Should one mention the missionaries whose arrest by Georgia set off the
Cherokee removal cases?
At 06:02 PM 8/3/05 -0400, you wrote:
Don't overlook the anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party riots, including the
Philadelphia Bible Riot of 1843:
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:01:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of
course, in recent times much religious strife is caused by excluding religious
people from equal access to the public square and from equal participation in
the benefits of the welfare state.
Perhaps the central point of this dialogue is the silliness of using religious strife when evaluating constitutional provisions on religion. People disagree on school vouchers, the ten commandments, etc. The claim that one side of the disagreement is causing religious strife is implicitly based
In a message dated 8/4/2005 10:47:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Supposeyou fell off a ship at sea and were drowning and I threw you
a lifeline. And yousaid, "I don't like this lifeline because it's orange
and I prefer yellow ones." And I said "it's the only
Steve Jamar wrote on 08/04/2005 10:04:08 AM:
On Aug 4, 2005, at 10:46 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:
The doctrine of salvationby grace through faith in Christ
is a
doctrine of love and forgiveness. It is not an intolerant doctrine.
It is open to everyone.
When people say that theirs is
Brad,I'm not generally very persuaded by "slippery slope" arguments. We always need to draw lines between what is ok and what is not. I am one who thinks the international norms of hate speech should be followed here and that we can draw the line sufficiently toward the really bad end of the
Is this a question of speech or a question of behavior?
Am I wrong in concluding that each person has a right to express their
religious beliefs, even if those beliefs include predictions or
convictions that all non-believers are doomed or that a particular
individual is destined to some
off into semantic land . . . about the term "tolerance" . . . we have been here before . . .I would be delighted to see just the "benign neglect" or unthinking acceptance of others or even better, thoughtful acceptance of others and their beliefs, even if I think they are wrong. I would rather
Clearest early example was the established Puritans' intolerance that drove
the Baptists out and to the belief that the separation of church and state was
the only way to religious liberty for them (a politically powerless
religion).
Marci
___
To
ps reveal more
about my ignorance of American history than I ought to disclose but my
question is as follows:
Various Supreme Court justices have
argued that one of the motivations of the establishment clause is the
prevention of religiously-motivated political strife. See, e.g., Jus
They could not, and did not, persecute Anglicans, of course; and
probably tolerated prebyterians after the late 1640s; a few Jews were
allowed to reside in Mass. Bay, unlike Quakers who were hanged
James Maule wrote:
Not just Baptists. Quakers. And "Papists." And anyone who wasn't a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear all,
In their e-mails, Marci, Paul, and Steven have identified
conflicts that certainly strike me as qualifying as
religiously-motivated political strife. (In the cases, it
does seem to me
Don't overlook the anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party riots, including the
Philadelphia Bible Riot of 1843:
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/photo_gallery/photo2.html
Two sources approach the same history from different perspectives, but do
not much disagree on what happened:
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: religiously-motivated political strife
I assume Kevin is interested in pre-1787 religious strife that the
framers knew about and wanted to avoid repeating. Without offering a
full history, here are some "greatest hits of religious strife"
BTW, state sponsorship of religion need not necessarily result in religious strife. State religions are still common around the world -- UK, Egypt, Israel, Switzerland (or did they recently disestablish? I recall reading something about that) and others.And non-establishment is no guarantee of
.)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Wed 8/3/2005 5:08 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: religiously-motivated political strife
winmail.dat___
To post, send message
office to seek protection. In the office the JW group
were forced to drink each a bottle of castor oil before being tied to a rope
and walk out of the town to find their moved cars. Yes,
religiously-motivated political strife was important to the decision in West
Virginia Bd. of Ed. v
Of course, in recent times much religious strife is caused by excluding religious people from equal access to the public square and from equal participation in the benefits of the welfare state. Locke v. Davey, for example, strikes me as a case in which Washington's rigid separationism caused
Jim:
I am surprised you cannot understand how executing people based on
Biblical Law might be seen as "religious strife." Similarly, the
taking of farm animals to destory them because they were "contaminated"
by Granger might lead to religious strife. Yes, the Turkeys were not
private
In a message dated 8/3/2005 7:57:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes,
religiously-motivated political strife was important to the decision in
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette.
And yet it is only in the fog of hindsight that Barnette became a religious
In a message dated 8/3/2005 11:42:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am
surprised you cannot understand how executing people based on Biblical Law
might be seen as "religious strife." Similarly, the taking of farm
animals to destory them because they were
21 matches
Mail list logo
