Joel wanted to show you an article
Hello, Joel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) thought you'd want to see this article from TuscaloosaNews.com. Link to the article: /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709100342 -The TuscaloosaNews.com Web Team This e-mail is generated by a webserver from TuscaloosaNews.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: Joel wanted to show you an article
We need the entire link, please. Susan TuscaloosaNews.com wrote: Hello, Joel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) thought you'd want to see this article from TuscaloosaNews.com. Link to the article: /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709100342 -The TuscaloosaNews.com Web Team This e-mail is generated by a webserver from TuscaloosaNews.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. ___ 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: Joel wanted to show you an article
Just put Tuscaloosanews.com in front of the rest. Frances Paterson Frances Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Professor Department of Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology College of Education Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0090 ** See what's new at http://www.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: Joel wanted to show you an article
here's the NYT version of the story http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/10prison.html?ex=1190088000en=fae653b30e85639eei=5070emc=eta1 or http://tinyurl.com/38n8hj On 9/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just put Tuscaloosanews.com in front of the rest. Frances Paterson Frances Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Professor Department of Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology College of Education Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0090 See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. ___ 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: Church is not an option
Sorry for responding so late to this thread. I wonder how counseling qualifies as religious. What about the twelve step programs which refer to a higher power? These are non-denominational meetings, though in Israel, the meetings do not use the Lord's Prayer which is standard in meetings in the States, because the Lord's Prayer comes from Christian sources. Susan Ed Brayton wrote: It's even worse than that, Mark. The ruling says there was no policy of prohibiting mention of religious bereavement counseling options. In fact, it says that what he said did not violate any guideline or procedure at all. Given that, I think the free speech claim is still alive and should have been heard by the district court. Yes, there is a distinction between speech on a public matter and speech on a private matter in Pickering, but even with speech on a private matter I don't see how it could possibly be acceptable for a government employer to fire an employee for private speech that is not in violation of any guideline and for which there is not some compelling reason for the firing. I think the free speech claim is stronger than the free exercise claim. And I'm inclined to agree with Christopher Lund that the firing had more to do with this mysterious first incident referred to, but even if it was I don't see a strong defense. The second incident was not an incident at all. I don't see how one could make a reasonable case that he did anything wrong at all. Offering church as one of many places a patient might find a bereavement group to a patient that has expressed a religious preference is in no way inappropriate in this situation. So even if there was a first incident, if the alleged second incident is no incident at all, I still don't see how that is a compelling defense - they've simply invented a second reason to fire him. If the first incident was serious enough, they should have fired him for that. Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 12:26 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Church is not an option The analyses in the various opinions puzzle me. Assuming the policy of prohibiting mention of religious bereavement counseling options was set up by a state actor, why doesn't that policy violate the Establishment Clause? It's principal effect seems to be to inhibit religion. Here the client had indicated a religious commitment; to require the employee/student to ignore that information and to not even mention the possibility of religious bereavement counseling is actively hostile to religion. In effect it sets up a secular orthodoxy in dealing with a matter that for thousands of years has been an important part of religious practice. If the policy is impermissible under the Establishment Clause, then Pickering test would not be applicable with respect to disciplining the employee/student for violation of the policy; perhaps it would be better to say that there would be no need to discuss the employee/student's Free Speech rights, and thus Pickering would be irrelevant. In addition, all the discussion about whether the employee/student had a religious belief requiring that he mention the religious bereavement option would be unnecessary, because there would be no need to engage in a Free Exercise analysis. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Joel Sogol Sent: Fri 8/17/2007 12:07 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Church is not an option Student dismissed from practicum for recommending church as an option for bereavement counseling? http://www.ca11. http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513852.pdf uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513852.pdf Joel L. Sogol 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, ALabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. ___ 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.
