Paul, you give Lincoln far too much credit, I fear. Take a look at his
relations with African-Americans, his condescension, and worse. On the
subject of race, he was a bad man, pure and simple.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 20,
In reading arguments defending charitable choice provisions that permit
religious non-governmental providers to discriminate on the basis of
religion in hiring employees to staff government funded programs serving
public purposes -- even if the program is entirely supported by government
funds
A complicated question, I think, Alan. I
assume, in your hypo, that the state is simply paying for the cost of
bus service, right? -- not actually providing the service
through the auspices of a state-run transporation outfit. Because if the
bus driver were actually an employee of the
Title: Message
It seems to
me that this brings up the old question of the extent to which tax exemptions
are effectively subsidies. The Court has generally held that they are,
see, e.g., Texas Monthly v. Bullock (religion-preferential tax exemption
violates the Establishment Clause); Bob
On the general issue of charitable choice and hiring of co-religionists,
list members may be interested in a book just published by the Center for
Public Justice: Esbeck, Carlson-Thies and Sider, The Freedom of Faith-Based
Organizations To Staff on a Religious Basis. I have no connection with the
I suspect that Lincoln's extremely complicated views on race, and his
actual policies towards blacks are well beyond the scope of this list
serve. I will simply point out that Lincoln was the first president to
invite a black man into the White House, the first President to ask for
the advice
Putting aside any state nondiscrimination statutes or collective
bargaining issues which would control the situation, the permissive
accommodation and nonestablishment issues need to be addressed separately.
If one follows Texas Monthly, Thorton and even Amos, it seems that the
permissive
Thanks for the links, Mark. I'm sure that many of us will have
disagreements with some of the substance of the book, but I can say right
away and without reservation that the appendices alone make it well worth
one's time and paper-costs to download if you're at all interested in this
issue.
I agree that we should probably take this discussion off list. However,
how do you account for his put-down of Black leaders near the end of his
Presidency? (He invited them to the White House in order to denigrate
their views on race matters, and otherwise dress them down.) How do you
account
Thanks for a thoughtful response, Marty. But in fact I am asking a version
of the more extreme question that you presume is answered by the case law.
In my hypo, the state is providing the bus service. There are two subsets
of the question. One involves the religious institution being given a
I will not get into these many complicated issues now, but address the
strictly legal one: the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a brilliant
piece of legal work, authorizing the emancipation of millions of slaves
as soon as the United States Army could get to them. Since he had NO
POWER,
That is a very interesting and difficult question, Marty. But as my most
immediate post suggests, I was asking a different question.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
But again, I believe that Alan was assuming that the law on direct funding
as we've known it since at least 1971 will continue to be the
Well, I suppose the reasons that there is
"no conventional Establishment Clause basis for
objecting to my hypotheticals" are that (i) I can't imagine anyone actually
suggesting that state staffing decisions be made on the basis of religion and
(ii) thatit seems clear that it would be
In a message dated 12/23/2004 2:13:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul, you give Lincoln far too much credit, I fear. Take a look at his
relations with African-Americans, his condescension, and worse. On the
subject of race, he was a bad man, pure and simple.
Lincoln was
At 12:14 PM 12/21/04 -0500, you wrote:
I'm not sure why this should be relevant. If the term is typically used
by a particular party in a certain type of context, then engage that
party by asking him or her to explain the term's use, and then
argue against this use if it's incorrect. Why not
15 matches
Mail list logo
