RE: research question
http://www.churchstatelaw.com/cases.asp * Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. ProfessorEmeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pybas, Kevin M Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:18 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: research question Does anyone have or know of a data set listing the names of all religious liberty cases the U.S. Supreme Court has decided since Everson? I think I know them all, then I think again and am not sure. If you have such a list, I would appreciate having a copy, or being pointed in the direction of where I might find one. Thanks. Kevin Pybas Missouri State University ___ 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: Research question
Thanks. Marc Stern wrote: Mark: I would add something about gay rights and probably something about prayer-even Cvhritisn prayer in public spaces including public schools. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Tushnet Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:27 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law; Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: "Research" question I'm writing something in which I try to describe (in as neutral a way as I can) the litigation goals likely to be sought in the foreseeable (mid-range) future by (and here it's hard to offer a neutral characterization, but) what I describe as the politically mobilized Christian evangelical movement. Here's my list. Additions and amendments (not all of which I'll accept, of course) welcome: Few of the issues of interest to the politically mobilized Christian evangelical movement are off the wall, [1] and a fair number are close to acceptance already. (1) Obviously, the overruling of Roe v. Wade, but not . . . the adoption of a constitutional requirement that abortion be lawful only under quite restricted conditions. (2) Acknowledgment by government of the (essential) role of Christianity in the creation of the United States , and in embedding basic values in American political culture. (3) Extension of public support for faith-based institutions, including religiously affiliated schools, whether through vouchers or direct grants. (4) Protection from the application of anti-discrimination laws to those whose decisions, otherwise covered by such laws, rest on religious grounds. (5) A cluster of issues related to the teaching of the Darwinian theory of evolution in public schools: (a) Establishing the proposition that it is constitutionally permissible to characterize that theory as a mere theory; (b) allowing public schools to teach alternatives to Darwinian theory even though those alternatives can be characterized as religious; (c) requiring public schools to reach such alternatives. (6) Again, a cluster of issues aimed at eliminating some regulations imposed on religiously affiliated schools. The only one I can think of is the possibility that governments could issue declarations that the United States is a Christian nation, and it is not clear to me that there is any real (as distinct from rhetorical) interest in the movement in seeing that legislatures adopt such declarations. -- Mark Tushnet GeorgetownUniversity Law Center 600 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington , DC 20001 202-662-9106 (voice) 202-662-9497 (fax) ___ 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. -- Mark Tushnet Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 202-662-9106 (voice) 202-662-9497 (fax) ___ 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: Research question
Mark: I would add something about gay rights and probably something about prayer-even Cvhritisn prayer in public spaces including public schools. Marc Stern From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Tushnet Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:27 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law; Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Research question I'm writing something in which I try to describe (in as neutral a way as I can) the litigation goals likely to be sought in the foreseeable (mid-range) future by (and here it's hard to offer a neutral characterization, but) what I describe as the politically mobilized Christian evangelical movement. Here's my list. Additions and amendments (not all of which I'll accept, of course) welcome: Few of the issues of interest to the politically mobilized Christian evangelical movement are off the wall,[1] and a fair number are close to acceptance already. (1) Obviously, the overruling of Roe v. Wade, but not . . . the adoption of a constitutional requirement that abortion be lawful only under quite restricted conditions. (2) Acknowledgment by government of the (essential) role of Christianity in the creation of the United States, and in embedding basic values in American political culture. (3) Extension of public support for faith-based institutions, including religiously affiliated schools, whether through vouchers or direct grants. (4) Protection from the application of anti-discrimination laws to those whose decisions, otherwise covered by such laws, rest on religious grounds. (5) A cluster of issues related to the teaching of the Darwinian theory of evolution in public schools: (a) Establishing the proposition that it is constitutionally permissible to characterize that theory as a mere theory; (b) allowing public schools to teach alternatives to Darwinian theory even though those alternatives can be characterized as religious; (c) requiring public schools to reach such alternatives. (6) Again, a cluster of issues aimed at eliminating some regulations imposed on religiously affiliated schools. The only one I can think of is the possibility that governments could issue declarations that the United States is a Christian nation, and it is not clear to me that there is any real (as distinct from rhetorical) interest in the movement in seeing that legislatures adopt such declarations. -- Mark TushnetGeorgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Ave. NWWashington, DC 20001202-662-9106 (voice)202-662-9497 (fax) ___ 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: Research question
