Folks: I think we've been departing in recent days from the
politeness and thoughtfulness that has generally made this discussion list
especially valuable. Personal attacks are unlikely to persuade anyone -- even
bystanders -- and are just likely to poison the well for future
Why so people think this is? It seems to me that if this topic is
difficult, it indicates a deeper problem about the two sides not crossing
in their reasoning, which means the Arizona bill goes back to fundamental
questions about the role of religion, which is hard to debate.
On Sat, Mar 1,
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]
on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:10 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: From the list custodian
Folks: I think we’ve been departing
One more item: Please include your full name and affiliation in the posts,
unless it’s obvious from your e-mail address. Thanks,
The list custodian
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or
of the law (or
even on nontechnical discussions about law and religion).
The list custodian
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Len
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 4:26 PM
To: Mark Scarberry; Law Religion issues for Law
,
The list custodian
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Len
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 2:53 AM
To: b...@jmcenter.org; Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Marriage -- the Alito dissent
How so, Bob? Please explain
Folks: Let me mention again that list discussion tends to be most
helpful when it goes into concrete and detailed analysis, and not cliche
generalities.
Recall that the thread began with a post discussing what protection
should be offered to speech that's critical of religion. I'm
it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ.
-- John Calvin.
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 5:50 pm
Subject: From the list custodian
??? Folks:? Let me mention again
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JOHN LOFTON
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 4:56 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian
There's no such thing as a purely secular government. And do
you
.
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:13 pm
Subject: RE: LOFTON / Re: From the list custodian
??? I don't insist that people speak in thousands of words -- but in my
experience
I thought I'd briefly note that as a general matter, purely
theological discussions -- such as what the Bible allows or forbids --
are not on-topic for the list; the list is about the secular law related
to religious practice, practitioners, and institutions (what I somewhat
clunkily call
Hallelujah!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/2/2006 1:02:49 PM
I thought I'd briefly note that as a general matter, purely
theological discussions -- such as what the Bible allows or forbids --
are not on-topic for the list; the list is about the secular law
related
to religious practice,
I agree.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Landsberg
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 4:22 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: From the list custodian re: theological discussions
Hallelujah!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/2/2006 1:02
is not, it seems to me, on-topic except insofar as it bears pretty
closely on the law of government and religion.
The list custodian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 11:48 AM
To: Law
a different view
without being hypocrites or supporters of destroying lives. But in any
event, I stress again that this is a matter for other places than this
list.
The list custodian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent
Folks: It might help to be a bit more explicit when posing such
questions, rather than just relying on labeling (compassionate
coercion), conclusory assertions, and links that people may not have
much time to follow. What's the issue? Why is what's going on
coercive? What are the
Larry Darby wrote:
My post was very much material and relevant to law and religion. I
believe our ListMeister fears any criticism of Judaism or world Jewry or
global endeavors of its adherents. No matter how often or who opposes
freedom of religion, which includes criticism of Judaism, the
, authorized religious objections to certain in-class
posters; that's on-topic. This post is not on-topic. Please abide by
the list discussion rules.
The list custodian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
Sent: Friday
(of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth.
For a USA-First government!
Larry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:33 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: From the list custodian
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and
Religious Liberty
Larry Darby wrote:
My post was very much material and relevant to law and religion. I
believe our ListMeister fears any criticism of Judaism or
world Jewry
or global endeavors
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:44 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and
Religious Liberty
My post was very much material
. Darby
wants to provoke are a waste of everyone's time.
Best,
Stuart
From: Volokh, Eugene [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: RE: From the list custodian
You bigots are funny!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 12:23 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious
Liberty
of other places where he can
promote his odd beliefs about history, or for that matter his Space Age
Calendar (http://www.atheistlaw.org/news.cfm?n_type=Media+Releases) or
his other ideas.
The list custodian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
custodian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:07 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Alito/The Constitution
Anyone disturbed that Judge Alito has said: I don't
(i.e., the written
Constitution) might best be interpreted to mean?
sandy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:15 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: From the list custodian
Noted -- though I thought Sup Ct, oath, judges might be in the area of law of
government and religion. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
Sandy makes a good argument for the topicality of this thread,
but I wonder if it might nonetheless be a little too far removed. There
are certainly lots of possible analogies between religious controversies
and legal controversies; but it seems to me that this list (as opposed
to others,
Folks: I think list discussions will likely be more
enlightening if we set aside right-wing cant, left-wing propaganda,
and either side's ludicrous fantas[ies]. Among other things, it
seems to me that calmer terminology -- including terminology that
expresses the same substantive points,
Folks: My general approach to this list has been to allow all
viewpoints, though to insist that the viewpoints be framed in as polite
a way as possible given the nature of those viewpoints. This includes
anti-Semitism, anti-Protestantism, anti-evangelical-Christianity,
anti-Catholicism,
I am reluctant to allow certain viewpoints on the list and
forbid other viewpoints based on how many people were lynched or
murdered in this country owing to those viewpoints. (Incidentally,
there have fortunately been relatively few Jews -- not none, but
relatively few -- lynched or
Folks, this might be getting a bit meta -- let's try to move
things back to the law of government and religion.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 10:28 AM
To:
.
