Re: Mormon Student
I'm equally troubled by the breadth of religion as justifying special treatment. If the purpose of the separation between church and state is to protect religion from interference by government, and to protect people from compulsion to believe a prescribed doctrine, then a lot of these exemptions seem to me to have strayed pretty far off track. On the other hand, there is merit to the Jewish principle of requiring obedience to rules which are far from the original rule, in order to build a fence around the law, so a person won't stray into prohibited conduct by mistake. Susan Paul Finkelman wrote: It strikes me that Fred's description is one that lends itself to the argument that this is not a religious obligation at all, but is more of a social obligation. There is no religious or theological requirement; no formal penalty, and nothing holding you back down the road, and you *can* do it later. Community pressure may be strong, but is that, or should that, be a concern of the state or courts. Should the courts order the state to change its policies because of informal community pressure? Perhaps I am the only one on the list troubled by the assumption that because there is a religious connection to an activity that makes it exempt from state law and that the state should accommodate what is a social choice that is surely not community service in any secular meaning of the term. It might make good policy for the state to allow *anyone* a year off for any reason whatsoever. But, I do not see why there should be a free exercise right in this case to an exemption from what is otherwise a religiously neutral and quite reasonable rule. I have a friend whose daughter wants to take year off to go to Israel to improve her Hebrew and will probably work on a Kibbutz. If she had this scholarship would it be a religious exemption? Her mission to Israel is connected to her faith as is her desire to improve her Hebrew. Is that enough of a religious connection to also demand and get an exemption. What is someone is simply religiously motivated and wants to go mediate for a year and then come back and retain the scholarship? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred Gedicks Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:31 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Mormon Student It's been literally years since I posted on this site, but I am a regular lurker. I'm not sure that choice really solves anything, but FWIW, here is my answer to Paul's question, as an active (if slightly heterodox) Mormon. And like a lot of religious or theological questions, the answer is complicated, so I hope this is not too long. Formally, a mission is optional. There is no LDS church doctrine or policy which prevents a young man from full participation in all the ordinances of the church if he fails to serve a mission. I know a number of older men who did not serve missions when they were young who are fully engaged in church leadership positions. (As some of you may know, Mormons have a lay priesthood.) Informally, however, there are powerful influences that make serving a mission at age 19 culturally or socially, if not theologically, mandatory for young men. (For women, a mission is truly optional--i.e., formally and informally. Don't make me explain why.) The entire youth program of the church is focused on getting young men to serve missions at 19. Church leaders talk about it incessantly. If you choose not to go, a variety of informal social/cultural penalties are triggered. All your church buddies disappear on their own missions. People (including your parents) wonder why you're not going, whispers of worthiness or testimony problems circulate in the hallway. Active Mormon women won't date you, or won't date you seriously. In youth congregations you won't be considered for the more responsible callings. You're viewed as spiritually less than. It is possible to serve a mission at a later age--my recollection is that young men remain generally eligible until age 25, and occasional dispensations are made for those in their late 20s. The experience of the church, however, is that those who don't serve at 19 get caught up by life--school, work, women, marriage, etc.--and rarely serve at a later date. Hence the focus on 19. Of course, once you get married and settle into a Mormon ward, no one is going to be asking you on a regular basis, if at all, if you served a mission. In fact, some folks believe it's a little impolite to ask, unless you know the person well (which, I suppose, is evidence of the informal belief that good Mormons serve a mission). The bottom line is that there is no doubt among active Mormons--really, none--that if one's aspiration is to be a fully active, believing Mormon male who faithfullly lives the principles of the church, then you serve a mission, and
Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
I don't see answering whether belief is a question of choice by reference to a religious belief, which is the same as referring to Calvin and Paul for the answer. And if theology grows out of the belief, that doesn't mean the theology is not irrational, it means only that it is logically consistent if the validity of the premise (belief) is conceded. Nor is faith more rational if one values it for touching something deeper and more profound. Deeper that what? More profound than what? And how do we know? Atheists aren't trying to persuade anyone of anything. Most are too laid back to care what others believe, although they try to teach others the difference between rational, evidence-based conclusions and beliefs which are not proved. One can choose to look for proof or not, and to be guided by success in finding proof. Susan David E. Guinn wrote: It does seem to me that one of the most compelling arguments in favor of religious freedom is the recognition that religious belief is not simply a matter of choice--like deciding whether or not to join a fraternity or sorority. As Calvin and Paul suggested, it is a product of grace. That does not mean that people of faith are irrational with respect to the theology that grows out of that belief, it does mean that faith touches something much deeper and more profound. That said, I think the evangelical fervor displayed by the neo-atheists (as E.J. Dionne so aptly labels them) demonstrates that this religious connection can attach to a materialist ideology as well as a transcendentalist one. The mistake Harris and company make is in thinking that their choices are purely rational and that everyone should believe exactly as they do. (Sounds like some religious fundamentalists to me.) In this sense, I think the issue does touch significantly on religion and law. David From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:58:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu I'd welcome an on-list discussion of this matter, with Eugene's permission of course. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware */ /**/Ratio Juris/*, Contributor: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/*/*/ Essentially Contested America/*, *Editor-In-Chief *http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org//* Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF0002000982. Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more! http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vistamkt=en-USform=QBRE ___ 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.