Mark: I am pretty closely connected to most of the religious liberty public interest lawyers and litigation, and I don't know what to think of your list. It doesn't sound like what I hear my friends talking about.First, I think right now the primary litigation goal of Christian conservativesis the defense of traditional marriage, to uphold the idea that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman, and that no substitutes for marriage should be recognized. In other words, they wish to defend the line between tolerance and celebration of alternative lifestyles.Second, I think the idea of school choice is becoming more and more important to Christian conservatives. Cases like the Colorado Christian University case, in which college scholarships can be used to attendnon-pervasively sectarian, but not pervasively sectarian colleges, must be won, and Locke v. Davey needs to be reversed in! time. Long term it would be wonderful to see the Court hold that religious neutrality requires states to offer school choice to parents to enable them to protect theirchildren from being held as part of a captive audience for governmental inculcation.Third, free exercise must be protected under the First Amendment (Smith is a great threat to religious liberty and must be reversed or its exceptions must be given full force).Fourth, I think I would describe the I.D. issue as one involving greater local control over school boards. Curriculum decisions should be made in the local political process, not by a body of unelected lawyers sitting in judgment concerning people's "purposes." Of course, if weget school choice, all this matters a lot less.Fifth, Christian conservatives continue to be the leading defenders of free speech today, whether it bein Sweden in the Ake Gree! n case,in public schools defending equal access, in Locke v. Daveychallenging viewpoint discrimination in scholarships, in law schools defending the right of the CLS to meet on campus,or in front of abortion clinics defending speech in traditional public fora.I don't think anyone really wants a "Christian Nation" decision. I think my friends simply want religious speech--not just Christian speech but religious speech more generally--to be respected in the public square. In other words, public schools and local governmentsshould be as free to recognize religious holidays and symbols as they are to celebrate Earth Day, MLK Day, or Gay Pride Month. Indeed, a coercion test (as opposed to an endorsement test) under the EC would probably satisfy most Christian conservatives. If no one's liberty is substantially burdened by a Ten Commandments display or a Nativity Scene in a public park or school, there ! is no reason for courts to intervene under the EC. All dissenters need do is avert the eye. Just as the Christian must avert the eye if he is offended by a Gay Pride display, the secularist can avert the eye if he is bothered by a Ten Commandments display.Indeed, Justice Thomas' idea that the EC is incorporated only to the extent that it protects a liberty interest would be just about right. Only when someone's liberty interest under the EC is substantially burdened should federal courts intervene aginst state and local government under the incorporated EC.I hope this helps a little. I would be happy to discuss these matters with you.Rick DuncanMark Tushnet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm writing something in which I try to describe (in as neut! ral a way as I can) the litigation goals likely to be sought in the foreseeable (mid-range) future by (and here it's hard to offer a neutral characterization, but) what I describe as the politically mobilized Christian evangelical movement. Here's my list. Additions and amendments (not all of which I'll accept, of course) welcome:Few of the issues of interest to the politically mobilized Christian evangelical movement are off the wall,[1]!--[endif]-- and a fair number are close to acceptan! ce already. (1) Obviously, the overruling of Roe v. Wade, but not . . . the adoption of a constitutional requirement that abortion be lawful only under quite restricted conditions. (2) Acknowledgment by government of the (essential) role of Christianity in the creation of the United States, and in embedding basic values in American political culture. (3) Extension of public support for faith-based institutions, including religiously affiliated schools, whether through vouchers or direct grants. (4) Protection from the application of anti-discrimination laws to those whose decisions, otherwise covered by such laws, rest on religious grounds. (5) A clust! er of issues related to the teaching of the Darwinian theory of evolution in public schools: (a) Establishing the proposition that it is constitutionally permissible to characterize that theory as a mere theory; (b) allowing public schools to teach alternatives to Darwinian theory even though those alternatives can be
Re: Research question