Re: Joel wanted to show you an article
The NYT version I got following Steve's link had the entire quote, so if it was omitted from the Tuscaloosa paper it might have been an editing error. Vance On 9/10/07, Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am quoted deep in the story. For what it's worth, the quote makes more sense if you know that I said They're picking out what is acceptable religious teaching for prisoners, -- not what is accessible religious teaching. I don't blame the reporter. It's probably not a good idea to talk to a reporter by cell phone, although this time I didn't have a choice. Quoting Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED]: here's the NYT version of the story http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/10prison.html?ex=1190088000en=fae653b30e85639eei=5070emc=eta1http://horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2007%2F09%2F10%2Fus%2F10prison.html%3Fex%3D1190088000%26en%3Dfae653b30e85639e%26ei%3D5070%26emc%3Deta1 or http://tinyurl.com/38n8hjhttp://horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2F38n8hj On 9/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just put Tuscaloosanews.com in front of the rest. Frances Paterson Frances Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Professor Department of Curriculum, Leadership, and Technology College of Education Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698-0090 See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. ___ 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/religionlawhttp://horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Freligionlaw 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/religionlawhttp://horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ucla.edu%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Freligionlaw 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. 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. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Recent Threads
I think that the Baylor Study rests on a different set of survey questions. My sense, although it is only intuitive, is that the Baylor Study methodology is entirely sound, and probably better than the methodology of most of the other surveys of the religious views of the American people. More to the point, I had forgotten to mention the fuller discussion of what it means to be unaffiliated in the context of the study, a discussion that supports my interpretation of the 10.8% figure. Of the 10.8%, 37.1% don't believe in God or some higher power but 62.9% believe in God or some higher power. Furthermore, given the careful treatment of the theology of God, the Baylor Study would lead one to conclude that some higher power might resemble strongly one of the four conceptions of God that the Study analyzed. Another way to look at this is to consider the possibility that rationalistic or liberal religion can take on a secular focus in which there is little to no room for God. Remember that the Deists taught that God was essentially a beneficent watchmaker who, after creating the universe, removed Himself to the far side of the clouds to tend to his knitting, leaving the world to run in accordance with the laws that He had instituted and put in place. It does not take much to move from this view of God to a view of God as merely a higher power. If that is the case, and I believe that it is, then only 4% of Americans could be said not to believe in God/higher power-perhaps-of the-Deist-sort. Again, given the sound methodology of the Study, I just don't see a surge. Doug, take a look at the Study. You can find it on-line, I think, I just don't happen to have the web address. But go to the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion website. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 6:58 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: Recent Threads Michael Hout and Claude Fischer at Berkely report a number of studies with similar results, showing that people reporting no religious preference doubled from 7% to 14% in the 90s. Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations, 67 Am. Soc. Rev. 165 (2002). Tweaking the data, they find that some of the difference is a difference between the young adult generation and the recently deceased generation, and that part of the difference is people with weak religious affiliations now reporting none. This second group is entirely confined to political liberals and moderates; these appear to be people who do not want to report themselves as religious because to them, conservative Christians have given all religion a bad name. The Baylor study may have picked up a small reversal of trend, or it may have asked a slightly different question. Quoting Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I wonder if there is a surge of people reporting no religion. The Baylor study -- an extraordinary piece of social science work -- that came out a year ago shows that 89.2% of Americans have a religious affiliation, and of the remaining 10.8%, the study characterizes them as persons without a religious preference, denomination, or place of worship. One cannot fairly say that the unaffiliated necessarily have no religion, for it is possible to be an unaffiliated Christian, and even if one could say that the unaffiliated have no religion, how is 10.8% a surge? It would seem to me that to be a surge one would have to have good data that showed, for example, that 25 years ago, the unaffiliated constituted something under 5 or 6% of the American people. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the unaffiliated have been around for a long time in the United States, and in numbers not that far removed from 10.8%. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:05 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: 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
Re: RE: Recent Threads
Please note: Maggie Garrett no longer works at the ACLU of Georgia. If you are attempting to reach the ACLU of Georgia, please contact Debbie Seagraves at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Azadeh Shahshahani, Interim Legal Director at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. ___ 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: Re: Re: RE: Recent Threads
Please note: Maggie Garrett no longer works at the ACLU of Georgia. If you are attempting to reach the ACLU of Georgia, please contact Debbie Seagraves at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Azadeh Shahshahani, Interim Legal Director at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. ___ 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: Re: RE: Recent Threads
Please note: Maggie Garrett no longer works at the ACLU of Georgia. If you are attempting to reach the ACLU of Georgia, please contact Debbie Seagraves at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Azadeh Shahshahani, Interim Legal Director at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. ___ 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: Re: Re: Re: RE: Recent Threads
Please note: Maggie Garrett no longer works at the ACLU of Georgia. If you are attempting to reach the ACLU of Georgia, please contact Debbie Seagraves at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Azadeh Shahshahani, Interim Legal Director at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. ___ 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Recent Threads
Please note: Maggie Garrett no longer works at the ACLU of Georgia. If you are attempting to reach the ACLU of Georgia, please contact Debbie Seagraves at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Azadeh Shahshahani, Interim Legal Director at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. ___ 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.