from the Rominger list
*Legal groups putting God on the docket: Christian advocacy is flourishing as new law field for faithful* http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=9lvbjecab.0.cjbbjecab.qezjfee6.11861ts=S0275p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.romingerlegal.com%2Fnewsviewer.php%3Fppa%3D8oplo%255F%255CfglmosuXSjh%2527%2540%253E%2520bfem%255E%2521 Sep. 5--WASHINGTON -- Whether they like it or loathe it, most Americans recognize the American Civil Liberties Union as a constitutional watchdog. Far fewer know of the American Center for Law and Justice, a leader in the flourishing field of Christian legal advocacy that may be less famous but is no less determined to see its views prevail in the nation's courts and, ultimately, its culture. /Knight Ridder Tribune Business News - Sep 5, 2007/ Complete article: http://www.romingerlegal.com/newsviewer.php?ppa=8oplo%5F%5CfglmosuXSjh%27%40%3E%20bfem%5E%21 ___ 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: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
Three points: My citation of Paul and Calvin is not offered as a form of religious revelation (i.e. scripture) but simply to reflect the perspective of believers which you appear unable to comprehend. As someone who is NOT a believer myself, I nonetheless find it helpful to try to understand the perspectives of people of faith. Second, there is a distinction between rational - which includes the concepts of logically consistent, and coherent through the application of reason to basic concepts and principles and empirical -- which suggests grounding in a materialist ideology. You seem to equate rational with empirical. Third, to say atheists are not evangelical ignores the passion and furor around Harris, Dawkins, Hutchens et. al. and the best selling books they have written. David E. Guinn, JD, PhD Recent Publications Available from SSRN at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=199608 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Freiman Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 5:24 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up I don't see answering whether belief is a question of choice by reference to a religious belief, which is the same as referring to Calvin and Paul for the answer. And if theology grows out of the belief, that doesn't mean the theology is not irrational, it means only that it is logically consistent if the validity of the premise (belief) is conceded. Nor is faith more rational if one values it for touching something deeper and more profound. Deeper that what? More profound than what? And how do we know? Atheists aren't trying to persuade anyone of anything. Most are too laid back to care what others believe, although they try to teach others the difference between rational, evidence-based conclusions and beliefs which are not proved. One can choose to look for proof or not, and to be guided by success in finding proof. Susan David E. Guinn wrote: It does seem to me that one of the most compelling arguments in favor of religious freedom is the recognition that religious belief is not simply a matter of choice--like deciding whether or not to join a fraternity or sorority. As Calvin and Paul suggested, it is a product of grace. That does not mean that people of faith are irrational with respect to the theology that grows out of that belief, it does mean that faith touches something much deeper and more profound. That said, I think the evangelical fervor displayed by the neo-atheists (as E.J. Dionne so aptly labels them) demonstrates that this religious connection can attach to a materialist ideology as well as a transcendentalist one. The mistake Harris and company make is in thinking that their choices are purely rational and that everyone should believe exactly as they do. (Sounds like some religious fundamentalists to me.) In this sense, I think the issue does touch significantly on religion and law. David From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:58:10 -0400 Subject: Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu I'd welcome an on-list discussion of this matter, with Eugene's permission of course. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware */ /**/Ratio Juris/*, Contributor: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/*/*/ Essentially Contested America/*, *Editor-In-Chief *http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org//* Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF0002000982. Discover the new Windows Vista Learn more! http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vistamkt=en-USform=QBRE ___ 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
RE: Mormon Student
