Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Does grammar have a role to play in the controversy between Marty and Jim? If so, it seems Marty wins. "Democratic" is, of course, an adjective; "Democrat" is a noun. If not, why not? Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
How about capitalization? How about punctuation? I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Truth is, I only pretend to be saluting McCarthy, whose information turned out to be impeccable even if his personality and ethic did not. My pretense was offered because, in pointing out the McCarthy connectionMarty, deliberately or not,stains with the broad brush of "McCarthyism" folks whose use of the label had nothing to do either with a devotion to the truth that took the dismantling of the USSR to confirm or withthe politics of personal destruction that the Senator employed. Jim "And is Widgets in the Dictionary?" 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really having any discernable meaning and without being very clever. It is a middle school level insult, and the whole governing party seems addicted to it. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 7/20/2005 8:14 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath How about capitalization? How about punctuation? I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Truth is, I only pretend to be saluting McCarthy, whose information turned out to be impeccable even if his personality and ethic did not. My pretense was offered because, in pointing out the McCarthy connection Marty, deliberately or not, stains with the broad brush of McCarthyism folks whose use of the label had nothing to do either with a devotion to the truth that took the dismantling of the USSR to confirm or with the politics of personal destruction that the Senator employed. Jim And is Widgets in the Dictionary? Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ winmail.dat___ 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
So help me God seems to have been used in at least some of the state constitutional oaths in the late 18th century. Here is an excerpt from the 1776 South Carolina Constitution (available at http://federalistpatriot.us/histdocs/constitution_of_south_carolina.asp) XXXIII. That all persons who shall be chosen and appointed to any office or to any place of trust, before entering upon the execution of office, shall take the following oath: I, A. B., do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the constitution of South Carolina, as established by Congress on the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, until an accommodation of the differences between Great Britain and America shall take place, or I shall be released from this oath by the legislative authority of the said colony: So help me God. find all such persons shall also take an oath of office. * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:55 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath It comes from the concept of Shuva! Or a Jewish oath. Remember the framers originally wanted to make Hebrew the first language (attributed to Ben Franklyn-as reported at Harvard) In fact that is why Hebrew was a required language in most of the Ivy League Colleges for so many years! The original framers wanted to get away from the English at all cost. The Jewish requirement for an oath is very strict. This is why a religious Jew only affirms an oath, rather than swear it, because it is a serious matter , to invoke G-ds name and his wrath! Frank Hirsch - Original Message - From: Jean Dudley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:21 pm Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath Volokh, Eugene wrote: I've heard various people mention that George Washington added so help me God to the constitutionally prescribed, which is I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Some use it as evidence for the propriety of religious references in government affairs; others stress that so help me God isn't actually a part of the official oath, and the frequent inclusion of so help me God is the Presidents' own detour and frolic. Here's my question: In the late 1700s, did people who said oaths (as opposed to affirmations) routinely include so help me God or some such, simply because that was seen as a natural part of oaths? If so, then it might be that the Framers naturally expected that those who see an oath as a religiously significant matter would include so helpme God. Eugene ___ 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. Speaking solely as someone who's studied (albeit informally) Elizabethan dialect, I can say that oaths invoking the name of G-d (for our Jewish friends) were extremely common, as well as the name of Mary and various saints. So common, in fact, that the so-called Pilgrims were often offended as they say it as taking the name of the Lord in vain. Swearing on the blood of Christ gave us the common English oath bloody. Read Shakespeare. Marry was a variation on Mary. This was before the standardization of spelling. While I am no expert, it makes sense that oaths given for public office were viewed as having religious significance by individuals. Hence the addition of So help me God. I'd lean toward the explaination that such oaths were individual peccadillos, and not something required by the office. Jean Dudley Somewhere in the wilds of Yosemite Valley ___ 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
Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
In a message dated 7/20/2005 9:15:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about capitalization? How about punctuation? I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. You can, of course, call the Democratic Party anything you wish. However, the explanation/justification, to use this non-standard grammar, should be forthcoming. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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: [CR] Leftist Sharks Attack Judge Roberts
