Last week, we discussed the new immigration bill that will make it a felony
to assist an alien to remain in the United States. Religious and
secular humanitarian groups fear potential prosecution as a result of the
changes. Stuart Buck asked:
I dont know immigration law well enough to
That's very helpful, Chris. So, please allow me to repeat the question I asked
last week, which did not prompt any responses then: If the new statute would,
indeed, impinge on churches' religious missions as much as Chris's post
suggests, then can/must/should Congress enact a religious
Title: RE: Another Catholic Charities Issue
Don Byrd at Blog From
the Capital reports tonight that the Senate Judiciary Committee
hasapproved an amendment to the immigration reform bill that would exempt
charitable organizations and local churches providing humanitarian assistance
: Wednesday, March 22, 2006
6:41 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities
Issue
Newsom Michael wrote:
I
am not sure that we have a mirror here. Gay people are trying to get out
from under an oppressive regime the likes of which conservative believers have
not had
Ed wrote:
But I don't think that gay liberation requires forcing churches and
religious organizations to change either their personal beliefs or their
actions *within the confines of those organizations* We certainly
want to prevent such people from imposing their
beliefs on the
Interesting Op-Ed in today's Times by the Cardinal
Arhcbishop of Los Angeles, who apparently plans to instruct the priests of his
archdiocese to disobey a proposed law that would subject them, as well as other
church and humanitarian workers, to criminal penalties for "assisting"
churches or their social
services.
From: Marty Lederman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Another Catholic Charities Issue
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:56:07
I hope my posts were not understood to be beating up on [the Catholic Church]
thinking that homosexual conduct is sinful. Although I think that religious
perspective is very unfortunate, I do not for a second question the sincerity
or legitimacy of the Church's views (even if, on the question
I am not sure that we have a mirror here. Gay people are trying to get out
from under an oppressive regime the likes of which conservative believers have
not had to endure - nor are likely to.
This just seems to muddy the issue to me. Doug's claim is not that gays and
conservative Christians
I don't understand your point about free passes.
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Oman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:28 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
I am not sure that we have a mirror here. Gay people
Newsom Michael wrote:
I am not
sure that we have a mirror here.
Gay people are trying to get out from under an oppressive regime the
likes of
which conservative believers have not had to endure nor are likely to.
While I agree with this, I don't think it
context.
.
Marc Stern
f
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:25
PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom
issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
If by religious
liberty interests you mean the right to exclude, and perhaps even to harass and
intimidate, then I suppose that you have responded fairly to my query. If
one were to define religious liberty interests differently
, March 21, 2006 8:48
AM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
You could add the op[position to enhance d
protection for religions workers in the workplace because such legislation
might empower claims impinging on gay rights, gay groups that sued Yeshiva
of their sexual
conduct. I am not aware of any movement on the part of gays and lesbians to
imprison Professor Smolin.
From: Douglas Laycock
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 1:31
PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
I do
I'm getting confused by this thread. Last time I looked, Doug Laycock
was not regarded as one of the central legal thinkers for the religious
right. No doubt he has some positions that are similar. I also agree
with the Pope that the death penalty is inconsistent with human dignity.
Does not
I assume then that Michael would have no problem with the law requiring the
Catholic Church to ordain women.
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: 3/21/2006 10:31 AM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
Academics '
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
I assume then that Michael would have no problem with the law requiring
the
Catholic Church to ordain women.
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: 3/21/2006
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:54 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
No, it really isnt nonsense. Anti-gay
violence exists on a far larger scale than you are prepared to admit. Sorry.
From: Brad M Pardee
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 11:55
AM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
to admit. Sorry.
_
From: Brad M Pardee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 11:55 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
Nonsense. The number of people who believe they have the
responsibility
to bash in gay heads
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:20 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
Hmm; is there any data that would support this assertion? (I
take it that the assertion
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Newsom Michael
Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 3:36 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
Could you give some examples of gay rights proponents who ignore religious
liberty interests
Duncan
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006
7:49 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
By a remarkable coincidence, I have been reading J. Budziszewski's
wonderful book, The Revenge of
Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man, as the story
about Catholic
Jeff Jacoby has an excellent column in today's Boston Globe here. And here is a money quote: Note well: Catholic Charities made no effort to block same-sex couples from adopting. It asked no one to endorse its belief that homosexual adoption is wrong. It wanted only to go on finding loving
Rick Duncan wrote:
Jeff Jacoby has an excellent column in today's Boston Globe here.
