X 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 7/24/2005 12:48 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/23/2005 10:17:08 P.M. Eastern Stand
In a message dated 7/25/2005 2:12:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
First Congress separated religion and government by prohibiting Congress from
establishing religion by law.
But of course the First Congress did not do this. They proposed to
the States
In a message dated 7/23/2005 10:17:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
problem, in terms of conflict, it seems to me, arises, not from use of the
public square, but from the desire on the part of some to use government space
and property for the promotion of
I don't think "public spaces" gets us much further than "public squares."
Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Leadership
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
___
To post, send message to
.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sun 7/24/2005 12:48 PMTo:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Assaults on the England
language
In a message dated 7/23/2005 10:17:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Because I have not seen a response, Webster's (Ninth) closest answer to "square"
is an open place or area, particularly in terms of a meeting place, like
where two or three streets meet or where the public meets on public property.
I suppose generally then we could say, the public square is a
In a message dated 7/22/2005 3:21:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Put
another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim
asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view
thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to
For those interested, until 1939, not
one majority opinion on the Supreme Court spoke of the United States as a
democracy or had anything good to say about democracy (Brandeis did, but in
concurring and dissenting opinions). The floodgates opened in
1939.
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05
"Scarberry, Mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Put another way, Republicans believe they have at least as good a claim asDemocrats to being committed to democratic principles; given their view thatDemocrats wish to use nondemocratic courts to overturn democratic decisionson matters such as abortion and
May I suggest that this entire
discussion could benefit from reading William Connolly on "essential contested
concepts." Alas, there is no neutral definition of "democracy," "judicial
activism," "moderate," etc. out there in large part because a good definition
depends on resolution of
How would Rick's theory explain Republican support for decisions
striking down parts of the Brady Bill (Printz), the Violence Against
Women Act (Morrison), and law protecting kids from guns in schools
(Lopez). Seems like Republicans were using the courts to defeat social
policies they did not
Mark:
Do you have a particular case or series of cases in mind? I'd
appreciate a cite.
Thanks,
Richard Dougherty
Mark Graber wrote:
For
those interested, until 1939, not one majority opinion on the Supreme Court
spoke of the United States as a democracy or had anything good to say about
As always, I will
be happy to send the relevant paper to all interested parties. it is
forthcoming in an anthology from Oxford.
MAG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/22/05 10:34AM
Mark: Do you have a particular case or series of cases in
mind? I'd appreciate a cite. Thanks, Richard Dougherty
Mark
To answer Paul's question about Roe and the abortion liberty, I don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill a child in the womb. So certainly Roe should be reversed and the issue left to the democratic branches.
Would I, personally, support a
. In the last few weeks there have been rumblings from congress
about protecting Americas
Christian heritage which these members seek to protect by law.
Mac Stern
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:20
AM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Assaults on the England
language
In a message dated 7/22/2005 10:20:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And,
what position do you have, Rick, on the desire of some Republicans to not
merely reverse Roe, but declare that abortion violates the 14th Amendment and
thus the many states which protect
Mark Stern speaksof "rumblings from congress about protecting America's Christian heritage...by law." Is this a sign of a theocracy developing in Congress? Or merelyits concern that the Court has used the EC to cleanse the public square of an important part of America's culture?
I am not sure
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 12:00
PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Assaults on the England
language
Mark
Stern speaksof rumblings from congress about protecting America's
Christian heritage
In a message dated 7/22/2005 12:14:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With respect, Rick,
no one is pushing 10 commandment displays to make a purely historic point
about the role of Christianity in America. Those efforts are
about the contemporary role of
Rick
writes:
To answer Paul's question about Roe and the abortion liberty, I
don't believe the Constitution even remotely speaks to a liberty to kill a child
in the womb. So certainly Roe should be reversed and the issue left to
the democratic branches.
Am I
correct ininterpreting this
-
From: Rick Duncan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005
10:04 AM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: RE: Assaults on the
England language
I think, as the Court likes to say in EC cases, that
purpose matters when someone uses Xmas or Xtian instead
AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Assaults on the
England language
In a
message dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Awording
which I find less acceptable is Judeo-Christian. There is no such
thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews
At 09:29 AM 7/21/05 -0500, you wrote:
I like the title of this thread Assaults on the England language,
which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say
Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we
I stole it from Russell Baker, who anticipated
At 10:37 AM 7/21/05 -0500, you wrote:
The quibble over language in this string: If any of you want to see use of
Xn in a sentence written by the Father of the Constitution you may
click on the following link:
I doubt that complainers would be appeased by the news that sometime,
somewhere,
In a message dated 7/20/05 11:10:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Like "Xtians"?
"X" is, as I am sure you know, the Greek for Christ (if memory serves me right). Thus, "Xtian" is an abbreviation for Christian. Many years ago I used it in religion courses I took in college.
from now Democrats may prefer Democrat party.
Eric Treene
(in my personal capacity).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Will Linden
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:32 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Assaults on the England
I think, as the Court likes to say in EC cases, that purpose matters when someone uses Xmas or Xtian instead of Christmas or Christian. Did you use the abbreviation merely as a shortcut (if so, did you abbreviate lots of other words in your sentence or paragraph), or did you use the X because you
In a message dated 7/21/05 10:04:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you often use Greek letters to shorten English words?
No, don't often use GREEK letter to shorten English words but do use a lot of abbreviations and don't spend at time at all, until this thread,
.
Eric Treene
(in my personal capacity).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Will Linden
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:32 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Assaults on the England language
At 09:19 AM 7/20/05 -0500, you wrote
I like the title of this thread Assaults on the England language,
which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say
Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we
say women lawyers? Women isn't an adjective.
Ann
On Jul 21, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Mark
The grammatical argument is
only one factor for saying the "Democratic Party" instead of "Democrat
Party."What's dispositive, in my view, is that "Democratic Party"
isthe chosen name of a particular group of fellow citizens. And,
again in my view, respect for those citizens should carry
I agree entirely with Mark Graber; we have had fruitful discussions in the past
about the use of terms such as Judeo-Christian and totalitarian, and I
think Rick's addition of terms such as fundamentalist and homophobic, as well
as anti-choice or
anti-abortion might be thrown in the mix.
, 2005 9:29 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language
I like the title of this thread Assaults on the England language,
which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say
Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why
In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:25:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
claim of the people making the gramatical argument depends on thefact that
with Democrat and Democratic, the language has clearlydifferentiated the
noun from the adjective.
Which is
21, 2005 9:29 AMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Assaults on the England languageI like the title of this thread "Assaults on the England language," which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to sayDemocrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, w
In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Awording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There
is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians
are not Jews.
This, of course, is a doctrinal
Judeo-Christian does not (usually) refer to a person. It refers to a
common tradition. It is undeniable that they have much of their
tradition and morality in common. There is a REALLY thick book of
ancient writings that both ascribe to as history and as moral teaching
(though Christians would
Actually, I don't think giving or taking offense has much to do with it
(although offense certainly is taken). Indeed, Republic Party folks aren't
even addressing their Democratic counterparts when they use the adjective:
They're addressing the public, and they couldn't care less how we
In a message dated 7/21/2005 2:20:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First,
McCarthy and his modern-day counterparts wish to deny Democrats the *positive*
connotations that are associated with the word
"democratic."
Do you equate anyone that uses the term
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I don't think giving or taking offense has much to do with it (although offense certainly is taken). Indeed, Republic Party folks aren't even addressing their Democratic counterparts when they use the adjective: They're addressing the public, and they
At 09:19 AM 7/20/05 -0500, you wrote:
I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that
surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with
middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really
having any discernable meaning and
41 matches
Mail list logo
