RE: NRO Article
In part Steve and I agree, as he states the main question as well as Ive tried to do. Where did all the matter/energy come from that went into the big bang? Is there any evidence that life forms started with the some accidental interaction between energy and matter? Science has no clue. Thats not to demean the value of scientific information about the developmental processes. Indeed, once one gets past the critical starting points, a lot more than nothing is an understatement. My point is simply that one cannot infer from the incredibly interesting and valuable information science provides that science has information about beginnings, and in teaching science that needs to be made quite clear. Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:05 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: NRO Article Hmm. Science does provide lots of information about origins and about how processes began. Except for the answer to Why is there anything instead of nothing? We can't yet look behind the big bang. But we understand chemistry pretty well. And how it began. And we understand aspects of life and how it began - albeit with a lot more hypothesis and less proof than in the case of chemistry. It is wrong to say no scientific information, however, exists about how these processes began. Scientific information is not the same as scientific proof or irrefutable proof. But we know a lot more than nothing. Steve On Tuesday, March 16, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Gibbens, Daniel G. wrote: Specifically, science has provided reliable information about the processes and development of the physical universe and life within it. No scientific information, however, exists about how these processes began. Specifically, the science curricula must include clear communication that science provides no information about these origins. This is true regardless of whether schools teach creationism or intelligent design elsewhere in the nonscience curricula. 55 Okla.L.Rev. 613 (2002). Dan Gibbens University of Oklahoma College of Law -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425 (1918) ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
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: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Title: Message
I applaud Rick's recommendation of the DeWolf article,
below, which I used in a follow-up piece,attemptingperhaps
simplisticadvocacy on public school teaching (55 Okla. L. Rev.
613):
However science is defined, there is
scientific support for the big bang theory as
descriptive of the cosmos development
process,but only non-scientific
speculation on where the matter and/or energy came from that went into the big
bang. Similarly, there is scientific support forevolution as descriptive of the
development process of life
formsinto the present myriad, but only speculation on how the first life form
occurred. Along with the scientific "process" theories, these current
speculations ("theories") should beexplained asexamples
ofcurrent nonscientific thinking. This absence of scientific
information about the actual beginnings should be made crystal clear --
certainly in teaching about science and perhaps elsewhere in the
curriculum.
Human curiosity about where we came from, and where ourcosmic environment came from, must be
addressed inpublic schools (what are we doing here, anyway?). But
no scientific answers exist. There are interesting and to some,
captivating religious explanations,i.e.,
dependent on the existence of a creative deity,scientifically
unsupported (and with no speculation on where such a deity came from, the
ultimate mystery; cf. our concept of "time"). "Intelligent design" is rationally
attractive,based on our common usage
of "causation," i.e., how else could all of this occurred if not
"created". As with the other theories about beginnings unsupported by
science, intelligent design could be explained in science courses as informative
about current nonscientific thinking.
In this context, who can argue with this W quote:
I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of
thought, Bush said. Youre asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed
to different ideas, the answer is yes.
Dan Gibbens
Regents' Professor Emeritus
University of Oklahoma College of
Law
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 10:43
AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject:
Re: Pres. Bush Supports Intelligent Design
Prof. David DeWolf has an excellent article on "teaching the controversy."
See DeWolf, Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion,
Or Speech, 2000 Utah L.Rev. 39.
As always, the solution to the culture war over the public school
curriculum is parental choice and equal funding for all children.
Cheers, RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University
of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE
68583-0902
___
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.
