I think I agree with Doug that there is some merit in separating the
religious and legal aspects of the marriage relationship. However, it seems
to me that there are two separate components of the marriage process: the
contractual and the solemnization. I find that idea that the state could
or
to prayers more annoying than church bells seems to be
a matter of opinion and cultural taste. As someone who appreaciate
diversity, I like both.
David E.
Guinn
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Derek
GaubatzSent: Friday, May
I agree with Eugene. The reality is that when
a political leader is talking to a church leader s/he is doing so because the
church leader represents a political constituancy. While there is a place
for public negotiations, there is also a time for private talks as well.
In terms of
True at the time, but Jefferson clearly altered his thinking from the time
he attempted to enact his bills on religion in Virginia to the time of his
presidency where he refused to order days of thanksgiving and wrote his famous
letter to the Baptists.
- Original Message -
Ultimately, its seems to me that this exchange boils down to context and
intent. Almost any word can be used in a way (with appropriate inflection,
intent and context) that makes it appear pejorative.
As a matter of practical concern, I am curious as to what term might be
offered as an
It seems to me the thing that distinguishes a holding from an advisory
opinion is that the holding results from a competently litigated case. By
reversing the judgment on the grounds that Newdown lacked standing, the SC
was also asserting that the case was not competently litigated -- i.e.
I am afraid that this appears to be a misuse of the
term. To accuse Eugene of not being candid is to attack his integrety and
honesty -- i.e. a circuitous way of saying he is lying.
To suggest that Eugene's opinions are biased by his
world view, does nothing but state the obvious in a
A couple of quick observations:
1. Insofar as ID claims status as science, then it is fair game for any
critique -- including one that claims it is myth. It cannot claim
protection as religion without surrendering its claim to scientific status.
2. Religious studies programs commonly
I am sorry, but I found this post extremely
offensive. The only person who was not seriously responsive in this
exchange was Mr. Garman who seemed to believe that simply because he interpreted
certain texts in a certain way, everyone else was compelled to adopt the same
belief. Personally,
One can take this a step further and distinguish, as Rawls does, between
constitutional /democratic contexts (where this type of public reasoning
occurs) and the cultural background (where it does not.) It becomes very
problematic when the standards of public reason are applied to cultural
You wrote:
Nevertheless, even if the sort of "formal neutrality" rule espoused in
Thomas's Mitchell plurality becomes the governing doctrine, as I think
it will, these cases are still difficult, because there's nothing neutral, or
objective, about the decision to fund the rebuilding of the
I am not sure I understand the distinction between
devotional and non-devoltional theology separated from the degree it is
associated with. At the University of Chicago, in pursuing a Masters in
the constructive study of religion, my "theology" classes were largely
indistinguishable from a
As the Center for Church/State
Studies of DePaul University College of Law enters its 24th year, we
are undertaking a complete program review for the Center. To support that review, I would
appreciate receiving your responses as someone interested in the field of
religious freedom to the
This seems to me to be very consistant with the
general tendency in the courts to treat free exercise rights as a subsidiary of
free speech rights (i.e. Rosenberger). I agree with Marc that in one sense
it appears insensitive to not at least acknowledge the religious free exercise
interest
One should, of course, never say never. The conflict in the Chicago
suburbs of a few years ago was over the takeover of a community center by a
mosque. No one could have possibly argued that the "use" by the mosque was
in any way more disruptive than its use as a community center -- except
With respect to Posner's creating religious
doctrine -- I don't know the details of the trial or appelate record, but it
does seem to me that the court is simply acknowledging common fact. Many
churchs designate the organist as the music minister and talk about the musical
ministry. This is
I agree Marty that the most challenging issue relating to the governments
use of religion relates to it secular efficacy.
I don't know the details of the BOP program -- but based on my experience
with government programs, it strikes me as very likely that the
administrators of the BOP program
Title: Message
This is a difficult answer to parse down to a
principle.
I am most familiar with Islamic practice in the
Middle East (Iraq, Jordan and Egypt). While Friday is usually taken as
part of the weekend in those counties, Friday is not considered the Sabbath --
so there is no
- Original Message -
From: Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, are you suggesting this is really the same sort of thing as
minority religions seeking to add their representation to the list of
alternate-side-parking-exemption days here in New York, whether there is
any particular need
of how idiosyncratic, right?
Steve
On May 12, 2006, at 5:55 PM, David E. Guinn wrote:
This is a difficult answer to parse down to a
principle.