A couple of questions: First, about this: "the primary litigation goal of Christian conservativesis the defense of traditional marriage, to uphold the idea that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman, and that no substitutes for marriage should be recognized." Does this mean that the litigation goal is to establish that a statutory recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, or only that it is not constitutionally required? Second, why isn't school choice encompassed within my (3)? Certainly the Colorado Christian University case fits within it. Rick Duncan wrote: Mark: I am pretty closely connected to most of the religious liberty public interest lawyers and litigation, and I don't know what to think of your list. It doesn't sound like what I hear my friends talking about. First, I think right now the primary litigation goal of Christian conservativesis the defense of traditional marriage, to uphold the idea that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman, and that no substitutes for marriage should be recognized. In other words, they wish to defend the line between tolerance and celebration of alternative lifestyles. Second, I think the idea of school choice is becoming more and more important to Christian conservatives. Cases like the Colorado Christian University case, in which college scholarships can be used to attendnon-pervasively sectarian, but not pervasively sectarian colleges, must be won, and Locke v. Davey needs to be reversed in! time. Long term it would be wonderful to see the Court hold that religious neutrality requires states to offer school choice to parents to enable them to protect theirchildren from being held as part of a captive audience for governmental inculcation. Third, free exercise must be protected under the First Amendment (Smith is a great threat to religious liberty and must be reversed or its exceptions must be given full force). Fourth, I think I would describe the I.D. issue as one involving greater local control over school boards. Curriculum decisions should be made in the local political process, not by a body of unelected lawyers sitting in judgment concerning people's "purposes." Of course, if weget school choice, all this matters a lot less. Fifth, Christian conservatives continue to be the leading defenders of free speech today, whether it bein Sweden in the Ake Gree! n case,in public schools defending equal access, in Locke v. Daveychallenging viewpoint discrimination in scholarships, in law schools defending the right of the CLS to meet on campus,or in front of abortion clinics defending speech in traditional public fora. I don't think anyone really wants a "Christian Nation" decision. I think my friends simply want religious speech--not just Christian speech but religious speech more generally--to be respected in the public square. In other words, public schools and local governmentsshould be as free to recognize religious holidays and symbols as they are to celebrate Earth Day, MLK Day, or Gay Pride Month. Indeed, a coercion test (as opposed to an endorsement test) under the EC would probably satisfy most Christian conservatives. If no one's liberty is substantially burdened by a Ten Commandments display or a Nativity Scene in a public park or school, there ! is no reason for courts to intervene under the EC. All dissenters need do is avert the eye. Just as the Christian must avert the eye if he is offended by a Gay Pride display, the secularist can avert the eye if he is bothered by a Ten Commandments display. Indeed, Justice Thomas' idea that the EC is incorporated only to the extent that it protects a liberty interest would be just about right. Only when someone's liberty interest under the EC is substantially burdened should federal courts intervene aginst state and local government under the incorporated EC. I hope this helps a little. I would be happy to discuss these matters with you. Rick Duncan Mark Tushnet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm writing something in which I try to describe (in as neut! ral a way as I can) the litigation goals likely to be sought in the foreseeable (mid-range) future by (and here it's hard to offer a neutral characterization, but) what I describe as the politically mobilized Christian evangelical movement. Here's my list. Additions and amendments (not all of which I'll accept, of course) welcome: Few of the issues of interest to the politically mobilized Christian evangelical movement are off the wall,[1]!--[endif]-- and a fair number are close to acceptan! ce already. (1) Obviously, the overruling of Roe v. Wade, but not . . . the adoption of a constitutional requirement that abortion be lawful only under quite restricted conditions. (2) Acknowledgment by government of the (essential) role of Christianity in the creation of the United States , and in embedding basic values in American political
Re: Research question
Mark: I don't think anyone believes that it is presently unconstitutional for states to choose to recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. Rather, the political goal is to get state DOMA amendments enacted, and the litigation goal is to defend those amendments from constitutional attack. I also think many Christian conservatives supprt the FMA, which, of course, would make traditional marriage the law of the land (but that is not a litigation strategy).I think school choice does indeed fit within a broader category of support for faith-based institutions. However, formany of us, the education of our children is the single most important part of this issue. I have always agreed with Mike McConnell's insight that the public schools are an engine of secularization for a captive audience of impressionable children. This understanding is starting to become widely shared among evangelicals.Just imagine ! what it would be like for some of you to be required (by the way education is financed) to put your children on a school bus every day to go