In a message dated 9/7/2007 11:51:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My only concern is to point out that while everyone recognizes that theists
start from a grounding within a particular belief system, so too do atheists.
Starting from a grounding within a
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 9:44 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
In a message dated 9/7/2007 11:51:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED
Surely this can't be right, at least not as broadly as it is stated.
Surely the state can and indeed must choose any number of positions
that secularists advance without it being discriminatory. Or at
least not constitutionally or statutorily illegally discriminatory.
Surely the state
We are arguing, I would think, about the term ideology as it occurs in
American political discourse. To insist that the use of that term corresponds
to
a dictionary definition is simply circular. That very dictionary definition
is what I'm challenging as applied to American political
In a message dated 9/7/2007 9:33:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Both atheists and evangelicals adhere to particular ideological
perspectives.
While this may be true of particular individuals, it's far from an
accurate account of the
] On Behalf Of David E. Guinn
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 9:32 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
I believe this distinction to be incorrect. Both atheists and
evangelicals adhere to particular ideological perspectives. The
atheist
://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Freiman
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:24 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
I
,
Dawkins, etc.)
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:57:10 -0400Subject: Re: Mormon
Student, Justice, ACLU Join UpTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
David E. Guinn wrote:
Third, to say atheists are not evangelical ignores the passion and furor around
Harris, Dawkins, Hutchens et
David E. Guinn wrote:
Third, to say atheists are not evangelical ignores the passion and furor
around Harris, Dawkins, Hutchens et. al. and the best selling books they have
written.
The distinction between evangelism and atheism should not be
collapsed because both exhibit
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Conkle, Daniel O.
Sent: Fri 9/7/2007 9:15 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
With apologies for the self-serving plug, I've written in some sympathy with
what I take to be David's
In a message dated 9/7/2007 10:16:25 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Under the framework I suggest, the most important difference between the two
competing perspectives is what falls within the zone of permissible
argument/discourse/source of truth and what falls
understood--though it might disprove current
understandings).David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:21:17 -0400Subject: Re: Mormon
Student, Justice, ACLU Join UpTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
In a message dated 9/7/2007 9:33:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] writes:
Both
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Freiman
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 4:42 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
What is the etiquette on this list, please? Would it be
proper to send a personal email thanking Dr
I'm equally troubled by the breadth of religion as justifying special
treatment. If the purpose of the separation between church and state is
to protect religion from interference by government, and to protect
people from compulsion to believe a prescribed doctrine, then a lot of
these
fundamentalists to me.)
In this sense, I think the issue does touch significantly on religion
and law.
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:58:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice
/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Freiman
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:24 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
I don't see answering whether
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 12:16 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Mormon Student
I agree with Mark's response -- if an exemption is provided for secular
expressive activities, there is no free speech issue created by granting a
similar exemption for religious expressive
In a message dated 9/6/2007 8:16:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Third, to say atheists are not evangelical ignores the passion and furor
around Harris, Dawkins, Hutchens et. al. and the best selling books they
have written.
I have been reflecting that the
Someone wrote that belief in god was not, for him, a matter of choice
and offered to discuss this off list. I can't now find that email. I'd
be grateful if he would get in touch with me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Susan
___
To post, send message to
I'd welcome an on-list discussion of this matter, with Eugene's permission
of course.
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
Ratio Juris
, Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_
(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/)
Essentially
fundamentalists to me.)
In this sense, I think the issue does touch significantly on religion and law.
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:58:10 -0400Subject: Re: Mormon
Student, Justice, ACLU Join UpTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
I'd welcome an on-list discussion of this matter
significantly on religion
and law.
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:58:10 -0400Subject: Re:
Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join UpTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
I'd welcome an on-list discussion of this matter, with Eugene's
permission of course.Bobby Robert Justin
about the approach
taken by Harris and Dawkins (et. al.) My mistake was in not changing the
subject line. David
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 10:05:34 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Mormon Student,
Justice, ACLU Join Up The choice issue
and law.
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:58:10 -0400Subject: Re:
Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join UpTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
I'd welcome an on-list discussion of this matter, with Eugene's
permission of course.Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor
PROTECTED]: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:58:10 -0400Subject: Re:
Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join UpTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
I'd welcome an on-list discussion of this matter, with Eugene's
permission of course.Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of
LawWidener University School
.)
In this sense, I think the issue does touch significantly on religion
and law.
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:58:10 -0400Subject: Re:
Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join UpTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
I'd welcome an on-list discussion of this matter, with Eugene's
permission
Fred's comment (and, by the way, Hi Fred, nice to have you back
contributing to the list, even if it is only on a very occasional
basis), made me think of a question that had been in the back of my mind
since this thread began.
I don't know if it is possible to answer this question with any
Subject: RE: Mormon Student
Fred's comment (and, by the way, Hi Fred, nice to have you back
contributing to the list, even if it is only on a very occasional
basis), made me think of a question that had been in the back of my mind
since this thread began.
I don't know if it is possible to answer
clause
even if it is not required by the free exercise clause.
Alan Brownstein
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Wed 9/5/2007 9:02 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Mormon Student
Alan raises a good point but I
: Mormon Student
Fred's comment (and, by the way, Hi Fred, nice to have you back
contributing to the list, even if it is only on a very occasional
basis), made me think of a question that had been in the back of my mind
since this thread began.