And here is a money quote:
I think that Glendon's quote at the end is a bit over the top and she
doesn't make a distinction between discrimination and withdrawal of
government funding. However, I tend to
Perhaps there is a fearful symmetry between 1) the Catholic
Church's position on same-sex marriage (i.e., we don't want the
state to give its imprimatur to such arrangements, even though the
arrangements will not be imposed coercively on the church -- the
church can still refuse to perform or
for Law Academics; Law Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: 3/16/2006 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue
Sorry if I missed it, but has anyone yet posted any reliable information
about what it is, exactly, that Massachusetts will deny Catholic
Charities if CC does not agree
By a remarkable coincidence, I have been reading J. Budziszewski's wonderful book, The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man, as the story about Catholic Charities has been breaking. It is a timely book to say the least.But itis alsonot a book for everyone; some of you will no doubt
The editorial in today's Boston Globe was written by Dean John Garvey and the following excerpt relates to the discussion we have been having about the conflict between typical gay rights laws and religious liberty:It seems surprising that the state would want to put the Catholic Church out of
Michael Newsom wrote, Being 'marginalized' and called a 'homophobe' is not
quite the same thing as having your brains beat in because you are gay. To
suppose that the two are morally equivalent is to make, with respect, a
categorical error.
It's true that these two are not morally
I think Christopher Lund captures a valuable insight
about competing notions of identity. My friend from
UT, J Bud, makes a point that strike me as similar
when he talks about our various zones of tolerance:
The bottom line is that Neutrality is no more
coherent in the matter of religious
I guess I get more confused by this debate as it goes on.
1. Part of my confusion is on the debate over the status of gay
abortions in the Catholic Church. I'm not sure why we are debating the
issue. Presumably if the Catholic Bishops of Boston claim to have
religious reasons for not engaging
Can anyone supply the text of the Massachusetts law which Catholic Charities was reacting against? There have been several stories about Governor Romney trying to craft an exemption to the law for Catholic Charities, but I have not located the actual text of the law in question.Thanks.
Mark: I think Rust controls here, and, thus, the state
has the power to define the rules any way it wishes to
govern its own program. So CC had to walk if it wished
to obey God.
But the rule, although probably within the power of
the state to enact, has the effect of excluding--as
immoral--CC
As this post demonstrates, Rick and I simply disagree over good state
policy. He would allow Catholic Charities to exclude. I would not,
which practically excludes Catholic Charities from the program. Both
both of us are being inclusive and exclusive, so discussion of tolerance
in the abstract
PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: 3/13/2006 7:02 AM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
I guess I get more confused by this debate as it goes on.
1. Part of my confusion is on the debate over the status of gay
abortions in the Catholic Church. I'm not sure why we are debating
, March 13, 2006 5:44 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue
Michael Newsom wrote, Being 'marginalized' and called a 'homophobe' is
not
quite the same thing as having your brains beat in because you are gay.
To
suppose that the two are morally equivalent
/2006 7:02 AM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
I guess I get more confused by this debate as it goes on.
1. Part of my confusion is on the debate over the status of gay
abortions in the Catholic Church. I'm not sure why we are debating
the
issue. Presumably if the Catholic Bishops of Boston
Nonsense. The number of people
who believe they have the responsibility to bash in gay heads
is a minute percentage of those whose faith teaches that sexual intimacy
is reserved for heterosexual monogamous marriage, just as those who blow
up abortion clinics are a minute percentage of those faith
Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
Mark: I think Rust controls here, and, thus, the state
has the power to define the rules any way it wishes to
govern its own program. So CC had to walk if it wished
to obey God.
But the rule, although probably within the power of
the state
On Mar 13, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:Mark Graber and Steve Jamar both seem to be arguing that certain activities,including provision of adoption services, are secular activities that thestate should be free to regulate in any reasonable manner, even if theregulation prevents a
In a message dated 3/13/2006 11:24:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Separation was not meant to cause
subordination.
But, if due to
changed circumstances, "separation" causes subordination, why wouldn't Judge
McConnell,an originalist, seek the remedy in Article Five,
for Law Academics
Sent: 3/13/2006 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue
On Mar 13, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:
Mark Graber and Steve Jamar both seem to be arguing that certain
activities,
including provision of adoption services, are secular activities that
the
state
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:30 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
Maybe government should get out of the adoption business. Maybe it
should get out of the marriage business (would solve a lot of problems),
but at the end
It is not a zero-sum game. The Us or Them mentality is the true intolerance.Requiring religious institutions doing secular activities to comply with secular rules is not persecution. Medical treatment and adoption services and education are secular activities.Sure, one can complain about the
Rick asks:
"Who else has a political agenda that targets the ordinary activities (such
as adoption ministries and health benefits)of mainstream religious
institutions and turns these ministries into unlawful acts."
Answer: Land useplanners.
On the conflict between sexual liberty and
Doug is right--land use planners also target the
ordinary activities of mainstream religious ministries
that are merely trying to worship or do good works.
But one difference is that zoning laws don't
stigmatize ministries as outlaws whose activities and
programs are contrary to the law and
for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:45:50 -0800
Not only isn't it impossible to have both gay rights and religious liberty,
the core of both sets of claims have common foundations. It makes no more
sense for a gay activist
It has absolutely nothing to do with religious activities, but rather the
intensity of the use of land. I haven't met someone opposed to a religious
project yet that could have cared less whether it was a religious project or an
automotive repair shop. First, those opposedare invariably
Rick- I would have thought you would not fall into this sort of either/or
reasoning given that it implicates the free market. There is a free market
in the provision of services, including charitable services,and if a
religious organization drops out, others will step in. To think that the
that science establishes or suggests.)