to the Pat Robertson public school. That is what it is like for many religious parents,who areforced to send their children off for secular inculcation every day.And although I didn't say it in my first post, of course I agree that reversing Roe is a long-term priority. In the near term (South Dakota notwithstanding), the litigation goal is to chip, chip, chip away at Roe--partial birth abortion laws, sonogram legislation as part of informed consent, etc., are more realistic goalsin a world in which Justice Kennedy continues to be the 5th vote on abortion law.Cheers, Rick DuncanMark Tushnet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A c! ouple of questions:First, about this: "the primary litigation goal of Christian conservativesis the defense of traditional marriage, to uphold the idea that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman, and that no substitutes for marriage should be recognized." Does this mean that the litigation goal is to establish that a statutory recognition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, or only that it is not constitutionally required?Second, why isn't school choice encompassed within my (3)? Certainly the Colorado Christian University case fits within it.Rick Duncan wrote: Mark: I am pretty closely connected to most of the religious liberty public interest lawyers and litigation, and I don't know what to think of your list. It doesn't sound like what I hear ! my friends talking about.First, I think right now the primary litigation goal of Christian conservativesis the defense of traditional marriage, to uphold the idea that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman, and that no substitutes for marriage should be recognized. In other words, they wish to defend the line between tolerance and celebration of alternative lifestyles.Second, I think the idea of school choice is becoming more and more important to Christian conservatives. Cases like the Colorado Christian University case, in which college scholarships can be used to attendnon-pervasively sectarian, but not pervasively sectarian colleges, must be won, and Locke v. Davey needs to be reversed in! time. Long term it would be wonderful to see the Court hold that religious neutrality requires states to offer school choice to parents to enable them to protect theirchildren from being ! held as part of a captive audience for governmental inculcation.Third, free exercise must be protected under the First Amendment (Smith is a great threat to religious liberty and must be reversed or its exceptions must be given full force).Fourth, I think I would describe the I.D. issue as one involving greater local control over school boards. Curriculum decisions should be made in the local political process, not by a body of unelected lawyers sitting in judgment concerning people's "purposes." Of course, if weget school choice, all this matters a lot less.Fifth, Christian conservatives continue to be the leading defenders of free speech today, whether it bein Sweden in the Ake Gree! n case,in public schools defending equal access, in Locke v. Daveychallenging viewpoint discrimination in scholarships, in law schools defending the right of the CLS to meet on campus,! sp;or in front of abortion clinics defending speech in traditional public fora.I don't think anyone really wants a "Christian Nation" decision. I think my friends simply want religious speech--not just Christian speech but religious speech more generally--to be respected in the public square. In other words, public schools and local governmentsshould be as free to recognize religious holidays and symbols as they are to celebrate Earth Day, MLK Day, or Gay Pride Month. Indeed, a coercion test (as opposed to an endorsement test) under the EC would probably satisfy most Christian conservatives. If no one's liberty is substantially burdened by a Ten Commandments display or
Re: Research question
Mark, You were writing of litigation goals, not legislative or constitutional goals or broader social goals. Of course, just who they are is more than a little problematic. But among my conservative evangelical Christian friends and relatives, the main things seem to be (I'm separating out litigation focused matters from broader agenda matters -- they are not coextensive, though they do overlap -- these are non-lawyers) 1. anti-abortion -- overturning Roe v. Wade 2. Christianity in the schools -- with other religions at best tolerated, but with Christianity pervading the curriculum, bulletin boards, and so on. And in the public schools -- vouchers to private schools are not sufficient. And Christian prayer in schools plus allowing with teachers to in their words practice and in my view evangelize. 3. Christianity in public -- the creche paid for and put up by the city council, etc. Among my evangelical relatives and friends, evolution is not a problem -- they find plenty of space for the hand of god and consider it hubris to put limits and timeframes on god. Interesting challenge you put to yourself there -- and I think part of the problem will always be deciding who is the spokesperson for the polyglot group. But, for the most part, I don't see much wrong with your list -- the ID stuff is certainly a big deal for some leaders and many fundamentalists and Biblical literalists though not for all or even most evangelicals. I was just talking to a very conservative evangelical Methodist minister the other day who has no problem at all with evolution but does have lots of trouble with the perceived lack of bible-based instruction in school in general -- but evolution is not the problem. Steve -- Prof. Steven Jamar Howard University School of Law ___ 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: research question
