidential campaign (and also attack on John F. Kennedy) because they were Catholic. The strong stand against integration taken by virtually ever southern Christian minister in the 1950s and early 1960s. The influence of religious groups in undermining Indian culture and religion and forcing Indian children not to learn their own language. The use of Protestant theology (and the influence of Christian leaders) to justify wars against Indians, particularly in the colonial period. Yes, it would be a great course; I would love to teach it. Paul Finkelman -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rick Duncan wrote: If you haven't read the complaint http://www.acsi.org/webfiles/webitems/attachments/007875_2.%20ACSI%20CA%20Complaint.pdf in the Association of Christian Schools v. UC case, I encourage you to do so. Although UC denied approval to courses concerning Christianity's Influence on American History and Christianity and Morality in American Literature as being too narrow and not consistent with knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community, at the same time it approved courses such as these: Social Commentary in Popular Music Baseball, Literature and Culture Sports Fiction/Non Fiction Storytelling The Roots of Rock Music (yeah, yeah, yeah) Gender Roles in Literature Ethnic Experience in Literature Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature Literature of the Counterculture Literature from the 60's Movement Filipino Heritage Studies Intro to Rabbinic Literature Jewish History Turning Points in Jewish History Issues in African History Raza Studies History of India Mexican History Modern Irish History Asian Literature Holocaust Literature Chicano Literature Beat Literature (like, cool, man!) Women's Literature Intro to Buddhism Islam And the beat goes on. There were many similar courses that were also approved. Now these facts are from the complaint. UC may reply that it has not approved Beat Literature or Baseball Literature or the other narrow courses from specialized points of view. But if these are the facts. this case
Re: UC Case: Facts from Complaint
I am sure Paul would love to teach the course on Christianity hedescribes below. I am sure it would be very interesting. And if he taught it in a California high school, UC might well have approved it.
Indeed, it seems that it was the viewpoint of the course, not its subject matter, that was the reason the course submitted by the Chirstian School in the UC case was disapproved by the university. Which is what makes this a very interesting 1A case!
I only hope the UC profs who disapproved this case are as forthcoming and honest as is Paul. They will make great witnesses.
Well, got to run.So few minutes in the day, and so manywitches to burn and heretics to whip! :-)
Cheers, Rick Duncan
Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Rick:I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as "History of Christianity"; "Renaissance/Reformation" and a number of early modern European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses on the Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I ever took (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything, colonialists
probably spend too much time on the Puritans.Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses below would have content about Christians and Christianity, including "Storytelling," "Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature," (lots of interesting religious issues there, from the problem of guilt to fundamentalist hombophobia) "Jewish History," (had to teach it without discussing Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish History (same comment); Issues in African History (from Missionaries to Bishop Tutu it will show up); Holocaust Literature, Islam, etc. will all have to discuss Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and events.I think a course on the "Influence of Christianity in the US" would be interesting and certainly valid. Such a course would lectures and readings on the following (in no particular order):The KKK (and the use of the Cross as a symbol of terrorism and hatred;
Christian "identity" movements in the last 25 yearsFather Coughlin's antisemitismThe hanging of witches in Salem and Quakers in BostonThe use of Christian theology to defend (as well as attack) slaveryThe use of conversion of slaves to help prevent resistance to slaveryOwnership of slaves by churchesThe utter failure of the Protestant Churches in the South to the take a strong stand in favor of legalizing slave marriagesThe persecution of Mormons and the murder of Joseph SmithThe death penalty (fortunately reduced to exile) for a Jew in colonial Maryland because he denied the divinity of ChristThe whipping and jailing of Baptist ministers in Virginia in the Revolutionary period.The intellectual intolerance of the 1920s (and more recent periods) by prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schoolsThe forced reading of Protestant version of the Bible imposed on Catholics in the 19th centuryThe a!
