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 of its adherents. No matter how often or who opposes freedom of religion, which includes criticism of Judaism, the knowledge of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth. For a USA-First government! Larry Would it be rude of me to suggest that someone stick a dreidel in this guy's mouth to shut him up? Probably. I guess I better not suggest it then. Crankily, Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
From the list custodian 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 Exercise Clause or the Free Speech Clause, authorized religious objections to certain in-class posters; that's on-topic. This post is not on-topic. Please abide by the list discussion rules. The list custodian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby Sent: Friday, 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 policy during recent decades of political correctness. The same sort of manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in regard to the Holocaust Industry. The Religion of the Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes. Here's a good summary: Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties CounterThink, Taiwan Jan. 24, 2006 Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. The typical rhetoric goes: these bigots deny the facts and lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need special laws to protect it? Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime. It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put the number of Jewish deaths at considerably less than one million. It is, after all, indisputable that some earlier facts regarding the Holocaust have been streamlined and smoothed out for popular consumption. As for the un-revisable six million figure, Jews have superstitious reasons pertaining to the number six for claiming that six million died. In fact, similar charges about six million Jews were made, incredibly, in 1919, concerning the fantastic number of Jews facing death during WWI. Another reason Jews want to hype the number of victims is that they wanted to have the greatest causality count so they could claim supreme victimhood and reap the political rewards. Holocaust lore is essential to the precarious legitimacy of the Jewish State. Rightly or wrongly, the Nazis blamed the Jews for America's entry into WWI as well as the unjust and punitive Treaty of Versailles which followed. This deliberate mischaracterization of Holocaust revisionism has been spread widely and purposefully by keepers of the Holocaust faith. One reader suggested that we call the search for truth in this matter Holocaust factualism. http://www.counterthink.org/016944.html http://www.rense.com/general69/hol.htm Larry Darby, Democratic candidate for Attorney General of Alabama. http://www.larrydarby.com/ -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 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 protection of the school and which needs to have the majority group be educated about the fundamental wrongness of harming people because of who they are. Or, to put it anther way, in a majority Christian country, with a born-again president, do Chrisian students feel some threat that they are about to be beaten up or even killed because of who they are. If there is a real threat to Christian student and they need to be protected and that they need a place of refuge to avoiding being harmed by fellow students, then by-all means, have a pink triangle and a little cross in a triangle as well, and let the two persecuted groups meet together in a place of refuge. Paul Finkelman Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Steve: I agree with your point about whiny victims and the culture of complaint. But here is the problem. One group of whiny
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 an international symbol of gay pride and the gay rights movement, and is second in popularity only to the rainbow flag."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangleTherefore, if a particular public school teacher hasreligious opposition to positions which are viewed as "gay rights", it's! a legimate area of debate as to whether those religious objections should be accomodated in any fashion, and, if so, how. To some extent, this debate may be a little bit like the debate over the Ten Commandments. Some proponents would claim that the Ten Commandments are an important source of historical law and should therefore be included in public acknowledgements of law. Others would claim that the Ten Commandments cannot be removed from their religious background and so therefore have no place in government displays. I imagine that an individual position will be dictated in large part by the person's own view of what the symbol stands for. Given the popularmeaning of the pink triangle, it would be hard to view this as anything other than the school board expressing its support and approval of "gay pride and the gay rights movement." Whether or not the school board sho! uld do so is a question for another list.Let me pose a hypothetical. How about in addition to displaying the pink triangle in the classroom, students were obligated to stand and face the triangle every day and recite a "Pledge of Non-Discrimination." The parents of certain students object on religious grounds. Any first amendment concerns? How do you resolve the problem?WillBrad M Pardee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 been ! in their place, seeking to do something to encourage people to treat these kids with dignity. I've watched it first hand and seen the destruction it can cause. I've grieved for a friend who killed himself because of it and it motivated me to band together with other like minded people to try and counter the bigotry and harrassment that they had to face every day. And yet you casually dismiss such concerns as really just being about not wanting to hear disagreement about sex within a heterosexual marriage? The fact that there are other forms of harrassment around does not diminish the legitimate actions to curb this particular type of abuse. Ed, The concerns you raise about bullying and harassment are legitimate concerns to any sane person. If the safety message, in practice, was about bullying and harrassment, I would support it because of my own experience of being bullied and harassed, albeit on a lesser scale for thing! s not related to my sexual orientation. I have friends and family members who are homosexual, and if I heard about them being bullied or harassed, I know I'd want to do whatever was within my power to either stop the abuse or to ease the pain. I don't even know what words can adequately describe how I would feel if I heard that they were contemplating suicide because of being bullied or harassed. It is in practice, though, that the rubber meets the road. 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 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 sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong.! It doesn't matter how civil a person is. It doesn't matter how much a person is opposed to bullying of any kind across the board. The only thing that matters is that this person said that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong, and that makes the person a hateful bigot. If the people in San Leandro are truly concerned about genuine safety issues, then more power to them because that would certainly separate them from the folks on this campus, but I would then ask what they are doing to address the safety of students who are being harassed and bullied for reasons other than sexual orientation. Brad___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
