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
, January 27, 2006 5:24 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Applying such isolated events (specific) to an entire class
(general) is just the sort of logical fallacy that has led to
all sorts of distortions in law and public
In Brad's defense, the pink triangle in popular cultureappears tomore often be associated with the broad concept of "gay rights" as opposed to a specific concern related to oppression. For instance, the pop culture Encyclopedia Wikipedia has this to say: "The inverted pink triangle has become
/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:00 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Rick:
Maybe the test ought to be which whiny group has
Jean Dudley wrote on 01/26/2006 06:03:25 PM:
I'm one of those likeminded individuals. I've known
folks who hold
that homosexuality is wrong, and yet managed to refrain from insulting,
intimidating, berating, harassing and threatening homosexuals. In
fact, they even stand up AGAINST that
I'm not entirely clear about what you're saying here.
I don't think I said anything about assuming individuals are having
sex outside of heterosexual marriage. I was talking about whether
or not it is bigotry to say that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is
wrong. You are absolutely right that
RE: Pink Triangles and Religious
Liberty
Folks: Let me say it again -- please keep posts on-topic, which
is to say pretty closely focused on the law of government and religion.
The original thread had to do with whether Title VII's religious
accommodation provision, or perhaps the Free
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
RE: Pink Triangles and Religious
Liberty
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:07:16 -0800
Yes, it would be rude, albeit amply provoked; I'd prefer that
such posts not be posted to the list, either.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed
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
] 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 and relevant to law and
religion. I believe our ListMeister fears any
At 04:03 PM 1/26/06 -0800, you wrote:
I think you're painting with too broad a brush. I've NEVER heard any of my
compatriots EVER call someone a hateful bigot simply because they held a
belief that homosexuality is wrong. What I've experienced is that name is
used when such folks refuse to
On Jan 27, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Will Linden wrote:
At 07:56 PM 1/26/06 -0800, you wrote:
Being gay is not about sex. A person can be gay
and celibate (and indeed many are).
But this assumes the this-year's-politically-correct doctrine that
every boy and every gel who's born into this
I don't know if this report is accurate or not, but here is an excerpt: A holy war over homosexuality has erupted on the campus of a San Francisco Bay area high school, as five teachers are refusing orders to display a pro-"gay" banner because of their religious beliefs. The rainbow-flag
Does someone think there is a (serious) religious liberty argument
available to the teachers here? From what we have here, there appears
to be nothing at all religious about the message and policy the school
board has decided to pursue; it is a secular message about diversity.
There is
I think Steve is right that there is probably no 1A religious liberty issue (certainly no EC issue)or free speech (compelled spech)issue so long as the requirement is that the banner be posted in the classroom as opposed to requiring the teachers to do the posting themselves or to somehow
Since the discussion is non-constitutional at this point, isn't this the same policy issue presented when a Catholic school hires non-Catholic teachers, which they often do, and yet requires them to operate in classrooms with crucifixes in them? If the Catholic school can reiterate its
Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What if a teacher walks into class, sees the display, and states
that he does not agree with its posting in his classroom. May the
school discipline him for merely making it clear that the display is
the message of the school board as opposed to that of
It's the same except in one case it's the government "Vance R. Koven" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the discussion is non-constitutional at this point, isn't this the same policy issue presented when a Catholic school hires non-Catholic teachers, which they often do, and yet requires them to
Whoops. I sent the last reply by mistake.Sorry.I meant to say that the cases are the same except in one case it is the government requiring public school teachers to teach in a classroom under an ideological display that offendssome teachers' religious beliefs.I think the govt has the
Steve: I agree with your point about whiny victims and the culture of complaint. But here is the problem. One group of whiny complainers asks for a Pink Triangle to make them feel more welcome. This causes another group of whiny complainers to complain about having the Pink Triangles shoved down
We have the pink triangles here at the University of Nebraska,
too (http://www.unl.edu/health/peereducation/ally.html) but I personally
believe that they have nothing to do with safety. If people aren't
safe because they're gay, straight, Christian, atheist, male, female, or
any other reason at
Rick Duncan wrote:
Steve: I agree with your point about whiny victims and the culture of
complaint. But here is the problem. One group of whiny complainers
asks for a Pink Triangle to make them feel more welcome. This causes
another group of whiny complainers to complain about having the
Brad M Pardee wrote:
We have the pink triangles here at the University of
Nebraska,
too (http://www.unl.edu/health/peereducation/ally.html) but I
personally
believe that they have nothing to do with safety. If people aren't
safe because they're gay, straight, Christian, atheist, male,
Rick,
I'll ask you to stipulate that there probably have been incidents of
student-on-student harassment (verbal insults, perhaps physical threats
and actual violence) directed at the gay students. This is certainly a
common phenomenon at other schools, and so let's assume that this is
what
Rick:
Maybe the test ought to be which whiny group has suffered persecution,
gets murdered, beaten up, and threatned (or beaten up and left tied to a
fence overnight in Wyoming); which group lives in fear day-to-day of
being attacked for the essence of who they are? which needs the
Ed Brayton wrote:
I think you're presuming here what you can't possibly know. You don't know
what the motivations are of the people who want those signs to go up. How
do you know that they're not genuinely concerned about the amount of bullying
that goes on of anyone presumed to be gay? I've
On Jan 26, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:
snip
I do know what I've seen of what appears to be like-minded individuals
here at UNL, though. The word they use may be safety, but in
practice, they raise the issue of safety and dignity whenever they
encounter anybody who believes that
--- Brad M Pardee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right
that I can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt about
motivations of the
specific officials in San Leandro. I haven't seen
their past actions or
heard their past pronouncements. I do know what
I've seen of what appears
to be
30 matches
Mail list logo