The list custodian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 9:09 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Discrimination
I think Mr. Garman is trying to assist those who are having
Eugene wrote on 11/21/2005 11:18:15 AM:
For instance, does it mean Congress shall make no law totally
prohibiting all religion, so that no religion may be practiced?
If so,
Congress could outlaw Catholicism, on the theory that it's not
prohibiting religion generally, only one religion.
For
Title: Message
Folks: I'm sure that
people on this list would be able to compile lists of the great sins of atheists
and atheistic regimes; of Muslims; of Jews; of Catholics; of Protestants; and
more. They would also be able to compile lists of the good things that
each of those groups
Eugene:
My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and
reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to
ignore other information it undermines academic integrity. The fact is
this: a History of the Influence of Christianity in American history
In a message dated 9/6/2005 3:41:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point
was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and reminder that when
people teach a course to argue for a viewpoint and to ignore other
information it undermines academic
I think Paul is wrong. Theologically conservative Protestant Christians are
concerned about the abuses of religion. The ones who have set up schools are
mostly in the tradition of the dissenters (like Roger Williams) who were the
subject of religious persecution. It is an unfortunate stereotype to
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Finkelman
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: From the list custodian
Eugene:
My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and
reminder that when people teach
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Finkelman
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 12:44 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: From the list custodian
Eugene:
My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course, and
reminder that when people teach a course to argue
Academics
Subject: Re: From the list custodian
Eugene:
My point was a serious one about how one organizes a course,
and
reminder that when people teach a course to argue for a
viewpoint and to
ignore other information it undermines academic integrity.
The fact
: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 2:28 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene
Subject: RE: From the list custodian
Eugene: You obviously did not read the first two paragraphs
of the post if that is all you saw!
Quoting Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well, all I
, September 01, 2005
5:28 PM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: From the list custodian
Folks: I'm willing to cut people slack in times of obvious and
understandable emotional upset, butit's still important to note that
posts such as those below,though forgivable under
that they wouldn't normally say; I therefore don't want to fault the author of
the post below too much. But I do want to make clear that such posts ought
not be posted.
The list custodian
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent
places that havelooser rules
(though my sense is that they're also less likely to have useful discussions,
perhaps in part precisely because they have the looser
rules).
The list custodian
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Ed
particular posters.
The list custodian
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 9:01 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Findings on Hostility at Smithsonian Noted in NRO Article
Michael,
Ask Pascal
This thread has been quite interesting; but my tentative sense
is that (1) it has gone on for quite a while, (2) it seems to be
repeating itself a bit, and (3) online discussions on this topic have
been known to go on for a very long time. Might it be good to wind
things down? Many
Folks: Please keep things as calm as possible here. People
will sometimes misspell others' names (as Eugene Volokh, I can assure
you of that). People will write responses and not tell the responded-to
party about it. (It's not clear to me that there is a social norm about
whether such
Sorry to be a bother, but please recall that this is a list
aimed at the discussion (from an academic perspective) of the law of
government and religion. Questions about how Judge Roberts' appointment
may affect Religion Clauses doctrine are on-topic; questions about how
the nomination
Title: Message
Folks: As I
mentioned, let's please focus our discussions as much as possible on the law of
government and religion, rather than on libertarian theory more
broadly.
The list
custodian
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Folks: (1) Even if you think a fellow list member's position is nonsense,
don't say it. Say it's mistaken, or unsound, or turns out not to be the case.
It's more persuasive, more conducive to sound discussions, and more likely to
shed heat than light.
(2) This is especially so if your
Folks: The question whether the phrase the Biil of Rights should be
understood as referring to the first ten amendments, or the first twelve
proposed amendments, is fascinating. It is not terribly relevant to the law of
government and religion. One could have a great discussion about it,
Title: Message
I much appreciated Mr. Heckmann's helpful
response to the offending post --which I
would have offered myself, had I read my e-mail earlier. But for now let's
assume that the poster has been properly enlightened about the list rules, and
that no more needs to be added.
The
Title: Message
I don't find it
offensive because of its content -- but it's not allowed in this venue.
Imagine that this were a mathematicians' convention, and people were talking
about math, and someone got up and started to evangelize. That would be
inappropriate, because off-topic. So
It's off-topic.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Finkelman
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:53 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: John Lofton/Role Of Judges?
is this a final exam
Folks: I don't think I need to go further into the need to keep posts on the list as
polite and substantive as possible -- and to think twice before hitting enter, both
to look again over the substance of the message, and to make sure it's being sent to
the right place.
Let me remind people
Considering my hand "spanked." I can only plead being deprived of conversations with law professors.
"Broader moral or religious questions, such as whether homosexuality is morally proper, how religious people should react to it, and so on are *not* on-topic. Naturally they're related to the
:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: From the list custodian
Folks: I don't think I need to go further into the need to keep posts
on the list as polite and substantive as possible -- and to think twice
before hitting enter, both to look again over the substance of the
message, and to make sure
58 matches
Mail list logo