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 policy during recent decades of political correctness. The same sort of manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in regard to the Holocaust Industry. The Religion of the Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes. Here's a good summary: Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties CounterThink, Taiwan Jan. 24, 2006 Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. The typical rhetoric goes: these bigots deny the facts and lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need special laws to protect it? Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime. It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put the number of Jewish deaths at considerably less than one million. It is, after all, indisputable that some earlier facts regarding the Holocaust have been streamlined and smoothed out for popular consumption. As for the un-revisable six million figure, Jews have superstitious reasons pertaining to the number six for claiming that six million died. In fact, similar charges about six million Jews were made, incredibly, in 1919, concerning the fantastic number of Jews facing death during WWI. Another reason Jews want to hype the number of victims is that they wanted to have the greatest causality count so they could claim supreme victimhood and reap the political rewards. Holocaust lore is essential to the precarious legitimacy of the Jewish State. Rightly or wrongly, the Nazis blamed the Jews for America's entry into WWI as well as the unjust and punitive Treaty of Versailles which followed. This deliberate mischaracterization of Holocaust revisionism has been spread widely and purposefully by keepers of the Holocaust faith. One reader suggested that we call the search for truth in this matter Holocaust factualism. http://www.counterthink.org/016944.html http://www.rense.com/general69/hol.htm Larry Darby, Democratic candidate for Attorney General of Alabama. http://www.larrydarby.com/ -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 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 protection of the school and which needs to have the majority group be educated about the fundamental wrongness of harming people because of who they are. Or, to put it anther way, in a majority Christian country, with a born-again president, do Chrisian students feel some threat that they are about to be beaten up or even killed because of who they are. If there is a real threat to Christian student and they need to be protected and that they need a place of refuge to avoiding being harmed by fellow students, then by-all means, have a pink triangle and a little cross in a triangle as well, and let the two persecuted groups meet together in a place of refuge. Paul Finkelman Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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 their throats. Which group of whiny complainers should be appeased? What would be the more neutral way of resolving this dispute between the dueling whiners? Rick Duncan Steve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Rick Duncan : 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 the teacher himself? It be interesting to speculate, too, whether gay students would then have some sort of disparate-impact and/or harassment claim (against the teachers individually? the school board?) under
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 sort of behavior, AS PART OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEF. What you describe here is the way it ought to be. It is shameful that there are not more people who, although believing that homosexual behavior is wrong, stand up against the kind of behavior you list here. Fred Phelps does not speak for me and never will. There are far to many people who, by their silence, give the impression that they don't have a problem with his words and deeds or those of his supporters. 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. Sounds like you and your compatriots are far more noble in the debate than those that I have seen and heard. However, I DO NOT have to put up with harassment here and now, and I DEMAND that teachers in public schools make EVERY effort to ensure that students don't have to put up with a hostile environment because of their self-identified sexual orientation, their religion, their color, their national origin, or their political affiliations. That's a legitimate demand. It ought to go beyond what you list here. Students shouldn't have to put up with a hostile environment for any reason. But there are those (and it sounds like you are not one of them) who would say that simply saying that homosexual behavior is wrong creates a hostile environment. Those are the people that I am reacting to. Not people like you who understand the difference between saying Such and such a behavior is wrong and We hate people who accept such and such behavior or participate in it. And if the schoolboard makes a decision to communicate that such things will not be tolerated by putting up rainbow flags, pink triangles and lambda sigil, then teachers REGARDLESS of their religious affiliation are duty bound to uphold it. And this is where our differing experiences lead to differing understandings of what is being communicated. To you, the pink triangles may mean there should be no harassment or bullying or abuse. In my experience, the meaning (in practice) has been a political message that is substantially broader, more like the example Will posted. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 a person can be gay and celibate. I'm not sure what it was I said that communicated otherwise. If I was unclear, though, please accept my apologies. Rita wrote on 01/26/2006 09:56:30 PM: Question: How would such individuals know whether persons they perceive to be gay are having sex outside of heterosexual marriage or indeed having sex at all?? This is certainly an example of prejudice in its classic semantic meaning -- presupposing something about someone without any proof, based on preconceived notions of what must be so. Being gay is not about sex. A person can be gay and celibate (and indeed many are). It would seem that it is indeed the bigots, and their extremist counterparts, the harassers and attackers, who are being disingenous when they claim they are only expressing their religious view that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. ~Rita___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