Title: Message I assume this isa typical reaction of the "Christian Right". I'm delighted you list folk are not stimulated to make such quick comments, but I'dappreciate anyviews (I confess ignorance about John G. Roberts). Dan -Original Message-From: Christian Response [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:25 AMTo: Gibbens, Daniel G.Subject: [CR] Leftist Sharks Attack Judge Roberts Leftist "Sharks" have already begun the attack: Click below to FIGHT BACK and get Judge Roberts confirmed! Take Action Now! This "Christian Response" e-Alert is a special message for Christian Friend from the RightMarch.com PAC: ALERT: It took exactly twelve minutes for left-wing groups and liberal Senators to go on the attack against President Bush's conservative nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts: People for the American Way is "extremely disappointed" in the President's selection, saying it's "a constitutional catastrophe." Alliance for Justice "cannot support Judge Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court" because President Bush has a "track record of selecting ideologically-driven, divisive candidates for the bench". The National Abortion Federation "calls upon the Senate to stand up to President Bush's attempt to destroy the fragile balance on the Supreme Court". Planned Parenthood stated, "The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), whose most recent controversial remarks came when he compared American troops to Nazis, called Judge Roberts a "controversial nominee" who guarantees a "controversial nomination process." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), immediately announced that "I voted against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions [about his views] fully and openly when he appeared before the committee." Hinting at a possible judicial filibuster of the President's nominee, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced on Fox News, "The fact that Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down creates an extraordinary circumstance." MoveOn.org raised $1.3 million to fight Judge Roberts... BEFORE he was even nominated, and reacted to the nomination by calling Roberts "another right-wing crony." NOW (the National Organization for Women) said of Judge Roberts that "our hard-won rights will be in jeopardy if he is confirmed," and that President Bush chose "to pick a fight. We intend to give him one." NARAL stated that "President Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation, and he should know that we... are ready for the battle ahead." Well, guess what -- SO ARE WE. And with your help, we're going to continue to take the fight directly to the American people -- and we're going to MAKE SURE that far-left Senators like Dick Durbin, Robert Byrd, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and others hear the message LOUD and CLEAR from their constituents... especially for the ones that are facing upcoming elections! TAKE ACTION: With President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, we have the opportunity to get a judicial conservative on the Court -- a conservative who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws of our country without legislating from the bench. We must not let the radical leftists sabotage this chance to replace Sandra Day O'Connor's "swing vote" with a solid conservative vote. As we saw in the recent "Kelo" decision to take away our private property rights, ONE VOTE can make all the difference in the world. We've ALREADY begun fighting in "battleground" states like West Virginia, where Hiram Lewis, a military hero in the liberation of Iraq, has a growing campaign against the far-left Robert Byrd. We need YOUR help to apply pressure to "red state" Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson in Nebraska and Sen. Bill Nelson in Florida, to make sure that they vote FOR Judge Roberts on the Senate floor. We especially need to make sure the "Gang of Fourteen" judicial filibuster compromisers -- like Sen. Mike DeWine in Ohio, who's up for re-election -- do NOT allow another filibuster to take place. Will you stand with us today, to do even more? We plan to run radio ads, television ads, print ads, and of course ongoing internet efforts against the building liberal onslaught. Please make your best donation right away to help us FIGHT BACK against the radical leftist groups and liberal compromising Senators! Click here to contribute now: https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarchpac/?a=22 NOTE: You can also send a FREE message directly to your two Senators at http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7853081type=CO telling them to confirm Judge Roberts quickly. Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you
RE: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
At least you concede that you were taunting. And I thought that that was inappropriate comment on this listserv. It would help if you would respect the norms. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:29 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath In a message dated 7/20/2005 10:22:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really having any discernable meaning and without being very clever. It is a middle school level insult, and the whole governing party seems addicted to it. It is really more like sophomoric than middle school. Middle school taunts include (from experience with middle school children up to today) are heavy on claiming that the others' taunts are immature. ___ 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.
