From todays Tuscaloosa
News-
Court's custody
order draws Parker dissent on religious grounds
By SAMIRA JAFARI
Associated Press Writer
November 21. 2005 5:46PM
Email
this story.
Print
this story.
The Alabama Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision granting a Madison County
In a message dated 11/21/2005 6:28:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Many of
the church-planting initiatives involve using the school the entire weekend,
or at least almost all of Sunday.
In 1992, at Garfield Elementary School, a church planting initiative here
Professor Laycock,
James Madison did discuss the establishment and free exercise clauses in
his Report on the Virginia Resolutions and explained the obvious, that
is, the First Amendment was a limitation on the power of the national
government, specifically Congress. Regardless of any wording
Your repeated invocation of Webster's seems to claim that there is a
One True Dictionary, which is to be accepted as legal authority.
Webster's Third International does not contain the word totally in
either definition of prohibit. But perhaps that is not the Webster's
that Madison
Joel Sogol wrote on 11/22/2005 05:16:14
AM:
The Alabama Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision granting
a
Madison County father custody of his 6-year-old daughter, based in
part on evidence the child had been beaten and alienated from her
family.
The only relevant thing I saw here
in
In a message dated 11/22/2005 9:09:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Webster's Third International does not contain the word "totally" in
either definition of "prohibit". But perhaps that is not the "Webster's"
that Madison purportedly "expected" people to use?
You can't duck by pointing to the Article I part of Madison's argument and
ignoring the First Amendment part. The structure of his argument was that
speech and religion were equally protected by the lack of any Article I power to
regulate them, and that the First Amendment could not be read
There are really two possible
distinctions between abridge and prohibit. The Reagan Administration
argued that "prohibit" means a criminal prohibition, and possibly express
prohibitions enforced by civil penalties, but that it does not include mere
burdens, such as loss of general welfare
of the
department, in explaining the class, said this, Creationism is mythology .
. . Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it
sound like science. It clearly is not.) It's the next step in the
intelligent design/evolution fight.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122
/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_course
Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause problem
here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of Kansas cannot
teach that intelligent design is false, right? Government cannot pass
directly on the truth
Chris, send me your new e-mail. It doesn't show when you come through
religionlaw-bounces. I apologize to the list for bothering everyone
else with this message.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988
://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_course
Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause
problem here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of
Kansas cannot teach that intelligent design is false, right?
Government cannot pass directly on the truth
/evolution fight.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_cou
rse
Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause
problem here? Let me be provocative. Surely, the University of
Kansas cannot teach that intelligent design is false, right
this,
Creationism is mythology . . . Intelligent design is mythology. It's
not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is
not.) It's the next step in the intelligent design/evolution fight.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_cou
rse
Douglas Laycock wrote:
Well, yes and no. Ed's examples are all cases where religions make
claims about the natural world: claims within the domain of science to
investigate and within the domain of government to respond to. When
religion makes claims that are more exclusively religious --
Well, a course being offered by a faculty member at a university which
teaches just about anything is not going to be treated as governmental
establishment is it? Surely a university professor could teach that
all religions are bunk without the professor or university running
afoul of the
Hmm -- would a course at a public university called Why
Christianity is the True Religion be constitutionally permissible?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:25 PM
To: Law
I agree.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:20 PM
To: Law
But, conversely, are all those course at public universities titled "Greek
Mythology" (e.g., this
link) constitutionally impermissible?
Allen
In a message dated 11/22/2005 1:26:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm --
would a course at a public university called
Fair enough. I might add that we should also consider the practical
dimensions of Eugene's proposal. These include among other issues: What
religion specific exemptions and accommodations for religious expressive
activities, if any, can survive rigorous free speech review? When, if
ever, should
It's not
science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly
is not.") It's the next step in the intelligent design/evolution
fight. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_us/intelligent_design_course
Does anyone on the listserv see a potential Establishment Clause prob
A few remarks on the use of dictionaries:
The word "totally" is an adverb; I could not find it in Webster's New
International Dictionary, 2nd ed.,I found it in Webster's Seventh New
Collegiate Dictionary. However, "prohibit" is a verb; it has a
different function in a sentence.
The name
I don't want to interrupt the debate, which I am enjoying. I just want to observe that Christian Scientists are not in the least offended by the teaching of the germ theory of disease, even if they may not take the class. They would prefer to have someone preface a statement that the germ theory
23 matches
Mail list logo