From: Alan Brownstein
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006
11:46 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
Not only isn't it impossible to have both
gay
-- except that it
would be used by Muslims. Yet the challenge, as I recall, was justified on
grounds of land use. David
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:00
PM
Subject: Re: Catholic Charitie
The Boston Globe has two good articles today on the decision by the Archdiocese to end its adoption services rather than submit to the government's antidiscrimination rules requiring the Church to place children with homosexual couples despite its sincerely held religious belief that ''allowing
I wonder if the Catholic Church should withdraw all support for the prison
system because the Church opposes Capital punishment? It would be a shame
for those on death row not to get last rites, or those in prison not to be
able to talk to a priest, but at least the Church would be consistent.
Paul: If Catholic priests were required to perform or directly facilitate executions as acondition of visiting prisoners, my guess isthe Churchwould indeed withdraw from prison ministry. This is what the state of Massachusetts is doing to CC in the adoption area--it is requiring CC to arrange for
Catholics are not being asked to be gay by helping with adoptions, and they
do "facilitate executions" by helping prepare the person for death. The
church helps arrange executions by offering confession etc. to people who
are about to be executed. Why does the church focus on one line in Lev.
Paul,Yourcomparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of the Church. Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the state mandate would require it to actively participate in the actual act with which it disagreed (i.e. placing children for adoption
3/11/2006 12:35 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue
Paul,
Your comparison doesn't fit and doesn't reveal any inconsistency on the part of
the Church. Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption arena, because the
state mandate would require
PROTECTED]
To: "Law Religion issues for Law Academics"
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
Application of this law to Catholic Charities should have raised a quite
plausible claim under the Massachusetts Free Exe
to the extent the Church helps the prison system keep order in the prison;
helps prepare priosners for death the church is complicitous in executions.
The problem is the church is willing to take a stand on issues that politically
appeal to the church adn not others; it is like the Catholic
of Marty Lederman
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 1:22 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue
Doug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability to engage in adoption
services (which I assume means being in the business of arranging adoptions)
result
rden on its religious exercise? - Original Message - From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Law Religion issues for Law Academics" religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:09 PM Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue Application of this law to Catho
: Catholic Charities Issue
It may be a business to the state, although even the state recognizes that it's
not for profit. I assume it's a corporal work of mercy to the church.
Recharacterizing religious activities as businesses, because it costs money to
sustain them or because other groups
that restriction
impinges on religious liberty.
- Original Message -
From: "Douglas Laycock" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Law Religion issues for Law Academics"
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:57 PM
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities
Issue
It may be a b
Uh, that would be "genuinely curious."
Sorry
- Original Message -
From:
Marty Lederman
To: Law Religion issues for Law
Academics
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:33
PM
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities
Issue
I didn't mean to question the sincere
] on behalf of Marty Lederman
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 1:22 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue
Doug, under Massachusetts law would CC's inability to engage in adoption
services (which I assume means being in the business of arranging adoptions)
result
Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 5:33 PM Subject: Re: Catholic Charities IssueI didn't mean to question the sincere religious motivation of Catholic Charities (or the Bishops whose decree it is following). I was simply curious what it is, exactly, that Mas
What this disputere: Catholic Charities illustrates is the danger of
any religious institution in relying upon government funding for its
programs. Government funding always comes with strings. In general,
Catholic Charities gets 86% of its funding from government sources, 14% from
private,
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic Charities
Issue
Marty, I could be wrong about this because I am relying on my recollection
of news reports, but I think the problem is that CC's entire adoption program
concerns finding homes forhard-to-adopt children in state custody
.
Alan Brownstein
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rick Duncan
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 3:31 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Catholic Charities Issue
Marty, I could be wrong about this because I am relying on my recollection of
news
I think Marci and Doug are spot on. The state, as in Rust, says "this is our program, take it or leave it." CC says, "okay, we'll leave it." CC loses a part of its ministry, the state loses one of its best adoption-service providers, and the kids stay in state custody longer (and, for some,
would protect both sides.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on
behalf of Rick DuncanSent: Sat 3/11/2006 8:22 PMTo: Law
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic
Charities
not reasonably be asked to do that.
Alan Brownstein
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Sat 3/11/2006 7:42 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Law Religion issues for Law
Academics
Subject: RE: Catholic Charities Issue
: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Catholic Charities IssueI think Marci and Doug are spot on. The state, as in Rust, says "this is our program, take it or leave it." CC says, "okay, we'll leave it." CC loses a part of its ministry, the state loses one of its
75 matches
Mail list logo