Mean hoax (these things happen too often)
Title: Message I've been a member of the ACLU since 1979(the Skokie situation made it clearthey were committed to basic civil rights even when it had negative impact on their donations) -- I don't agree with all their positions (same as with my church), butI believethey are honest (like my church). -Original Message-From: Michael Camfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 1:29 PMTo: Gibbens, Daniel G.Subject: RE: curiosity Dear Professor Gibbens: Thank you for your inquiry to the ACLU of Oklahoma. The message you forwarded is a hoax perpetrated by people who have no compunction about bearing false witness. There is no Lucius Traveler who works for the ACLU. The Traveler surname was probably selected by the hoaxer as an inflammatory reference to communists and their so called fellow travelers. The name of Lucius was probably chosen because the hoaxer thought it sounded sinister. Sincerely, Michael Camfield, Development Director ACLU of Oklahoma From: Gibbens, Daniel G. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:38 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: curiosity Good people: This email came to me. Before I respond, I want to make sure this is an accurate report of the identity of the ACLU spokesman, and of his quote. As you probably know, ACLU people are indeed misquoted sometimes. And if any additional details are available, I'd like them. Thanks! Daniel G. Gibbens Regents' Professor of Law Emeritus University of Oklahoma [THE EMAIL:]Subject: Fw: (no subject)What's wrong with this picture? [Located here is a beautiful picture which is accurately described in the following lines. This list won't take it -- too many bytes. If you email me directly, I'll forward it to you.]If you look closely at the picture above, you will note that all the Marines pictured are bowing their heads. That's because they're praying. This incident took place at a recent ceremony honoring the birthday of the corps, and it has the ACLU up in arms. "These are federal employees," says Lucius Traveler, a spokesman for the ACLU, "on federal property and on federal time. For them to pray is clearly an establishment of religion, and we must nip this in the bud immediately." When asked about the ACLU's charges, Colonel Jack Fessender, speaking for the Commandant of the Corps said (cleaned up a bit), "Screw the ACLU." GOD Bless Our Warriors, Send the ACLU to France. Please send this to people you know so everyone will know how stupid the ACLU is Getting in trying to remove GOD from everything and every place in America. May God Bless America, One Nation Under GOD! What's wrong with the picture? ABSOLUTELY NOTHINGGOD BLESS YOU FOR PASSING IT ON! Amen!I am sorry but I am not breaking this one.Let us pray [What follows is another beautiful picture of two marines in prayer, with the words "Remember Their Sacrifice"]Prayer "Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as theyprotect us. Bless them and their families for the selfless acts theyperform for us in our time of need. I ask this in the name of Jesus, ourLord and Savior. Amen." Prayer Request: When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say aprayer for our troops around the world. Of all the gifts you could give a US Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine others deployed in harm's way,Prayer is the very best one . ___ 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.
Draft ID statutory language
Title: Message Belowisdraft language fora billfor our state legislature in light of pro-ID bills filed. Although the deadline has passed for bill-filing this session,some thinksomething of this sort may havefuture use. So comments and criticismare requested. Obviously the draft is an effort under the rubric of pragmatism. It does not address critical issues such as thedefinition for public school purposes of "science", or what's involved in teaching "about religion". On the latter issue, it simply relies on Brennan's concurring opinion in Schempp. A. In courses presenting science-based information pertaining to the development processes of life forms, including evolution theory, or the development processes of physical matter, including big bang theory, public school teachersshall make clear that there is no scientific information available about the actual creation or origin of either; provided that related religion-based information, including intelligent design theory, shall not be presented in such courses. B. In non-science courses such as history, literature, and social studies, public school teachers may present information about religion, about differences between religious sects, and about religion-based views on the creation, origin or development processes of life forms or of physical matter, including intelligent design theory; provided that such teaching neither treats religion or religious views as truth or as ignorance, nor promotes nor discriminates against religion generally, any particular set of religious beliefs, or any negative views about religion. Dan Gibbens University of Oklahoma College of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven JamarSent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:57 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: School District drops Intelligent Design Class I don't think is so hard to enforce. Most people most of the time follow guidelines and this should be no different. We should not ban something just because sometimes people stray across a fuzzy boundary inadvertently or just because some people will intentionally try to abuse the guidelines and further their own agendas. This desire for purity in this area baffles me. It is not possible. We ought not fail to do or allow something just because it can sometimes be abused. And we ought not fail to teach something or allow something to be taught just because some people will be upset or draw the line differently. Steve On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:39 PM, Newsom Michael wrote: This is, of course, the central problem: how to enforce the distinction between teaching about religion and teaching religion. Enforcement, it strikes me, is insuperably difficult. How does one make sure that the teachers do not breach the line, and how does one make sure that the curriculum, or lesson plan does not breach the line? I am not sure, therefore, that one can reasonably assume that teaching about religion will not become, in far too many cases, teaching religion. Thus why should one favor teaching about religion in the public elementary and secondary schools at all? Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar ___ 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: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name
AMEN Daniel G. Gibbens, CDR, USNR-R Regents Professor of Law Emeritus University of Oklahoma -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:33 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Victory for Military Chaplains Who Pray In Jesus Name Sounds very much like someone tooting his own horn? Is excessive pride also a sin? One can only wonder how G-d will respond to someone who brags about his work to make outcasts of gay members of the human family. Perhaps the Chaplain should try marching a mile or two in the boot of a gay sailor or soldier. I am no expert on the chaplain's faith, but have spent a great deal of my life studying religion and this is the first time I have ever heard a Christian assert that praying from the Book of Psalms compromised a Christian's faith. Paul Finkelman President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy Albany Law School 80 New Scotland Avenue Albany, New York 12208-3494 518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gordon James Klingenschmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/02/06 12:11 AM Of course, selfishness is an abhorrent sinmuch to be despisedplease forgive me if anyone supposes my zeal is based in selfishnessI shall certainly self-examine and repent if sobut I only ask, was it selfish or unselfish, when I : 1) Gave up an award-winning Air Force career and volunteered for a demotion in rank and a pay-cut, just to become a Navy chaplain and help Sailors? 2) Led Sailors to feed the homeless every Friday, winning six awards for community service (including best in Navy)? 3) Risked my own career by advocating (too strongly) for my Jewish Sailor to have Kosher meals? (Earning rebuke from headquarters, but praise from the Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Welfare Board, read here: http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/ADLforKlingenschmitt.pdf ) 4) Fought for equal opportunity for Sailors of all diverse faiths to take turns and share the prayer with my Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic Sailors, allowing them to pray according to their tradition, while I'd only pray in Jesus name every fourth turn? (Which proposal my commander denied, telling me to pray Jewish prayersread here: http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixRTwoDeniedProposals.pdf ) 5) Compromised my own faith by obediently praying only Jewish prayers (Old Testament Psalms) in public, for eight months before he still fired me from my ship? 6) Risked my own career by opposing the Navy's government-mandated church quotas when senior chaplains forced scores of Sailors to attend a pro-homosexual church? (Read here: http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AParticleMattKelley30Apr05.pdf ) 7) Fought only to lose my own $1.8 million pension, my own reputation, my entire career, at criminal conviction, so that other chaplains AND SAILORS would receive the religious liberty I was denied? (Don't assume I'm going to personally benefit from this...my family will soon be evicted from military housing...I did this for others, not me.) 8) Quoted the Bible in the chapel (optional-attendance) in a sermon designed to honor the Christian faith of my deceased Sailor (guaranteeing his right to a Christian burial), and pleading to save the souls of those who voluntarily attended, putting their own eternal salvation ahead of my own reputation, again risking my career? If I were truly selfish, I'd never have risked my career for the benefit of others, I'd simply have watered-down my prayers and sermons, stopped fighting for religious liberty FOR ALL DIVERSE FAITHS, and gotten quickly promoted to senior chaplain... Chaplain Klingenschmitt David E. Guinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am appalled by the selfishness of this line of argument -- that the only point of concern is to protect the chaplain -- as opposed to serve the religious needs and interest of our armed forces. Not only are these interpretations of history and law enormously biased and inaccurate, they are offensive. If the chaplaincy's purpose is solely to promote Chaplain Klingenschmitt's sectarian faith than perhaps Madison was correct in arguing that Congress' decision to hire chaplains was wrong and should now be recended. David - Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail. ___ 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
RE: Question from a reporter
