Protestantism is clearly the point of departure. There can be no
reasonable argument against that fact because virtually everybody who
has taken a serious look at America's religious history reaches the same
conclusion, and, of course, I think that they are right. The point is
that Protestant
-Original Message-
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 8:48 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics '
Subject: RE: N.Y. Court Rejects Employers' Challenge to ContraceptionLaw
In response to Marty:
First, one might ask what interest of
I think that the state has a strong, and perhaps compelling, interest in
the contraceptive needs of employers. Starting from that position, it
is easy to justify the intervention, at least as an initial proposition.
In other words, I find this problem to be extremely difficult, put
perhaps not
There is a way of testing what is happening
here: why not have the state acquire the property and then rebuild the
structure and maintain it as some sort of museum? (The state could, of course,
seek contributions from private individuals and groups to help meet the costs
of rebuilding.)
If the state's interest is simply in satisfying the
contraceptive needs of its residents, why isn't providing contraceptive
insurance directly -- whether to all residents, employed or not, to all
residents who aren't already covered, or to all residents who lose
coverage as a result of an
Doesn't Boerne answer the question posed in your second paragraph?
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:59 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pilgrim Baptist Church
Marty makes an excellent point
Title: Message
Hmm; if the state of Illinois rejects this
solution, why isn't that simply evidence that Illinois (1) wants to minimize the
burden on religious institutions, which may well not want to stop using their
historic churches, while at the same time wants to benefit the public by
I'm not sure I quite understand -- why would it answer that
question? If I recall correctly, this issue wasn't passed on by the
Court.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, January
Yet surely this isn't really a matter of the state *bankrupting*
itself; the government, including many state governments, has undertaken
many much more expensive medical care plans.
The concern for the poor taxpayers is more serious -- but I had
thought that Sherbert itself
You may be right, in a technical sense. The Court limited itself to the
RFRA claim. But the case suggests to me that the Court would probably
not be receptive to a claim on the (landmarks preservation) merits made
by the Church. I am not remembering the aftermath of the case very
well, but it
I don't think that your analogy holds up. It is one thing for the state
to regulate, and quite another to spend money.
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:48 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE:
Constitutional? (I assume the sentence was for a racially
motivated threat or perhaps racially motivated fighting words, and not
literally for [in part] using racial slurs.)
Eugene
http://www.local6.com/news/6142521/detail.html
A judge has sentenced a suburban
Of course the two are in a sense different things. But they're
also similar in that (1) they are both generally unconstitutional when
done in a way that discriminates based on religion or religiosity, amd
(2) by hypothesis, both are constitutional when done in an evenhanded
way. Recall
The analogy is too sweeping. Even if one tried to limit it by reference
to a non-discrimination principle, I am not sure that the principle is
(1) correct or (2) workable. There is no textual warrant for reducing
the Religion Clauses to a non-discrimination principle, and there is no
principled
This evaluation is carefully phrased to avoid either endorsing or rejecting
the reasoning. But that's what I'm interested in. It seems to me that
this case is an important successor to Edwards v. Aguillard, precisely
because Edwards refused to engage with the substance of the claims of
I'll be glad to note that fact and move on, but just to make
sure that people don't misunderstand my point here: Marty said that
*even if courts adopt the Mitchell plurality's principle* -- i.e., read
the Establishment Clause in the aid context -- the aid program here may
be
Let the punishment fit the crime?
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Constitutional? (I assume the sentence was for a racially
motivated threat or perhaps racially motivated fighting words, and not
literally for [in part] using racial slurs.)
Eugene
Bob Tuttle and I have just posted on the Roundtable website a piece
about the 7th Circuit's taxpayer standing opinion in FFRF v. Towey.
The posting is here:
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/legal/legal_update_display.cf
m?id=41.
Comments and criticisms always welcome.
Chip
On 13 Jan
Chip: If they don't have standing to complain about the speeches at the
conferences, I'm confused about what's left of their conference-based claims.
As I read the plaintiffs' brief, the entire complaint about the conferences was
that the speakers there were lauding faith-intensive social
Eric
I should have told you last week that I agree with the Department's
position on the flyer distribution cases. As you will note AJCongress
ahs filed in none of those cases-as opposed to at least one of the other
defense agencies, ADL. But I won't tell yo9ur boss that you misstated my
position.
Oops. This was supposed to be a private message to Eric Treene.
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 4:06 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Ban on library employees
This raises an interesting question. Judges often send people to AA for
their illegal behavior related to drinking and AA is heavily religious.
I do not see an Establishment Clause issue here but rather a free
exercise one. I see sending him to a black church as a way of forcing
him to
As I understand it, the requirements of AA attendance have
generally been struck down on Establishment Clause grounds. The theory
there isn't establishing as a religion for the state as such, but
rather violation of the no coercion rule of Establishment Clause
caselaw. The claimant
That is interesting; I recall talking to a judge a couple of years ago who
sentenced people to AA as part of their therapy; I agree completely that
"church or jail" is an unconstitutional option.
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
As I understand it, the requirements of AA attendance have
generally
All prosy dull society sinnersWho chatter and bleat and boreAre sent to hear sermonsFrom mystical GermansWho preach from ten till four.The Constitution, though, does seem to be an insuperable barrier to the exercise of judicial imagination. Pity.
On 1/17/06, Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the interest is so compelling, why does the statute allow an employer to
ignore it -- to avoid having to pay for prescription contraceptives --
simply by dropping all prescription drug coverage? (Catholic Charities could
have done so, but it believed that it had a religious duty to provide
Is there some way for non-Outlook-users to filter out the useless
WINMAIL.DAT attachments? (I use Eudora). Or a way for posters to avoid
sending them?
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change
What about the ban on cruel or unusual punishment?
At 07:50 PM 1/17/06 -0500, you wrote:
All prosy dull society sinners
Who chatter and bleat and bore
Are sent to hear sermons
From mystical Germans
Who preach from ten till four.
The Constitution, though, does seem to be an insuperable
--- Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand it, the requirements of AA
attendance have
generally been struck down on Establishment Clause
grounds. The theory
there isn't establishing as a religion for the
state as such, but
rather violation of the no coercion rule
29 matches
Mail list logo
