RE: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments. There are significant differences in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones. There are important differences in translations and understanding, again with significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its totality. I spell out these differences in an amicus brief in Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago. All of this says nothing of the rights of atheists or non-Judeo _Christian faiths. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases In a message dated 12/15/2004 4:52:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hm -- and some people say that the Protestant Empire is dead and gone. If one can display the Ten Commandments (five gets you ten that the only version we are likely to see in any of these displays is the evangelical Protestant version) along with other legal documents, that one can display the Sermon on the Mount etc. so long as it is contextualized with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, for example. And, I must ask, what displays does one suppose that a Protestant Empire would want to put up? Why they would be the ones that the SG supports and that Alan has supposed below! As we worked on aspects of the decalogue cases that our organization has defended, and the amici we have filed in other cases, I have become more and more fascinated by the Jewish-Catholic-Protestant dichotomy drawn in some quarters. The Decalogue is set out in full in the scripture. For purposes of catechesis, it is summarized in brief. Various summarizations exist, but are all based on the same statement in full of the Ten Words. Is there any variation in the ten words amongst the versions? No. Is there any variation in the summarization of the ten words? Yes, a small amount. Is there a difference of significance? Not at all. Consider this example: Mom tells little Johnny: go potty, wash your hands and face, brush your teeth, and go to bed. Some variation in the order of the instructions and the execution of them leads to unfortunate consequences, for example, if Johnny waits till he's in bed to go potty. But the ten words don't work that way. And there is no dispute over the text from which the summarizations are drawn. So, there really is no there there in the teapot tempest over which version will be used. Jim Do you have any other arguments? Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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 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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
Well for starters, the Orden monument left out the words who took you out of Egypt an omission which makes sense on two Protestant assumptions. 1. The sentence beginning I am is not a commandment and the phrase who took you out of Egypt has no normative content. 2. The commandments are universal in import, and not directed solely at Israel. See Mathew 19 Jews reject both assumptions. Hence the way the Orden monument inescapably casts the commandments amounts to a repudiation of Jewish teaching. And, of course, the focus on the commandments as such is rooted in a Christian rejection of the totality of the law. Marc stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments. There are significant differences in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones. There are important differences in translations and understanding, again with significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its totality. I spell out these differences in an amicus brief in Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago. Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of fact. The Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are. And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away from literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move toward Finding Meaning in those commands, differences arise. But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified. At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be found. But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and you get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, even when the issue is just interpretation of an ERISA provision. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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 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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
I suspect we have a disagreement here that is verging on the theological. The text of Exod 20 contains many commandments; so does Denuteronomy 5. No matter how one counts them, or parses them, it there are clearly more than ten separate commandments in these chapters. Jews and Christians disagree about the numbering of the commandments and the verses. Most obviously, Jews consider Exod 20:2 I the Lord am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage to be a separate commandment. It stands alone as the First Commandment for Jews. Most Protestants do not consider it a commandment at all; Catholics and Lutherans consider it part of their First Commendment, but only part of a much larger commandment. Most Protestants consider Exod. 20:4 (You shall not make for yourslef a sculptured image... -- as in King James Translation, graven image -- to stand along as their second commandment. Jews consider this to be part of a larger second commandment. Catholics translate scultured image as idol and make this verse part of their First Commandment. Lutherans also consider this to be part of their First Commendment (although I have not been able to fully determine how it is translated -- if there is someone who has a clear answer I would appreciate hearing from you, off list if you wish). Jews Translate Exod: 20:13 ast you shall not murder. Most Protestants and Catholics translate is as Thou shalt not kill (King James) Obviously this is a signifiant difference. I could go on (I do at some length in my forthcoming article in Fordham. The bottom line is this: there are more than 10 separate commandments in Exod 20; different faiths order them (number them) in different ways; Jews and Christians even number the verses in different ways; and the translations are very different have serious theological implications. There is no one Ten Commandment that all faiths agree on or accept; nor is there a translation that they all agree on. ANY Ten Commandments monument will, by its very nature, be offense to some or all faiths, and will more than likely be an endorsement of others. Jim Henderson is simply wrong, flat out wrong, in his assertion But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified. He may wish to believe this; he may even deeply believe and think that it is true, but belief is not fact. His prohibition on killing is not the same as my prohibition on murder. His first commandment You shalt have no other gods before me. (verse 3, King James version) is different in translation and meaning than my 2nd commandment, You shall have no other gods beside Me. (Tanakah translation.) Paul Finkelman -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments. There are significant differences in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones. There are important differences in translations and understanding, again with significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its totality. I spell out these differences in an amicus brief in Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago. Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of fact. The Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are. And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away from literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move toward Finding Meaning in those commands, differences arise. But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified. At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be found. But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and you get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, even when the issue is just interpretation of an ERISA
Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
Not to put too fine a point on these issues, but the for Roman Catholics and Lutherans, the 7th Commandment is a prohibition on stealing, not adultery. That illustrates the whole problem of putting up these monuments. What does it say to a child, for example, who passes the courthouse everyday and sees the 10 commandments and thinks they are wrong and is taught in Church that the list in front of the courthouse is wrong, but then is told by the government -- through the message of the courthouse -- that this is the correct 10 Commandments. In general, I completely agree with Ed's other points. Paul Finkelman Ed Brayton wrote: I must say, as it concerns the 10 commandments issue, that I'm not so concerned about the question of which text of the 10 commandments one uses as I am the question of why anyone rationally believes that they form the basis of our laws in the first place. At least 6 of the 10 commandments would be entirely unconstitutional if turned into laws in this country, including all of the first five which are exclusively religious proclamations (thou shalt have no other gods before me, no graven images, taking god's name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy and honoring thy mother and father, and coveting they neighbor's stuff). A 7th (thou shalt not commit adultery) would probably be unconstitutional under Lawrence, and is not in our system a legitimate law (though adultery is obviously wrong, it's not a criminal matter but a personal one). An 8th (not bearing false witness) can be made into law in some circumstances, such as perjury or libel, but not as a generalized rule. Only the injunctions against murder and theft are clearly a part of the law in the US and clearly constitutional as a general rule, and those laws are universal to all societies regardless of whether they've even heard of the Ten Commandments because no society could survive without them. I've never understood this often repeated cliche that our laws are based on the ten commandments when at least 6 or the 10 are entirely forbidden to be laws at all under our constitutional system. And in all the years I've discussed this with people, I've never gotten a coherent answer to that argument. I don't think most people who make the initial argument even bother to think about it at all, it's just an empty truism. Ed Brayton ___ 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 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
The ADL has filed a very thoughtful brief elaborating on Marc and Paul's points. A link to it can be found on the their web cite http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/4601_33.htm Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 11:09 AM 12/16/2004 -0500, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C4E389.9DB03DA9 Well for starters, the Orden monument left out the words who took you out of Egyptan omission which makes sense on two Protestant assumptions. 1. The sentence beginning I amis not a commandment and the phrase who took you out of Egypt has no normative content. 2. The commandments are universal in import, and not directed solely at Israel. See Mathew 19 Jews reject both assumptions. Hence the way the Orden monument inescapably casts the commandments amounts to a repudiation of Jewish teaching. And, of course, the focus on the commandments as such is rooted in a Christian rejection of the totality of the law. Marc stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments. There are significant differences in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones. There are important differences in translations and understanding, again with significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its totality. I spell out these differences in an amicus brief in Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago. Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of fact. The Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are. And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away from literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move toward Finding Meaning in those commands, differences arise. But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified. At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be found. But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and you get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, even when the issue is just interpretation of an ERISA provision. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
My brief making these points is to be found at our website sometime within the next few hours www.AJCONGRESS.ORG Marc From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:56 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases The ADL has filed a very thoughtful brief elaborating on Marc and Paul's points. A link to it can be found on the their web cite http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/4601_33.htm Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 11:09 AM 12/16/2004 -0500, you wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C4E389.9DB03DA9 Well for starters, the Orden monument left out the words who took you out of Egyptan omission which makes sense on two Protestant assumptions. 1. The sentence beginning I amis not a commandment and the phrase who took you out of Egypt has no normative content. 2. The commandments are universal in import, and not directed solely at Israel. See Mathew 19 Jews reject both assumptions. Hence the way the Orden monument inescapably casts the commandments amounts to a repudiation of Jewish teaching. And, of course, the focus on the commandments as such is rooted in a Christian rejection of the totality of the law. Marc stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments. There are significant differences in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones. There are important differences in translations and understanding, again with significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its totality. I spell out these differences in an amicus brief in Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago. Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of fact. The Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are. And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away from literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move toward Finding Meaning in those commands, differences arise. But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified. At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be found. But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and you get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, even when the issue is just interpretation of an ERISA provision. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
