Re: Passive Dispalys vs. Cathedrals: The Same or Not the Same

[ArtSpitzer]

Yes, of course there's a difference between building a cathedral and building a nativity scene.   My point was that Rick Duncan's reasoning ("If the state can celebrate gay pride week, and Cinco de Mayo, and Earth Day, and pork producers day on the public square, then why can't it also celebrate Christmas or Chanukah or Ramadan with a passive dispaly in the public parks or a party at school?") is no more persuasive than its equivalent ("if the state can build an office building, or a courthouse, or a science lab, or a homeless shelter, why the heck can't it also build a church or a seminary?"), which Rick quickly finds unpersuasive.

I don't agree, however, that building a creche "merely recognizes the basic humanity of religious folk as a part of the community."   That seems to me a conclusory statement rather than reasoning.   I can imagine many Americans saying that a governmnent-built church "merely recognizes the basic humanity of religious folk as a part of the community," and also saying that a church "does not exclude anyone" (after all, everyone is welcome to go inside), "nor ... harm anyone."   And on the other hand I know many people (myself included) who think that a government-built nativity scene amounts to government taking an active role in spreading a central doctrinal message of one particular religion ("the messiah has come"), and does indeed exclude those whose beliefs are not reflected in -- in a word, are excluded from -- the government display.   There are many other ways the government could recognize that Christians are part of the community (assuming that was somehow necessary in anation where Christians constitute the very large majority of the community -- how about government once in a while recognizing the "basic humanity of atheists as a part of the community"?)

If the question is whether the goverment can properly "recognize the basic humanity of group X as a part of the community," I'd say the answer is yes.   One might put under that heading a government program teaching tolerance for all groups.   And perhaps a reasonable criterion to separate "recognizing the basic humanity of Group X as part of the community" from "improperly making the government a celebrant of Group X's particular religious beliefs" would be whether the government plays a direct role in helping that religious group convey its particular beliefs to the world, whether by building it a church or by building a symbol of the group's special belief and erecting it in the public square.

Art Spitzer
(ACLU-DC)


In a message dated 11/5/05 9:47:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



There is a huge difference, as I'm sure Art realizes and would argue persuasively in litigation if a state proposed to build a cathedral and conduct state-sponsored worship there, between a passive recognition by govt. that some part of the community is celebrating a holiday, such as Chanukah or Christmas, and the state building a cathedral and sponsoring worship. The one, to quote Sandy on another thread, merely recognizes the basic humanity of religious folk as a part of the community, as citizens whose culture is part of the rich diversity of our Nation.

  

 When the government builds a cathedral for actual worship, it strikes at the core of establishment. A passive nativity scene, one of many displays on public property during the course of the year, is not such an establishment of religion. Including religious displays (among many secular ones) does not exclude anyone, nor do  passive displays harm anyone. If you are offended by the gay pride display or the nativity display, you can avert your eyes. No harm, no foul.

  

 But the point about this thread was Alito and his confirmation. I would love to see PFAW attack Alito as a dangerous nominee who will allow the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited,  Christmas carols to be sung, and nativity scenes to be displayed. That makes Justice Alito

 an "extremist" along with 80% of the American people.

  

 And by the way, I think that, under the EC, FEMA could pay to rebuild a church, along with other private buildings(such as the ACLU headquarters), damaged by a hurricane or tornado. No religious purpose, and a neutral program such as this does not advance religion, so even Lemon should be satisfied. Here is another case where Alito might make a difference replacing O'C, who gets a little nervous when public funds are involved. She scares too easy in my opinion. Boo!

  

 Rick Duncan

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


In a message dated 11/4/05 12:38:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


If the state can celebrate gay pride week, and Cinco de Mayo, and Earth Day, and pork producers day on the public square, then why can't it also celebrate Christmas or Chanukah or Ramadan with a passive dispaly in the public parks or a party at school?