Religious Freedom Moot Court Competition
George Washington University Law School will be hosting the 2nd Annual National Religious Freedom Moot Court Competition. Last year's competition was a great success, due primarily to very hard work by GW law students and a very impressive cadre of judges (well-versed in the law of religious freedom). Bob Tuttle and I are continuing to serve as advisors in the preparation of this year's problem. The competition will be limited to 24 teams. The registration deadline is October 12, 2007. The oral arguments will be held Feb. 22-23, 2008, here in Washington, DC. More information is available at http://www.religiousfreedommootcourt.org/, or by e-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please pass this on to those at your school who may be interested. Many thanks. Chip Lupu Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood Eleanor Davis Professor of Law George Washington University School of Law 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 ___ 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.
But that's what it MEANS
Mr. Jamar claims the position that if a description conforms to what he considers the accurate denotational meaning of words, we should ignore connotations. I can not buy this. Some people respond to complaints about labelling cults by proclaiming what they say is an accurate and objective meaning of the word, and refuse to acknowledge the complete disconnect between their accurate scientific usage and the real world's use of the word as a bogeyman label. I doubt that Jamar would accept the accuracy criterion in regard to the fat Jewess reference I cited. As for something being an accurate description of their behavior. precisely what I have been saying is that it is NOT applied to people who engage in identical BEHAVIOR for causes which do not fall in the religion box. From recent posts, I am sure that I would be indignantly corrected if I said that Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris are proselytizing for atheism; and similarly if I applied to people who engage in face to face confrontations, even abuse ones, to demand that I change my political and social views, my taste in music, or my choice of leisure activities. What about people who insist that Jew is ipso facto offensive, and insist on Jewish person instead? Perhaps Mr. Levinson would enlighten us on this, and how it seems to have contributed to the brouhouha over Google search rankings and jewwatch.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: But that's what it MEANS
I agree with Mr. Linden to a certain extent -- that if an identifiable group considers a term offensive, others should in general respect their desire that it not be used. But the word proselityzation does not identify a group in the same way that Chrisitan, or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu, or Black does. To say someone shared the spirit with me is cryptic jargon known only to those ina particular community that talks that way. Steve On 9/8/07, Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Jamar claims the position that if a description conforms to what he considers the accurate denotational meaning of words, we should ignore connotations. I can not buy this. Some people respond to complaints about labelling cults by proclaiming what they say is an accurate and objective meaning of the word, and refuse to acknowledge the complete disconnect between their accurate scientific usage and the real world's use of the word as a bogeyman label. I doubt that Jamar would accept the accuracy criterion in regard to the fat Jewess reference I cited. As for something being an accurate description of their behavior. precisely what I have been saying is that it is NOT applied to people who engage in identical BEHAVIOR for causes which do not fall in the religion box. From recent posts, I am sure that I would be indignantly corrected if I said that Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris are proselytizing for atheism; and similarly if I applied to people who engage in face to face confrontations, even abuse ones, to demand that I change my political and social views, my taste in music, or my choice of leisure activities. What about people who insist that Jew is ipso facto offensive, and insist on Jewish person instead? Perhaps Mr. Levinson would enlighten us on this, and how it seems to have contributed to the brouhouha over Google search rankings and jewwatch.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. -- 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: But that's what it MEANS
I note with some interest that in a recent piece on the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Mariazell in Austria, includes a statement to the effect that progressive Catholics might not like the Holy Father's proselytizing for the traditions of the faith. I seriously doubt that the word as used can be fairly said to be pejorative. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 5:13 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: But that's what it MEANS I agree with Mr. Linden to a certain extent -- that if an identifiable group considers a term offensive, others should in general respect their desire that it not be used. But the word proselityzation does not identify a group in the same way that Chrisitan, or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu, or Black does. To say someone shared the spirit with me is cryptic jargon known only to those ina particular community that talks that way. Steve On 9/8/07, Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mr. Jamar claims the position that if a description conforms to what he considers the accurate denotational meaning of words, we should ignore connotations. I can not buy this. Some people respond to complaints about labelling cults by proclaiming what they say is an accurate and objective meaning of the word, and refuse to acknowledge the complete disconnect between their accurate scientific usage and the real world's use of the word as a bogeyman label. I doubt that Jamar would accept the accuracy criterion in regard to the fat Jewess reference I cited. As for something being an accurate description of their behavior. precisely what I have been saying is that it is NOT applied to people who engage in identical BEHAVIOR for causes which do not fall in the religion box. From recent posts, I am sure that I would be indignantly corrected if I said that Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris are proselytizing for atheism; and similarly if I applied to people who engage in face to face confrontations, even abuse ones, to demand that I change my political and social views, my taste in music, or my choice of leisure activities. What about people who insist that Jew is ipso facto offensive, and insist on Jewish person instead? Perhaps Mr. Levinson would enlighten us on this, and how it seems to have contributed to the brouhouha over Google search rankings and jewwatch.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. -- 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. ___ 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: But that's what it MEANS