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 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 knowledge of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth. For a USA-First government! Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:33 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: From the list custodian 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 Exercise Clause or the Free Speech Clause, authorized religious objections to certain in-class posters; that's on-topic. This post is not on-topic. Please abide by the list discussion rules. The list custodian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby Sent: Friday, 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 policy during recent decades of political correctness. The same sort of manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in regard to the Holocaust Industry. The Religion of the Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes. Here's a good summary: Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties CounterThink, Taiwan Jan. 24, 2006 Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. The typical rhetoric goes: these bigots deny the facts and lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need special laws to protect it? Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime. It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put the number of Jewish deaths at considerably less than one million. It is, after all, indisputable that some earlier facts regarding the Holocaust have been streamlined and smoothed out for popular consumption. As for the un-revisable six million figure, Jews have superstitious reasons pertaining to the number six for claiming that six million died. In fact, similar charges about six million Jews were made, incredibly, in 1919, concerning the fantastic number of Jews facing death during WWI. Another reason Jews want to hype the number of victims is that they wanted to have the greatest causality count so they could claim supreme victimhood and reap the political rewards. Holocaust lore is essential to the precarious legitimacy of the Jewish State. Rightly or wrongly, the Nazis blamed the Jews for America's entry into WWI as well as the unjust and punitive Treaty of Versailles which followed. This deliberate mischaracterization of Holocaust revisionism has been spread widely and purposefully by keepers of the Holocaust faith. One reader suggested that we call the search for truth in this matter Holocaust factualism. http://www.counterthink.org/016944.html http://www.rense.com/general69/hol.htm Larry Darby, Democratic candidate for Attorney General of Alabama. http://www.larrydarby.com/ -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 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 protection of the school and which needs to have the majority group be educated about the fundamental wrongness of harming people because of who they are. Or, to put it anther way, in a majority Christian country, with a born-again president, do Chrisian students
RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 Brayton Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law 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 of its adherents. No matter how often or who opposes freedom of religion, which includes criticism of Judaism, the knowledge of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth. For a USA-First government! Larry Would it be rude of me to suggest that someone stick a dreidel in this guy's mouth to shut him up? Probably. I guess I better not suggest it then. Crankily, Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Mr. Darby is too quick to interpret criticism -- and even hostility -- as stemming from fear. There are various verbs that could be used to characterize the attitude that I (and, I suspect, many other list members) have towards Mr. Darby. Fear is not one of them. In any event, I would have tolerated Mr. Darby's viewpoints on subjects related to the law of government and religion (not the theological or ideological qualities of a particular religion, much less the qualities of a particular ethnic group). Nonetheless, he seems to have no inclination to follow the list rules, and I am removing him from the list. I'm sure there are plenty of other places where he can promote his odd beliefs about history, or for that matter his Space Age Calendar (http://www.atheistlaw.org/news.cfm?n_type=Media+Releases) or his other ideas. The list custodian -Original 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 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 knowledge of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth. For a USA-First government! Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:33 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: From the list custodian 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 Exercise Clause or the Free Speech Clause, authorized religious objections to certain in-class posters; that's on-topic. This post is not on-topic. Please abide by the list discussion rules. The list custodian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby Sent: Friday, 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 policy during recent decades of political correctness. The same sort of manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in regard to the Holocaust Industry. The Religion of the Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes. Here's a good summary: Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties CounterThink, Taiwan Jan. 24, 2006 Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. The typical rhetoric goes: these bigots deny the facts and lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need special laws to protect it? Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime. It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put the number of Jewish deaths at considerably less than one million. It is, after all, indisputable that some earlier facts regarding the Holocaust have been streamlined and smoothed out for popular consumption. As for the un-revisable six million figure, Jews have superstitious reasons pertaining to the number six for claiming that six million died. In fact, similar charges about six million Jews were made, incredibly, in 1919, concerning the fantastic number of Jews facing death during WWI. Another reason Jews want to hype the number of victims is that they wanted to have the greatest causality count so they could claim supreme victimhood and reap the political rewards. Holocaust lore is essential to the precarious legitimacy of the Jewish State. Rightly or wrongly, the Nazis blamed the Jews for America's entry into WWI as well as the unjust and punitive Treaty of Versailles which followed
RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
I thought the list was moderated? If so, perhaps Mr. Darby could be limited to non-inflammatory and on-topic messages (this may be a null set, of course). If the list is unmoderated, perhaps Mr. Darby could be blocked? I like free debate as much as anyone, but the off-topic debates that Mr. Darby wants to provoke are a waste of everyone's time. Best, Stuart From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: From the list custodian 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 Brayton Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 10:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law 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 of its adherents. No matter how often or who opposes freedom of religion, which includes criticism of Judaism, the knowledge of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth. For a USA-First government! Larry Would it be rude of me to suggest that someone stick a dreidel in this guy's mouth to shut him up? Probably. I guess I better not suggest it then. Crankily, Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 Mr. Darby is too quick to interpret criticism -- and even hostility -- as stemming from fear. There are various verbs that could be used to characterize the attitude that I (and, I suspect, many other list members) have towards Mr. Darby. Fear is not one of them. In any event, I would have tolerated Mr. Darby's viewpoints on subjects related to the law of government and religion (not the theological or ideological qualities of a particular religion, much less the qualities of a particular ethnic group). Nonetheless, he seems to have no inclination to follow the list rules, and I am removing him from the list. I'm sure there are plenty of other places where he can promote his odd beliefs about history, or for that matter his Space Age Calendar (http://www.atheistlaw.org/news.cfm?n_type=Media+Releases) or his other ideas. The list custodian -Original 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 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 knowledge of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth. For a USA-First government! Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:33 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: From the list custodian 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 Exercise Clause or the Free Speech Clause, authorized religious objections to certain in-class posters; that's on-topic. This post is not on-topic. Please abide by the list discussion rules. The list custodian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby Sent: Friday, 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 policy during recent decades of political correctness. The same sort of manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in regard to the Holocaust Industry. The Religion of the Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes. Here's a good summary: Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties CounterThink, Taiwan Jan. 24, 2006 Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. The typical rhetoric goes: these bigots deny the facts and lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need special laws to protect it? Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime. It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put the number of Jewish deaths at considerably less than one million. It is, after all, indisputable that some earlier facts regarding the Holocaust have been streamlined and smoothed out for popular consumption. As for the un-revisable six million figure, Jews have superstitious reasons pertaining to the number six for claiming that six million died. In fact, similar charges about six million Jews were made, incredibly, in 1919, concerning the fantastic number of Jews facing death during WWI. Another reason Jews want to hype the number of victims is that they wanted to have the greatest causality count so they could claim supreme
RE: From the list custodian RE: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
Well done... -- Original Message -- From: Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:22:34 -0800 Mr. Darby is too quick to interpret criticism -- and even hostility -- as stemming from fear. There are various verbs that could be used to characterize the attitude that I (and, I suspect, many other list members) have towards Mr. Darby. Fear is not one of them. In any event, I would have tolerated Mr. Darby's viewpoints on subjects related to the law of government and religion (not the theological or ideological qualities of a particular religion, much less the qualities of a particular ethnic group). Nonetheless, he seems to have no inclination to follow the list rules, and I am removing him from the list. I'm sure there are plenty of other places where he can promote his odd beliefs about history, or for that matter his Space Age Calendar (http://www.atheistlaw.org/news.cfm?n_type=Media+Releases) or his other ideas. The list custodian -Original 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 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 knowledge of truth (of the HoloHoax) is expanding across the Earth. For a USA-First government! Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 11:33 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: From the list custodian 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 Exercise Clause or the Free Speech Clause, authorized religious objections to certain in-class posters; that's on-topic. This post is not on-topic. Please abide by the list discussion rules. The list custodian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Darby Sent: Friday, 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 policy during recent decades of political correctness. The same sort of manipulation of the masses has been wildly successful in regard to the Holocaust Industry. The Religion of the Holocaust is made law under the guise of hate crimes. Here's a good summary: Holocaust Fundamentalism promotes loss of individual liberties CounterThink, Taiwan Jan. 24, 2006 Articles central to The Faith include unwavering commitment to Jewish casualty numbers with a full and complete understanding of the manner in which innocent Jews were gassed, murdered and executed in Nazi Germany. The typical rhetoric goes: these bigots deny the facts and lessons garnered from humankind's experience during WWII. In Europe and North America, Holocaust skeptics are being apprehended, arrested and are now facing lengthy prison terms. These Holocaust-denying apostates include British author and historian David Irving, Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zundel, German chemist Gemar Rudolf, and others. In an era where nearly anything goes, why does the truth need special laws to protect it? Laws regulating 'historical interpretation' are themselves a crime. It's known that after the second world war, the Red Cross put the number of Jewish deaths at considerably less than one million. It is, after all, indisputable that some earlier facts regarding the Holocaust have been streamlined and smoothed out for popular consumption. As for the un-revisable six million figure, Jews have superstitious reasons pertaining to the number six for claiming that six million died. In fact, similar charges about six million Jews were made, incredibly, in 1919, concerning the fantastic number of Jews facing death during WWI. Another reason Jews want to hype the number of victims is that they wanted to have the greatest causality count so they could claim supreme victimhood and reap the political rewards. Holocaust lore
