From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jean Dudley
Sent: Thu 7/24/2008 8:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 2:51 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
Professors Lund
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 2:51 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
Professors Lund and Essenberg seek the larger question, which I
believe seems to involve
:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 2:51 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
Professors Lund and Essenberg seek the larger question, which I
believe seems to involve
I think the interesting question in regard to Marsh -- for
the sake of the argument presuming it has failed -- is why it has
failed: because sectarians are willing to use it as a means of coercing
others into accepting their religious prayers and pronouncements, or
because secularists are
Maybe also because Marsh did not want to go into what the compromise
actually was (i.e., the ambiguity in Marsh as to whether sectarian
legislative prayer is constitutional). And maybe also because
compromises are hard for people to accept when they don't really see any
underlying principle
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Esenberg, Richard
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:26 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
My own personal reaction to invocations is often
Many good Christians - both conservatives and liberals -- believe prayer is
equally effective when in Jesus name is omitted, and actually pray
accordingly.
If nothing else, the Establishment Clause does restrict people when they are
acting as part of government.
Of course Chaplain
I agree with Doug, and would note the ways in which this case is similar
to the Summum litigation currently pending in the Supreme Court. This
case is to Marsh as the Summum litigation is to Van Orden, and I have
sympathy for Rev. Turner the same way I have sympathy for the Summum
plaintiffs (who
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
Well actually, the court of appeals did not ban prayer in Jesus' name. Nor did
the City of Fredericksburg ban prayer in Jesus' name. Prayer in Jesus' name is
continuing all over the city. The City said it would not sponsor prayer
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
Well actually, the court of appeals did not ban prayer in Jesus' name.
Nor did the City of Fredericksburg ban prayer in Jesus' name. Prayer in
Jesus' name is continuing all over the city. The City said it would
Agreed, I'm interested in the larger question.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 3:19 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
I
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:54 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
I agree with Professor Gibson that faithful Christians can pray without
invoking the name of Jesus and with Professor Lund that this seems like the
correct
, Richard
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:54 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
I agree with Professor Gibson that faithful Christians can pray without
invoking the name of Jesus and with Professor Lund that this seems like
23, 2008 7:15 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
Well actually, the court of appeals did not ban prayer in Jesus' name. Nor did
the City of Fredericksburg ban prayer in Jesus' name. Prayer in Jesus' name is
continuing all over the city
Of Esenberg, Richard
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:54 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Appeals Court Bans Prayer 'in Jesus' name'
I agree with Professor Gibson that faithful Christians can pray without
invoking the name of Jesus and with Professor Lund that this seems
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 2:51 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
Professors Lund and Essenberg seek the larger question, which I
believe seems to involve whether a government can pray, at all. We
all agree individuals can pray, and the First Amendment protects
Ms. Jean Dudley exactly makes my point! (Albeit in more colorful language :).
Governments should not pray as governments, nor establish non-sectarian
religion as the government's favored religion or the government's favored
non-sectarian god.
ON THE CONTRARY, our form of
On Jul 24, 2008, at Thu, Jul 24, 7:37 PM, Gordon James
Klingenschmitt wrote:
Ms. Jean Dudley exactly makes my point! (Albeit in more colorful
language :).
Governments should not pray as governments, nor establish non-
sectarian religion as the government's favored religion or the
Well actually, the court of appeals did not ban prayer in Jesus' name. Nor did
the City of Fredericksburg ban prayer in Jesus' name. Prayer in Jesus' name is
continuing all over the city. The City said it would not sponsor prayer in
Jesus' name; if anything was banned, it was only at
19 matches
Mail list logo