Constitutional revisionism
The Founding Father's commanded "no religious test shall ever be required." The First Amendment commands "religion," shall not be established by law or Congress. It is way past time for attorneys, judges, and justices to recognize the words of the Constitution. The words "church and state" are not in the Constitution. It is a "religious" test which shall not be required, not just a church test. It is "religion" which shall not be established by law or Congress or (thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment) government at any level, whether state, county, city, township, or school board. Strict constructionists accept the wording of the Constitution as written. The words of the Constitution either mean what they say or it is nothing more than a blank piece of paper. The Founding Fathers understood the words they used. The six-member joint Senate-House conference committee (James Madison was co-chair) which produced the final draft of of the First Amendment understood the words it used and created no conflict between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. There is no primary source evidence that George Washington used the words "so help me God" when he took the oath of office. Those words are not a part of the constitutional oath or affirmation required by the Constitution and should never be added by any government official. What part of "religious" or "religion" is difficult to understand? Obviously, some, if not all, justices on the current Supreme Court have not got a clue and meander endlessly through their massive Marsh of revisionist opinions, one of which is Justice Rehnquist's 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree dissent. He is a flaming liberal revisionist who changed the word "religion" to "a national church" in order to fit his undereducated knowledge of American history. Gene Garman America's Real Religion americasrealreligion.org ___ 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: Constitutional revisionism
Read Thomas Pain! The Founding Father's commanded "no religious test shall ever be required." The First Amendment commands "religion," shall not be established by law or Congress. It is way past time for attorneys, judges, and justices to recognize the words of the Constitution. The words "church and state" are not in the Constitution. It is a "religious" test which shall not be required, not just a church test. It is "religion" which shall not be established by law or Congress or (thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment) government at any level, whether state, county, city, township, or school board. Strict constructionists accept the wording of the Constitution as written. The words of the Constitution either mean what they say or it is nothing more than a blank piece of paper. The Founding Fathers understood the words they used. The six-member joint Senate-House conference committee (James Madison was co-chair) which produced the final draft of of the First Amendment understood the words it used and created no conflict between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. There is no primary source evidence that George Washington used the words "so help me God" when he took the oath of office. Those words are not a part of the constitutional oath or affirmation required by the Constitution and should never be added by any government official. What part of "religious" or "religion" is difficult to understand? Obviously, some, if not all, justices on the current Supreme Court have not got a clue and meander endlessly through their massive Marsh of revisionist opinions, one of which is Justice Rehnquist's 1985 Wallace v. Jaffree dissent. He is a flaming liberal revisionist who changed the word "religion" to "a national church" in order to fit his undereducated knowledge of American history. Gene Garman America's Real Religion americasrealreligion.org ___ 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
In a message dated 7/20/2005 11:35:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would help if you would respect the norms. Please. An end to this nonsense. I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may dislike it. You, in turn, will call me juvenile. Which is the pig rolling in the proverbial mud and which is becoming soiled? Some of you will call the liberty interest in sucking the brains out of a half born baby "a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions," and I will dislike it (as would those who crafted the document you claim spawns such aberrant liberties). As Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce said, "Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. " Feel free to carry on the grammarians' crusade without me. 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: Constitutional revisionism
If "Establishment of Religion" has a known and definite meaning in the context of its adoption with the rest of what became the First Amendment, why do we have to "get real" in a way that inflates new meanings, new limitations, and new disparagements of religion into that text? As a strict constructionist, I am confident that Establishment of Religion had quite a precise meaning and would not be understood by its drafters as limiting Bible week proclamations, the erection of Decalogue monuments, or the imprecations of a prosecutor in the sentencing phase of scriptural admonitions against murder and the like. All that extra baggage is the consequence of the Justices, like naughty baggage handlers at the airport, opening the First Amendment, dumping out its clear and precise meaning, and then repacking amendatory luggage with preferred, seccularizing articles. 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: Constitutional revisionism