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 believe that there is a problem, turn a blind eye toward hateful behavior. That is what you say. It does not square with the rights protestors brandishing placards proclaiming that CHRISTIANITY IS THE ENEMY! (I saw it myself no doubt you will tell me that Doesn't Count) or otherwise implying that merely believing it is wrong is phobic. Look harder. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 world alive is either a little homo or a little hetero. I don't buy it (and neither do self-identified bisexuals), finding it makes more sense to assume that pervert is as pervert does. Otherwise we run into problems similar to those of hate crime laws (note turning back to legal issues!) which require one to infer mental states. I don't buy into the whole nature vs. nurture debate for this one reason: You can be born a Jew, or you can convert to Judaism. In either case, it is in violation of the fundamental rights of each citizen to burn a cross on your lawn. It doesn't matter if you converted or if you were born to it. It's still wrong to beat someone, leave them on a fencepost and let them die. Namaste, Jean ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 nothing inherently religious about homosexuality per se (just as there is nothing inherently religious about pork -- would an orthodox Jew who refused to post the school lunchroom menu in her classroom because it included pork products have a valid religious liberty claim?). It is only a religious issue to the extent that teachers who object to gay people based on their personal religious beliefs choose to characterize it as one. Cf. a PR campaign to embrace religious diversity among students, something that sent the message that all student religious backgrounds are viewed by the school as equal and accepted. Would the teachers have an argument against that as well? Steve Sanders Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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 poster with pink triangles and other symbols of homosexual pride carries the message, This is a safe place to be who you are. This sign affirms that support and resources are available for you in this school. The banner, designed by the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Leandro High School south of Oakland, Calif., was ordered by the school board in December to be posted in all classrooms. This is not about religion, sex or a belief system,'' district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the policy, told the San Francisco Chronicle. This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner - Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail. _ Steve Sanders E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 associate themselves with the display and its message. The classroom is the property of the school, not the teacher.The solution is probably for school authorities to post the display themselves (e.g., require janitors to put it up), rather than require dissenting teachers to do it. 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 the teacher himself? Could a public school require dissenting teachers to post a! pink triangle in their offices or wear a pink triangle pin on their clothing? Now we are getting closer to a serious 1A issue.I also think there is anon-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs?RickSteve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 nothing inherently religious about homosexuality per se (just as there is nothing inherently religious about pork -- would an orthodox Jew who refused to post the school lunchroom menu in her classroom because it included pork products have a valid religious liberty claim?). It is only a religious issue to the extent that teachers who object to gay people based on their personal religious beliefs choose to characterize it as one.Cf. a PR campaign to embrace religious diversity among students, something that sent the message that all student religious backgrounds are viewed by the school as equal and accepted. Would the teachers have an argument against that as well?Steve SandersQuoting Rick Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 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 poster with pink triangles and other symbols of homosexual pride carries the message, "This is a safe place to be who you are. This sign affirms that support and resources are available for you in this school." The banner, designed by the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Leandro High School south of Oakland, Calif., was ordered by the school board in December to be posted in all classrooms. "This is not about religion, sex or a belief system,'' district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the policy, told the San Francisco Chronicle. "This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation." Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must! follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner - Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail._Steve SandersE-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 institutional message by symbolic representation, regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual teachers, why can't a public school do the same (with respect to a secular message)? A religious objection to a religious message and a religious objection to a secular message seem to me to be on an equal footing. VanceOn 1/26/06, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think there is anon-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs? -- Vance R. KovenBoston, MA USA[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 the teacher himself? It be interesting to speculate, too, whether gay students would then have some sort of disparate-impact and/or harassment claim (against the teachers individually? the school board?) under the state or local non-discrimination ordinances (there is no federal gay rights law, of course). I also think there is a non-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs? Rick, the problem with this, is seems to me (and like yours, this isn't a legal argument, but a practical one), is that the vast majority of religious believers (of all types) probably encounter, in their daily work lives, any number of policies, things they are expected to do, colleagues they are expected to put up with, etc., that they could claim violate some sincerely held religious belief of theirs, if they insisted on being strict and literal about it. But most people do what they need to do to get by each day, if for no other reason than they've absorbed the American ethos of live-and-let-live pluralism. Not long ago, civic-republican oriented conservatives wrote books with titles like The Culture of Complaint, about how too many Americans had become whiny, oversensitive rights-claimers to the exclusion of larger notions of duty and citizenship. I confess, the idea of teachers taking offense and asserting rights against policies that are intended to help their own students learn in safer and more effective environments strikes me as being just as regrettable. Steve Sanders ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 operate in classrooms with crucifixes in them? If the Catholic school can reiterate its institutional message by symbolic representation, regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual teachers, why can't a public school do the same (with respect to a secular message)? A religious objection to a religious message and a religious objection to a secular message seem to me to be on an equal footing. Vance On 1/26/06, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think there is anon-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs?-- Vance R. KovenBoston, MA USA[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives! ; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 power to do it, but I would not want my elected school board to shove a contoversial message down the throats of sincerely dissenting teachers (not to mention dissenting students who are being made a captive audience for this message).Rick "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 operate in classrooms with crucifixes in them? If the Catholic school can reiterate its institutional message by symbolic representation, regardless of the religious beliefs of the individual teachers, why can't a public school do the same (with respect to a secular message)? A religious objection to a religious message and a religious objection to a secular message seem to me to be on an equal footing. Vance On 1/26/06, Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think there is anon-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs?-- Vance R. KovenBoston, MA USA[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will no! t be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 their throats. Which group of whiny complainers should be appeased? What would be the more neutral way of resolving this dispute between the dueling whiners?Rick DuncanSteve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 the teacher himself?It be interesting to speculate, too, whether gay students would then have some sort of disparate-impact and/or harassment claim (against the teachers individually? the school board?) under the state or local non-discrimination ordinances (there is no federal gay rights law, of course). I also think there is a non-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs?Rick, the problem with this, is seems to me (and like yours, this isn't a legal argument, but a practical one), is that the vast majority of religious believers (of all types) probably encounter, in their daily work lives, any number of policies, things they are expected to do, colleagues they are expected to put up with, etc., that they could claim violate some sincerely he! ld religious belief of theirs, if they insisted on being strict and literal about it. But most people do what they need to do to get by each day, if for no other reason than they've absorbed the American ethos of live-and-let-live pluralism.Not long ago, civic-republican oriented conservatives wrote books with titles like "The Culture of Complaint," about how too many Americans had become whiny, oversensitive rights-claimers to the exclusion of larger notions of duty and citizenship. I confess, the idea of teachers taking offense and asserting "rights" against policies that are intended to help their own students learn in safer and more effective environments strikes me as being just as regrettable.Steve Sanders___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail.___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 all, then there's a campus safety issue. In practice, though, what they call safety really means I won't hear anyone suggest that sex belongs only within a heterosexual marriage. Superintendent Lim's claim that it's not about a belief system is simply disingenuous. I say this as somebody who experienced more than a little verbal abuse growing up. I was considered a geek or a spaz or a nerd because I played the violin, I wasn't athletic, I was smart, and I didn't have many social skills. Did it hurt? Absolutely. Should the other kids have done it? Of course not. But that's part of what kids do. There will always be some kids who pick on other kids, either verbally or physically, sometimes both, and to varying degrees, especially if the victims aren't considered part of the in crowd. But the issue wasn't whether I was a geek or a spaz or a nerd. The issue was the abuse. If they think putting up posters about safety will make a difference, they're kidding themselves. If the bullies don't abuse kids because of their sexual orientation (or perceived sexual orientation, because not everybody abused for being gay really is gay), then they'll abuse them because they don't have a car or because their clothes aren't fashionable or because they're smart or because they wear glasses. Or because they play the violin. If they seriously wanted to address safety, then the posters would not single out one segment of the student body to say You're accepted to. They'd talk, instead, about bullying and disrespect across the board. Suppose you have Mike who goes to school and is very active in his evangelical church. He's invited to a party, and they tell him that there will be alcohol there and maybe a chance to have sex without any parents to say not to. Consequently, he says he won't go, and when asked why not, he tells them the truth: that drinking and premarital sex go against the teachings of his faith. In response, he gets called a prude or a holy roller or a Jesus freak. He opens his locker to find other students have stuck Playboy centerfolds in it. Is the school district going to make sure there is a banner in every classroom saying it's okay to hold any given faith and to live according to it? Not likely, and even if they did, would that mean the other students would stop mocking and harassing him? Even less likely. That's why a teacher has a legitimate reason to object to these posters, regardless of whether there is a Constitutional issue or not, because they have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with expressing the District's preferred political message. And the students who believe that sex belongs solely within a monogamous heterosexual marriage? They get the in your face message every day that the District considers them a threat to safety. I'm sure that makes them feel very welcome. Brad Rick Duncan wrote: 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 poster with pink triangles and other symbols of homosexual pride carries the message, This is a safe place to be who you are. This sign affirms that support and resources are available for you in this school. The banner, designed by the Gay-Straight Alliance at San Leandro High School south of Oakland, Calif., was ordered by the school board in December to be posted in all classrooms. This is not about religion, sex or a belief system,'' district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the policy, told the San Francisco Chronicle. This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation.___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 Pink Triangles shoved down their throats. Which group of whiny complainers should be appeased? What would be the more neutral way of resolving this dispute between the dueling whiners? Given how common anti-gay harrassment and bullying is in our schools - and believe me, I've been there and seen it first hand - I hardly think it's reasonable to say that those who make an effort to prevent that from occuring are whiny complainers. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and imagine being a gay teenager on a football team. Teenage boys, in particular, can be incredibly cruel. If you are even suspected of being gay, if you show the slightest affectation that someone interprets as a sign of being gay, you can find yourself living a nightmare of constant bullying. I know this for a fact, I've watched it happen to people I care about and I've been one of those people who has had to stand up for them and say, Enough. When I see gay-straight alliances forming in public schools and kids rallying around other kids who have been victimized by this sort of thing and taking a stand against this kind of bigotry, I'm proud of them. The schools should absolutely be supporting those efforts. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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, female, or any other reason at all, then there's a campus safety issue. In practice, though, what they call "safety" really means "I won't hear anyone suggest that sex belongs only within a heterosexual marriage." Superintendent Lim's claim that it's not about a belief system is simply disingenuous. 