So let me review the bidding: Someone who wants to engage in a year of community service spreading the word about the Ku Klux Klan is entitled to take the year off (to say no would be to engage in forbidden viewpoint discrimination), but a student who invoked the 5th Commandment to take off a year to take care of one's infirm parents would not. If the latter student is given the leave, then why wouldn't violate the EP clause to refuse the year off to a secular student who wants to take care of parents. And, by this time, aren't we effectively saying to any scholarship recipient that you can take off a year (or, as with Mormon students, two years) off for any reason at all? Given that any self-respecting university engages in viewpoint discrimination all the time in constructing curricula and grading papers, would it be illegitimate for a university to refuse a leave in order to study astrology on the grounds that it is a bogus field that in no way contributes to a student's intellectual growth. (Studying the history of astrology as a belief system would be something else, of course.) Paul is unusually tactful in his argument regarding religion. Surely there are some religions that strike any secular rationalist as irrational. That people I respect have all sorts of religious views doesn't translate into my finding it rational to have at least some of them. That's what leaps of faith are all about. One should recall Tertullian, who, I believe, said (something like) I believe because it is absud. As to (classical) Mormon theology, incidentally, I strongly recommend Richard Bushman's superb biography of Joseph Smith. Bushman is a practicing Mormon and an excellent historian by any criteria. With regard to the translation of the Golden Plates (assuming their existence in the first place), one must indeed make all sorts of leaps of faith. This is no less true, of course, with regard to many aspects of Judaism and Christianity. sandy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brownstein, Alan Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 12:16 AM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Mormon Student I agree with Mark's response -- if an exemption is provided for secular expressive activities, there is no free speech issue created by granting a similar exemption for religious expressive activities. Indeed, under current authority, granting the exemption may be required by the free speech clause even if it is not required by the free exercise clause. Alan Brownstein From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Scarberry, Mark Sent: Wed 9/5/2007 9:02 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Mormon Student Alan raises a good point but I think we should not assume that the term community service (as applied by the state in deciding whether to grant a leave of absence) necessarily is limited to good works of the kind Alan probably has in mind. To the extent community service is a permitted ground for a leave of absence, one might ask whether community service of the community organization variety or consciousness raising variety or advocacy variety (e.g., for an environmental cause) is included. If so there should be no basis for excluding religious activities that are similar. Mark S. Scarberry Professor, Pepperdine University School of Law Robert M. Zinman Scholar in Residence, American Bankruptcy Institute (Fall 2007) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brownstein, Alan Sent: Wed 9/5/2007 3:00 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Mormon Student Fred's comment (and, by the way, Hi Fred, nice to have you back contributing to the list, even if it is only on a very occasional basis), made me think of a question that had been in the back of my mind since this thread began. I don't know if it is possible to answer this question with any degree of accuracy, but how much of a Mormon mission is dedicated to, for want of a better term, we might describe as good works and how much is dedicated to spreading the faith or proselytizing missionary work. The reason I ask is that while both types of a religious mission may constitute the exercise of religion, it is harder to justify an exemption for religious activities that are primarily expressive and more to the point expressive in the sense that one is trying to persuade an audience of people outside the faith to change their ideas and beliefs. Creating exemptions for religious speech in situations where similar exemptions for secular expressive activities are not available raises free speech concerns about viewpoint discrimination. Alan Brownstein -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fred Gedicks Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:31 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Mormon Student It's been literally years since I
Re: Mormon Student, Justice, ACLU Join Up
In a message dated 9/6/2007 8:16:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Third, to say atheists are not evangelical ignores the passion and furor around Harris, Dawkins, Hutchens et. al. and the best selling books they have written. I have been reflecting that the recent militancy of some prominent atheists might be a response perhaps generated by antipathy to or fear of the increased political influence of very conservative Christians, especially Protestants (for example, Christian Reconstructions and those whose views lie close to that philosophy or incorporate elements of it). I believe it unlikely that ordinary atheists feel comfortable identifying themselves as atheists--a necessary precursor to becoming evangelical in their day-to-day lives. So perhaps not a movement, like the Christian Right, in the sense of having a mass or large number of ordinary people actively committed to it. Frances Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Professor Department of Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology College of Education Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0090 ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ___ 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.