Another book: The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment by Leonard W. Levy provides helpful information relating to Virginia, as well as to all of the colonies. Douglas Laycock wrote: Also Thomas Buckley, Church and State in Revolutionary Virginia 1776-1787 (1977). Eckenrode is a much older book -- early twentieth century I think. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gene Garman Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:26 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: research question You will probably have to ILL it: Separation of Church and State in Virginia, H. J. Eckenrode. Gene Garman, M.Div. America's Real Religion www.americasrealreligion.org Pybas, Kevin M wrote: Before traipsing to the library I would appreciate hearing from list members what you regard as the best sources on the Virginia religious controversy of the 1780s, i.e., on Patrick Henry's A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, and the passage into law of Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. Off-list replies are welcome at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks. Kevin Pybas ___ 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. ___ 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: research question
You will probably have to ILL it: Separation of Church and State in Virginia, H. J. Eckenrode. Gene Garman, M.Div. America's Real Religion www.americasrealreligion.org Pybas, Kevin M wrote: Before traipsing to the library I would appreciate hearing from list members what you regard as the best sources on the Virginia religious controversy of the 1780s, i.e., on Patrick Henry's A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, and the passage into law of Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. Off-list replies are welcome at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks. Kevin Pybas ___ 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: research question
Also Thomas Buckley, Church and State in Revolutionary Virginia 1776-1787 (1977). Eckenrode is a much older book -- early twentieth century I think. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gene GarmanSent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:26 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: research question You will probably have to ILL it: Separation of Church and State in Virginia, H. J. Eckenrode.Gene Garman, M.Div.America's Real Religionwww.americasrealreligion.orgPybas, Kevin M wrote: Before traipsing to the library I would appreciate hearing from list members what you regard as the best sources on the Virginia religious controversy of the 1780s, i.e., on Patrick Henry's A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, and the passage into law of Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. Off-list replies are welcome at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks. Kevin Pybas ___ 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: research question
Doug is right that Buckley is the best work of history on this subject Paul Finkelman Douglas Laycock wrote: Also Thomas Buckley, Church and State in Revolutionary Virginia 1776-1787 (1977). Eckenrode is a much older book -- early twentieth century I think. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gene Garman Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:26 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: research question You will probably have to ILL it: Separation of Church and State in Virginia, H. J. Eckenrode. Gene Garman, M.Div. America's Real Religion www.americasrealreligion.org Pybas, Kevin M wrote: Before traipsing to the library I would appreciate hearing from list members what you regard as the best sources on the Virginia religious controversy of the 1780s, i.e., on Patrick Henry's A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, and the passage into law of Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. Off-list replies are welcome at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks. Kevin Pybas ___ 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74105 918-631-3706 (voice) 918-631-2194 (fax) [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: research question
Eckenrode's work is dated 1910 and is an invaluable resource as to documented opinions expressed on both sides of the Virginia debate relating to disestablishment of the state church in Virginia. The Writings of John Leland by L.F. Greene should also be read. Gene Garman, M.Div. America's Real Religion www.americasrealreligion.org Douglas Laycock wrote: Also Thomas Buckley, Church and State in Revolutionary Virginia 1776-1787 (1977). Eckenrode is a much older book -- early twentieth century I think. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gene Garman Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:26 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: research question You will probably have to ILL it: Separation of Church and State in Virginia, H. J. Eckenrode. Gene Garman, M.Div. America's Real Religion www.americasrealreligion.org Pybas, Kevin M wrote: Before traipsing to the library I would appreciate hearing from list members what you regard as the best sources on the Virginia religious controversy of the 1780s, i.e., on Patrick Henry's A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, and the passage into law of Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. Off-list replies are welcome at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks. Kevin Pybas ___ 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. ___ 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.