I don't know if it is possible to answer this question
It strikes me that Fred's description is one that lends itself to the
argument that this is not a religious obligation at all, but is more
of a social obligation. There is no religious or theological
requirement; no formal penalty, and nothing holding you back down the
road, and you *can* do it
the exemption? David
Subject: RE: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up Date: Thu, 30
Aug 2007 10:49:38 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu A quick question: Say the Mormon student
wins, on a Sherbert-like rationale. Another student wants a similar
exemption on the grounds that he
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
But this does not really work. CO status prevents the gov.
from forcing you to violate your faith; holding a scholarship
to exercise your faith or your voluntary support for your
faith
? David
Subject: RE: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up Date: Thu,
30
Aug 2007 10:49:38 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu A quick question: Say the Mormon
student
wins, on a Sherbert-like rationale. Another student wants a
similar
exemption on the grounds
: RE: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up Date: Thu,
30
Aug 2007 10:49:38 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu A quick question: Say the Mormon
student
wins, on a Sherbert-like rationale. Another student wants a
similar
exemption on the grounds that he feels a religious
, 2007 8:42 AM
*To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics
*Subject:* Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
Of course I agree with Doug that /part /of the impulse to protect only
mandatory aspects of religion is a desire to limit exemptions. And
part of it is also based
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
Hmm -- why is this so? First, I've seen very few cases in which
a judge finds a religious claimant to be insincere. My sense is that
judges tend to try to avoid doing this, partly because reading people's
minds on such issues seems even more unreliable,
In a message dated 8/30/2007 4:13:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the mission must be completed before the individual is 26
Just out of curiosity, how would this apply to converts older than
26?
Bobby
Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener
No idea. Maybe they can serve at any point. If I get a chance, I'll ask
him.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 5:46 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Mormon Student
I think this argument proves too much. This sort of triangulation can be used
to attack all religious exemption claims. Take the strongest claim for
exemption you can imagine * say the claim for peyote in Smith. You can always
posit a weak religious claim for the exact same thing * say a
Judges are reluctant to decide sincerity, but they are not
reluctant to get rid of marginal claims. He may say the belief is not
sincere. More likely, he may say the belief is not religious. He may
find that a fairly weak interest is compelling. He may dismiss the
claim on some procedural or
Isn't it possible to argue that government service (the military) and
community service are fundamentally different then just wanting to go
off and spread your faith? You might argue that selling the faith is
no different than selling any other product and the university can say
we do not allow
I found this line particularly interesting:
The state's request to dismiss Haws' lawsuit notes that Mormon missions are
encouraged, not required. Haws was 'under no compulsion to choose between
the tenets of his religion and continued receipt of the PROMISE
scholarship,' the motion reads.
As
The service academies used to do the same thing -- a cadet at the Air Force
Academy, for example, would have to choose between a mission call from the
LDS church and continuing to graduation, with the added kicker that if he took
the mission call, he'd owe a couple of years of service or
No, the mission is not required, in the same sense that, if elected, a cardinal
may turn down the papacy, or Mother Teresa can return from the dead and refuse
canonization -- well, maybe not that serious. Only someone who is not a member
of the church and doesn't have to face years of
More to the point, I would think, is that neither military nor community
service is required, either (well, maybe community service when part of a
criminal sentence). Since there are clearly secular exemptions to the rule,
it can't be said to be a neutral rule of general application. Smith
Right. This should be an easy case if the government has the facts
right.
The intuition to protect only mandatory aspects of religion is
enormously widespread, flowing I think partly from a desire to get
rid of these cases, and partly from a fundamental misunderstanding of
religion as
Doesn't the question boil down to whether the school can put ANY restraints on
the desire to take a couple of years off? If, argendo, it can, then I don't
understand why the Mormon gets special solicitude, given that it's not an
obligation, as distinguished from Sherbert. Whether the school's
: Douglas Laycock
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
Right. This should be an easy case if the government has the facts right.
The intuition to protect only mandatory aspects of religion is enormously
Even Sandy has the instinct to distinguish religious obligation
from all other religious motivations, however strong. That's a
mistake, and leads to a wholly unworkable rule and absurd results. On
remand in Witters v. Wash,. Dept. of Services for the Blind, the
Supreme Court of Washington
I have followed this a bit in the local press and I believe the
plaintiff's argument is basically based on Alito's opinion in FOP v
Newark. The state could presumably say no one can defer and that
would pass muster under Smith, but the argument is that by granting
deferments for military or
.
Alan Brownstein
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:42 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
Of course I agree with Doug that part of the impulse to protect
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:01 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
Even Sandy has the instinct to distinguish religious obligation from all
other religious motivations, however strong. That's a mistake
A quick question: Say the Mormon student wins, on a Sherbert-like
rationale. Another student wants a similar exemption on the grounds
that he feels a religious motivation to take two years off to meditate,
or to make money to help support his family, or to fulfill what he sees
as God's
Isn't this analogous to the conscientious objector cases where sincere
commitment should determine the exemption? David
Subject: RE: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007
10:49:38 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu A
quick question: Say
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brownstein,
Alan
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:48 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
While I think Doug is right that any kind of rigid line drawn between
religious obligations
Yes in theory, but in the real world, Eugene's assumed facts will
be very difficult to prove and judges will almost never find them to
be true. Certainly the judge is not going to believe a primarily
religious motivation for a desire to make more money. Meditation and
finding the meaning of
Hmm -- why is this so? First, I've seen very few cases in which
a judge finds a religious claimant to be insincere. My sense is that
judges tend to try to avoid doing this, partly because reading people's
minds on such issues seems even more unreliable, bias-prone, and
subjective than
Although I always hesitate to disagree with my (sadly) former cilleague Doug, I
confess I'm with Eugene (and, I think, Michael McConnell, on the basis of past
threads), on this one. I see no relevant difference between going to Mongolia
to spread the word about the Book of Mormon and a belief
59 matches
Mail list logo