Really? I thought that was exactly how it was meant. As Will suggests, if he were a progressive (not stipulating now what that means) he would probably be described as sharing the good news. Richard J. Dougherty -Original Message- From: Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent 9/10/2007 4:50:42 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: But that's what it MEANSI note with some interest that in a recent piece on the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Mariazell in Austria, includes a statement to the effect that progressive Catholics might not like the Holy Father's proselytizing for the traditions of the faith. I seriously doubt that the word as used can be fairly said to be pejorative. ___ 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: But that's what it MEANS
The point is that the article was referring to a dispute, if that be the word, between Catholics. That is rather different than a dispute between Catholics and non-Catholics, for example. (I do not buy into the notion that the Culture Wars are quite what Hunter and others claim that they are, but that is another discussion, one which I take up in an article that will be out in a few months.) I am a liberal, with only a few reservations, in politics, that is. I enjoy and feel a close bond with several of my fellow Catholics who may fairly be described as deeply conservative in their political views. We recognize the powerful common bond that is our Catholic faith, and we act upon it. (It turns out that in theological terms I am really an orthodox, if not conservative, Catholic. So, with all due respect, I think that your suggestion overlooks the nature of the dynamic that holds Catholics of different persuasions together as Catholics. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Dougherty Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 6:24 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: But that's what it MEANS Really? I thought that was exactly how it was meant. As Will suggests, if he were a progressive (not stipulating now what that means) he would probably be described as sharing the good news. Richard J. Dougherty -Original Message- From: Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent 9/10/2007 4:50:42 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: RE: But that's what it MEANS I note with some interest that in a recent piece on the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Mariazell in Austria, includes a statement to the effect that progressive Catholics might not like the Holy Father's proselytizing for the traditions of the faith. I seriously doubt that the word as used can be fairly said to be pejorative. ___ 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
Thanks very much to all for your comments. I read and save them all as part of my undergraduate studies, while completing my senior thesis on evangelical Christian participants in conservative politics. I wanted to note that 7-14% having no religious affiliation, as reported at UC Berkely, and the 10.8% figure at Baylor is kind of cutting around the edges a much larger issue. A recent study by the Barna Research Group reports that only nine percent of self proclaiming born again Christians hold a Biblical worldview. While at the same time, evangelical leaders like David Wheaton, Josh McDowell, and Brannon Howse are reporting an attrition rate of anywhere from 50-70% of evangelical Christian youth after they leave their parents' households. This touches on one of the premises of my research. Specifically, that there is the lack of competitiveness of ideas (that originate in rigorously literal exegesis of scripture) in the modern market of largely secular ideas. And that an attempt to overcome this competitive failure is one of the driving forces behind evangelical Christian political movements and legislation, that ultimately wind up as policy under discussion in forums like this Email list. On a separate subject, I am finding that while Christian Reconstructionists are indeed a very small portion of conservative Christians, they are growing rapidly as intellectual leaders among evangelicals, through entities such as Wall Builders and the Discovery Institute. Further, I am discovering that, while there is a wide and growing exegetical gulf between dominionist/reconstructionists like David Barton, D James Kennedy, and Hank Hanegraaff and those that assert Darbyite premillineal dispensationalism (Tim LaHaye, Pat Robertson, John Hagee, et al), evangelical conservatives have absolutely no problem showing up on the same side of the ballot box. That comes in spite of escatological doctrines that are otherwise diametrically opposed to each other. As an undergraduate, I do not mind so much that discussion tends to stray at times. But I was surprised when the traffic on the list got so lively and elevated that nobody noted the passing of Rev. D. James Kennedy. James Manning Murray State University senior Memphis, Tennessee *** excerpts from the thread follow below... Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Michael Hout and Claude Fischer at Berkely report a number of studies with similar results, showing that people reporting no religious preference doubled from 7% to 14% in the 90s. Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations, 67 Am. Soc. Rev. 165 (2002). Quoting Newsom Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I wonder if there is a surge of people reporting no religion. The Baylor study -- an extraordinary piece of social science work -- that came out a year ago shows that 89.2% of Americans have a religious affiliation, and of the remaining 10.8%, the study characterizes them as persons without a religious preference, denomination, or place of worship. Douglas Laycock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote 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. - Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.___ 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.