I am most familiar with Islamic practice in the
Middle East (Iraq, Jordan and Egypt). While Friday is usually taken
Since atheists, by definition, deny religious obligation -- one can't help
feeling that the effort to include Darwin's birthday is little more than a
hostile protest.
- Original Message -
From: Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
This strikes me as theologically incoherent as well as constitutionally troubling (though more in terms of constitutional morality rather than law.)
First, the students (as approved by Prof. Duncan) are using prayer not as a religious devotion but as a political act -- to express their
I don't konw about rock promotors, but gospel concerts (which I believe are
almost as popular) are explicitly religious in their advertising in terms of
visuals, lyrical excerpts, and framing headings.
David
- Original Message -
From: Mark Tushnet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Law Religion
I am appalled by the selfishness of this line of
argument -- that the only point of concern is to "protect the chaplain"--
as opposed to serve the religious needs and interest of our armed
forces.
Not only are these interpretations of history and
law enormously biased and inaccurate, they
I hardly agree that he lost on the merits of the
argument. I have yet to read any reasonable interpretation of law or
history thatsupports yourposition.
- Original Message -
From:
Gordon
James Klingenschmitt
To: Paul Finkelman ; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent:
? If the religion clauses have any independent, non-speech content,
wouldn't that require some consideration of these non-speech
factors?
David E. Guinn JD,
PhDRecent Publications Available from SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
- Original Message -
From
eligion clauses have any independent, non-speech content,
wouldn't that require some consideration of these non-speech
factors?
David E. Guinn JD, PhDRecent Publications
Available from SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
--
be impacted by a
broader exemption.
Since copyright and free speech are both constitutionally protected rights, I
do not subscribe to the position that the first amendment should take precedent.
David
David E. Guinn JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
http://papers.ssrn.com
As I recall, he wrote a book about his time at the Harvard Divinity School in
the late 80s early 90s. He went back after he had established his career as a
writer for publications like the NY Times, the New Yorker, etc..
David E. Guinn JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
http
seem to follow the common bias
that wants to treat the 1st Amend. as simply a free speech amendment--though
I agree with you that it is incoherent in terms of this case.
David
David E. Guinn JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David E. Guinn
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:53 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Atheist inmate refused authorization for atheism
study group
True. And the tax exemption that protects both religious
agreed with me (outside of the YODER outlier that predated
by work.)
David E. Guinn JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
- Original Message -
From: Perry Dane
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent
. So:
does this make this a private transaction? If not, what responsibility does
the union have?
David E. Guinn JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
- Original Message -
From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL
I tend to agree with Eugene that the initial posts on this thread were
clearly off topic and represented personal animous or favor rather than
promoting an informative discussion. Interestingly, subsequent efforts to
justify those posts have been far more substantive and useful.
In considering
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 the
It does seem to me that one of the most compelling arguments in favor of
religious freedom is the recognition that religious belief is not simply a
matter of choice--like deciding whether or not to join a fraternity or
sorority. As Calvin and Paul suggested, it is a product of grace. That
My apologies to Paul and the list for any confusion caused by my post. I had
no intention of accusing Paul of claiming people of faith were irrational. I
had assumed that Bobby's post had opened a new thread on choice and religious
freedom which I was attempting to address. My comments were
to equate rational with
empirical.
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.
David E. Guinn, JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev
,
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
I do not think I am going outside of the rigors of a theoretical understanding.
The very term atheism (as an -ism) definitionaly acknowledges its
ideological commitment. My only concern is to point out that while everyone
recognizes that theists start from a grounding within a particular
,
favoring the secularist position often advanced by the neoatheists is
discriminatory.
David
David E. Guinn, JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
From a colleague.
-Original Message-
From: Hamoudi, Haider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
Just a few points on this, from someone who would know very little about the
New York law aspect of it, but a reasonable amount concerning the Islamic
law side.
First, the practice of
, that would be like
substituting water and an energy bar for the wine and bread at a seder.
David E. Guinn, JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
Subject: RE: 130 Muslim workers fired over unauthorized breaks during
The mark of the beast is drawn from Revelations 13:16-18 and refers to
Satan's mark (666).
David E. Guinn, JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mark of the beast
as mutually
discriminatory and enforce neither? What if the Islamic courts enforce only
one of the two obligations? (Many Western feminists tend to complain that
favoring the men only is the case in practice.)
David
David E. Guinn, JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN
?
David
David E. Guinn, JD, PhD
Recent Publications Available from SSRN at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Can religious and secular courts exist in the same nation?
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20
46 matches
Mail list logo