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 been in their place, seeking to do something to encourage people to treat these kids with dignity. I've watched it first hand and seen the destruction it can cause. I've grieved for a friend who killed himself because of it and it motivated me to band together with other like minded people to try and counter the bigotry and harrassment that they had to face every day. And yet you casually dismiss such concerns as really just being about not wanting to hear disagreement about sex within a heterosexual marriage? The fact that there are other forms of harrassment around does not diminish the legitimate actions to curb this particular type of abuse. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 the school board is responding to. If we're then essentially balancing the equities, it doesn't seem to me a close call. This does not appear to be merely about dueling identity politics, though I recognize it is in the teachers' interest to make it seem so. First, we don't know that the gay students even asked for the posters. All we know is that the school board -- which, of course, has the right to make these policy judgments -- has apparently decided to address an actual, tangible problem (harassment, perhaps violence -- again, I'm making a highly plausible assumption), and determined that a campaign of this sort would be helpful in providing a safer and more effective environment for the education of students On the other side of the scale, we have no reason to believe that the teachers who object to this campaign have suffered comparable insults, harassment, or violence during the school day. Their equity in this situation is their desire to express their subjective dislike or religious disapproval of gay people. Moreover, while juveniles will behave like juveniles, the teachers are adult professionals who are supposed to be concerned with the ability of all their students to learn in a safe and effective environment. No one is requiring them to swear allegiance to a religious creed, march in a parade, or even teach Rubyfruit Jungle. So attempting to characterize this as something being shoved down their throat is quite an exaggeration, I'd suggest. If someone provided evidence that the teachers were suffering harassment that was qualitatively comparable to that being suffered by the gay kids, I'd support an appropriate tolerance campaign for the teachers. But being forced to accept their employer's decision to post a message aimed at improving the environment for students whose educational wellbeing the teachers are supposed to be concerned about anyway is not, to me, qualitatively similar to having your books dumped in the trash and being called a dirty name. Steve Sanders Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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 their throats. Which group of whiny complainers should be appeased? What would be the more neutral way of resolving this dispute between the dueling whiners? Rick Duncan Steve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Rick Duncan : 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 the teacher himself? It be interesting to speculate, too, whether gay students would then have some sort of disparate-impact and/or harassment claim (against the teachers individually? the school board?) under the state or local non-discrimination ordinances (there is no federal gay rights law, of course). I also think there is a non-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs? Rick, the problem with this, is seems to me (and like yours, this isn't a legal argument, but a practical one), is that the vast majority of religious believers (of all types) probably encounter, in their daily work lives, any number of policies, things they are expected to do, colleagues they are expected to put up with, etc., that they could claim violate some sincerely held religious belief of theirs, if they insisted on being strict and literal about it. But most people do what they need to do to get by each day, if for no other reason than they've absorbed the American ethos of live-and-let-live pluralism. Not long ago, civic-republican oriented conservatives wrote books with titles like The Culture of Complaint, about how too many Americans had become whiny, oversensitive rights-claimers to the exclusion of larger notions of duty and citizenship. I confess, the idea of teachers taking offense and asserting rights against policies that are intended to help their own students learn in safer and more effective environments strikes me as being just as regrettable. Steve Sanders ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 protection of the school and which needs to have the majority group be educated about the fundamental wrongness of harming people because of who they are. Or, to put it anther way, in a majority Christian country, with a born-again president, do Chrisian students feel some threat that they are about to be beaten up or even killed because of who they are. If there is a real threat to Christian student and they need to be protected and that they need a place of refuge to avoiding being harmed by fellow students, then by-all means, have a pink triangle and a little cross in a triangle as well, and let the two persecuted groups meet together in a place of refuge. Paul Finkelman Quoting Rick Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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 their throats. Which group of whiny complainers should be appeased? What would be the more neutral way of resolving this dispute between the dueling whiners? Rick Duncan Steve Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Rick Duncan : 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 the teacher himself? It be interesting to speculate, too, whether gay students would then have some sort of disparate-impact and/or harassment claim (against the teachers individually? the school board?) under the state or local non-discrimination ordinances (there is no federal gay rights law, of course). I also think there is a non-constitutional religious liberty policy issue when teachers are required to teach under a banner that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs? Rick, the problem with this, is seems to me (and like yours, this isn't a legal argument, but a practical one), is that the vast majority of religious believers (of all types) probably encounter, in their daily work lives, any number of policies, things they are expected to do, colleagues they are expected to put up with, etc., that they could claim violate some sincerely held religious belief of theirs, if they insisted on being strict and literal about it. But most people do what they need to do to get by each day, if for no other reason than they've absorbed the American ethos of live-and-let-live pluralism. Not long ago, civic-republican oriented conservatives wrote books with titles like The Culture of Complaint, about how too many Americans had become whiny, oversensitive rights-claimers to the exclusion of larger notions of duty and citizenship. I confess, the idea of teachers taking offense and asserting rights against policies that are intended to help their own students learn in safer and more effective environments