ttacks on
Al Smith's presidential campaign (and also attack on John F. Kennedy) because they were Catholic.The strong stand against integration taken by virtually ever southern Christian minister in the 1950s and early 1960s.The influence of religious groups in undermining Indian culture and religion and forcing Indian children not to learn their own language.The use of Protestant theology (and the influence of Christian leaders) to justify wars against Indians, particularly in the colonial period.Yes, it would be a great course; I would love to teach it.Paul Finkelman-- Paul FinkelmanChapman Distinguished ProfessorUniversity of Tulsa College of Law3120 East 4th PlaceTulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499918-631-3706 (office)918-631-2194 (fax)[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rick Duncan wrote: If you haven't read the complaint in the Association of Christian Schools v. UC case, I encourage you to do so. Although UC denied approval to courses concerning "Christianity's Influence on American History" and "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" as being too narrow and not consistent "with knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community," at the same time it approved courses such as these: Social Commentary in Popular Music Baseball, Literature and Culture Sports Fiction/Non Fiction Storytelling The Roots of Rock Music ("yeah, yeah, yeah") Gender Roles in Literature Ethnic Experience in Literature Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature Literature of the Counterculture Literature from the 60's Movement Filipino Heritage Studies Intro to Rabbinic
Re: UC Case: Facts from Complaint
You can conclude the course with the lecture, Why the moral relativism embraced by secularism can't adequately account for the wrongness of the acts I just condemned. Time for Eugene to spank us. Frank On 9/6/05 1:24 PM, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The KKK (and the use of the Cross as a symbol of terrorism and hatred; Christian identity movements in the last 25 years Father Coughlin's antisemitism The hanging of witches in Salem and Quakers in Boston The use of Christian theology to defend (as well as attack) slavery The use of conversion of slaves to help prevent resistance to slavery Ownership of slaves by churches The utter failure of the Protestant Churches in the South to the take a strong stand in favor of legalizing slave marriages The persecution of Mormons and the murder of Joseph Smith The death penalty (fortunately reduced to exile) for a Jew in colonial Maryland because he denied the divinity of Christ The whipping and jailing of Baptist ministers in Virginia in the Revolutionary period. The intellectual intolerance of the 1920s (and more recent periods) by prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools The forced reading of Protestant version of the Bible imposed on Catholics in the 19th century The attacks on Al Smith's presidential campaign (and also attack on John F. Kennedy) because they were Catholic. The strong stand against integration taken by virtually ever southern Christian minister in the 1950s and early 1960s. The influence of religious groups in undermining Indian culture and religion and forcing Indian children not to learn their own language. The use of Protestant theology (and the influence of Christian leaders) to justify wars against Indians, particularly in the colonial period. Yes, it would be a great course; I would love to teach it. Paul Finkelman ___ 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: UC Case: Facts from Complaint
My point Rick,is that the course Influence of Christianity in US History would need to be a serious course, that looked at issues with some skepticism and not merely propaganda; if my coursre were set out as I did, without other things, it would hardly work as a serious course. In the US we hung witches; none were burned; let's not defame our great history Rick Duncan wrote: I am sure Paul would love to teach the course on Christianity he describes below. I am sure it would be very interesting. And if he taught it in a California high school, UC might well have approved it. Indeed, it seems that it was the viewpoint of the course, not its subject matter, that was the reason the course submitted by the Chirstian School in the UC case was disapproved by the university. Which is what makes this a very interesting 1A case! I only hope the UC profs who disapproved this case are as forthcoming and honest as is Paul. They will make great witnesses. Well, got to run. So few minutes in the day, and so many witches to burn and heretics to whip! :-) Cheers, Rick Duncan Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Rick: I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as History of Christianity; Renaissance/Reformation and a number of early modern European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses on the Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I ever took (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything, colonialists probably spend too much time on the Puritans. Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses below would have content about Christians and Christianity, including Storytelling, Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature, (lots of interesting religious issues there, from the problem of guilt to fundamentalist hombophobia) Jewish History, (had to teach it without discussing Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish History (same comment); Issues in African History (from Missionaries to Bishop Tutu it will show up); Holocaust Literature, Islam, etc. will all have to discuss Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and events. I think a course on the Influence of Christianity in the US would be interesting and certainly valid. Such a course would lectures and readings on the following (in no particular order): The KKK (and the use of the Cross as a symbol of terrorism and hatred; Christian identity movements in the last 25 years Father Coughlin's antisemitism The hanging of witches in Salem and Quakers in Boston The use of Christian theology to defend (as well as attack) slavery The use of conversion of slaves to help prevent resistance to slavery Ownership of slaves by churches The utter failure of the Protestant Churches in the South to the take a strong stand in favor of legalizing slave marriages The persecution of Mormons and the murder of Joseph Smith The death penalty (fortunately reduced to exile) for a Jew in colonial Maryland because he denied the divinity of Christ The whipping and jailing of Baptist ministers in Virginia in the Revolutionary period. The intellectual intolerance of the 1920s (and more recent periods) by prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools The forced reading of Protestant version of the Bible imposed on Catholics in the 19th century The at tacks on Al Smith's presidential campaign (and also attack on John F. Kennedy) because they were Catholic. The strong stand against integration taken by virtually ever southern Christian minister in the 1950s and early 1960s. The influence of religious groups in undermining Indian culture and religion and forcing Indian children not to learn their own language. The use of Protestant theology (and the influence of Christian leaders) to justify wars against Indians, particularly in the colonial period. Yes, it would be a great course; I would love to teach it. Paul Finkelman -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rick Duncan wrote: If you haven't read the complaint in the Association of Christian Schools v. UC case, I