Words mean things. The Establishment Clause does have a definite meaning. "Religion" is not to be established by law or Congress. "Religion" means religion, not something less. English 101: the word "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause gets its entire meaning from that to which it refers in the Establishment Clause. Proper English grammar therefore verifies the lack of conflict between the two clauses: Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Of what? Of "religion." Not of an "establishment of religion." Your distortion of the wording would have Congress unable to prohibit the free exercise of an "establishment of religion." Congress cannot establish religion, and the exercise of religion cannot be prohibited, which means totally. I am the strict constructionist. You proposition is a revision and is erroneous. Which is why I dropped membership in the ACLU long ago. Gene Garman America's Real Religion americasrealreligion.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If "Establishment of Religion" has a known and definite meaning in the context of its adoption with the rest of what became the First Amendment, why do we have to "get real" in a way that inflates new meanings, new limitations, and new disparagements of religion into that text? As a strict constructionist, I am confident that Establishment of Religion had quite a precise meaning and would not be understood by its drafters as limiting Bible week proclamations, the erection of Decalogue monuments, or the imprecations of a prosecutor in the sentencing phase of scriptural admonitions against murder and the like. All that extra baggage is the consequence of the Justices, like naughty baggage handlers at the airport, opening the First Amendment, dumping out its clear and precise meaning, and then repacking amendatory luggage with preferred, seccularizing articles. 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. ___ 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: Constitutional revisionism
Don't confuse the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) with the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice). They may agree on freedom of religious speech, and on free exercise when there is no countervailing civil liberty that the ACLU likes better. But on the whole, I suspect thatboth organizations would be appalled by the confusion. Douglas Laycock 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 Gene GarmanSent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:07 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Constitutional revisionism Words mean things. The Establishment Clause does have a definite meaning. "Religion" is not to be established by law or Congress. "Religion" means religion, not something less. English 101: the word "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause gets its entire meaning from that to which it refers in the Establishment Clause. Proper English grammar therefore verifies the lack of conflict between the two clauses:Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Of what? Of "religion." Not of an "establishment of religion." Your distortion of the wording would have Congress unable to prohibit the free exercise of an "establishment of religion." Congress cannot establish religion, and the exercise of religion cannot be prohibited, which means totally. I am the strict constructionist. You proposition is a revision and is erroneous. Which is why I dropped membership in the ACLU long ago.Gene GarmanAmerica's Real Religionamericasrealreligion.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If "Establishment of Religion" has a known and definite meaning in the context of its adoption with the rest of what became the First Amendment, why do we have to "get real" in a way that inflates new meanings, new limitations, and new disparagements of religion into that text? As a strict constructionist, I am confident that Establishment of Religion had quite a precise meaning and would not be understood by its drafters as limiting Bible week proclamations, the erection of Decalogue monuments, or the imprecations of a prosecutor in the sentencing phase of scriptural admonitions against murder and the like. All that extra baggage is the consequence of the Justices, like naughty baggage handlers at the airport, opening the First Amendment, dumping out its clear and precise meaning, and then repacking amendatory luggage with preferred, seccularizing articles. 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. ___ 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic Party! Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and Republic listmembers alike, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/20/2005 11:35:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It would help if you would respect the norms. Please. An end to this nonsense. I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may dislike it. You, in turn, will call me juvenile. Which is the pig rolling in the proverbial mud and which is becoming soiled? Some of you will call the liberty interest in sucking the brains out of a half born baby "a liberty interest of constitutional dimensions," and I will dislike it (as would those who crafted the document you claim spawns such aberrant liberties). As Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce said, "Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. " Feel free to carry on the grammarians' crusade without me. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.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 h! as 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.
