I'd appreciate an explanation of why the house photography case is harder if
the refusal to photograph rests on a religious objection (for example, that
one's religious beliefs require that one not facilitate the economic
flourishing of gays).
Mark Tushnet
William Nelson Cromwell Professor
In connection with this discussion, it might be worth noting that prior to the
Civil War there was, in the South, quite a vigorous discussion of why slavery
was sancitoned by the Bible, and -- toward the end of the pre-war period -- why
it was mandated by Ciristianity properly understood.
Mark
Mightn't this be an ordinary sincerity case?
Mark Tushnet
William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law
223 Areeda Hall
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA 02138
ph: 617-496-4451 (office); 202-374-9571 (mobile); 617-496-4866 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
, the functions
of which I am ignorant.)
Mark Tushnet
William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
Areeda 223
Cambridge, MA 02138
ph: 617-496-4451 (office); 202-374-9571 (mobile)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Esenberg, Richard
Sent: Fri
in that sentence, substitute a version that invokes
Chevron-like deference to legal interpretations proferred by administrative
agencies.)
--
Mark Tushnet
William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
Areeda 223
Cambridge, MA 02138
Quoting David Cruz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006
Let me express my doubts about this assertion -- No one would doubt that a
Christian music concert could be held (and advertised) -- where the presenter
is a for-profit business. (A genuine question: How do for-profit concert
promoters advertise concerts by Christian rock groups?)
--
Mark
related reasons, on his right to express his deeply held racist views by means
of expressive conduct) says something very bad about the state of the First
Amendment law as Eugene would construct it.
--
Mark Tushnet
William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
Areeda 223
Cambridge, MA
-6988 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Tushnet
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 6:04 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: RE: Taxpayer Standing
The standard answer on taxpayer standing in Mitchell
Coming late to this thread, and noting that the discussion has gone off in a
different direction, I'd simply reinforce Marty's observation that the view
that 'religious transformation [and] faith' are good (when freely embraced)
is a theological proposition, by noting that it's perfectly
The standard answer on taxpayer standing in Mitchell is that the criteria
differ for state taxpayer standing and federal taxpayer standing. The
distinction goes back a long way, although I doubt that it has ever been
rationalized well.
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
I can't tell from the news story whether the bunny was part of
the secretary's personal space or whether it was in a space
concededly under the control of the city council, although the
story suggests the latter (it appears that the city council
president directed that the bunny be removed,
This isn't the kind of thing I think about a lot, but I wonder what (if
any) assumptions are made -- in the question anjd by the
hypothesized state institution -- about the category
Sabbatarians. I think the usual definition is those who obserfve
their holy day on Saturday, and if that's
s any real (as distinct from rhetorical)
interest
in the movement in seeing that legislatures adopt such declarations.
--
Mark Tushnet
GeorgetownUniversity Law Center
600 New Jersey Ave. NW
Washington , DC 20001
202-662-9106 (voice)
could
issue
declarations that the United States is a Christian nation, and it is
not
clear to me that there is any real (as distinct from rhetorical)
interest in the movement in seeing that legislatures adopt such
declarations.
--
Mark Tushnet
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Ave
tervene aginst state and
local government under the incorporated EC.
I hope this helps a little. I would be happy to discuss these
matters with you.
Rick Duncan
Mark Tushnet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm writing something in which I try to describe (in as
neut! ral a way as I can) the litiga
the Court ruled unanimously that the government may not ban a religious
from using a herbal tea that contains a substance that the government
considers to be harmful. The Chief Justice wrote the opinion. Only new
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., did not take part. -- from SCOTUS Blog
--
Mark
I have no idea what the truth of the matter is, but here's a different
account of what happened in connection with the Silent Night
episode on which there was a post earlier today:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/14/silent-night-fraud
begin:vcard
n:Tushnet;Mark
fn:Mark Tushnet,tushnet
The following is not directed at any particular participant in this
thread, but those who have been on this list for more than a year
know that this thread repeats one from last year (and, although
memory fades, probably the year before that, and the year
before that ...). I wonder if those
Having now read the article, I think it appropriate to quote what in
my view is the deepest insight I've ever heard about religion and
the Constitution (an insight not inconsistent, I think, with Carter's
perspective). It's from the late John Howard Yoder, the Amish
theologian, and -- I think
I wonder whether this analysis can be reconciled (even on the level of
quite plausible) with Lynch and Pinette, and the
reasonable-observer-who-knows-a-fair-amount-of-the-context, etc., test
for endorsement. Or, is the test for endorsement more stringent when
the view endorsed is secularist
Any thoughts on this: http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/18/evolution . It's a report of
a lawsuit filed against U Cal Berkeley for maintaining a web-site designed for high school teachers seeking information on evolution (the site is http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ ). The complaint
Ed Brayton's post raises what I thought was the most interesting
question raised by the lawsuit: Can the inclusion of one link (to
what might be a non-neutral site) produce an Establishment
Clause violation -- when the complaint does not (apparently)
identify (according to the report)
Simply on the predictive issue: (1) Does the Ninth Circuit have a
related cases rule, and (2) if so, would the appeal of this
decision fall within the rule?