Unsure whether a current instance is responsive, but here it is, from the Feb. 2007 issue of Episcopal Life, p. 20: The Executive Board of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia on Jan. 18 authorized Bishop Peter Lee to 'take such steps as may be necessary to recover or secure such real and personal property' of 11 congregations where a majority of the members and leaders have left the Episcopal Church. There have been no immediate actions. Daniel G. Gibbens Regents' Professor of Law Emeritus University of Oklahoma From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:43 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Question from a reporter This is very helpful. Of course, this is only reported cases A more complete data set for the years it covers is the Religious Freedom Reporter, which runs from 1981 I think to the late 90s (or maybe the very early 2000s). Finding a library with a complete set can sometimes be a challenge. They had a network of lawyers sending them cases they knew about, so they pick up a fair number of trial court cases that never got reported. Still not a complete population I'm sure. Quoting Hassler, Jeffrey (student) [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm just a law student, but I've been working on a student comment on civil court resolution of church property disputes, and there are at least some figures out there about church property cases in courts. I've pasted below a paragraph from my article discussing some informal research on the subject done by Prof. Greenawalt: Jeff Church property disputes will never be the bread and butter of the civil courts, but that doesn't mean controversies don't arise on a regular basis. In 1998, Professor Greenawalt noted that courts have heard an average of about 119 church property cases each decade since 1948.[1] outbind://105/#_ftn1 https://web.mail.umich.edu/horde/services/go.php?url=outbind%3A%2F%2F10 5%2F%23_ftn1The numbers reflect slight increases during periods of particular doctrinal disputation. In the decade since Professor Greenawalt's tabulation, there were approximately 91 church property cases heard in the U.S.;[2] outbind://105/#_ftn2 https://web.mail.umich.edu/horde/services/go.php?url=outbind%3A%2F%2F10 5%2F%23_ftn2 this figure is consistent with earlier trends and the pattern indicates the possibility that the number is rising again, perhaps in response to the increase in intradenominational strife described above. [1] outbind://105/#_ftnref1 https://web.mail.umich.edu/horde/services/go.php?url=outbind%3A%2F%2F10 5%2F%23_ftnref1 Kent Greenawalt, Hands Off! Civil Court Involvement in Conflicts over Religious Property, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 1843, 1844 n.1. (1998). Professor Greenawalt's findings are as follows: The following data show the approximate number of reported cases in both federal and state courts over a period of fifty years (amassed through a Westlaw search). The numbers reflect each time a different court had to address the issue of church property; thus, appeals are counted separately. From 1948 to 1957, there were approximately 166 cases; from 1958-1967, roughly 109; from 1968-1977, 115 cases; from 1978-1987, 123 cases; from 1988-1997, 81. (This search was done in Oct. 1998, in the Allcases database). Id. [2] outbind://105/#_ftnref2 https://web.mail.umich.edu/horde/services/go.php?url=outbind%3A%2F%2F10 5%2F%23_ftnref2 This search was conducted in January 2007, using the criteria discussed in the previous note. It reflects only nine years rather than a full decade, and thus will almost certainly under-represent the actual figure for the ten years following Professor Greenawalt's search. --- ___ Jeff Hassler Pepperdine School of Law 24255 Pacific Coast Hwy #0028 Malibu, CA 90263-0028 310.506.3920 -Original Message- From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Feb 7, 2007 6:27 PM Subject: Question from a reporter To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu A reporter asked me: Is it my imagination, or are denominations and members increasingly turning to the courts to settle disputes. [I've seen] current disputes within the Catholic, Episcopal, Missouri Lutheran faiths -- and there are doubtless more that I don't know about. There are issues of personnel and property. Does anyone track such a thing, or has the issue been studied? I didn't have an answer, but offered to ask on-list. Any thoughts on this? Thanks, Eugene ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe,
AlterNet website
On the recommendation of a friend, I just read an short article on this website entitled The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy posted today. I'm curious about any views on the credibility of this website, or for that matter, on this particular article. Dan Gibbens University of Oklahoma College of Law ___ 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: AlterNet website
Thanks, Eugene. I am reminded of Holmes [O]ur Constitution] is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. My assumption (Hedges would apparently declare it's naiveté) is that the condition so imminently threaten immediate interference is far from being reached. Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:22 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: AlterNet website The article is by Chris Hedges, a Nation Institute fellow and former NPR and New York Times reporter; he is the author of a book on this subject (American Fascists). He also takes the view that the radical Christian Right should have its speech legally restricted. From the book: This is the awful paradox of tolerance. There arise moments when those who would destroy the tolerance that makes an open society possible should no longer be tolerated. They must be held accountable by institutions that maintain the free exchange of ideas and liberty. The radical Christian Right must be forced to include other points of view to counter their hate talk in their own broadcasts, watched by tens of millions of Americans. They must be denied the right to demonize whole segments of American society, saying they are manipulated by Satan and worthy only of conversion or