I must say, as it concerns the 10 commandments issue, that I'm not so concerned about the question of which text of the 10 commandments one uses as I am the question of why anyone rationally believes that they form the basis of our laws in the first place. At least 6 of the 10 commandments would be entirely unconstitutional if turned into laws in this country, including all of the first five which are exclusively religious proclamations (thou shalt have no other gods before me, no graven images, taking god's name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy and honoring thy mother and father, and coveting they neighbor's stuff). A 7th (thou shalt not commit adultery) would probably be unconstitutional under Lawrence, and is not in our system a legitimate law (though adultery is obviously wrong, it's not a criminal matter but a personal one). An 8th (not bearing false witness) can be made into law in some circumstances, such as perjury or libel, but not as a generalized rule. Only the injunctions against murder and theft are clearly a part of the law in the US and clearly constitutional as a general rule, and those laws are universal to all societies regardless of whether they've even heard of the Ten Commandments because no society could survive without them. I've never understood this often repeated cliche that our laws are based on the ten commandments when at least 6 or the 10 are entirely forbidden to be laws at all under our constitutional system. And in all the years I've discussed this with people, I've never gotten a coherent answer to that argument. I don't think most people who make the initial argument even bother to think about it at all, it's just an empty truism. Ed Brayton ___ 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 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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
Professor Steven Greene has an article about that very point in 14 Journal of Law and religion 525.The Orden court made the point about the ten commandments as the foundation of American Law without citation of supporting authority-legal or historical. Justice Rehnquist did the same in his dissent from denial of cert in City of Elkhart v. Book,532 u.s. 1059 Marc Stern -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:38 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases I must say, as it concerns the 10 commandments issue, that I'm not so concerned about the question of which text of the 10 commandments one uses as I am the question of why anyone rationally believes that they form the basis of our laws in the first place. At least 6 of the 10 commandments would be entirely unconstitutional if turned into laws in this country, including all of the first five which are exclusively religious proclamations (thou shalt have no other gods before me, no graven images, taking god's name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy and honoring thy mother and father, and coveting they neighbor's stuff). A 7th (thou shalt not commit adultery) would probably be unconstitutional under Lawrence, and is not in our system a legitimate law (though adultery is obviously wrong, it's not a criminal matter but a personal one). An 8th (not bearing false witness) can be made into law in some circumstances, such as perjury or libel, but not as a generalized rule. Only the injunctions against murder and theft are clearly a part of the law in the US and clearly constitutional as a general rule, and those laws are universal to all societies regardless of whether they've even heard of the Ten Commandments because no society could survive without them. I've never understood this often repeated cliche that our laws are based on the ten commandments when at least 6 or the 10 are entirely forbidden to be laws at all under our constitutional system. And in all the years I've discussed this with people, I've never gotten a coherent answer to that argument. I don't think most people who make the initial argument even bother to think about it at all, it's just an empty truism. Ed Brayton ___ 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
As I was reading the SG's brief in McCreary, I was struck by the similarity of the arguments offered in the brief to justify the Ten Commandments display and the arguments offered by list members to support Williams' teaching materials. The SG argues that the Ten Commandments display is constitutional because it communicates secular messages about the role of religion in American history in general and the Ten Commandments contribution to our legal heritage in particular. Williams' supporters argue, if I understand them correctly, that lessons studying accounts of the Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection of Jesus are permissible in public schools as part of the study of the role that Christianity played in America's history and legal system. Does it follow, then, that government may create displays portraying the Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection of Jesus and place them in prominent locations in schools and governmental buildings -- and justify doing so as for the same reason -- to acknowledge the role that Christianity played in America's history and legal system? Would the fact that America was overwhelmingly Christian at the time of the founding of the U.S. negate any constitutional obligation on the part of government to create displays portraying scenes important to other faiths? Alan Brownstein UC Davis ___ 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 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: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases
Hm -- and some people say that the Protestant Empire is dead and gone. If one can display the Ten Commandments (five gets you ten that the only version we are likely to see in any of these displays is the evangelical Protestant version) along with other legal documents, that one can display the Sermon on the Mount etc. so long as it is contextualized with the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, for example. And, I must ask, what displays does one suppose that a Protestant Empire would want to put up? Why they would be the ones that the SG supports and that Alan has supposed below! -Original Message- From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:36 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases As I was reading the SG's brief in McCreary, I was struck by the similarity of the arguments offered in the brief to justify the Ten Commandments display and the arguments offered by list members to support Williams' teaching materials. The SG argues that the Ten Commandments display is constitutional because it communicates secular messages about the role of religion in American history in general and the Ten Commandments contribution to our legal heritage in particular. Williams' supporters argue, if I understand them correctly, that lessons studying accounts of the Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection of Jesus are permissible in public schools as part of the study of the role that Christianity played in America's history and legal system. Does it follow, then, that government may create displays portraying the Sermon on the Mount, the Crucifixion of Jesus, and the Resurrection of Jesus and place them in prominent locations in schools and governmental buildings -- and justify doing so as for the same reason -- to acknowledge the role that Christianity played in America's history and legal system? Would the fact that America was overwhelmingly Christian at the time of the founding of the U.S. negate any constitutional obligation on the part of government to create displays portraying scenes important to other faiths? Alan Brownstein UC Davis ___ 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 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