Yes; if the state can build an office building, or a courthouse, or a science lab, or a homeless shelter, why the heck can't it also build a church or a s

Re: FYI: An Interesting "See You at the Pole" Case

[Steven Jamar]

 Is the burden to be borne by those of the non-Christian minority or is there a burden on the hugely dominant Christian group to show tolerance and even acceptance and inclusion of non-Christians?Of course this is not fully an either/or situation, but I think the majority has an obligation toward the minority at least to the extent of not, so to speak, lording it over them.Indeed, I think this understanding of our polyglot country and the need to live with such a variety of people from so many backgrounds sits under much of the seeming chaos of the S.Ct.'s religious freedom jurisprudence.Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-85672900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/"I do not at all resent criticism, even when, for the sake of emphasis, it for a time parts company with reality."Winston Churchill, speech to the House of Commons, 1941 ___
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: FYI: An Interesting "See You at the Pole" Case

[Paul Finkelman]

I would take this one step further; blatant proselytizing creates a hostile
atmosphere for those whose religions are being denounced and belittled.  When
 a Christian tries to convert a Jew, the Christian is in effect telling the
Jew he/she is not "good enough" and that they are going to go to hell.  This
is not behavior that should tolerated in public schools.   Schools are not
places where people are free to always express their opinions, views, goals,
desires, etc.  Simply time, place, manner restrictions allows school to prohibit
student speech which is harmful to other students; racist speech is banned;
so too should anti-semitic speech be banned. Tell a Jew she is going to go
to hell is clearly anti-semitic; so too is telling some you he has the wrong
religion, or a bad religion. Why Rick think such behavior is tolerable is
beyond me.  He argues that if we make evangelical kids go to school, we have
to expect they will behave in ways that are offencise to others who are not
Christians or not evangelicals. So, I wonder, would he hold the same standard
for the KKK?  If we forced children of KKK members (or Aryan nation members)
to go to public school, should we sit back and say they too can say things
which are hateful towards minorities?  

Paul Finkelman

Joel Sogol wrote:
   
  
   
  
  
  

  I don’t think
I even implied that Rick approved of the conduct – only that he views it
as part of the larger price Jews must pay for sending our children to public
schools.  Having reread some of his posts, I still read it that way. I don’t
agree.  I think the schools can, and must, protect my children from the type
of conduct (proselytizing) he seems to feel is protected.  And I think that
is what I said.  
  
   
  

  Joel L. Sogol
  
  Attorney at Law
  
  811 21st Avenue
  
  Tuscaloosa, Alabama
35401
  
  ph (205) 345-0966
  
  fx (205) 345-0971
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
   
  
  Ben Franklin observed
that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S.
courts.
  
   
  
  
  -Original Message-
 
  
  
  


-- 
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
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.

OT: Social Notes from All Over

[Will Linden]

And what does a dinner invitation have to do with anything at all?

I am reminded of the time Miss Manners was asked "What do I say to a 
lesbian couple?". Her answer was: "How do you do? How do you do?"



At 03:02 PM 11/4/05 -0800, you wrote:


 What was Sandy's substantive point?

Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten.  The name 
of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her 
children take her husband's name.


Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point.

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 Sanford Levinson

Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over
Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at 
the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his 
new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume).  Among the 
distinguished guests were



Ms. Mary Cheney
Ms. Heather Poe (Guest)

According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion.  So the question 
is this:  Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there 
is nothing wrong after all in what  most of us would call a 
"marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one 
of them is the Vice President's daughter?)?  And if that is the case, as I 
suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as 
I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay 
marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this 
list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any 
recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate 
conservatism"?  I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended 
by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, 
Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such 
luminaries, i! s a "public event" and thus it does not count as an 
"invasion of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what 
symbol such an invitatinomight be said to convey.




sandy
___
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



Yahoo! 
FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

___
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.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 11/3/05


___
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: Social Notes from All Over

[Will Linden]

The decree was that the Queen's non-royal descendents will be 
"Mountbatten-Windsor". But none of them have been born yet, the extant 
issue all being "Royal Highness".




At 04:26 PM 11/4/05 -0600, you wrote:


Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C5E18E.D025B93B"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-346617


I believe the family name of the Prince of Wales is Mountbatten.  The name 
of the ruling house generally changes after a Queen regnant, because her 
children take her husband's name.


Which of course has nothing to do with Sandy's substantive point.

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 Sanford Levinson

Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:05 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Social Notes from All Over

Today's Washington Post includes the guest list for yesterday's lunch at 
the White House honoring His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and his 
new wife, Camilla Parker-Bowles (Windsor, I assume).  Among the 
distinguished guests were



Ms. Mary Cheney
Ms. Heather Poe (Guest)