From the list custodian
Title: Message Folks: I'm sure that people on this list would be able to compile lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes; of Muslims; of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more. They would also be able to compile lists of the good things that each of those groups have done.Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or certain denominations in particular, are on balance malign or benign influences on the nation is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and has filled volumes. It can easily fill days and days of list discussion, too, should people choose to embark on it. But do we really think thatposting such lists -- no matter how much the post may entertain the author -- will behelpful to thoughtful, reasoned list discussion of the law of government and religion? The list custodian Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Rick:I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as "History of Christianity"; "Renaissance/Reformation" and a number of early modern European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses on the Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I ever took (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything, colonialists probably spend too much time on the Puritans.Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses below would have content about Christians and Christianity, including "Storytelling," "Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature," (lots of interesting religious issues there, from the problem of guilt to fundamentalist hombophobia) "Jewish History," (had to teach it without discussing Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish History (same comment); Issues in African History (from Missionaries to Bishop Tutu it will show up); Holocaust Literature, Islam, etc. will all have to discuss Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and events.I think a course on the "Influence of Christianity in the US" would be interesting and certainly valid. Such a course would lectures and readings on the following (in no particular order):The KKK (and the use of the Cross as a symbol of terrorism and hatred; Christian "identity" movements in the last 25 yearsFather Coughlin's antisemitismThe hanging of witches in Salem and Quakers in BostonThe use of Christian theology to defend (as well as attack) slaveryThe use of conversion of slaves to help prevent resistance to slaveryOwnership of slaves by churchesThe utter failure of the Protestant Churches in the South to the take a strong stand in favor of legalizing slave marriagesThe persecution of Mormons and the murder of Joseph SmithThe death penalty (fortunately reduced to exile) for a Jew in colonial Maryland because he denied the divinity of ChristThe whipping and jailing of Baptist ministers in Virginia in the Revolutionary period.The intellectual intolerance of the 1920s (and more recent periods) by prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schoolsThe forced reading of Protestant version of the Bible imposed on Catholics in the 19th centuryThe a! ttacks on Al Smith's presidential campaign (and also attack on John F. Kennedy) because they were Catholic.The strong stand against integration taken by virtually ever southern Christian minister in the 1950s and early 1960s.The influence of religious groups in undermining Indian culture and religion and forcing Indian children not to learn their own language.The use of Protestant theology (and the influence of Christian leaders) to justify wars against Indians, particularly in the colonial period.Yes, it would be a great course; I would love to teach it.Paul Finkelman-- Paul FinkelmanChapman Distinguished ProfessorUniversity of Tulsa College of Law3120 East 4th PlaceTulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499918-631-3706 (office)918-631-2194 (fax)[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rick Duncan wrote: If you haven't read the complaint in the Association of Christian Schools v. UC case, I encourage you to do so. Although UC denied approval to courses concerning "Christianity's Influence on American History" and "Christianity and Morality in American Literature" as being too narrow and not consistent "with knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate
RE: UC Case: Facts from Complaint
OK, while I much appreciate the kind words, we're now getting quite a distance from the list topic. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:06 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: UC Case: Facts from Complaint Francis Beckwith wrote: You can conclude the course with the lecture, Why the moral relativism embraced by secularism can't adequately account for the wrongness of the acts I just condemned. Time for Eugene to spank us. If I recall correctly, Eugene has written rather eloquently about the claim that non-religious moral codes amount to moral relativism. It's a false claim. I do not believe that morality comes from God, but I am the furthest thing from a moral relativist. Ed Brayton -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/05 ___ 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. ___ 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: From the list custodian
Eugene: My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. The fact is this: a History of the Influence of Christianity in American history taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely teach many of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres would teach a number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery movement and the civil rights movement. If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to explore the issue. Paul Finkelman Volokh, Eugene wrote: Folks: I'm sure that people on this list would be able to compile lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes; of Muslims; of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more. They would also be able to compile lists of the good things that each of those groups have done. Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or certain denominations in particular, are on balance malign or benign influences on the nation is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and has filled volumes. It can easily fill days and days of list discussion, too, should people choose to embark on it. But do we really think that posting such lists -- no matter how much the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to thoughtful, reasoned list discussion of the law of government and religion? The list custodian Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Rick: I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as History of Christianity; Renaissance/Reformation and a number of early modern European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses on the Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I ever took (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything, colonialists probably spend too much time on the Puritans. Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses below would have content about Christians and Christianity, including Storytelling, Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature, (lots of interesting religious issues there, from the problem of guilt to fundamentalist hombophobia) Jewish History, (had to teach it without discussing Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish History (same comment); Issues in African History (from Missionaries to Bishop Tutu it will show up); Holocaust Literature, Islam, etc. will all have to discuss Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and events. I think a course on the Influence of Christianity in the US would be interesting and certainly valid. Such a course would lectures and readings on the following (in no particular order): The KKK (and the use of the Cross as a symbol of terrorism and hatred; Christian identity movements in the last 25 years Father Coughlin's antisemitism The hanging of witches in Salem and Quakers in Boston The use of Christian theology to defend (as well as attack) slavery The use of conversion of slaves to help prevent resistance to slavery Ownership of slaves by churches The utter failure of the Protestant Churches in the South to the take a strong stand in favor of legalizing slave marriages The persecution of Mormons and the murder of Joseph Smith The death penalty (fortunately reduced to exile) for a Jew in colonial Maryland because he denied the divinity of Christ The whipping and jailing of Baptist ministers in Virginia in the Revolutionary period. The intellectual intolerance of the 1920s (and more recent periods) by prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools The forced reading of Protestant version of the Bible imposed on Catholics in the 19th century The a! ttacks on Al Smith's presidential campaign (and also attack on John F. Kennedy) because they were Catholic. The strong stand against integration taken by
Re: From the list custodian
In a message dated 9/6/2005 3:41:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. The fact is this: a "History of the Influence of Christianity in American history" taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely teach many of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres would teach a number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery movement and the civil rights movement.If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to explore the issue. I wonder. Several Christian denominations, for example, have engaged in close self-examination and repentance for their role in some of the things listed; justification of slavery, oppression of First Peoples, etc. Paul, did you derive your course topics from experience with Christian schools, or from your expectations of what you would find? Rick, it seems to me, wasn't playing a "list game," although he can speak for himself on this point; I took his listing of approved courses as a shorthand indication of how likely it was that a leftward liberal, non-western-tradition valuing decision-making body can engage in what by titles only seems to be a highly subjective and highly narrowly focused search for overly narrowly focused studies. 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: From the list custodian
I think Paul is wrong. Theologically conservative Protestant Christians are concerned about the abuses of religion. The ones who have set up schools are mostly in the tradition of the dissenters (like Roger Williams) who were the subject of religious persecution. It is an unfortunate stereotype to treat them as if they would not look seriously at such issues. To the extent that the UC wants courses to provide a breadth of viewpoints, you'd think there might be concerns about some of the courses the UC accepts (according to the complaint). Do you suppose the UC checked the syllabus of the Raza Studies course to see whether it is taught from a narrow point of view? Or to see whether Milton's Comus or other works sympathetic to traditional sexual morality are in the list of readings for the Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature course? Perhaps the UC is consistent in its concerns, but I'd think it would have been big news if the UC had questioned the quality of one of these courses and demanded a syllabus. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law ___ 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: From the list custodian
Well, all I saw was what the post said. The post listed bad things that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty clearly like a slam at Christianity. It strikes me as very likely that many people would have interpreted it this way. I would have thought that the author would have understood that it would be interpreted this way. I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for here's what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong with your religion, and I see lots of downside. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: From the list custodian Eugene: My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. The fact is this: a History of the Influence of Christianity in American history taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely teach many of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres would teach a number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery movement and the civil rights movement. If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to explore the issue. Paul Finkelman Volokh, Eugene wrote: Folks: I'm sure that people on this list would be able to compile lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes; of Muslims; of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more. They would also be able to compile lists of the good things that each of those groups have done. Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or certain denominations in particular, are on balance malign or benign influences on the nation is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and has filled volumes. It can easily fill days and days of list discussion, too, should people choose to embark on it. But do we really think that posting such lists -- no matter how much the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to thoughtful, reasoned list discussion of the law of government and religion? The list custodian Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Rick: I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as History of Christianity; Renaissance/Reformation and a number of early modern European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses on the Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I ever took (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything, colonialists probably spend too much time on the Puritans. Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses below would have content about Christians and Christianity, including Storytelling, Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature, (lots of interesting religious issues there, from the problem of guilt to fundamentalist hombophobia) Jewish History, (had to teach it without discussing Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish History (same comment); Issues in African History (from Missionaries to Bishop Tutu it will show up); Holocaust Literature, Islam, etc. will all have to discuss Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and events. I think a course on the Influence of Christianity in the US would be interesting and certainly valid. Such a course would lectures and readings on the following (in no particular order): The KKK (and the use of the Cross as a symbol of terrorism and hatred; Christian identity movements in the last 25 years Father Coughlin's antisemitism The hanging of witches in Salem and Quakers in Boston The use of Christian theology to defend (as well as attack) slavery The use of conversion of
RE: From the list custodian