eradication. They must be made to treat their opponents with respect and acknowledge the right of a fair hearing even as they exercise their own freedom to disagree with their opponents. Passivity in the face of the rise of the Christian Right threatens the democratic state. And the movement has targeted the last remaining obstacles to its systems of indoctrination, mounting a fierce campaign to defeat hate-crime legislation, fearing the courts could apply it to them as they spew hate talk over the radio, television and Internet. To clear up any ambiguity about whether he was calling for legal suppression (denied the right to demonize) or just social pressure, here's an excerpt from an NPR interview with Hedges: JIM (Caller): Yes. Yes, I am. I needed to ask the author -- I mean, I myself am a Christian, but I wouldn't even somewhat agree with Pat Roberts. But the author stating that you need to restrict someone's free speech just for mere words, he's advocating -- I mean, what he's advocating is fascism, is he (unintelligible)? ... Mr. HEDGES: I think that, you know, in a democratic society, people don't have a right to preach the extermination of others, which has been a part of this movement of - certainly in terms of what should be done with homosexuals. You know, Rushdoony and others have talked about 18 moral crimes for which people should be executed, including apostasy, blasphemy, sodomy, and all - in order for an open society to function, it must function with a mutual respect, with a respect... JIM: Sure. Mr. HEDGES: ...for other ways to be and other ways to believe. And I think that the fringes of this movement have denied people that respect, which is why they fight so hard against hate crimes legislation -- such as exist in Canada -- being made law in the United States. [NEAL] CONAN: But Chris, to be fair, aren't you talking about violating their right to free speech, their right to religion as laid out in the First Amendment? Mr. HEDGES: Well, I think that when you preach -- or when you call for the physical extermination of other people within the society, you know, you've crossed the bounds of free speech. I mean, we're not going to turn a cable channel over to the Ku Klux Klan. Yet the kinds of things that are allowed to be spewed out over much of Christian radio and television essentially preaches sedition. It preaches civil war. It's not a difference of opinion. With that kind of rhetoric, it becomes a fight for survival Eugene From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibbens, Daniel G. Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ucla. edu Subject: AlterNet website On the recommendation of a friend, I just read an short article on this website entitled The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy posted today. I'm curious about any views on the credibility of this website
An email of possible relevance
SHALL WE HIRE A MONUMENT ENGRAVER TO GO TO ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY AND ADD THE MISSING WORDS ? A MESSAGE FROM AN APPALLED OBSERVER: Today I went to visit the new World War II Memorial in Washington , DC I got an unexpected history lesson Because I'm a baby boomer, I was one of the youngest in the crowd. Most were the age of my parents, Veterans of the greatest war, with their families. It was a beautiful day, and people were smiling and happy to be there. Hundreds of us milled around the memorial, reading the inspiring words of Eisenhower and Truman that are engraved there. On the Pacific side of the memorial, a group of us gathered to read the words President Roosevelt used to announce the attack on Pearl Harbor : Yesterday, December 7, 1941-- a date which will live in infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked. One elderly woman read the words aloud: With confidence in our armed forces, with the abounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. But as she read, she was suddenly turned angry. Wait a minute, she said, they left out the end of the quote.. They left out the most important part. Roosevelt ended the message with so help us God. Her husband said, You are probably right. We're not supposed to say things like that now. I know I'm right, she insisted. I remember the speech. The two looked dismayed, shook their heads sadly and walked away. Listening to their conversation, I thought to myself,Well, it has been over 50 years she's probably forgotten. But she had not forgotten. She was right. I went home and pulled out the book my book club is reading --- Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley. It's all about the battle at Iwo Jima . I haven't gotten too far in the book. It's tough to read because it's a graphic description of the WWII battles in the Pacific. But right there it was on page 58. Roosevelt 's speech to the nation ends in so help us God. The people who edited out that part of the speech when they engraved it on the memorial could have fooled me. I was born after the war.! But they couldn't fool the people who were there. Roosevelt's words are engraved on their hearts. Now I ask: WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE WORDS OF HISTORY? Send this around to your friends People need to know before everyone forgets. People today are trying to change the history of America by leaving God out of it, but the truth is, God has been a part of this nation, since the beginning. He still wants to be...and He always will be! If you agree, pass this on. If not, May God Bless YOU! [cid:008801c83818$3d7c0e50$01dd174b@homeu0k7o5vyn8]http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=102287rui=83657392 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.11/1161 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 12:12 PM ___ 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.
Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act
I understand public schools legislation with this label was passed in Texas last year that includes provisions that are ambiguous as well as some protected by Supreme Court decisions (implying otherwise). If nothing else, it at least provides students a nose in the door for the intelligent design promoters. My understanding is that in spite of Kitzmiller, the promoters have not lost their zest or ingenuity. Accordingly, my thinking that legislation with the following aspects is needed and appropriate (and of course comment is invited): (1) Given the now known time span, i.e., millions/billions of years, evolution and big bang theories are scientifically supported descriptions of the process of development of the myriad life forms and the process of development of the vast physical cosmos. But science gives no clue about the origins of either life or cosmos. (2) In science courses, it should also make clear what has scientific support, and what does not (acknowledging that among scientists, agreement is tenuous about the meaning of science). Thus, in addition to teaching evolution and big bang theories, where there is focus on the development processes -- it should also be taught that zero scientifically supported explanations exist about the beginnings of life forms (some accidental spark?) or of the physical cosmos (where did the initial mass/energy come from?). In this context, there should be recognition that scientific knowledge continues to expand, e.g., medical science, astronomy, but still provides no clue about beginnings. (3) In non-science courses such as history, literature, and social studies, public school teachers may present information about religion, about differences between religious sects, and about religion-based views on the origin and development processes of life forms and of physical matter, including intelligent design theory. Of course, such teaching must treat religion and religious views as neither truth nor as ignorance, nor promote religion generally nor any particular set of religious beliefs, nor promote any negative views about religion. Also, essential is encouragement of our ubiquitous curiosity about beginnings (what are we doing here anyway?). Perhaps some emphasis might be given to where the science-based theories and intelligent design are consistent: for example, intelligent design, albeit non-scientific, presents a rational explanation of how the origins occurred (for every effect there must be a cause). ___ 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: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com
Justice Brennan's well-known statement, concurring in Schempp, 374 US at 300: teaching about the Bible in classes in literature or history is permissible. As literature, surely teaching about the Bible is different from other literature items, distinctively involving the necessity of treating these issues: The fact that some people believe it (or some of it) is the word of God -- others believe that it is essential to understanding their religion -- others believe it is interesting literature but otherwise irrelevant -- and thinking internationally, it is one several books presenting similar issues, e.g., the Koran. Arguably, if teachers are not so advised/trained, there are indeed critical church-state issues. Dan Daniel G. Gibbens Regents' Professor of Law Emeritus University of Oklahoma -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:41 AM To: Religionlaw Subject: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25742567/ Joel Sogol ___ 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: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
Many good Christians - both conservatives and liberals -- believe prayer is equally effective when in Jesus name is omitted, and actually pray accordingly. If nothing else, the Establishment Clause does restrict people when they are acting as part of government. Of course Chaplain Klingenschmitt's advocacy of a different meaning is protected by other First Amendment language. Daniel G. Gibbens Regents' Professor of Law Emeritus University of Oklahoma From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon James Klingenschmitt Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 6:07 PM To: UCLA Law Class Subject: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name' Press release below. Please forward widely. Please call for interviews! In Jesus, Chaplain K. Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'In Jesus' Name' Contact: Chaplain Klingenschmitt, www.PrayInJesusName.orghttp://www.prayinjesusname.org/, 719-360-5132 cell, [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] WASHINGTON, July 23 /Christian Newswirehttp://www.christiannewswire.com// -- The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that the city council of Fredericksburg, Virginia had proper authority to require non-sectarian prayer content and exclude council-member Rev. Hashmel Turner from the prayer rotation because he prayed in Jesus' name. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the decision, said: The restriction that prayers be nonsectarian in nature is designed to make the prayers accessible to people who come from a variety of backgrounds, not to exclude or disparage a particular faith. Ironically, she admitted Turner was excluded from participating solely because of the Christian content of his prayer. A full text copy of the decision, with added commentary by Chaplain Klingenschmitt is here: www.PrayInJesusName.org/Frenzy13/AgainstOconnor.pdfhttp://www.prayinjesusname.org/Frenzy13/AgainstOconnor.pdf Gordon James Klingenschmitt, the former Navy chaplain who faced court-martial for praying in Jesus name in uniform (but won the victory in Congress for other chaplains), defended Rev. Hashmel Turner: The Fredericksburg government violated everybody's rights by establishing a non-sectarian religion, and requiring all prayers conform, or face punishment of exclusion. Justice O'Connor showed her liberal colors today, by declaring the word 'Jesus' as illegal religious speech, which can be banned by any council who wishes to ignore the First Amendment as she did. Councilman Rev. Hashmel Turner should run for mayor, fire the other council-members, and re-write the prayer policy. And if he appeals to the Supreme Court, I pray he will win, in Jesus' name. For media interviews, call: Chaplain Klingenschmitt 719-360-5132 cell Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web address: www.PrayInJesusName.orghttp://www.prayinjesusname.org/ Source: http://christiannewswire.com/news/558917273.html ___ 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: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
Chaplain K, below: But can governments pray? What is government, if it is not people? More specifically, when meeting, isn't the city council government? If it has an agenda, isn't that a government agenda? So people speaking pursuant to the meeting agenda, isn't that government acting? Common sense question -- must the agenda be in writing? An easy non-government example would be when a member of the audience stands and delivers a prayer in Jesus name, unplanned by council members. And some legal issues are indeed close questions - that's the reason we have courts. Daniel G. Gibbens Regents' Professor of Law Emeritus University of Oklahoma From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gordon James Klingenschmitt Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:51 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name' Professors Lund and Essenberg seek the larger question, which I believe seems to involve whether a government can pray, at all. We all agree individuals can pray, and the First Amendment protects individual speech by private citizens. But can governments pray? Justice O'Connor interpreted Simpson as precedent to mean that all speakers in a government forum (even private pastors, but especially councilmembers) are government agents doing government business while saying the prayer, not private citizens offering a private petition that happens to be overheard by the government. Hence she believes the government is saying the prayer, not the person. This cannot be true, because governments cannot say prayers unless they choose a government-favored god. When the government defines its own god, it has established a preferred religion. The non-sectarian god is favored over other gods (Christian, Hindu, etc.), and the government publicly declares to all citizens our god is favored, and yours should all be excluded. You can only participate in this government-religious exercise if you bow your knee and pray to the government's non-sectarian god. The solution is for a court to state the obvious fact, that whenever a citizen or public official or any person says a prayer, that during the moment of religious worship, he or she CANNOT POSSIBLY be speaking as a government actor, only as a private citizen speaking his own opinion in a government forum. Perhaps the Supreme Court would take this, since it conflicts with Hinrichs v. Bosma appeals court who recently permitted Jesus prayers in the Indiana legislature. The good news is, while affirming her 1) bogus non-sectarian policy, Justice O'Connor also cleared the way for policies that allow 2) paid-chaplains to pray according to their own faith (i.e. U.S. Congress policy), and 3) taking turns among diverse beliefs of citizens (i.e. Tulsa Oklahoma policy, here: http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy12/TulsaPrayerPolicy.pdf ) So If Fredericksburg city council (or any other council) wished to adopt policies 2 and 3 instead of 1, they would also be affirmed. That's the silver lining in O'Connor's cloud. Again, my commentary on her entire decision, line-by-line, is here: http://persuade.tv/Frenzy13/ONN13Jul08Annapolis.pdf In Jesus, Chaplain K. Esenberg, Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed, I'm interested in the larger question. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:19 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name' I agree with some of the points Professor Esenberg makes, but just to be clear, the result in this case wouldn't change if governmental prayers in Jesus' name were considered constitutionally permissible. Fredricksburg would still be allowed (under the government-speech doctrine) to keep their own prayers nonsectarian. Turner was seeking to impose (not lift) constitutional restrictions on Fredricksburg. Best, Chris Christopher C. Lund Assistant Professor of Law Mississippi College School of Law 151 E. Griffith St. Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 925-7141 (office) (601) 925-7113 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/24/2008 2:54:26 PM I agree with Professor Gibson that faithful Christians can pray without invoking the name of Jesus and with Professor Lund that this seems like the correct result under existing law (even Justice Scalia might agee) and I appreciate Professor Laycock's invocation of the great Alexander Bickel. Wrong answers is what the wrong questions beget, One of my favorite phrases. But I wonder if the right question is whether government, as we know it in the 21st century, ever can avoid speaking religiously. While the monument questions don't put the question in the starkest form, the more things on which government chooses to speak, the more likely it is to either contradict some group's strongly held religious belief or minimize them by