Recent Threads
Some Christians proselytize; some don't. Same with atheists. There is clearly a hostile secular reaction to evangelical activism and political influence; it is visible in our politics and in some of the resistance to free exercise claims, and it shows up statistically in a surge of people reporting no religion in surveys about religious belief. It's not a reaction to the Christian Reconstructionists, who are numerically trivial. But many of the folks having the reaction can't tell the difference between the conservative values voters and the Christian Reconstructionists. The mission is a central religious experience in Mormonism. What Fred Gedicks described is the social understanding of the faith. The reality of any religion lies not in formal doctrine but in the social understanding, practices, and lived experience of its faithful. That smart people on this list can doubt whether the Mormon mission is religious dramatically illustrates what is wrong with the compelled/motivated distinction. I agree -- and have testified -- that the religious motivation must be substantial or primary and not just lurking in the background somewhere. That means the resulting line is one of degree and not a bright line. But to say the Mormon mission is not distinguishable from any other reason for taking a year off is like saying that because 1 isn't much different from 2, and 2 isn't much different from 3, and so on -- that 1 is indistinguishable from 100 or a hundred trillion or any other number. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 ___ 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: Recent Threads
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote: Some Christians proselytize; some don't. Same with atheists. Proseleytize is one of those funny words, like cult and superstition, which can only be applied to Somebody Else BY DEFINITION. We share, you preach, They proseleytize. Consequently, I have dropped it from my vocabulary. Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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: Recent Threads
I am certainly well aware that Christian Reconstructionists are a small minority; however, the line between some of their beliefs and those of some (please note both uses of the word some) members of the Christian Right may not be particularly bright (more of a continuum). Sort of like the line between believers who are truly mentally unwell and believers who are somewhat unbalanced and believers who just have problems. I would posit that the continuum regarding the mental health of believers is similar to that of the population at large and/or that of nonbelievers. Frances Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Professor Department of Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology College of Education Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0090 ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ___ 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: Recent Threads
Curious. I've had many a christian tell me it is their obligation to proselytize -- using that very word. I don't see anything pejorative in it at all. It is quite accurate. On 9/6/07, Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote: Some Christians proselytize; some don't. Same with atheists. Proseleytize is one of those funny words, like cult and superstition, which can only be applied to Somebody Else BY DEFINITION. We share, you preach, They proseleytize. Consequently, I have dropped it from my vocabulary. Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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. -- 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: Recent Threads / Proselytizing
Christians are commanded to proselytize by the Lord: Mattew 28:16-20:??Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.?And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.?And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.?Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:?Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV) ? John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:00 am Subject: Re: Recent Threads On Thu, 6 Sep 2007, Douglas Laycock wrote: Some Christians proselytize; some don't. Same with atheists. Proseleytize is one of those funny words, like cult and superstition, which can only be applied to Somebody Else BY DEFINITION. We share, you preach, They proseleytize. Consequently, I have dropped it from my vocabulary. Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ecben.net/ Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A- a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y ___ 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. Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com ___ 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: Recent Threads / True Mental Health...