A discussion about how a public educational system may / should evaluate religious' schools' treatments of religious topics fairly opens up substantive debate about what constitutes a sufficiently critical treatment of religious topics. Paul Finkelman's post dramatized the ample space available for critical discourse about the dominant religion in American life, in the face of arguments that a public educational system discriminates if it refuses to credit uncritical courses about religion. As one reader (a Christian one, if that's a requirement for standing in this dispute), I think Professor Finkelman's statment is more probative than prejudicial. Speaking as one reader (a Christian one, for whatever that's worth), I'm not sure a discussion of how a public educational system should address sectarian schools' treatments of religious topics can avoid arguments about whether one kind of system or the other portrays a given religion or religions too critically or not critically enough. Gregory P. Magarian Professor of Law Villanova University School of Law 299 N. Spring Mill Road Villanova, PA 19085 (610) 519-7652 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/6/2005 4:50:20 PM Well, all I saw was what the post said. The post listed bad things that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty clearly like a slam at Christianity. It strikes me as very likely that many people would have interpreted it this way. I would have thought that the author would have understood that it would be interpreted this way. I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for here's what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong with your religion, and I see lots of downside. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: From the list custodian Eugene: My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. The fact is this: a History of the Influence of Christianity in American history taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely teach many of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres would teach a number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery movement and the civil rights movement. If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to explore the issue. Paul Finkelman Volokh, Eugene wrote: Folks: I'm sure that people on this list would be able to compile lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes; of Muslims; of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more. They would also be able to compile lists of the good things that each of those groups have done. Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or certain denominations in particular, are on balance malign or benign influences on the nation is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and has filled volumes. It can easily fill days and days of list discussion, too, should people choose to embark on it. But do we really think that posting such lists -- no matter how much the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to thoughtful, reasoned list discussion of the law of government and religion? The list custodian Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Rick: I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as History of Christianity; Renaissance/Reformation and a number of early modern European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses on the Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I ever took (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything, colonialists probably spend too much time on the Puritans. Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses below would have content about Christians and Christianity, including Storytelling, Gender,
RE: From the list custodian
Eugene: You obviously did not read the first two paragraphs of the post if that is all you saw! Quoting Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, all I saw was what the post said. The post listed bad things that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty clearly like a slam at Christianity. It strikes me as very likely that many people would have interpreted it this way. I would have thought that the author would have understood that it would be interpreted this way. I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for here's what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong with your religion, and I see lots of downside. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: From the list custodian Eugene: My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. The fact is this: a History of the Influence of Christianity in American history taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely teach many of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres would teach a number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery movement and the civil rights movement. If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to explore the issue. Paul Finkelman Volokh, Eugene wrote: Folks: I'm sure that people on this list would be able to compile lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes; of Muslims; of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more. They would also be able to compile lists of the good things that each of those groups have done. Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or certain denominations in particular, are on balance malign or benign influences on the nation is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and has filled volumes. It can easily fill days and days of list discussion, too, should people choose to embark on it. But do we really think that posting such lists -- no matter how much the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to thoughtful, reasoned list discussion of the law of government and religion? The list custodian Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Rick: I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as History of Christianity; Renaissance/Reformation and a number of early modern European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses on the Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I ever took (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything, colonialists probably spend too much time on the Puritans. Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses below would have content about Christians and Christianity, including Storytelling, Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature, (lots of interesting religious issues there, from the problem of guilt to fundamentalist hombophobia) Jewish History, (had to teach it without discussing Christianity); Turning Points in Jewish History (same comment); Issues in African History (from Missionaries to Bishop Tutu it will show up); Holocaust Literature, Islam, etc. will all have to discuss Christianity and its relationship to other faiths and events. I think a course on the Influence of Christianity in the US would be interesting and certainly valid. Such a course would lectures and readings on the following (in no particular order): The KKK (and the use of the Cross as a symbol of
RE: From the list custodian