According to the Post, Ms. Poe is Ms. Cheney's companion.  So the question 
is this:  Does this represent a recognition by the White House that there 
is nothing wrong after all in what  most of us would call a 
"marriage-like" relationship between two men or two women (at least if one 
of them is the Vice President's daughter?)?  And if that is the case, as I 
suspect it is--George Bush has never been personally homophobic, so far as 
I know, independent of the political stances he has taken on the gay 
marriage issue--what does his "base," including some of the people on this 
list who have expressed concern about the threat posed to marriage by any 
recognition even of civil unions, think of this display of "compassionate 
conservatism"?  I assume, incidentally, that a White House lunch attended 
by, among others, the Chief Justice of the United States, Condoleza Rice, 
Tom Brokaw, Tom Watson (the golfer), Donald Rumsfeld, and other such 
luminaries, is a "public event" and thus it does not count as an "invasion 
of privacy" to note who was honored with an invitation and what symbol 
such an invitatinomight be said to convey.




sandy
___
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.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 11/3/05


___
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: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious Expression

[David W. New]

Dear Art Spitzer:
I am not sure your analogy is valid. I think there is a vast difference 
between the state acknowledging a community celebration (even if religious) than 
building a seminary. In any case, the United States has been building churches 
for over 200 years. On most military bases you can find a church/chapel. To be 
sure, I am aware that the ACLU opposes this activity as well. Nevertheless, this 
activity has stood the test of time and most likely will continue. I appreciate 
your point of view. David New. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 
  Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 12:03 
  AM
  Subject: Re: Alito Views SCOTUS Doctrine 
  as Giving Impression of HostilitytoReligious _expression_
  In a message dated 11/4/05 12:38:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  If the state can celebrate gay pride week, and Cinco de 
Mayo, and Earth Day, and pork producers day on the public square, then 
why can't it also celebrate Christmas or Chanukah or Ramadan with a 
passive dispaly in the public parks or a party at 
  school?Yes; if the state can build an office building, or 
  a courthouse, or a science lab, or a homeless shelter, why the heck can't it 
  also build a church or a seminary?Art SpitzerACLU, Washington 
  DC 
  
  

  ___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.
___
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.

Passive Dispalys vs. Cathedrals: The Same or Not the Same

[Rick Duncan]

There is a huge difference, as I'm sure Art realizes and would argue persuasively in litigation if a state proposed to build a cathedral and conduct state-sponsored worship there, between a passive recognition by govt. that some part of the community is celebrating a holiday, such as Chanukah or Christmas, and the state building a cathedral and sponsoring worship. The one, to quote Sandy on another thread, merely recognizes the basic humanity of religious folk as a part of the community, as citizens whose culture is part of the rich diversity of our Nation. 
 
When the government builds a cathedral for actual worship, it strikes at the core of establishment. A passive nativity scene, one of many displays on public property during the course of the year, is not such an establishment of religion. Including religious displays (among many secular ones) does not exclude anyone, nor do  passive displays harm anyone. If you are offended by the gay pride display or the nativity display, you can avert your eyes. No harm, no foul.
 
But the point about this thread was Alito and his confirmation. I would love to see PFAW attack Alito as a dangerous nominee who will allow the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited,  Christmas carols to be sung, and nativity scenes to be displayed. That makes Justice Alito
an "extremist" along with 80% of the American people.
 
And by the way, I think that, under the EC, FEMA could pay to rebuild a church, along with other private buildings(such as the ACLU headquarters), damaged by a hurricane or tornado. No religious purpose, and a neutral program such as this does not advance religion, so even Lemon should be satisfied. Here is another case where Alito might make a difference replacing O'C, who gets a little nervous when public funds are involved. She scares too easy in my opinion. Boo!
 
Rick Duncan[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/4/05 12:38:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If the state can celebrate gay pride week, and Cinco de Mayo, and Earth Day, and pork producers day on the public square, then why can't it also celebrate Christmas or Chanukah or Ramadan with a passive dispaly in the public parks or a party at school?Yes; if the state can build an office building, or a courthouse, or a science lab, or a homeless shelter, why the heck can't it also build a church or a seminary?Art SpitzerACLU, Washington DC ___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
		 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

 

 ___
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: Social Notes from All Over

[Sanford Levinson]

As a matter of fact, they were there.  Perhaps this is why it was at lunch, 
rather than dinner, because they had to leave for Argentina.  



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 11/5/2005 3:08 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Social Notes from All Over


And what symbolism is to be drawn when the invitation is to attend a luncheon 
at which the President and his wife will not be present?  Weren't they in the 
air on the way to the Summit?
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
<>___
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: Social Notes from All Over

[JMHACLJ]

And what symbolism is to be drawn when the invitation is to attend a 
luncheon at which the President and his wife will not be present?  Weren't 
they in the air on the way to the Summit?
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
___
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.