To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Obviously overbroad. Students may clearly ask, who is the present
Pope? The issue is whether students may proselytize.
MAG
Gene Summerlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/09/04 6:18 PM
Professor Newsome,
Would
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
What about the following rule in a school. You can talk about each
other's clothes and appearance
]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004
5:24 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for
Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for
religious advocacy
The idea that the govt is
responsible for all that it does not prohibit must be treated with great care.
It has the potential of making govt responsible
, November 09, 2004 6:18 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Professor Newsome,
Would it be constitutional, in your opinion, for a school to pass and
enforce a rule which stated, Students may not discuss any matters
relating
to religion
)
402.730.5344 (Mobile)
www.osolaw.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 11:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Could you
, November 09, 2004 5:24 PM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
The idea that the govt is responsible for all that it does not
prohibit
must be treated with great care. It has the potential of making govt
responsible for all of life
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 8:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
What about the following rule in a school. You can talk about each
other's clothes and appearance, but nobody can be called
Pardon me for jumping in. I'm brand new to this list, but as my
organization, Michigan Citizens for Science, is involved in questions of
science curricula I thought I'd jump in on this particular discussion.
It should probably be noted up front that I am not an attorney myself.
Mark Graber
, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 7:21 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
The
Fourteenth Amendment doesn't justify speech restrictions in the cause of
fighting racism any more than
: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
For this argument to stand up, one has to conclude that any conflict
between the possible meaning of the First Amendment trumps possible
meanings of the Fourteenth Amendment. I thought the rule of
construction was that the latter in time trumps the former
for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
But note that the 14th amendment has a state action requirement...
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-Original Message-
From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09
In a message dated 11/9/2004 5:00:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can't the stateregulate the use of its property? Can't one say that failure to do somight amount to state action?
Seems at least plausible that if you can make that work, you can find state action in the
You might.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004
5:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for
religious advocacy
In a message dated 11/9/2004 5:00:06
PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL
became moot as a result of the 1964 civil rights act.
Marc Stern
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004
5:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for
religious advocacy
In a message dated
-Original Message-
From: marc stern
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004
2:14 PM
To: 'Law
Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for
religious advocacy
That the failure to
regulate might constitute state action-as in failing to ban private
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:25 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Well that is the question. Some people believe that schools should not
be religious-free zones, and one
, 2004 5:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Obviously overbroad. Students may clearly ask, who is the present
Pope? The issue is whether students may proselytize.
MAG
Gene Summerlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/09/04 6:18 PM
Professor Newsome,
Would
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
Obviously overbroad. Students may clearly ask, who is the present
Pope? The issue is whether students may proselytize.
MAG
Gene Summerlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/09/04 6:18 PM
Professor Newsome,
Would it be constitutional
I'm puzzled. Is Mark genuinely saying that it should be
considered harassment -- and thus presumably punishable under hostile
environment harassment law (unless Mark agrees with me that hostile
environment harassment law is unconstitutional to this extent) -- for
people to express the
The purpose of the story was simply to point out, as I thought I made
clear, that a great many Christians who thought nothing problematic
about converting Jews suddenly found speech offensive when they were the
converters. I suspect, by the way, that we agree that harrassment is
the wrong word.
Of Mark Graber
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 3:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
The purpose of the story was simply to point out, as I
thought I made clear, that a great many Christians who
thought nothing problematic about converting
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
The purpose of the story was simply to point out, as I
thought I made clear, that a great many Christians who
thought nothing problematic about converting Jews suddenly
found speech offensive when they were the converters
402.434.8044 (FAX)
402.730.5344 (Mobile)
www.osolaw.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 5:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
The purpose
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
The purpose of the story was simply to point out, as I
thought I made clear, that a great many Christians who
thought nothing problematic about converting Jews suddenly
found speech offensive when they were
-restrictive position?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 3:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
The purpose of the story
messages.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Graber
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 4:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy
This is part of a long argument Eugene and I
26 matches
Mail list logo