- Original Message -
From: Scarberry, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 11:12 pm
Subject: RE: New Pledge
Or, it had better halt the proceeding that it (at the very least)
continued after the initial determination favorable to Mr. Li, and
resisted on Mr. Li's appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
Brad M Pardee wrote:
If the present administration expects to
be seen as an advocate for religious freedom,
I thank Allen for the links to the UC guide, and find particularly
helpful the unapproved courses link -- http://pathstat1.ucop.edu/
servlet/StoneGround?templateName=course_descriptions/
nonapproved -- and especially the descriptions of the criminal
justice and forensic research courses.
Might I suggest (a) that the limited number of participants in this
thread (and related ones in the recent past), and (b) the
comparative advantage of most list members in law rather than
the philosophy of science, indicates that perhaps the thread has
played itself out?
Content-Type:
I read the summary Rick directed us to, and I'm a bit puzzled. The
doctor intervened in a situation where (the summary says) "there are
only two options--surgery or
death." As a result of the intervention, the alien boy's physical life
is preserved, but in the end his parents kill him because,
I'm a few hours behind on these postings, so apologies in
advance if this point has been made: Suppose that the inquiry
into strife is not a direct touchstone, in the sense that asking
whether X causes religious strife is relevant to deciding whether X
is constitutional. Rather -- as I think
I haven't commented on this thread, mostly because I thought the
answer was pretty straight-forward from Justice Souter's
invocation of common sense as a legal technique in addressing
this kind of problem.
I could get fancier about this (in the initial version, what does
common sense tell you
I suppose that Eugene's reply is a demonstration of why invoking
common sense is better than trying to get fancy about it. (But, I'm
puzzled at how putting up a picture is a cogent argument but
putting up a banner is not; I'll give you vivid in both cases, but --
at least where I come from --
s "endorsement"
position).
The problem as several postings are making clear, is what
it means to
"use one's official position." There are no bright lines,
In connection with Rick's question, you might want to look around your
campus for posters/signs with headlines like "Stop Psychiatric Abuse,"
and for tables with banners like "Stress Management" or "Stress
Reduction." Also, this story -- Andy Newman, "Bumping Up Against
Subway Regulations, New
I'm not sure that the following intervention will be productive, but:
My sense is that this discussion has reached beyond the limits of
list-relevance in its discussions of the substance of ID, evolutionary
theory, etc. (I remember enough about physics from college to know that
the law of
I have the feeling that this thread may have played itself out, but one
matter hasn't come up -- whether there's a difference between a public
statement soliciting support from religious leaders, etc., and a private
conversation in which such support is solicited (and whether, in a world
of
--
From: Mark Tushnet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Mon, 14 Jun
2004 15:43:05 -0400
I have the feeling that this thread may have played itself
out,
but one
matter hasn't come up -- whether there's a difference
between a
public
I don't read the manager as saying that most public religious
activities are prohibited in the park. As I read him, he's saying
that such activities are allowed, but only in the shelters (as is true,
as I read it, of political rallies and events by private companies
[which I suppose might
I too wonder about the statutory interpretations Eugene
proffers. Consider first the Illinois statute, which refers to
physician, hospital, ambulatory surgical center, nor
employee thereof. It seems to me to stretch this
coverage language to include applicant for employment
thereto. The
Coming in late on this: I've gone back and forth over the years about what to do
about Cohen, although now I've settled in on using the word (on the ground that -- at
least with my students -- the chances of offense are quite low). (I take it that the
possibility of giving offense is relevant
The About This Site section of the web page says: The Lesbian Gay Bisexual
Transgender Campus Resource Center is a department in Student and Campus Life, a
division of the Student Affairs Organization under the direction of Vice Chancellor
Winston Doby. The quoted material is the textual
39 matches
Mail list logo