strikes me as being just as regrettable. Steve Sanders ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone. C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. --The Prisoner - Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with Yahoo! Mail. _ Steve Sanders E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 been in their place, seeking to do something to encourage people to treat these kids with dignity. I've watched it first hand and seen the destruction it can cause. I've grieved for a friend who killed himself because of it and it motivated me to band together with other like minded people to try and counter the bigotry and harrassment that they had to face every day. And yet you casually dismiss such concerns as really just being about not wanting to hear disagreement about sex within a heterosexual marriage? The fact that there are other forms of harrassment around does not diminish the legitimate actions to curb this particular type of abuse. Ed, The concerns you raise about bullying and harassment are legitimate concerns to any sane person. If the safety message, in practice, was about bullying and harrassment, I would support it because of my own experience of being bullied and harassed, albeit on a lesser scale for things not related to my sexual orientation. I have friends and family members who are homosexual, and if I heard about them being bullied or harassed, I know I'd want to do whatever was within my power to either stop the abuse or to ease the pain. I don't even know what words can adequately describe how I would feel if I heard that they were contemplating suicide because of being bullied or harassed. It is in practice, though, that the rubber meets the road. 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 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 sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. It doesn't matter how civil a person is. It doesn't matter how much a person is opposed to bullying of any kind across the board. The only thing that matters is that this person said that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong, and that makes the person a hateful bigot. If the people in San Leandro are truly concerned about genuine safety issues, then more power to them because that would certainly separate them from the folks on this campus, but I would then ask what they are doing to address the safety of students who are being harassed and bullied for reasons other than sexual orientation. Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
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 sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. It doesn't matter how civil a person is. It doesn't matter how much a person is opposed to bullying of any kind across the board. The only thing that matters is that this person said that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong, and that makes the person a hateful bigot. If the people in San Leandro are truly concerned about genuine safety issues, then more power to them because that would certainly separate them from the folks on this campus, but I would then ask what they are doing to address the safety of students who are being harassed and bullied for reasons other than sexual orientation. Brad, 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 sort of behavior, AS PART OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEF. 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 believe that there is a problem, turn a blind eye toward hateful behavior. I may very well burn in hell for not being heterosexual. I'll take my chances. However, I DO NOT have to put up with harassment here and now, and I DEMAND that teachers in public schools make EVERY effort to ensure that students don't have to put up with a hostile environment because of their self-identified sexual orientation, their religion, their color, their national origin, or their political affiliations. And if the schoolboard makes a decision to communicate that such things will not be tolerated by putting up rainbow flags, pink triangles and lambda sigil, then teachers REGARDLESS of their religious affiliation are duty bound to uphold it. Jean Dudley ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Pink Triangles and Religious Liberty
--- 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 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 sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. - Question: How would such individuals know whether persons they perceive to be gay are having sex outside of heterosexual marriage or indeed having sex at all?? This is certainly an example of prejudice in its classic semantic meaning -- presupposing something about someone without any proof, based on preconceived notions of what must be so. Being gay is not about sex. A person can be gay and celibate (and indeed many are). It would seem that it is indeed the bigots, and their extremist counterparts, the harassers and attackers, who are being disingenous when they claim they are only expressing their religious view that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. ~Rita 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 been in their place, seeking to do something to encourage people to treat these kids with dignity. I've watched it first hand and seen the destruction it can cause. I've grieved for a friend who killed himself because of it and it motivated me to band together with other like minded people to try and counter the bigotry and harrassment that they had to face every day. And yet you casually dismiss such concerns as really just being about not wanting to hear disagreement about sex within a heterosexual marriage? The fact that there are other forms of harrassment around does not diminish the legitimate actions to curb this particular type of abuse. Ed, The concerns you raise about bullying and harassment are legitimate concerns to any sane person. If the safety message, in practice, was about bullying and harrassment, I would support it because of my own experience of being bullied and harassed, albeit on a lesser scale for things not related to my sexual orientation. I have friends and family members who are homosexual, and if I heard about them being bullied or harassed, I know I'd want to do whatever was within my power to either stop the abuse or to ease the pain. I don't even know what words can adequately describe how I would feel if I heard that they were contemplating suicide because of being bullied or harassed. It is in practice, though, that the rubber meets the road. 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 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 sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. It doesn't matter how civil a person is. It doesn't matter how much a person is opposed to bullying of any kind across the board. The only thing that matters is that this person said that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong, and that makes the person a hateful bigot. If the people in San Leandro are truly concerned about genuine safety issues, then more power to them because that would certainly separate them from the folks on this campus, but I would then ask what they are doing to address the safety of students who are being harassed and bullied for reasons other than sexual orientation. Brad ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