True mental health is believing God when He says in Psalm?111:10: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. Your gratuituous if-my-net-doesn't-catch-it-it-is-not-a-fish, people-I-disagree-with-are-crazy attitude is one more example of why (literally) I thank God I never went to college. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 10:45 am Subject: Re: Recent Threads I am certainly well aware that Christian Reconstructionists are a small minority; however, the line between some of their beliefs and those of some (please note both uses of the word?some) members of the Christian Right may not be particularly?bright (more of a continuum). Sort of like the line between believers who are truly mentally unwell and?believers who are somewhat?unbalanced and believers who just have problems. I would posit that the continuum regarding the mental health of believers is similar to that of the population at large and/or that of nonbelievers. ? Frances Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Professor Department of Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology College of Education Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0090 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. ___ 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. Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com ___ 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: Recent Threads / Proselytizing
My point is that the actual use of proselytize is loaded with Finagle Factors to exclude identical BEHAVIOR which does not include the speaker's wrath. We never hear that Al Gore came to town to PROSELYTIZE for the Democrats! At 12:31 PM 9/6/07 -0400, you wrote: Christians are commanded to proselytize by the Lord: Mattew 28:16-20 ___ 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: Recent Threads / Proselytizing
Of course not. The inventor of the Internet would NEVER do that because -- as he knows as a Baptist -- that would be whoring after false gods. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:55 am Subject: Re: Recent Threads / Proselytizing My point is that the actual use of proselytize is loaded with Finagle Factors to exclude identical BEHAVIOR which does not include the speaker's wrath. We never hear that Al Gore came to town to PROSELYTIZE for the Democrats! At 12:31 PM 9/6/07 -0400, you wrote: Christians are commanded to proselytize by the Lord: Mattew 28:16-20 ___ 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. Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com ___ 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: Recent Threads
To bolster what my erstwhile professor (Doug Laycock) has said, the theological basis upon which a compelled/motivated distinction in FE claims would be based is unworkable. Speaking from at least a Christian theological perspective, (I did my undergrad and masters in theology at Cambridge and Yale respectively), compulsion is far too difficult a theological category upon which to base a legal distinction. To most Protestant theology, religiously COMPELLED outward behavior is distinctly minimal, if it exists at all. There may be degrees of recommendation for outward behavior, but that which is properly considered as compelled may only exist in the interiority of the heart and mind. Regardless, there will be infinite variety of opinion on the matter, frequently even within the minds of individual theologians. Roman Catholic theology (at least the official kind from the hierarchy) has categorized various behaviors into different degrees of requirment in a manner which law can easily recognize. In fact, the hierarchy has made this theology INTO law - canon law - but the average catholic in the pew has no knowledge or interest in the distinctions. This variety and uncertainty will not provide a basis upon which a legal distinction can be reasonably based. In any case, the use of such a basis would violate EC jurisprudence on denominational neutrality, as well as FE precedent on the right to deviate from one's own denomination and use individual beliefs as a basis for a claim (cf. Thomas v Review Bd., Seeger). The only alternative seems to be some sort of imprecise and frankly superficial inquiry into the degree to which given conduct really is motivated by some religious impulse. If it is merely related to religion, it is not enough; if it seems driven in a significant way, it is enough. It may be intellectually unsatisfying, but it seems to work in the real world and there may be no alternative. David Waddilove MA (hons. cantab.), MAR, JD Law Clerk to the Hon Morris S Arnold, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Adjunct Professor, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen School of Law. Quoting Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Some Christians proselytize; some don't. Same with atheists. There is clearly a hostile secular reaction to evangelical activism and political influence; it is visible in our politics and in some of the resistance to free exercise claims, and it shows up statistically in a surge of people reporting no religion in surveys about religious belief. It's not a reaction to the Christian Reconstructionists, who are numerically trivial. But many of the folks having the reaction can't tell the difference between the conservative values voters and the Christian Reconstructionists. The mission is a central religious experience in Mormonism. What Fred Gedicks described is the social understanding of the faith. The reality of any religion lies not in formal doctrine but in the social understanding, practices, and lived experience of its faithful. That smart people on this list can doubt whether the Mormon mission is religious dramatically illustrates what is wrong with the compelled/motivated distinction. I agree -- and have testified -- that the religious motivation must be substantial or primary and not just lurking in the background somewhere. That means the resulting line is one of degree and not a bright line. But to say the Mormon mission is not distinguishable from any other reason for taking a year off is like saying that because 1 isn't much different from 2, and 2 isn't much different from 3, and so on -- that 1 is indistinguishable from 100 or a hundred trillion or any other number. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 ___ 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: Recent Threads
