How does a generally applicable, neutral law
"protect those that need the most protection in this society (as opposed to one
thatprovides exemptions)"? I strongly take exception to the idea
thatsome one-size-fits-all approach benefits the least among us. In
fact, it generally does the
Rather than get in a "what is science" debate with
you or Leiter, I should note that law professors throw around terms like fraud
at their own peril. That said, as a committed believer in the existence of
an intelligent designer (that is, God), I actually thought Leiter did a good job
of
Thanks. As I suspected, we define discrimination differently. I believe
that discrimination occurs when someone employs an illicit characteristic to
modify his or her behavior in any way, including being uncooperative.
- Original Message -
From: A.E. Brownstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Does your analysis (in your POV) apply with equal force to the transgendered
and adult incest situations? If not, why not?
- Original Message -
From: Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June
three wives; or a straight women
had three husbands. There may be 1st amndment arguments for allowing
polygamy, but that is a different argument.
Amar D. Sarwal wrote:
Does your analysis (in your POV) apply with equal force to the
transgendered
and adult incest situations? If not, why
"It is difficult (at least for me) to find even soft (non-justiciable)
reasons against such presidential conduct. This does not mean that I would
hesitate to vote against a president who asked the Popeto instruct
American bishops to denounce action I approve of."
Just so I understand, you
But that is the dliemma discussed by the President and the Pope, so it has
everything to do with the peculiar question discussed on this listserv.
The position advocated by some on this listserv that the President cannot
communicate with (co-)religionists about matters of faith and morals, speak
I did not force you to discuss the denial of communion aspect of the story.
You did that yourself when you said:
This does not mean that I would hesitate to vote against a president who
asked the Pope to instruct American bishops to denounce action I approve
of.
The action that I approve of in
I have understood the distinction from the beginning of this
thread. I was just surprised that you "approved of" Kerry violating his
own Church's norms by receiving communion. Later in the thread, you made
clear that you have no horse in that battle, but you mangled my position.
I will
, no matter what one thinks of
the propriety or constitutionality of the President's conduct.
- Original Message -
From: Amar D. Sarwal
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: The President and the Pope
I have understood the distinction
I would be happy with any of the below. Religion is a fact. No amount of
handwringing or tsk-tsking will change that. Speaking to religious
believers qua religious believers is a good thing and I am thankful that few
presidents have chosen to circumscribe their speech as some here would have
11 matches
Mail list logo