I did read those paragraphs, and I stick by my analysis. I'll say it again -- if you think, as Prof. Finkelman does, that some religion (or religion generally, or atheism generally) has been a malign influence on the nation, you are surely quite entitled to think that and to say that in a debate about religion. But I'd rather that on this list, we stuck to things that were more likely to shed more light than heat on the list topic, which is the law of government and religion. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:28 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene Subject: RE: From the list custodian Eugene: You obviously did not read the first two paragraphs of the post if that is all you saw! Quoting Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, all I saw was what the post said. The post listed bad things that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty clearly like a slam at Christianity. It strikes me as very likely that many people would have interpreted it this way. I would have thought that the author would have understood that it would be interpreted this way. I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for here's what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong with your religion, and I see lots of downside. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: From the list custodian Eugene: My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. The fact is this: a History of the Influence of Christianity in American history taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely teach many of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres would teach a number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery movement and the civil rights movement. If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to explore the issue. Paul Finkelman Volokh, Eugene wrote: Folks: I'm sure that people on this list would be able to compile lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes; of Muslims; of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more. They would also be able to compile lists of the good things that each of those groups have done. Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or certain denominations in particular, are on balance malign or benign influences on the nation is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and has filled volumes. It can easily fill days and days of list discussion, too, should people choose to embark on it. But do we really think that posting such lists -- no matter how much the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to thoughtful, reasoned list discussion of the law of government and religion? The list custodian Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Rick: I would assume that UC has equivalent courses such as History of Christianity; Renaissance/Reformation and a number of early modern European courses and late antiquity courses that deal almost entirely with the Church and Church history. There are probably courses on the Bible taught in various departments at UC as they are in most universities. Moreover, the history of religion pops up all over the place. When I used to teach US Survery in a history department I always spent at least a week on the Puritans and assigned a book about them. My discussion of 19th century reform movements included a good deal on the 2nd great awakening; I always had a lecture on the 1st great awkening in a survey course. Every colonial history course I ever took (or knew of) had a huge section on religion. In anything, colonialists probably spend too much time on the Puritans. Furthermore, I would imagine that a great number of the courses below would have content about Christians and Christianity, including Storytelling, Gender, Sexuality, and Identity in Literature,
OK, folks, have it your way
Rick, Jim, others: Please feel entirely free to post all you want on why it is that religion is really good for the country, why Christianity has advanced the cause of civilization, why atheist countries have undermined civil liberties, and the like. Being from the USSR, I'd especially like to hear discussions of Soviet atrocities, given that the Soviet Union has been one of the few aggressively atheistic (and not just separationist) countries in history. Good accounts of the great achievements of Christian political leaders in the U.S. and elsewhere are great, too. Paul, Greg, others: By all means, explain all you want about how Christianity, Protestantism, Republicanism, or anything else is bad for the country. After all, everything is connected to everything else; let's let it all hang out. Plus that means that I'll have to spend a lot less time moderate things, since there'll be no moderation to be done. I'm sure we'll have lots of fun criticial discourse. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Magarian Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:20 PM To: Volokh, Eugene; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: From the list custodian A discussion about how a public educational system may / should evaluate religious' schools' treatments of religious topics fairly opens up substantive debate about what constitutes a sufficiently critical treatment of religious topics. Paul Finkelman's post dramatized the ample space available for critical discourse about the dominant religion in American life, in the face of arguments that a public educational system discriminates if it refuses to credit uncritical courses about religion. As one reader (a Christian one, if that's a requirement for standing in this dispute), I think Professor Finkelman's statment is more probative than prejudicial. Speaking as one reader (a Christian one, for whatever that's worth), I'm not sure a discussion of how a public educational system should address sectarian schools' treatments of religious topics can avoid arguments about whether one kind of system or the other portrays a given religion or religions too critically or not critically enough. Gregory P. Magarian Professor of Law Villanova University School of Law 299 N. Spring Mill Road Villanova, PA 19085 (610) 519-7652 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/6/2005 4:50:20 PM Well, all I saw was what the post said. The post listed bad things that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty clearly like a slam at Christianity. It strikes me as very likely that many people would have interpreted it this way. I would have thought that the author would have understood that it would be interpreted this way. I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for here's what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong with your religion, and I see lots of downside. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: From the list custodian Eugene: My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. The fact is this: a History of the Influence of Christianity in American history taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely teach many of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres would teach a number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great awakenings, the role of religious people in the antislavery movement and the civil rights movement. If Rick wants to play the list game, I think it only fair to explore the issue. Paul Finkelman Volokh, Eugene wrote: Folks: I'm sure that people on this list would be able to compile lists of the great sins of atheists and atheistic regimes; of Muslims; of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and more. They would also be able to compile lists of the good things that each of those groups have done. Whether religion (or irreligion) generally, or certain denominations in particular, are on balance malign or benign influences on the nation is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and has filled volumes. It can easily fill days and days of list discussion, too, should people choose to embark on it. But do we really think that posting such lists -- no matter how much the post may entertain the author -- will be helpful to thoughtful, reasoned list discussion of the law of government and religion? The list custodian
Re: OK, folks, have it your way