RE: Religious conversions, well-founded fear of persecution shoplifting
The Becket Fund recently wona strikinglysimilarcase (sans the shoplifting)thispast March, inIn re Saeed Salman et al., no. A77-820-450, see http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/28.html. The case concerned a family of Iranians who arrived to the U.S. on a visitor'svisas in 1999. They applied forpolitical asylum and were denied butin the intervening years the family had converted to Christianity. We applied for an asylumrehearingbased on a well-founded fear of religious persecution and won. Although the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judge questioned the timing of their conversions,they found the family credible. While thecredibility finding regarding their beliefs wascorrect and helpful, I don't believe it was absolutely necessary to the judgment. The key standard is not how fervently or consistentlyconvert asylum applicants hold to their new beliefs (in order toprove sincerity),rather, it is a questionof howSharia courts in Iran would respond to theapplicant's actions and stated beliefs. In our case, the Salmans were publicly baptized and their stories and photos appeared in the Chicago Tribune confirming their conversion.We proved that these actionsin themselvescould result in adeath sentence for apostasy in Iran. At that point,whether the Salman's believed veryconsistently orfervently (which they did) was irrelevant, they had already established a well-founded fear of religious persecution based on what the Iranian authoritieswould actually do to them given the facts. SinceSharia judges in Iran do not distinguish between apostates that publicly renounceIslamand apostates that publicly renounce Islamand really mean it, neither should federal judges. Courts have held as much, particularly in the 7th Circuit. See Bastanipour v. INS, 980 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.),Najafi v. INS, 104 F. 3d 943 (7th Cir. 1997), Huang v. Gonzales, 03-4009 (7th Cir. April 14, 2005),INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca 48 U.S. 421, 440 (1987), Yang v.Gonzales, No. 04-9538(10th Cir.),Zheng v. Gonzales, No. 04-2402 (7th Cir. May 26, 2005).But SeeSingh v. Ashcroft, no. 03-1814 (7th Cir. 2004), Mansour v. Ashcroft, no. 02-72515 (9th Cir. March 31, 2004). Roger Severino Legal Counsel The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 1350 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 605 Washington DC, 20036 202-349-7230 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:50 AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Religious conversions,well-founded fear of persecution shoplifting An Iranian national is subjected to deportation proceedings, as a result of a string of 3 shoplifting arrests in Virginia. In response, she petitions for asylum based on a wellfounded fear of persecution if she returns to Iran. The basis of her well-founded fear is the application of Sharia to her, a Muslim convert to evangelical Christianity. The immigration hearing officer has been asked by the government to reject the application on two grounds: first, the shoplifting offenses put in reasonable dispute the sincerity of her religious conversion; second, the slight or speculative nature of any risk of harm to a Muslim convert to Christianity upon returning to Iran. How do the government (in its administrative and enforcement activities)and the hearing officer (in conducting its quasi-judicial hearing) evaluate this matter? Can the government decide that a convert's conversion is insincere because of continued instances of sin in the converser's life? I understand that the officer could look at the State Department country information for any particular country and make certain factual determinations about likelihood of persecution, and would want to receive any relevant testimony or evidence on this point. And I understand that sincerity of belief is about the only thing that a court continues to have clear authority to decide based on evidence. But how do we avoid the problem of confusing doctrine and practice in any particular religion, or in any sect of a religion? This is not, by the way, just the basis of good exam question. The matter is pending in Arlington, Virginia. 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
And to the Libertars and Socials as well. On 7/20/05, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic Party! Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and Republic listmembers alike, Rick Duncan ___ 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will call the Democrat Party the Democrat Party. Some of you may dislike it. If I had my voter registration card with me here, I could see just what it says I am. Since I don't, I'll have to go on memory alone. I'm pretty sure I'm a registered member of the Democrat*ic* Party. That would make me a Democrat, (an individual member of the Democratic Party) wouldn't it? Obviously you aren't talking about my political affiliation, and so no skin off my nose if you wish to refer to a non-existant party. Knock yourself out, J. Jean Dudley Somewhere in the wilds of Yosemite. ___ 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
What about the Pale Mint folk? Samuel V wrote: And to the Libertars and Socials as well. On 7/20/05, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic Party! Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and Republic listmembers alike, Rick Duncan ___ 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