Well, we do use compulsion in criminal law, and we have many other distinctions that are hard to use. Mere difficulty or philosophical or psychological critiques are not enough to make a concept not useful in the law. That it is not as hard-edged or clear as we might like would make most law invalid. Also, does one look at the inward experience of the person, the sociological pressures, the religious doctrine? All can be a form of compulsion, and we might come to different conclusions about their value in religious freedom cases. I think some rough calculus of mandatory/optional, compulsion/suggestion/silent, choice/no choice, genuine/fraudulent can be useful in distinguishing those things we will support from those we will not. Steve On 9/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To bolster what my erstwhile professor (Doug Laycock) has said, the theological basis upon which a compelled/motivated distinction in FE claims would be based is unworkable. Speaking from at least a Christian theological perspective, (I did my undergrad and masters in theology at Cambridge and Yale respectively), compulsion is far too difficult a theological category upon which to base a legal distinction. To most Protestant theology, religiously COMPELLED outward behavior is distinctly minimal, if it exists at all. There may be degrees of recommendation for outward behavior, but that which is properly considered as compelled may only exist in the interiority of the heart and mind. Regardless, there will be infinite variety of opinion on the matter, frequently even within the minds of individual theologians. Roman Catholic theology (at least the official kind from the hierarchy) has categorized various behaviors into different degrees of requirment in a manner which law can easily recognize. In fact, the hierarchy has made this theology INTO law - canon law - but the average catholic in the pew has no knowledge or interest in the distinctions. This variety and uncertainty will not provide a basis upon which a legal distinction can be reasonably based. In any case, the use of such a basis would violate EC jurisprudence on denominational neutrality, as well as FE precedent on the right to deviate from one's own denomination and use individual beliefs as a basis for a claim (cf. Thomas v Review Bd., Seeger). The only alternative seems to be some sort of imprecise and frankly superficial inquiry into the degree to which given conduct really is motivated by some religious impulse. If it is merely related to religion, it is not enough; if it seems driven in a significant way, it is enough. It may be intellectually unsatisfying, but it seems to work in the real world and there may be no alternative. David Waddilove MA (hons. cantab.), MAR, JD Law Clerk to the Hon Morris S Arnold, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Adjunct Professor, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bowen School of Law. Quoting Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Some Christians proselytize; some don't. Same with atheists. There is clearly a hostile secular reaction to evangelical activism and political influence; it is visible in our politics and in some of the resistance to free exercise claims, and it shows up statistically in a surge of people reporting no religion in surveys about religious belief. It's not a reaction to the Christian Reconstructionists, who are numerically trivial. But many of the folks having the reaction can't tell the difference between the conservative values voters and the Christian Reconstructionists. The mission is a central religious experience in Mormonism. What Fred Gedicks described is the social understanding of the faith. The reality of any religion lies not in formal doctrine but in the social understanding, practices, and lived experience of its faithful. That smart people on this list can doubt whether the Mormon mission is religious dramatically illustrates what is wrong with the compelled/motivated distinction. I agree -- and have testified -- that the religious motivation must be substantial or primary and not just lurking in the background somewhere. That means the resulting line is one of degree and not a bright line. But to say the Mormon mission is not distinguishable from any other reason for taking a year off is like saying that because 1 isn't much different from 2, and 2 isn't much different from 3, and so on -- that 1 is indistinguishable from 100 or a hundred trillion or any other number. Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 ___ 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
Re: Recent Threads / True Mental Health...
Wow. So simple. And just think how many doctors have been struggling for so long to help the mentally ill. Susan John Lofton wrote: True mental health is believing God when He says in Psalm 111:10: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. Your gratuituous if-my-net-doesn't-catch-it-it-is-not-a-fish, people-I-disagree-with-are-crazy attitude is one more example of why (literally) I thank God I never went to college. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 10:45 am Subject: Re: Recent Threads I am certainly well aware that Christian Reconstructionists are a small minority; however, the line between some of their beliefs and those of some (please note both uses of the word some) members of the Christian Right may not be particularly bright (more of a continuum). Sort of like the line between believers who are truly mentally unwell and believers who are somewhat unbalanced and believers who just have problems. I would posit that the continuum regarding the mental health of believers is similar to that of the population at large and/or that of nonbelievers. Frances Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Professor Department of Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology College of Education Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0090 Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF0002000982. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu mailto: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. Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF0002000970! ___ 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.