I can only speak for myself, but I don't think I advocated open season, and I certainly didn't express any desire to explain all [I] want about how Christianity, Protestantism, Republicanism, or anything else is bad for the country. You took the not unprecedented, but still unusual step of ruling a particular line of argument out of order; I offered one explanation of how that line of argument seemed appropriate, in the particular and narrow context of the present discussion. I agree with you that we shouldn't devolve into random assaults on belief systems, and I also agree that we shouldn't use principled discussions as vehicles for sneaking in ad hominem attacks through the back door. I take it you thought Paul Finkelman was doing the latter, and I respectfully disagree. I'm sorry you view my disagreement as so patently unreasonable that it, along with the other comments here, can't be taken as anything other than a call to open season. Greg. Gregory P. Magarian Professor of Law Villanova University School of Law 299 N. Spring Mill Road Villanova, PA 19085 (610) 519-7652 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/6/2005 5:42:59 PM Rick, Jim, others: Please feel entirely free to post all you want on why it is that religion is really good for the country, why Christianity has advanced the cause of civilization, why atheist countries have undermined civil liberties, and the like. Being from the USSR, I'd especially like to hear discussions of Soviet atrocities, given that the Soviet Union has been one of the few aggressively atheistic (and not just separationist) countries in history. Good accounts of the great achievements of Christian political leaders in the U.S. and elsewhere are great, too. Paul, Greg, others: By all means, explain all you want about how Christianity, Protestantism, Republicanism, or anything else is bad for the country. After all, everything is connected to everything else; let's let it all hang out. Plus that means that I'll have to spend a lot less time moderate things, since there'll be no moderation to be done. I'm sure we'll have lots of fun criticial discourse. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Magarian Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:20 PM To: Volokh, Eugene; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: From the list custodian A discussion about how a public educational system may / should evaluate religious' schools' treatments of religious topics fairly opens up substantive debate about what constitutes a sufficiently critical treatment of religious topics. Paul Finkelman's post dramatized the ample space available for critical discourse about the dominant religion in American life, in the face of arguments that a public educational system discriminates if it refuses to credit uncritical courses about religion. As one reader (a Christian one, if that's a requirement for standing in this dispute), I think Professor Finkelman's statment is more probative than prejudicial. Speaking as one reader (a Christian one, for whatever that's worth), I'm not sure a discussion of how a public educational system should address sectarian schools' treatments of religious topics can avoid arguments about whether one kind of system or the other portrays a given religion or religions too critically or not critically enough. Gregory P. Magarian Professor of Law Villanova University School of Law 299 N. Spring Mill Road Villanova, PA 19085 (610) 519-7652 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/6/2005 4:50:20 PM Well, all I saw was what the post said. The post listed bad things that Christianity is responsible for; it seemed pretty clearly like a slam at Christianity. It strikes me as very likely that many people would have interpreted it this way. I would have thought that the author would have understood that it would be interpreted this way. I don't see the upside to turning this list into a forum for here's what's wrong with your religion -- no, here's what's wrong with your religion, and I see lots of downside. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: From the list custodian Eugene: My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. The fact is this: a History of the Influence of Christianity in American history taught in a fundamentalist Christian school would not likely teach many of the topics I suggested; most American history coursres would teach a number of them, as well as teach about Puritans, the two great awakenings, the role of
RE: OK, folks, have it your way
My response was probably more peevish than it should have been, and I apologize for that. Nonetheless, even though Greg's intentions were doubtless good, his position, it seems to me, would indeed in effect make everything I mentioned -- and nearly everything more generally -- on-topic. Everything is indeed connected to everything else. Prof. Finkelman's post slammed Christianity for its various sins. If that's OK because it dramatize[s] the ample space available for criticial discourse about the dominant religion in American life, then everything else I mentioned is at most one extra step removed from that. More to the point, I don't think that as a list custodian I could in good conscience fault people for the posts I noted, if list sentiment is in favor of allowing posts such as Prof. Finkelman's. I don't share, for instance, Jim Henderson's religious views, but I can surely put myself in his shoes, and imagine what he might like to post in response to Prof. Finkelman. I have in the past insisted that people forbear from replying in kind to posts that violate list rules. But if Prof. Finkelman's post is within list rules, then I can't very well demand that Jim not respond in kind. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Magarian Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:40 PM To: Volokh, Eugene; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: OK, folks, have it your way I can only speak for myself, but I don't think I advocated open season, and I certainly didn't express any desire to explain all [I] want about how Christianity, Protestantism, Republicanism, or anything else is bad for the country. You took the not unprecedented, but still unusual step of ruling a particular line of argument out of order; I offered one explanation of how that line of argument seemed appropriate, in the particular and narrow context of the present discussion. I agree with you that we shouldn't devolve into random assaults on belief systems, and I also agree that we shouldn't use principled discussions as vehicles for sneaking in ad hominem attacks through the back door. I take it you thought Paul Finkelman was doing the latter, and I respectfully disagree. I'm sorry you view my disagreement as so patently unreasonable that it, along with the other comments here, can't be taken as anything other than a call to open season. Greg. Gregory P. Magarian Professor of Law Villanova University School of Law 299 N. Spring Mill Road Villanova, PA 19085 (610) 519-7652 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/6/2005 5:42:59 PM Rick, Jim, others: Please feel entirely free to post all you want on why it is that religion is really good for the country, why Christianity has advanced the cause of civilization, why atheist countries have undermined civil liberties, and the like. Being from the USSR, I'd especially like to hear discussions of Soviet atrocities, given that the Soviet Union has been one of the few aggressively atheistic (and not just separationist) countries in history. Good accounts of the great achievements of Christian political leaders in the U.S. and elsewhere are great, too. Paul, Greg, others: By all means, explain all you want about how Christianity, Protestantism, Republicanism, or anything else is bad for the country. After all, everything is connected to everything else; let's let it all hang out. Plus that means that I'll have to spend a lot less time moderate things, since there'll be no moderation to be done. I'm sure we'll have lots of fun criticial discourse. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Magarian Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:20 PM To: Volokh, Eugene; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: From the list custodian A discussion about how a public educational system may / should evaluate religious' schools' treatments of religious topics fairly opens up substantive debate about what constitutes a sufficiently critical treatment of religious topics. Paul Finkelman's post dramatized the ample space available for critical discourse about the dominant religion in American life, in the face of arguments that a public educational system discriminates if it refuses to credit uncritical courses about religion. As one reader (a Christian one, if that's a requirement for standing in this dispute), I think Professor Finkelman's statment is more probative than prejudicial. Speaking as one reader (a Christian one, for whatever that's worth), I'm not sure a discussion of how a public educational system should address sectarian schools' treatments of religious topics can avoid arguments about whether one kind of system or the other portrays a given religion or religions
Re: UC Case: Facts from Complaint
Title: Re: UC Case: Facts from Complaint Bobby, I dont disagree with you. All I was saying is that secular relativism cannot account for the wrongs. I did not say that secularism is relativistic per se. What I was thinking of was the stuff written by Stephen Gey in which he says that constitutional democracy assumes moral relativism. Having said that, I do believe that a view that implies or asserts that there can be no non-empirical knowledge of immaterial reality has a difficult problem of accounting for notions of rights that depend on human beings having direct awareness of moral knowledge and possessing moral properties, both of which are immaterial and unchanging. Thats my story, and Im sticking to it. :-) Frank On 9/6/05 3:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just before Eugene spanks us, it is a conceptual confusion to label all forms of secular morality as relativistic. A commitment to the principle that individuals should determine their own values, or even that societies should determine their own values is as universalistic and absolutistic as can be. It's just that such a principle does not conform to other universalistic and absolutistic principles that specify in advance how individuals should behave in every area of their lives. Bobby Robert 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: OK, folks, have it your way
With great appreciation for Eugene's moderation of this list, which is essential to its value (and appreciation for his creating such a wonderful venue for discussion in the first place): I think there is a lower signal to noise ratio on this list than there used to be. Perhaps all of us can be sensitive to that and can try to focus our posts on the purpose of the list. As I now understand it, Paul pointed out a lot of flaws in Christianity to show how a course could be taught that would have a narrow anti-Christian point of view. I gather he would consider such an anti-Christian course to be just as objectionable as a narrowly pro-Christian course. And Paul assumed the courses at the Christian high schools (that is, the courses that the UC is refusing to recognize as meeting its curricular requirements) would be narrowly pro-Christian, with no discussion of Christianity's flaws. The argument then is that if the UC is not to be permitted to judge whether pro-Christian courses are acceptable, then it also should not be permitted to judge whether anti-Christian courses are acceptable. This is a kind of reductio ad absurdum designed to convince list members that some kind of review of viewpoint by the UC is appropriate. Perhaps then some of us would back away from a claim that the UC was engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by refusing to recognize the pro-Christian courses. I did not read Paul's post as making that argument until, in a later post, he clarified what he was saying. Initially, I simply was offended by the laundry list of evil attributed to Christianity and by what seemed to me to be a stereotyping of religious educators. As clarified, I think his point is very germane to this list's topic. And let me say that I value the substantial contribution Paul makes to the list (though I usually disagree with him!). I agree with Eugene that it is not enough that a post dramatize the ample space available for critical discourse about the dominant religion in American life. But if a post examines the degree to which a government body may demand that a private high school's courses include such critical discourse, then that seems to me to be on topic for the list. My point, in response to Paul, is that the UC violates the Free Speech and maybe the Free Ex. Clauses if it singles out Christian high schools by only asking whether Christian schools' courses are taught with an appropriate breadth of viewpoint. I also think the content of the courses at the Christian schools is likely to be broader than Paul assumes, and thus they are not likely to be analogous to his hypothetical, narrowly focused anti-Christian course. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law ___ 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.
FW: The decline of the religionlaw list.
I thought I'd pass along a message I got from a fellow list member, whose work and opinions I much respect. Eugene I share your frustration, Eugene. I have almost unsubscribed several times over the last few months. I'm tired of posts that are primarily written to annoy list members who disagree with the author's position. These are difficult issues. People on both sides of most of them care a lot about how they are resolved and feel that values that are important to them are at risk. I just don't see the need for the arrogance, gaming, implicit and not so implicit insults, preaching to the choir, and general thoughtlessness that permeate far too many posts. I never thought you persuade someone of the merits of your position by starting your argument with an insult (If you weren't so stupid you could see . . . . ) But maybe I'm just an old timer who no longer fits in with current communication styles. I wish I knew how to get the list back to what it once was. I don't. But I don't want you to think that you are the only person who has been bothered by recent posts (from both sides). ___ 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: UC Case: Facts from Complaint
At 02:11 PM 9/6/05 -0500, you wrote: My point Rick,is that the course Influence of Christianity in US History would need to be a serious course, that looked at issues with some skepticism and not merely propaganda; if my coursre were set out as I did, without other things, it would hardly work as a serious course. In the US we hung witches; none were burned; let's not defame our great history Actually, there were plenty of witch burnings in America -- by the Indians, who did not need white men to tell them to condemn anti-social magic-working. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/05 ___ 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.
