'
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
Im not withdrawing anything; I said
in the article that your point about the disparate impact was well taken, but
that it would be better to expand the EAA than to use any disparate impact as a
basis for repealing it. If you agree
for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting See You at the Pole Case
I'm not withdrawing anything; I said in the article that your point about
the disparate impact was well taken, but that it would be better to expand
the EAA than to use any disparate impact as a basis for repealing
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 5:56
AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: FYI: An
Interesting "See You at the Pole" Case
In a message dated 11/7/2005 11:56:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well,
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas
LaycockSent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:47 PMTo: Law
Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: FYI: An
Interesting "See You at the Pole" Case
Sorry;
I missed the question here.
The
exceptions and provisos to the Equal Access Act
Academics'Subject: RE: FYI: An
Interesting "See You at the Pole" Case
Doug, Instead of
referring toyourarticle as "aging work," it would be appropriate to
call it "classic work" given that the courts have cited itfrequently for
about 2 decades now. Not a bad reco
In a message dated 11/7/2005 11:56:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, they can't have an outside leader under
the Equal Access Act. But after Good News Club v. Milford Central
School, they can have an outside leader under the First Amendment if other
clubs
At 12:47 PM 11/7/05 -0800, you wrote:
1. These people are strangers. If someone I knew began to proselytize
their faith in conversations with me, I would be offended. I work with
people of many different faiths on religious liberty matters and
etc, etc.
Not legal points, but I can not take
, 2005 1:58 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting See You at the Pole Case
Hmm -- I guess I had an unwarrantedly positive view of
Catholics' concern about the rights and interests of other religious
groups, and their openness to and amity with those
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:11:57 P.M.
Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Catholics cant do that.
If there is a weakness to the EAA, this
is probably where it lies
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005
2:43 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
Precisely the
point. And I want to credit Tom Berg for making much the same point in a
recent article. So I criticized the Church
To: 'Law
Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
Just to be clear: I dont
think that this disparate impact (Protestant student-led worship services
protected by the Act, Catholic masses not protected) warrants Catholics
opposing the EAA
]
---
-Original Message-
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005
4:09 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
It is far too early to
determine whether
at the Pole Case
Yes
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:17 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting See You at the Pole Case
Is that really the view that Catholics take, or should
In a message dated 11/6/2005 8:39:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Proselytizing, as Mike McConnell argued brilliantly in
Rosenberger, is just a dirty word for persuasion, and persuasion is
at the heart of the Free Speech Clause. Christian students have as
] On Behalf Of Berg, Thomas C.
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005
11:09 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
He should also be told that the EAA or
constitutional rights of religiousspeechalso guarantee Catholic
students
I have been out of town so I apologize for
inserting myself into the middle of this thread.
It seems to me that Ricks analogy
is clearly wrong and perhaps the reasons it is wrong can help explain
some of the differences in perspective on the list.
I would not be offended if I was
In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:11:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Catholics can’t do that.
If there is a weakness to the EAA, this is probably where it lies.
The Act disadvantages students forming religious clubs in ways that are
different than other types of
:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: FYI: An Interesting "See You
at the Pole" Case
In a message dated 11/7/2005 3:11:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Catholics cant do that.
If there is a weakness to the EAA, this is probably where it lies.
The Act dis
I have tried to explain before that the Christian Gospel does not teach that people go to Hell because they are Jews (or Hindus or Baptists or any other religious tradition). Nor is the message that Jews (etc) are not "good enough" becausethey are Jews (etc.).
The idea is that everyone sins (and
: Saturday, November 05, 2005
7:14 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: Re: FYI: An Interesting "See You at the Pole"
Case
Is the burden to be borne by those
of the non-Christian minority or is there a burden on the hugely dominant
Christian group to sho
Rick has a very nice and neat notin of how "offering the gospel" works that
has nothign to do with the reality of public schools wher echildren tell
others they wil lgo to hell. That, in my book, is indeed a form of "hate
speech." My daughter has been told on more than one occasion that she
Title: Message
I agree that many kids may be offended by being
told that they're going to go to hell. Likewise, many older Christian kids
may be offended by being told that they're anti-Semites, or
homophobes.
There are, it seems to me, several questions in play
here:
(1) To what
Interesting and helpful analysis Eugene.However, I do not think that religious speech is coextensive with other speech or needs to be so considered. Restricting religious speech is not the same as restricting other speech. One cannot write the EC out of the analysis even in something that mostly
I would take this one step further; blatant proselytizing creates a hostile
atmosphere for those whose religions are being denounced and belittled. When
a Christian tries to convert a Jew, the Christian is in effect telling the
Jew he/she is not "good enough" and that they are going to go to
Is the burden to be borne by those of the non-Christian minority or is there a burden on the hugely dominant Christian group to show tolerance and even acceptance and inclusion of non-Christians?Of course this is not fully an either/or situation, but I think the majority has an obligation toward
Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting See You at the Pole Case
I would only add to Eugene's thoughtful reminder that gratuitous attacks
on the Catholicity of Scalia (or Thomas?) might be more effective --
though still offensive -- if they were accurate. I think there is no
evidence that they do
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
Tom
Berg writes in his very interesting post:
Moreover, although there are plenty
of political issues on whichofficial Catholic teaching tends to lean more
to the left than
Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005
4:45 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
Tom and I read the tea
leaves somewhat differently. I am not sure that the critical divide is
intradenominational
03, 2005
5:31 PM
To: 'Law
Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
On the normative question whether
traditionalist Catholics ought to refrain from making common cause with
evangelicals over culture wars political and legal issues,
Ill stay
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M PardeeSent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:44 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: FYI: An Interesting "See You at the Pole" Case
Joel, Not that Rick needs me to defend him, but I don't think this is a fair characterizati
Is there any significant
relation between denying equal funding to those who opt out of public schools
and denying indigent woman funding for choosing abortion? Put differently
should these cases be treated the same?To wit: You have a fundamental
right to educate your children privately but
than Edward Kennedy?