On the other hand, I don't suppose President Zachary Taylor would have described his party as the Whiggish Party. Thus the name of a party need not be an adjective. And note that for Republicans, Socialists, Libertarians, etc. the same word describes the party and a member of it (e.g., a member of the Republican Party is a Republican). Thus the Democratic Party seems to want special treatment, claiming the right to have its members known as Democrats rather than Democratics. :-) Mark Scarberry Pepperdine -Original Message- From: Samuel V To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: 7/20/2005 12:10 PM Subject: Re: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath And to the Libertars and Socials as well. On 7/20/05, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand what all this food-fighting is about. I am a proud member of the Republic Party and I am not offended when others call it the Republic Party! Cheers and Blessings to Democrat and Republic listmembers alike, Rick Duncan ___ 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Scarberry, Mark wrote: Thus the Democratic Party seems to want special treatment, claiming the right to have its members known as Democrats rather than Democratics. :-) That's 'cause we're special*. *Noddle* Jean *For an unspecified value of "special" ___ 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: Constitutional revisionism
Thank you, Professor. The slight acronymic distinction between the two organizations is confusing. Jim Henderson of the ACLJ is a 1984ish flaming liberal revisionist, not a strict constructionist. The ACLU is an accommodationist organization which erroneously reads the Free Exercise Clause as if it were a license for anarchy, and I no longer support the semi-separationist ACLU. Gene Garman America's Real Religion americasrealreligion.org Douglas Laycock wrote: Don't confuse the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) with the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice). They may agree on freedom of religious speech, and on free exercise when there is no countervailing civil liberty that the ACLU likes better. But on the whole, I suspect thatboth organizations would be appalled by the confusion. Douglas Laycock 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 Gene Garman Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 12:07 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Constitutional revisionism Words mean things. The Establishment Clause does have a definite meaning. "Religion" is not to be established by law or Congress. "Religion" means religion, not something less. English 101: the word "thereof" in the Free Exercise Clause gets its entire meaning from that to which it refers in the Establishment Clause. Proper English grammar therefore verifies the lack of conflict between the two clauses: Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Of what? Of "religion." Not of an "establishment of religion." Your distortion of the wording would have Congress unable to prohibit the free exercise of an "establishment of religion." Congress cannot establish religion, and the exercise of religion cannot be prohibited, which means totally. I am the strict constructionist. You proposition is a revision and is erroneous. Which is why I dropped membership in the ACLU long ago. Gene Garman America's Real Religion americasrealreligion.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If "Establishment of Religion" has a known and definite meaning in thecontext of its adoption with the rest of what became the First Amendment, whydo we have to "get real" in a way that inflates new meanings, new limitations,and new disparagements of religion into that text? As a strict constructionist, I am confident that Establishment of Religion had quite a precise meaning and would not be understood by its drafters as limiting Bible week proclamations, the erection of Decalogue monuments, or the imprecations of a prosecutor in the sentencing phase ofscriptural admonitions against murder and the like. All that extra baggage is the consequence of the Justices, like naughty baggage handlers atthe airport, opening the First Amendment, dumping out its clear and precisemeaning, and then repacking amendatory luggage with preferred, seccularizingarticles. 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. ___ 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: George Washington adding under God to the Presidential oath
Arthur V. Watkins, a Republican, was an honorable man. Consequently, the censure of Joseph McCarthy was not done in error. Had his information been "impeccable," he would not have been censured. The Party of Joseph McCarthy may, if it chooses, call the Democratic Party "the Democrat Party" in error. It shows pique and little regard for history and fair discussion. Arthur V. Watkins and others of honor will, in this author's view, remain a Republican. It's not the "Republic Pary," either. Smiling all the time, Ed Darrell Dallas, by way of Columbia Falls, Montana[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, Sandy, you got me. His information, on the grand scale, was impeccable. We were infiltrated, and the process was deliberate, targeted, and ongoing. Whether he played lawyer's tricks with rosaries tucked into hankies, or Ross Perot tricks with empty boxes allegedly full of documents, the large truth is that he correctly called attention to a clear and present danger, one that was pooh-poohed by many for years after his exit from the stage, but which history has proved to have been real. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
Assaults on the England language
At 09:19 AM 7/20/05 -0500, you wrote: I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really having any discernable meaning and without being very clever Like Xtians? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 7/20/05 ___ 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.