From: Scarberry, Mark
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005
3:13 PM
To: 'Law
Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
I would like to know how solid Paul's
information
Michael,
Isn't it possible that the justices
will simply advance what they believe the law to say? It sounds like
you are suggesting that they all lack the integrity to rule justly based
on existing law, regardless of whether or not their faith teaches that
the law is right. I know that, as an
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 11/2/2005 1:24 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting See You at the Pole Case
I will defer to others on whether the judicial philosophies of the four
(soon probably to be five) Roman Catholics on the Court are more
Tom Berg writes in his very interesting post:
Moreover, although there are plenty of political issues on which official
Catholic teaching tends to lean more to the left than to the right -- for
example, active government involvement in poverty and welfare programs -- many
of these are not
is rather harsh regarding the nurse.
Marc Stern
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005
10:17 AM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
Michael
exercise even
though their rhetoric suggests wrongly that it is.
From: Brad M Pardee
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005
2:49 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
Michael,
Isn't
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berg, Thomas C.
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005
3:43 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics; 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
We've had some discussions of this over
at the Catholic
I agree with Joel's
powerfulremarks. If members of a particular religionare obligated to
share the good news, but they also recognize there are basic constitutional
reasons in a pluralistic democracy for placing limits on(virtually)
confrontational "sharing"or if not limits seeking indirect
Bobby: I understand your views. But one of the costs of free speech and the public school monopoly is that our kids (all of our kids)will often be confronted with ideas or discussions that undermine their deepest commitments and beliefs.That's why I don't send my children to public schools. And
I think it is a good thing for kids to be exposed to various views.I do not think it a good thing for students to disrespect others' views. There is a difference between witnessing one's own beliefs and telling another what to believe. There is a meaningful distinction between telling someone
I agree with Rick
completely that free speech has costs and that democratsmust endure (even
embrace?) these costs. But that says nothing about the wisdom of conveying
one's message in a particularmanner.What's the difference
between a Christian who believes in proselytizing by virtual
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005
3:38 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
Bobby: I understand your views. But one of the costs of free speech and
the public school monopoly
Joel,
Not that Rick needs me to defend him,
but I don't think this is a fair characterization of what Rick has said.
He's been quite explicit that, if a person doesn't want to discuss
the issue, then nobody should force the discussion. And he hasn't
even come close to suggesting that there is
fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts.
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005
4:44 PM
To: Law Religion
issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting
See You
Interesting case, Rick. Thanks for posting it. I wish that the media and the right wing pundits would accurately state the law about religion at schools -- then maybe fewer people would misunderstand it. And I sure wish that administrators would be told the right rules in a way that they would
In a message dated 10/31/2005 1:24:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wish
that the media and the right wing pundits would accurately state the law about
religion at schools -- then maybe fewer people would misunderstand
it.
Please.
The right wing did not
:
An Interesting "See You at the Pole" Case
In a message dated 10/31/2005 1:24:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wish that the media and
the right wing pundits would accurately state the law about religion at
schools -- then maybe fewer people would mis
WHere I live (Oklahoma) some teachers in some public schools take
attendance at the See you at the Polls meetings and some give extra
credit for those who attend. Students who do not attend are often
shunned by others. In one school a young man was holding the door for
students to enter the
.
Tom Berg, University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
_
From: Ed Brayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 10/31/2005 12:36 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting See You at the Pole Case
Except that the ACLU has been very consistent
at the Pole Case
Do we know, for a fact,
that the "uninformed bigotry" is limited to the one student?
From: Brad M
Pardee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005
2:06 PM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the
M Pardee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:06 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: FYI: An Interesting See You at the Pole Case
Zealotry? How is a group of kids meeting together to pray qualify as
zealotry? And how does one child's uninformed
In my 30+ years of supporting the ACLU in general and local chapters of it, I would have to say that to claim they have been fully consistent on any particular narrow issue either in any given year or especially over time would be quite an overstatement of it. But, in general, the ACLU really
Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting "See You at the Pole" CaseDo we know, for a fact, that the "uninformed bigotry" is limited to the one student? From: Brad M Pardee
Brad, Must be your HS was different from mine -- cliques reigned supreme at mine -- no matter what it was built around, an orthodoxy develops in them. So it would not at all surprise me to see most of the students involved doing exactly that, if the leaders of the group were doing it.See the
the Court?Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law-Original Message- From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:53 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: FYI: An Interesting "See You at the Pole"
. courts.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick Duncan
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005
3:18 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: FYI: An Interesting
See You at the Pole Case
Paul: I condemn acts of bigotrydirected at Jewish students
ts.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick DuncanSent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:18 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: FYI: An Interesting "See You at the Pole" Case
Paul: I condemn acts of bigotrydirected at Jewish students
In a message dated 10/31/2005 4:20:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of
course, once your friend says "no, thanks," you should not harass or in any
way impose your beliefs on the unwilling listener.
I wonder how realistic this
is. Ifmembers of a particular
59 matches
Mail list logo
